Full Tilt Poker Breaks
Records in Germany
The FullTiltPoker.net
Million Euro Challenge tour made its sixth and final stop in Munich, Germany, recently, having attracted a record-breaking 18,000 players during the tour.
Beginning Sept. 22 in Wiesbaden and continuing in Cologne, Berlin, Hamburg, and Stuttgart, the
Million Euro Challenge secured record attendance with an average of 3,000 poker fans per city.
With Team Full Tilt acting as host and ambassador, the six-city
Million Euro Challenge was the first of its kind in Germany.
Received like rock stars in each city, Team Full Tilt emerged through a plume of smoke, spotlights, and throngs of applause to host an array of poker activities, including workshops, sit-and-gos, heads-up challenges, autograph sessions, and a 2,100-person tournament at each location, with 17,986 visitors attending in total.
The huge numbers at the events reflected the poker boom in Germany. Thousands of people interested in poker, and a total of 12,600 tournament participants, celebrated with poker stars such as Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, Allen Cunningham, Clonie Gowen, Erik Seidel, John Juanda, Andy Bloch, Jennifer Harman, Phil Gordon, and Eddy Scharf, who played at 20 sit-and-go tables and in more than 1,100 heads-up games.
The series culminated with the six tournament winners from each city battling it out at the final televised table in Munich. In the TV final, the six city winners first played for prize money in the amount of €175,000. The winner and recipient of the top prize of €50,000 was 20-year-old Martin Klaser from Cologne, who went on to play three members of Team Full Tilt (Howard Lederer, Gus Hansen, and Chris Ferguson) in heads-up matches for €1 million.
Annette_15 Sunk by 'seaanchor' at European Poker Tour Dublin
Reuben Peters, from Colorado, USA, won the PokerStars.com
European Poker Tour Dublin event after a thrilling finale
when he overcame a huge chip disadvantage to beat Norwegian teen sensation, and recent
World Series of Poker Europe winner, Annette Obrestad.
Peters, who won €532,620, said, "I've had horrible cards for a day and a half. I was the short stack at the final table, and at one point I was down to five big blinds.
"I've played against Annette a lot online, so I know the way she plays, but I've never met her face to face. She is an excellent player, and I never expected to win."
Known as "seaanchor" online, the 45-year-old father of two qualified online at PokerStars. He beat 221 players, who each paid €8,000 to play in the tournament held in the beautiful Industries Hall, RDS, Ballsbridge, Dublin. The total prize pool was €1,701,700.
Obrestad, known online as Annette_15, was many people's favourite to capture her second major title in six months after retaining the chip lead for much of the final table, including a 5-to-1 lead at the beginning of heads-up play.
The €297,800 for second place was little consolation for the ambitious phenom. "I'm not happy. I thought I played pretty well, but I made a couple of mistakes heads up," she said.
The
EPT returns Dec. 5-10, 2007, in Prague, Czech Republic. (See the cover story for an Annette Obrestad interview.)
Purple Lounge Finals Hit Stockholm
The
Purple Lounge Poker Tour final arrived in Stockholm, Sweden, at the end of October, with 30 players from eight online qualifiers and eight live tournaments fighting for the top prize of a weeklong trip for two to Macau, the gambling haven of the Far East.
After two and a half hours of play, the tournament was whittled down to the final table. The first to leave the table was
Andreas Johnson in ninth place, followed by Bo Sehlstedt - one of Sweden's most highly respected players, in eighth place. Andre Sjodal was knocked out in seventh place, and Daniel Nilsson finished sixth.
The top five included Robin Ylitalo, Kennth Lundh, Jimmy Sundell, Rune Bjerregaard from Denmark, and Conny Olsen.
Olsen was knocked out in fifth place and walked away with a compact PSP game console, Bjerregaard hit the rail in fourth place with a Sony Cybershot as his prize, Sundell finished third for a new Samsung G600 mobile phone, Lundh won an Apple iTouch for his second-place finish, and Ylitalo was crowned the champion, winning the trip to Macau.
A Purple Lounge spokesperson said, "We're delighted that the tour has been so successful and that we've had the chance to give many of our online Swedish players their first chance to play live. Congratulations to Robin on his win, and we look forward to bringing live poker to many more of our players in the near future."
'One-Stop Shop'
PokerManager Software
A new freeware product, PokerManager, has been launched, offering poker players a "one-stop shop" for negotiating the thousands of online tournaments and poker videos on the Internet.
The founders of PokerManager, who have spent 12 months developing the product, are giving it away and say it will enable players to trawl through more than 10,000 daily online tournaments to find the games that suit their needs.
"The software is so comprehensive that you have to set aside a whole day - or two! - just to run through it all," said a
PokerManager spokesperson. "Our goal is to be a one-stop shop for poker players. Every player should find something here."
The software is designed to have an easy-to-navigate interface, and has been designed by poker players for poker players.
"We cooperate closely with our partners to bring them the best product out there, and the software will always be free," the spokesperson stated.
One of the major features is the tournament listing. The software lists all of the tournaments from the major networks, and according to the company, it has more than 10,000 daily tournaments listed.
With the click of a button, players are sent to the poker client that hosts the tournament of their choice.
Another feature is the huge video archive with many of the world's best poker shows played on demand. It also has a poker community that looks like a merge of MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube, as well as many other features. The software can be found at www.pokermanager.com.
Genting Stanley Enters the Poker Arena
Genting Stanley, the UK's largest casino operator company, has announced the launch of the
Genting Stanley National Poker Championships, aimed at providing top-quality poker festivals in three venues across the UK. The
GSNP Championships will take place March 26-30, 2008, at Circus Casino Manchester, Circus Casino Nottingham, and Mint Southend (formerly Spielers Rivercard Room).
Stanley Casinos was acquired by the Malaysian Genting International in late 2006, and this move signals the company's intent to develop high-quality poker events that appeal to the European market as well as the Far East, where Genting has a very large customer base and where poker is expected to see huge growth over the coming few years.
The company operates throughout the UK under the names Circus, Maxims, and Mint Casinos, and in London with specific named casinos.
As a pilot to a potential nationwide competition, Genting Stanley recently ran a 10-week league, culminating in the
Golden Sands Festival at the Mint Casino, Torquay.
The league worked on a simple format: The casino ran its normal poker tournaments, but all of the registration fees were kept and used as the prize pool to provide seats to the festival for the league winners.
The
GSNP Championships will consist of three separate festivals. Each will have a £500 main event with the same structure as the Golden Sands. There will be no registration fee or rake for any of the tournaments during the festival.
UK poker players will have the opportunity to qualify from the
Genting Stanley National Poker League, which is taking place in 23 casinos across the country, over a 10-week period starting in January 2008. Each casino runs its normal weekly poker tournaments, but on league nights, all registration fees go toward creating seats in the
GSNP Championships for the winners of each league.
Players receive points based on their buy-in and the prize money they win on the individual league nights, where one pound equals one point. All of the prize money is paid out on the night, but the registration fee goes toward the league prize pool. At the end of the 10-week league, the winner gets a prize package to the
GSNP Championships, and the remaining prize money is used to create seats for an end-of-season playoff tournament. This system means that individual casinos can carry on running the various different tournaments that suit their clientele, and are not tied into running a fixed structure of tournaments for the purpose of the league.
Details of online satellites are still being finalised, and will be posted at www.GSNPChampionships.com. Players will be able to qualify for as little as $1 plus 10¢ and supersatellites for festival packages will be available for approximately $90, depending on the network.
Players also can qualify from their local pub, as PokerinthePub.com is giving away seats at its regional finals.
Win South Africa and Middle England Trips With BING Poker
BING Poker is offering players the chance to participate in the
South African Poker Open 2008 in Gauteng, South Africa. The tournament, held in the Monte Casino, will take place Feb. 5-10, 2008.
The prize is a €5,500 package that includes entry to three tournaments:
• $500 no-limit Texas hold'em
• $3,800 no-limit Texas hold'em main event
• $360 Omaha high
It also includes seven nights' accommodations and around €1,000 in travel money.
Satellites for €2.20 and €5.50 run every day until the end of December, providing entry to the €400 online finals on Dec. 9, 2007, and Jan. 6, 2008.
Winners of the daily satellites gain entry into the weekly (Sunday) €44 final at 16:30 GMT to compete for a €400 seat in the online final.
BING is also hosting satellites for the 2008
Genting Stanley National Poker Championship (see abvoe) at Circus Casino, Nottingham, England, March 26-28, 2008.
The prize is a €2,000 package that includes:
• March 26: £100 buy-in - no-limit Texas hold'em
• March 27-30: £500 buy-in - no-limit Texas hold'em main event
• Five nights' hotel accommodations - double room and breakfast
• €625 travel and spending money
Satellites for €2.75 and €1.10 run every day until the end of December, providing entry into one of the €215 online finals on Dec. 2 and Dec. 30, 2007.
Winners of the daily satellites will win entry into the weekly (Sunday) €24 final at 14:30 GMT to compete for a €215 seat in the online final.
Check the tourney lobby at www.bingpoker.com for additional information.
AJKHoosier1 Explains a Leak in Many Tournament Players' Games
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.
Event: $1,000 no-limit hold'em Full Tilt Poker
Super Monday event
Players: 303
First place: $75,750
Stacks: AJKHossier1 - $3,000; Villain - $2,970
Blinds: $10-$20
Villain raises to $60 with the K
K
. AJKHossier1 reraises to $288, holding the A
A
. Villain reraises to $894.
Craig Tapscott: Let's talk about your options at this point.
Alex Kamberis: Flat-calling the four-bet from the Villain is a perfectly fine play, but I don't think he'll fold here. Also, I didn't want to risk flopping an ace or something else that would somehow cause him to find a way to get away from his hand.
CT: If you simply flat-called the $894 four-bet there, it would scream A-A, don't you think?
AK: True. I was worried that just flat-calling about $600 more with only $2,000 left behind would be
too obvious a sign of a monster pair. Actually, versus a bad player, I'd be more likely to flat-call the four-bet, because (a) I think he would be more likely to four-bet and fold here with something like A-K or Q-Q, and (b) I don't think he would automatically know I have A-A just because I flat-call the four-bet … when, really, the
only hand with which I'd ever flat-call a four-bet here is A-A.
CT: Why did you choose the size of your initial reraise of $288?
AK: That raise looks like I could have A-K. If I make a "standard" reraise to $200 or so, his odds for set-mining are way too good. Also, if I can assume that he's going to seriously play back at me only if he has Q-Q or better or A-K this early anyway, it's worth it to try to build a big pot preflop as quickly as possible.
AJKHossier1 raises to $3,000 and is all in.
CT: The hand is fairly standard up to this point, but it became a huge topic of discussion when the following occurred: Villain folded. One respected player, SCTrojans, commented that this type of thinking is a huge flaw/leak in many players' games. Can you explain?
AK: Four-betting and then folding with K-K here is very bad, and it's the reason why I just instantly went ahead and five-bet all in with A-A, figuring I'd get called every time.
Let's assume that my three-bet range is J-J or better and A-K. Honestly, in the first level of a $1,000 tourney against a good player who opens the pot, my three-bet range is probably more like K-K or better and A-K, but J-J is perfectly reasonable, and opens the hand up to a much better analysis.
So, what does four-betting with K-K accomplish? I am literally never continuing in this hand versus a four-bet with less than K-K, and even then, I'd be hesitant. In other words, by four-betting with K-K, you are literally pushing out every hand that you beat, forcing me to make the correct fold with hands like J-J and Q-Q, which you could possibly stack if you flat-call and the flop hits right.
Four-bet folding with K-K is a line that accomplishes literally nothing, other than defining the fact that you are beat (which you certainly are when I five-bet all in; but it's a good fold at that point, at least), and it
completely kills the value of your hand. You basically "found a way" to fold here, which is not exactly the goal when you're dealt K-K.
CT: So, if he had just called your three-bet, and the flop had come all low cards and he had stacked off, it would have been played more correctly?
AK: Yes. A cooler is a cooler, and if we can agree that I will continuation-bet any flop with hands like J-J or better and A-K after I three-bet preflop, K-K obviously plays well against that range.
Alex Kamberis, 21, has won more than a million dollars in online tournaments. He is known for his sharp, tight-aggressive style, and is one of the top-ranked online players in the world.
Sometimes Aggression Doesn't Pay
By Mike Sexton, the 'Ambassador of Poker' and Commentator for the World Poker Tour
In this hand at the
Borgata Poker Open, the antes were $10,000 and the blinds were $40,000-$80,000 with five players left, and top pro John Hennigan (third in chip position with $3.2 million) made it $225,000 to go from under the gun with the A
J
. Chip leader Joe Simmons (with $6.6 million) called with 3-3, and a former
World Poker Tour champ John Gale (second in chip position with $5.3 million) called from the button with the 10
7
.
The flop was K-K-4 with two hearts. Hennigan checked, Simmons checked, and Gale opted to bet $400,000 with his flush draw. Hennigan, who I'm sure contemplated check-raising with the nut-flush draw, opted to call, instead. Simmons folded. The turn card was the 5
, giving both players a flush. Hennigan checked, Gale bet $1 million, and Hennigan, with the ace-high flush, went all in for about $2.6 million. Gale called, and Hennigan doubled up. This pot led Hennigan to victory and his first
WPT title. (Let me add a little trivia here. Hennigan, a well-respected "pro's pro," was at the very first
WPT final table at Bellagio - a legendary final that included Gus Hansen, John Juanda, Freddy Deeb, and Scotty Nguyen.) Congratulations, John Hennigan!
In analyzing this hand, you might wonder why Gale would play this hand so strongly. Well, John's an action-oriented player who isn't afraid to play pots. He opted to gamble preflop with the 10
7
because there was a fair amount of money in the pot already, his opponents had a good amount of money in front of them, and he was in position on the button. When he flopped a flush draw and his opponents checked to him, you certainly can't blame him for betting $400,000 to try to pick up the pot ($845,000). I like that bet. When Hennigan called, however (with a player behind him), major caution lights should have been flashing. You should instantly wonder, "What could Hennigan have to call here when he didn't lead out and bet on the flop? Wouldn't he have led out with a pair - something like two tens, for example?" Once Hennigan check-calls on the flop, I believe that you have to put him on one of three hands: A-K, fours full, or the nut-flush draw - period.
Gale didn't take enough time to properly assess the situation, especially after the check-raise all-in bet by Hennigan on the turn. In truth, the only hand he could beat after the check-raise on the turn would be A-K. And if Hennigan had A-K, wouldn't he have bet or check-raised with it on the flop? Would he give his opponent a free draw at a pair or a flush draw here? I don't think so. The way the hand was played, I really believe it's a fairly easy laydown to make after Hennigan's all-in bet. There's no way that Gale should have put in that last $1.6 million.
When you play poker, you should always be looking to avoid trap situations, especially in no-limit hold'em. Anytime someone bets, calls your bet, or check-raises you, the caution lights must go on. You should be working hard to put your opponent on a hand. In this case, you should be asking yourself, "Why did Hennigan check on the flop, call my bet, and then check-raise me all in on the turn?" The answer should jump out at you.
If you want to become a winning player, always remember to review the betting and ask yourself questions. Simply put, take your time and analyze the situation. In doing so, you'll be amazed at how much better you'll become at putting your opponent on a hand, and when you improve at that skill (the No. 1 skill in poker), you will become a more successful poker player.
Taking Advantage of Context
By Dave Apostolico
Poker is not only situational, but textural. By textural, I mean that every game has its own unique dynamics. There will be an ebb and flow that will naturally occur. Everything builds off what has transpired before it. While it's useful to talk about specific situations, it's not enough if we don't completely understand the context of that situation. For instance, is it sufficient to state that I am sitting on an average stack with K-Q suited in the big blind when a loose-aggressive player open-raises for three times the big blind from the button? That may provide a thumbnail of the situation, but we don't necessarily understand the context. What is an average stack compared to the blinds? Had the button consistently raised my blind? Would he fold to a reraise? How many hands had we played together? What happened in those previous hands?
I always find it interesting how many times in a poker game one player will consistently lose to another player. There are many reasons for this. The winning player may be getting the cards, or may be getting inside the head of the losing player. Or, sometimes, the losing player makes a mistake and then compounds it in subsequent hands. Recently a hand came up in which I was able to take advantage of prior information I received and right a previous mistake. I'd like to discuss that here, as it also illustrates the importance of context.
The very first hand of a tournament, I won a sizeable pot when my A-J hit a jack-high flop. The flop had two clubs and I let my opponent chase me to the river before I checked and allowed him the chance to bluff at it when his flush didn't come through. The very next hand, I limped in from early position with J-10 suited before calling a late-position raiser. The flop came Q-9-2 rainbow, giving me an open-end straight draw. I was fairly certain that my opponent had a middle pocket pair, so I checked to see what he would do. He made a nice-size bet and I called, fairly certain that he did not have a set or a queen. The turn brought another 9, which was an interesting card. I had planned to make a play for the pot if I missed my straight, and that 9 had to scare my opponent. I checked again, with the intention of check-raising. My opponent made a big bet that screamed of vulnerability. I was all set to raise, when I called, instead. I can't explain why I did it, other than I just wasn't sure if he was capable of laying his hand down. The river brought a blank, and now I had to fire out if I wanted to win the pot. Instead, I checked and basically forfeited the pot to his pocket tens. While this was on the surface a weak play, I must put it into context. I hadn't played with the villain here, so I wasn't sure if he was capable of folding or not. I also showed him my hand (something I wouldn't normally do), to false advertise that I wouldn't make a play for a pot if I missed a draw.
I didn't like the outcome of that hand, but I was confident that I would have a chance to redeem myself later on. After all, I did correctly put him on the hand that he actually had. I played very effectively against the other players and was sitting on the second-highest stack at the table. My nemesis, however, fueled by the chips I gave him, was getting a rush of cards and was sitting on the biggest stack at the table.
His confidence was brewing. It seemed that the entire context of the game had taken a different course than if I had played that first encounter differently. This led to the critical hand of the tournament for me. With the blinds at $200-$400 (with $50 antes), our villain made a minimum raise to $800 from late position. I called from the big blind with the 10
9
. The flop came K-8-7 with two diamonds. I checked, and our villain bet $500. This tiny bet screamed that he had a huge hand, but I was tired of losing to this guy, so I raised another $1,300. He just called, and I knew that I had to give the hand up. Then, the turn brought another diamond, and my thinking changed. I planned on check-raising him, but when I checked, he checked behind me. The river brought a blank. I had about $8,500 in chips. I knew that my opponent was thinking back to that first hand when I played my busted draw meekly. I thought about going all in, but if I was wrong, I didn't want to be eliminated. I had to make a big enough bet, though, to keep him from making a crying-call. I finally settled on a $4,000 bet, which I hoped he would interpret as my trying to find the maximum value-bet I could get away with.
He took a few minutes before finally explaining that he knew I had the flush, and he mucked his pocket aces faceup. This play was risky and wouldn't work in too many situations, but the context in which it came up offered me the opportunity to bluff him out of the pot.
David Apostolico is the author of numerous poker books, including Lessons from the Felt, Poker Strategies for a Winning Edge in Business, and Tournament Poker and the Art of War. You can contact him at [email protected].
Shorthanded Poker: An Action Junkie's Dream
By Tim Peters
Killer Poker Shorthanded by John Vorhaus and Tony Guerrera (Kensington Books; $14.95)
This witty new book in the "Killer Poker" series is dedicated "to action junkies everywhere," which could describe most poker players, but it is especially apt for devotees of shorthanded games. When you play at a table with six or fewer players, hold'em changes radically. Starting-hand values drop precipitously. Draws become more problematic. Aggression becomes that much more important. And making good reads can mean the difference between a winning session and a losing one.
Co-written by John Vorhaus,
Card Player's newest columnist, and Tony Guerrera, the author of
Killer Poker by the Numbers, this new volume from Kensington Books reminds us of why shorthanded strategies are essential. First, shorthanded games thrive online and, to a lesser extent, in brick-and-mortar cardrooms. Second, if you are a tournament player and you ever get deep, you have to be able to play shorthanded, by definition. And third - and most important - shorthanded poker is inherently challenging; it demands creativity, observation, and heart.
As Phil Hellmuth points out in his introduction, shorthanded play can lead you to "valuable insight into Texas hold'em … by playing a huge variety of hands." You simply don't have the luxury of playing squeaky-tight poker when the blinds are hitting
you every fifth hand (or more often), so you're forced to learn how to play marginal holdings. I know, I know - the vast majority of poker books counsel playing big cards and big pairs, but it's simply a fact that great players can beat you with a broad spectrum of hands (you know, the Daniel Negreanu- or Gavin Smith-type hands). Shorthanded games will help you - make that "force you" - to learn how to play cards that you would throw away in a full ring game.
Vorhaus and Guerrera start with a simple premise: "It's hard to hit a flop." That's especially true shorthanded, which leads to the "essential bedrock reality of shorthanded play - most flops will be contested over little or nothing." In other words, he who bets is probably he who wins.
If only it were that simple! We've all heard that quasi-meaningless phrase that poker players toss around with abandon: "You've got to pick your spots." Vorhaus and Guerrera teach you how to do that, with a particular focus on betting patterns as a way of "hacking" into your opponents' systems and strategies. (Does seat one bet the minimum when he flops a draw? Then you overbet the pot to push him off the hand.) One of the beauties of shorthanded play is that your "data stream" is much deeper; you'll get that many more chances to see how your opponents play their hands.
Those of you who have read Guerrera's
Killer Poker by the Numbers will recognize a lot of the analytical thought and the structured hand analysis in
Killer Poker Shorthanded. But it's not all about the numbers. Shorthanded play is going to be more volatile than a full game, which means emotions are going to run high - as will the potential to tilt. Here's a superb little nugget from the book: "Treat all bets, bluffs, and confrontations as mere points of information: information you can feed back into your game to improve your performance and your results." In other words, don't get mad; just get the money.
The book is crammed with good information (and it's a treat to read; the authors are blessed with a sense of humor and a facility with words), including what kind of data to mine as you try to understand your opponents' range of hands and range of actions, tactics for dealing with the most common player types, how (and when) to change gears, shorthanded tournament play and heads-up play, and more. There's also an interesting set of brief interviews with some professional players on shorthanded games: Daniel Negreanu, Marcel Luske, Matt Lessinger, and others.
Vorhaus and Guerrera have convinced me that shorthanded games can be a great learning experience. This book is your text.
There are several titles in Kensington's "Killer Poker" series. Which ones have you found valuable? E-mail me at [email protected].
