European Circuit Springs to Life as Dane Wins European Poker Tour Barcelona Open
By Brendan Murray
Sander Lylloff from Copenhagen, Denmark, won the first major event of the 2007-2008 European season - the PokerStars.com
European Poker Tour Barcelona Open - collecting €1.17 million ($1.6 million) for his heads-up victory over former
EPT champion Mark Teltscher of England. U.S. newcomer Greg Dyer, who at 20 is too young to play in casinos in his homeland, finished third.
The event, held in the beautiful beachside location of the Gran Casino, attracted 543 top-flight players, creating a prize pool of €4.18 million. Team PokerStars.com was out in force with the attendance of Greg Raymer, Daniel Negreanu, Humberto Brenes, Thor Hansen, Noah Boeken, Bertrand Grospellier, Katja Thater, Isabelle Mercier, and Luca Pagano, proving that the tournament circuit is an increasingly international affair. Indeed, the U.S. and Canada provided more than 10 percent of the field, and players came from as far afield as China, India, Argentina, and Australia.
Recent
World Series of Poker bracelet winners Ram Vaswani, Michael Keiner, and Alan Smurfit also took to the felt, as did
WSOP main-event finalist Jon Kalmar, two-time
WSOP event runner-up Rene Mouritsen, and online phenoms Annette Obrestad, Mohammad Kowssarie, and Sorel Mizzi.
As Europe struggles with finding venues large enough to cope with growing fields,
EPT chief John Duthie upped the buy-in to this year's event from €5,000 to €7,700. "I didn't want to increase them," he explained at the pre-tournament press conference, "but we just don't have the room for bigger fields, and we don't really want to add more day ones, as seven-day tournaments are unpopular among players, so we really had no other option."
The starting field was split into day one (A) and day one (B), and many formidable players foundered in the early stages. One such casualty was former
WSOP main-event winner Greg Raymer.
"The key hand for me was when my opponent made a really horrible play," he said. "I'm basically getting 2-1 on the pot, so he should have known that he's at least going to get called by me. He turns over K-J offsuit against my J-J and catches a four-card flush, so I'm down to 900.
"The very next hand, I have jacks again, get called by Q-J, he gets a queen on the last card, and I'm out."
Day two saw 204 players return and luminaries such as Daniel Negreanu, Johnny Chan, Patrik Antonius, Noah Boeken, Phil Gordon, and Paul Wasicka fail to be among the final 56 who made the money.
Wasicka, speaking to
Card Player Norway after he was eliminated, was philosophical about his fate. "I really love coming out here," he said. "The structures are a little bit different from what I'm used to. It forces you to gamble a little bit more, but there's a really wide spectrum of players. The first day, I was amazed at some of the plays I saw. The thing about it is, if you go deep, it's great, but if you get knocked out, you get to see a cool city."
On day three, Sweden's Mohammad Kowssarie started as the chip leader, followed closely by former London
EPT winner Mark Teltscher from England.
At the first break, Kowssarie was upbeat. "I don't know anyone at the table, but I think that's pretty good, because they don't know how I play and I think I have more of an advantage, and I have good hopes."
Teltscher was less content. "I'm only moderately happy with my table. I was happier with the table before a few players came in."
However, by day four, when the final eight remained, Teltscher had sneaked through:
The final table was notable for the speed with which the first five players dropped. Teltscher knocked out Bruel and Jedlicka in quick succession, for €104,500 and €154,700, respectively. Lylloff dispatched Junglen in sixth place, for €196,500. Paasonen busted Eidsvig in fifth place, for €250,800, but was himself next out at the hands of Dyer, for €301,000.
Play slowed when threehanded, with a chip ratio of around 3-2-1 for Teltscher, Dyer, and Lylloff, respectively. But ultimately, the roles were reversed, with Dyer's K-8 reraise running into Lylloff's A-A, and he left with €388,800, leaving friends and roommates Lylloff and Teltscher heads up.
Teltscher ordered a bottle of Cristal champagne and seemed unconcerned at Lylloff's 2-1 chip lead, but before the refreshments arrived, Lylloff was crowned the champion when his J-10 found two jacks on the board to come from behind to beat Teltscher's K-K.
The Dane picked up €1,170,700 for his victory, while season-two
EPT London winner Teltscher took home €673,000.
The PokerStars.com
EPT next rolls into London on Sept. 25.
The World Series of Poker Europe
By Jennifer Mason
Casino at the Empire, in the heart of London, recently hosted the first-ever series of poker tournaments outside the U.S. with the biggest four letters in poker attached to them -
WSOP. Sure, they added an "E," but there was no doubt that the gold bracelets on offer (not to mention the prize money, in a currency worth roughly twice as much as the dollar) were the real thing, with almost every top name in the game travelling to England for a shot at a title.
The three tournaments on offer - £2,500 H.O.R.S.E., £5,000 pot-limit Omaha, and the £10,000 no-limit hold'em main event - were hotly contested by players from all over the world, and all three were won by Europeans. The H.O.R.S.E. event, a test of five different limit disciplines, brought together a small but experienced field (105 runners), and the three days of play set aside for it were nearly too short to determine a winner. That winner was Thomas "Buzzer" Bihl, a German pro whose face might not have been instantly recognised by the rows of spectators, but whose online nickname raised eyebrows.
He pipped Jennifer Harman to win the £70,875 top prize, as well as outlasting the rest of the bracelet-studded final table (including Chris Ferguson, Alex Kravchenko, and Kirk Morrison). While it still might be a task equivalent to finding a reasonably priced central-London hotel to find a fixed-limit poker game in the UK, let alone a razz one, two UK players made the final table - Gary Jones and Joe Beevers. The former is a pro with an environmental conscience (he sported lime-green hair to raise awareness of climate change), the latter part of the Hendon Mob and an experienced multi-discipline player. Both had outlasted players like Howard Lederer, Robert Mizrachi, Andy Black, and Bruno Fitoussi, runner-up in this year's $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event at the
World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, to reach the final table. Together with Yuval Bronshtein, they made up the sort of final table for which the organisers must have been hoping.
While the H.O.R.S.E. final progressed, another tournament was already under way, and those disappointed in their quest for gold in the first event had to reset their play mentality from limit game varieties to pot-limit Omaha. I asked some players who would ordinarily jump at the chance to play the game in tournament format if they would be digging deep to play the event. Without exception, they asked, "Where's the value?" and it did look like a tougher field would be hard to imagine. This game is probably the one in which the Europeans have had more practise than their American counterparts, and the action was fast and furious from the start. Dario "Ryu" Alioto was one of the big stacks at the end of the first of two days' play, and he kept his stack all the way through to the final, eventually coming out on top and becoming the third Italian ever to have won a bracelet. That isn't to say that pros like Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, Greg Raymer, and Scotty Nguyen didn't give their European counterparts a run for their money, however, and the final table was a truly international affair.
The chip leader going into the Omaha final was Sherkhan Farnood (who eventually finished in sixth place), with Istvan Novak second (that was also his finishing position). The others were Alioto, Tony G (third), Dave Callaghan (fourth), Antoine Arnault (fifth), Sampo Lopponen (seventh), Andy Bloch (eighth), and M.H. Razaghi (ninth). These players had fought through 156 entrants who had generated a record-breaking prize pool. It's true that the numbers for these events weren't in four figures, like so many nowadays in Vegas in July, but the distance from home for many players and hefty price tag on them made for rooms full of high-profile pros. I heard someone in the crowd ask, upon seeing Phil Hellmuth, Jennifer Harman, and Jeff Madsen on one table, "How many bracelets on that table?" to which Tony G replied, "Phil can count up to eleven, no more."
The number of bracelets in the Casino at the Empire (or, to be precise, spread through the three venues at which the championship event started) must have been nearing three figures when the no-limit event got under way. Unconventional the setup might have been, but it worked surprisingly smoothly. Visions of tables being balanced by taxi were dispelled, as all three venues coped with the influx of poker players (362 in all), and the spread of play over a week meant for days of reasonable length, in comfortable surroundings. True, the players spent quite a bit of time on tables set up on the first floor level of the Empire, overlooking the main gaming area in a wide hallway by the bar. At the same time each night, a handful of showgirls in full regalia would appear right next to these tables and dance down the glowing staircase to Shirley Bassey singing the Pink classic
Get the Party Started. But this was more of an amusing aside than an annoyance, and I heard very few complaints from players concerning how they were treated.
A £10,000 main event is a pretty big drain on a player's (or sponsor's) bankroll. But the high-profile nature of the event, and
of course a second, autumnal, chance to win a bracelet attracted all but a handful of the faces that have dominated the game on both sides of the Atlantic. On the one hand, you had players like Doyle Brunson, respected by the world's poker community, with the experience of a lifetime combined with an undoubted ability to keep up with the ever-changing game. On the other were the Internet kids, able to play the game not only in the sense of having quickly mastered it due to the steep learning curve offered by online poker, but also in the sense of being able to dip their toes in high-limit tournament poker in a country where the legal age to enter a casino is 18 instead of 21.
It was a surprise that Annette Obrestad eventually triumphed over the field only to those who haven't turned their computers on for the last six months. "Annette_15," as she is known online, has catapulted herself to the top of the virtual poker circuit, playing her typically aggressive game with great success. The fact that she was about to turn 19 makes her the youngest player ever to win a
WSOP bracelet (and keeps any competition in that area restricted to the
WSOPE). The final table, in fact, had an upper age limit of 35, and the runner-up in the event, John Tabatabai, was barely old enough for Vegas. They were joined at the final table (set up, interestingly, on a lit dance floor in the Shadow Bar in the casino) by James Keys (ninth), Theo Jorgensen (eighth), Magnus Persson (seventh), Dominic Kay (sixth), Johannes Korsar (fifth), Oyvind Riisem (fourth), and Matthew McCullough (third). Keys had qualified on Betfair for just $70, while Kay was playing a friend's package for nothing, and his £152,050 prize was therefore an infinite return on investment.
The success of the youngsters in the event must give even more incentive to the next generation of poker players to keep honing their skills live and online, while the high standard of play and direction at the new
WSOPE must have made the organiser Harrah's and sponsor Betfair happy that their new top-level tournaments received the coverage and (nearly) the attendance they were hoping for. It bore little resemblance to the convention centre factory atmosphere of the Rio, with its hordes of players and lengthy days, but that was no bad thing. The mix of high-profile live and online players made for interesting viewing, and no doubt if the mini-
Series runs again, there will be more of both in attendance.
DoylesRoom's Drive Into Europe
By Brendan Murray
DoylesRoom.com, the online poker room backed by Texan poker legend Doyle Brunson, is rolling out plans for a significant thrust into the UK market after something of a hiatus brought on by the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in the States.
Card Player caught up with the great man himself in Bobby's Room at Bellagio during the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas to find out more about the plans.
"We're just fixin' to really start marketing in Europe," explained Brunson. "I'm going to go to a lot of tournaments, go to some cardrooms, do some commercials, and we're really gonna push to get some European business.
"We're here in Europe to bring our brand of community-based poker to the folks here. The bigger sites are great for the game and have brought poker to the masses, but they are also huge, and it's possible for players to get lost on there or
treated like a number. Some of the other big sites are really just by-products of sportsbooks. We are just about poker, we know and love this game, and our site with its educational material and personal customer service reflects that. If you play with us regularly, our player services director will get to know you personally by name. You'll bump into me, Todd, Pamela, Mike Caro, Hoyt, and other real pro players on the tables. We run tournaments that players will actually feel they have a shot at winning, rather than the 5,000-plus runner events that are becoming fashionable right now."
Not content with playing online, Brunson is planning several European jaunts over the next 12 months.
"We're working with promoters in Europe on the possibility of a land-based DoylesRoom tournament over there in the first quarter of 2008. The whole DoylesRoom team will be there, including Billy Baxter, Dewey Tomko, Hoyt Corkins, Todd, myself, and Mike Caro. It'll be a two- or three-event, seven- or eight-day tournament, and the highest buy-in will be $10,000."
While Doyle hasn't travelled as much in recent years, he made his name and formidable reputation as one of the great Texan road gamblers. He is also no stranger to European shores.
"I was last over there two or three years ago to play in the
London Open. I was also at Terry Rogers'
Eccentrics Club Invitational in Ireland in the early '80s. I remember that tournament well. I remember we had a big game upstairs after the tournament. When I got there, they'd been playing for two days and I'd been playing for about an hour, and one of the live guys who was losing all the money said, 'Yeknow, we can't let these people come in here and play. Let's close the game right now so nobody else can come in.' So I said, 'OK,' and we closed the game and played for another two days. It was really a good game. I have a lot of fond memories of Terry Rogers. I admired him, I liked him, and I miss him."
Doyle's fond memories of his early European adventures hopefully will be evoked during what is likely to be an interesting year in Europe for poker's living legend.
The DoylesRoom VIP program is one of the most lucrative on the Net. Currently, players can exchange "action points" - points earned from real-money tournaments and real-money ring games - for actual real-money poker chips that are deposited directly into their accounts. The company also is revising the program to include exclusive DoylesClub and VIP invitationals and cash bonuses for top players.
Lipscomb and Pollack for World Poker Congress
By Brendan Murray
Steve Lipscomb, president of the
World Poker Tour, and Jeffrey Pollack, commissioner of the
World Series of Poker, will jointly deliver the opening keynote address at the World Poker Congress 2007, Nov. 29-30 in St. Julian's, Malta.
The two veterans at the helms of competing poker powerhouses will discuss the current state of the game and what the future has in store.
"With Steve Lipscomb and Jeffrey Pollack, we will present two of the individuals most responsible for the recent poker boom," stated Sue Schneider, president of River City Group, a division of Clarion Events and one of the organizers of the World Poker Congress. "Their perspective and wisdom will examine the global reach of the game and how it is penetrating international markets."
The World Poker Congress is the first conference to fully explore the synergies between live and online games. The conference will feature two tracks dedicated to the different forms of the game, as well as plenary and general sessions featuring topics that appeal to each audience.
Attendees will join colleagues to discuss issues such as marketing a poker room, player development, legislation and economics in Europe, staging tournaments, building a player base, business strategies for a quickly maturing industry, fraud and security, mergers and acquisitions, and much more.
"The World Poker Congress is the premier conference for the business of poker globally," said Roger Gros, publisher of
Global Gaming Business and
PokerBIZ magazines, the other organizer of the WPC. "There is clearly a synergy between online poker rooms and real-world poker, and the WPC examines how to capitalize on the growth of the game no matter which side of the equation your business operates."
To register or to get information on sponsorships for the World Poker Congress, go to www.worldpokercongress.com.
Dublin EPT Charity Event
Europe's Leading Charity Poker Tournament Attracts Snooker Stars to European Poker Tour
By Brendan Murray
Dublin once again plays host to one of Europe's most unique events when the
Simon Poker Tournament returns as part of the
European Poker Tour on Nov. 3 at the RDS, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. Confirmed for the event so far are snooker legends Steve Davis and Ken Doherty.
Last year more than 200 players along with corporate and private donators raised just under €50,000 for homeless charity
Simon Dublin, and the event proved one of the most popular on the circuit, attracting players such as Donnacha O'Dea, Jesse May, Scott Gray, Julian Gardner, "Mad" Marty Wilson, Dave Colclough, Kevin O'Connell, Nick Leeson, Matthew Stevens, and Stephen Hendry.
Padraig Parkinson, spokesman for the collective of players organising the game, said, "The event was a massive success last year and many thanks to John Duthie from the
EPT and Charles Harbourne from the Merrion Casino Club for this wonderful gesture. It's a great opportunity for players to sit down, have some craic, and play with some of the biggest names in the game without having to take out a bank loan."
The entry fee is €300 (plus €30 registration); €100 of the entry fee goes directly to Simon Dublin; the remaining €200 goes to make up the prize fund.
EPT boss John Duthie said, "We're delighted to be associated with the tournament and I look forward to playing in it myself; I just hope I can avoid Parkinson at the tables and in the bar!"
Last year's winner, former World Champion Noel Furlong, returns to defend his title and will be joined by "Mad" Marty Wilson, running his hilarious and popular high-octane auction.
A host of star names from the worlds of entertainment and sport from across Europe also will attend.
The poker community has been quick to weigh in and pledge support, with PokerStars, 888, and Green Joker Poker promising online satellites to the event as well as pledging financial support. Many other companies will announce their involvement over the coming weeks.
Visit www.dublinsimon.ie to find out more about the charity and its work.
Online Hand-to-Hand Combat: Steve Wong Steals a Blind vs. Blind Confrontation
By Craig Tapscott
Want to study real poker hands with the Internet's most successful players? In this series,
Card Player offers hand analysis with online poker's leading talent.
Craig Tapscott: Why would a top professional play in such a low buy-in event?
Steve "S 18" Wong: Well, a true poker player can play and win at any buy-in level. It's always good to practice in these huge fields. At the time, I was playing in three tournaments simultaneously, and this was the last game I started, and ended up winning it. It was a pretty good payout for just a $5.50 investment.
CT: Set the stage for us. At what part of the tournament did this hand occur?
SW: We are down to the final two tables. I've played with all of these players for a while now, so I kind of know their playing styles. And in this hand, I'm in the big blind.
The Villain is in the small blind and raises to $36,000 when everyone folds around to him.
CT: What's the Villain's table image to this point?
SW: I didn't think he was very strong, and he seemed to be hanging in there to get to a higher rung on the pay scale.
CT: Do you have a history with this player?
SW: I know that the Villain likes to steal when he gets the chance. And at these high levels, he won't get that chance that often. That's why I think he's on a steal attempt in this hand.
S 18 calls $36,000 with the 6
4
.
Flop: K
10
10
($81,600 pot)
Villain bets $36,000.
CT: What hand range are you putting him on here?
SW: If he had a 10, he wouldn't be betting here. The maximum he can have here is Q-9. I call, trying to represent the 10. I'm also calling to see what he's going to do on the turn, and then take it away.
Turn: 8
($153,600 pot)
Villain checks.
CT: I assume that you are now pouncing on this weakness.
SW: It's a good turn. When he backs off like this, I decide to bet.
S 18 bets $120,000. Villain calls.
CT: Does his quick call surprise you here?
SW: Not really, because now I'm almost positive that he has Q-9 and he's hoping for a jack.
River: 8
($393,600 pot)
Villain checks.
S 18 bets $384,000. Villain folds. S 18 wins the pot of $393,600.
CT: Obviously, you aren't putting him on any ace in this spot.
SW: When he checks again, I think that at least it will be a split pot. But why not take it all? I decided to put him all in. I've got half of my stack invested in this pot now.
CT: In situations like this, how do you know that your opponent can't call your all in?
SW: Because I was positive that he was going for more money, so if he calls and I have an 8, 10, king, or an ace, it's all over for him. By the things he was saying in the chatbox, it gave me the impression that he wanted to cash as high as possible without risking too much. So, that made it possible for me to make this move.
Steve Wong has been one of the most successful tournament players online over the last few years, winning the big Sunday tournament at PokerStars, as well as numerous other big buy-in events. He also has won more than $1.3 million in live events, including a second-place finish in the 2006 World Poker Tour Festa al Lago Classic for $542,000.
How I See the World
By Brian Townsend
A young poker player sent me a long message recently. He is 16 or 17 and is crushing $1-$2 no-limit hold'em games online, and he wanted my advice on whether he should go to college. He doesn't want to go, but his mom wants him to. I didn't think much about the message at the time, and I responded with a quick: "Yeah, go to college." However, it got me thinking about my own mental development, and how college helped me grow into who I am today.
In high school, I would always race through work without ever really understanding the concepts behind what was taught. I continued this way through my first two years of college, when I was more interested in drinking than studying.
But at the beginning of my third year, I was required to choose a major. One of my friends was doing engineering, so I decided to give that a try.
Becoming an engineer made me much more dedicated to school, not because I loved it, but because I'd become challenged for the first time in my educational career. Engineering requires not only tons of thought, but tons of time.
I would like to say that I understood everything instantly in my engineering classes. I did well, but not phenomenally, the way I had the previous few years, but things clicked for me when I was teaching calculus.
I always had used brute-force techniques - just try something until it works - but by then I was tutoring partial differential equations. I needed a deeper understanding of the material because there were some very smart kids in the class who not only wanted to be able to get the right answers, but to understand all the theory.
This is tough material; just getting your head around the various operators and equations is hard enough, and gaining a deeper understanding of all the equations and operators is much harder. If first-year calculus is like a marathon, partial differential equations are like doing the Ironman Triathlon blindfolded.
So, I had to devote plenty of time preparing to teach. One evening, I'd left all of my prep work until late the night before, and I had to master Newton's law of heat flow. I thought, "What the hell is this talking about?" It was late, and I was completely lost. Wondering what was going on, and thoroughly frustrated, I looked up some other books about the subject and, in particular, Newton. What I found was how he discovered the equation. All of a sudden, in the library at 1 a.m., it all clicked. Everything I'd learned in my life made sense.
I'd realized that math is just an approximation of the world around us. Before, I'd thought that people had discovered these equations and they were the dead truth. That simply was not the case at all. Instead, people saw phenomena and then explained or approximated it with math.
I went from being a very good student to a top student. When I learned something new, I didn't see the equations as perfect truths, but rather as mathematical models of the world. For example, when you say that you're going to meet someone on the street corner in 10 minutes, you don't worry about any of the thousands of people who might bump into you, or the nerve-stimulation thresholds in the muscle fibers in your legs. Somewhere in your head, you have a rough empirical algorithm for the time it takes to walk a certain number of city blocks.
In engineering, the math is tougher and more precise, but a lot of it is the same. Describing electrons moving through wires, strummed guitar strings, ocean movements, and heat flows in rods is all the same problem to me, because the math behind them is all the same.
So, how does this pertain to poker? Well, poker is like that, but far simpler. The math you use in poker models is often simple probabilities, not partial differential equations. When I'm playing someone heads up and he raises when in the button position, I can approximate his hand range. You might argue that psychologies and personalities are tough to handle, but this is still a much a simpler situation to quantify than you'll find in other fields. Many factors can affect a hand, but that's a reason to use the math, not to ignore it.
Poker is an intensely personal, emotional thing. Bluffing all in doesn't feel like a random-variable blip any more than taking a beautiful girl out on a first date feels like a random money redistribution from your wallet to the restaurateur's.
That's what I learned that night in the library: Math isn't about magical correspondence, it's about function. Understanding that it's all approximations - but very useful ones - is what enables you to run the best restaurants, build the best cars, and make the most money at poker.
I hope this is a better answer to the young man's question, and that it helps others with this difficult decision.
Playing the Players
By David Apostolico
If you're sitting at a table full of players you know you can outplay, would you call off all of your chips in a hand in which you are a slight favorite? Ask 10 players you know and see what kind of responses you get. I know that much of the poker literature out there would encourage a call in that situation. While reading a recently published book, I was pleasantly surprised to gather some insights from a well-known pro who strongly advocates folding in the above situation.
"If I think no one else at the table can play the stealing game with me, I'm going to build chips by stealing and sometimes throw away legitimate hands where I might be a favorite." That's not my quote, but the words of Huckleberry Seed in the razz chapter of the
Full Tilt Poker Strategy Guide, Tournament Edition. While I would highly recommend the entire book, the razz chapter is particularly enlightening. It captures a very real discussion between Ted Forrest and Seed. You don't have to be a razz player to appreciate the poker principles discussed.
No matter what form of tournament poker you prefer, you're never going to find long-term success if you are not capable of outplaying your opponents. That does not mean getting all of your money in as a slight favorite. Rather, it's about controlling the game and seizing situations. Why take unnecessary risks if your opponents are giving you plenty of chances to win pots uncontested? As Seed states, he doesn't want to "deal with the variance of being a small favorite when [he] can accumulate chips by getting people to fold."
Now, it's unlikely that most players will find themselves at a table full of incompetent players. It is more common to find players of varying styles and perhaps one or two fairly good players. In these situations, avoid the good players and the loose players, and concentrate on stealing from the tight players. The paradox, however, is that the loose player may play a lot of hands and fold when pressured, whereas the tight player may play very few hands, but not give them up so easily. If you are going to outplay players, you are going to have to make constant adjustments. In addition to reading your opponents, here's two tips to maximize your skill advantage and minimize your variance when playing against inferior players.
First, be prepared to act at all times. You never know where your next opportunity will come from, so stay engaged and focused throughout play. Pay attention and be prepared to act, whether or not you have cards. Study your opponents and what's going through their minds. Anticipate their moves and think ahead. Be thinking what you'll do in the event your opponent checks or bets. And never make up your mind until it is your turn to act.
Next, keep pots situationally small. If you have chips, don't squander them needlessly. Yes, it's nice to build a big pot when you have a strong hand, but don't get carried away with the concept. Losing one big pot can wipe out a lot of the hard work that you put in building your chip stack. Playing big pots increases your variance and takes away your skill advantage. Keep yourself in a position in which it's easy to get away from a hand if need be.
David Apostolico is the author of numerous poker strategy books, including Tournament Poker and the Art of War, Lessons from the Felt, and the recently released Poker Strategies for a Winning Edge in Business.
Giving Free Cardds Can Hurt
By Mike Sexton, the 'Ambassador of Poker' and Commentator for the World Poker Tour
The
World Poker Tour hosts two events at the world's largest casino - Foxwoods. One is the
World Poker Finals and the other is the
Foxwoods Poker Classic. Both are great events, not only because many of the world's greatest pros attend, but because of the participation of the numerous locals, as well. And they participate because of the satellite system set up by Foxwoods, which is far and away the best on the circuit. Tournament Director Mike Ward created an Act I, Act II, and Act III system that enables players to earn a
WPT entry at a price that is affordable to everyone. Kudos to satellite innovator Mike Ward.
For the first time ever on the
WPT, this final table had six players from back East. It also displayed the "power of the satellite," as half of the table got in via a satellite. And when the smoke cleared, the heads-up battle came down to two amateurs who are regulars at Foxwoods, Paul Matteo and Raj Patel.
On just the third hand of the final table, with the blinds at $15,000-$30,000, Tony Cavezza raised it to $90,000 from the cutoff position (one in front of the button) with the 5
4
. Patel, the massive chip leader on the button, looked down at two black kings and reraised to $175,000. The players in the blinds folded, and Cavezza, looking at more than $325,000 in the pot, opted to call another $85,000. The flop came J
8
5
. Cavezza checked, and so did Patel. I question Patel's check, because with more than $400,000 in the pot, why would you want to give your opponent a free card here?
On the turn, up popped the 5
, giving Cavezza the best hand with three fives. (Notice how the free card came back to bite Patel.) Cavezza led out and bet $100,000 (a small bet compared to the amount of money in the pot). Patel called him with the overpair and the flush draw. The river card was the 4
- giving Cavezza a full house and Patel a flush! Cavezza now moved all in for more than a million! After long deliberation, Patel opted to lay down his king-high flush (a good laydown).
This was an unusually played hand. I'd like to bet that both players would like to replay it. I'm sure that Patel would bet on the flop if he had a chance to play it again, and I'm sure that Cavezza would change the size of his bets on the turn and the river if he could play it again. On the turn, he probably would bet more, and on the river, bet less. (He made only $100,000 more after he drew out on the turn. Had he bet correctly - say, $200,000 on the turn and $400,000-$500,000 on the river - chances are that he would have made a lot more money than he did.)
To be successful in poker, there's one thing you'll need to learn: When you make hands, you have to get value for them. If you bet too little or too much, you lose that value - as was the case here. Although Patel didn't play this hand to perfection, he did take down the title and became another
WPT millionaire. Congratulations, Raj Patel - not only for winning your first WPT title, but also for winning a satellite to get in.
Back to Basics
By Tim Peters
Limit Hold'em Hand by Hand: The Quick-and-Easy Way to Advanced Poker Play by Neil D. Myers (Lyle Stuart/Kensington; $19.95 with DVD)
How do you write a book about poker strategy? A game of imperfect information, a game predicated, at least in the short term, on the vagaries of chance, and a game played against opponents who embody the concept of irrational behavior?
Essentially, you've got two options: You can articulate a theoretical framework and explain how to apply it, as David Sklansky does in his excellent
The Theory of Poker. Or, you can start with examples and use them to develop a framework for poker from the inside out. That's the idea behind books like
Harrington on Hold'em by Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie, as well as this solid if somewhat predictable new book on limit hold'em by Neil Myers, his second title after
Quick and Easy Texas Hold'em. It's a solid text for those who know the rudiments of hold'em but are eager to move on.
Limit Hold'em Hand by Hand focuses on the most common situations you're likely to encounter in a limit game. Myers offers a perfectly reasonable starting-hand selection - no real news there - but he also notes that preflop play is easy. It's post-flop play that separates the good players from the bad ones, and most of the book focuses on the proper strategy on the flop and later streets.
Myers posits a particular situation: your holecards and your position, the "game conditions" (that is, "loose-passive" or "tight-aggressive"), and the action in front of you. How do you proceed? How do you play top pair, top kicker? What's your approach when drawing to the nuts? What's the best way to protect your hand, bet or check-raise? When should you check-call? When should you bet on the river?
It's a very real-world approach and fundamentally sound, which is great for beginning players. But standard strategies, no matter how intelligent, won't take you to poker's next level. Advanced players operate with a solid theoretical perspective and - this is the key skill - know how to turn theory into actions. So, even though this book focuses on the practical, Myers believes that "you absorb theory as you learn good poker." In other words, as you learn
what to do, you'll learn
why to do it.
Like most poker authors, Myers celebrates aggression, but he also reminds the reader that "the tight-aggressive style is not natural." If you're psychologically predisposed to tightness, you're probably less inclined to be aggressive; conversely, if you're naturally aggressive, you're probably going to find that a tight style is uncomfortable, even boring. But tight-aggressive is the correct approach, and if success is your goal, you must embrace it - and you must be willing to execute. You've got to be able to put in that third raise preflop or bet or raise the turn with middle pair.
Of course, all fundamental advice - all the standard plays - must be adjusted to the situation at hand (the old idea that you "play the player, not the cards"). But when you're typecasting your opponents, don't take it too far, counsels Myers: "Classifying people by personality types strikes me as a rather lazy way to attempt to understand people and how they play. A player who is winning may exhibit a personality and playing style far different from the one he exhibits if he has had back-to-back losing sessions." Good players notice the
dynamic more than they notice the
type.
It isn't a groundbreaking book, but that doesn't mean that
Limit Hold'em Hand by Hand isn't useful. By presenting some very basic, very common poker situations and forcing the reader to make a decision - do I call? bet? raise? fold? - Myers illuminates the essence of good, solid poker. And you have to learn the basics before you can hope to develop your own, more creative style of play.
