The 'BigRisk' Pays Off

It's become a rather clichéd statement to say that a new generation of players are invading the top of poker's food chain. However, there is nothing clichéd about Scott Clements. The 26-year-old former mortgage broker from Mt. Vernon, Washington, continues to make his presence felt on poker's biggest stage, and, as such, plays an unofficial role in leading this transformation.

Clements has put together one of the most impressive bodies of poker accomplishments of any player over the past two years. His back-to-back World Series of Poker bracelets ($3,000 Omaha eight-or-better and $1,500 pot-limit Omaha), a World Poker Tour title, and more than $2.8 million in tournament winnings are just a few of the highlights of his continuous assault on the live tournament circuit. He has achieved this all while playing only a select number of events, and his no-nonsense, businesslike approach to his time at the felt have made a big impact on the tournament world.

Clements' success also extends into the online realm. His handle, "BigRiskky," has won a number of huge virtual events and his initial $100 deposit never required a reload. However, he says, "I am not an online player. I started live. That is where I cut my teeth. I don't care if they were $5 and $10 games. I was playing tougher competition than other people would be at much higher stakes."

Clements' overall consistency in 2007 earned him a fourth-place finish in the Card Player 2007 Player of the Year race. He credits his success to being a strong post-flop player, a skill set especially required for his favorite game, pot-limit Omaha eight-or-better, and says that the best part of his game is calling off other players' aggressive mistakes. Combine this with a strong work ethic, superior money management skills, a competitive athletic background, and a workout routine that takes him to the gym six days a week, and you have the phenomenon that is Scott Clements.

Clements, now a Full Tilt Pro, took some time during the L.A. Poker Classic to speak with Card Player about his rapid rise into poker's top tier.

Justin Marchand: Where did "BigRiskky" come from, and what does it say about who you are as a player?

Scott Clements: When I first started playing, it was in a home game with friends. I had played poker before and knew the rules, but we played games like Chicago and seven-card stud, not Omaha and hold'em. So, at the beginning, I'd get a hand like K-3 and think that was a good hand. I was really, really aggressive, and, lucky enough, I ran really well and ended up getting second and first the first two times that I played. They called me BigRiskky because I took big risks. They were probably stupid risks at the time, but things ended up working out.

JM: When did poker become competitive for you, and what training tools did you use to improve?

SC: It got competitive in that game, and we built it up until we had about 50 people a week playing. I ended up buying a new house, and one of the main reasons I bought it was because it had a large heated garage and was perfect for hosting the game. I learned a ton playing there. And I bought a bunch of books. Probably my favorite book, and the book that probably helped my game the most, was by Tom McEvoy and T.J. Cloutier. When I first read poker books, I saw my game trend down a bit. But once I was able to implement pieces of what I read into my own game, rather than just implementing their game, I saw my results improve.

JM: Anything specific that you really focused on?

SC: I really worked on trying to develop an understanding of what my image is to other players. If you know how other players are perceiving you, you can react to that. For example, if someone thinks I am playing recklessly, he might push in on me or call me light. If I think someone is going to call me light and I think my second pair is good, I am going to value-bet it on fourth and fifth street.

JM: When did you start finding success in large events outside your home game?

SC: In December 2004, there was a big tournament at Parkers Casino in Seattle. It was a 100-player tournament that guaranteed $10,000 to the winner. It turned out to be a good format, because it started with 50 players each day and played down to the final 10, so I got a lot of shorthanded play. Then, on the second day, when there were 20 players, I got more shorthanded play. I was able to take a lot of chips during shorthanded play, and was able to win it. The next month, they held the same tournament but bumped it up to a $20,000 guarantee to the winner, and I was able to win it again. That was what projected me up to the World Series of Poker Circuit [Scott won an event in Lake Tahoe for more than $45,000 in April 2005] and on to the 2005 WSOP, which was quite rough but a good learning experience. I learned that I was not invincible, and that there were going to be times when I went on cold streaks. I cashed in the main event, and that was about it.

JM: How are you different as a player now than you were just three years ago?

SC: Over time, I think you just develop more and more confidence. Back then, I was really, really tight at the beginning. That was a good strategy for me then because my confidence was not there. Now, my mentality going in is that I am the best player at the table. My mentality is very competitive. I want to shine in the moment. I don't let other things bother me. The cameras, the final table, or the money deters some players from playing their A-game, while I believe that it elevates my game and makes me play better.

JM: Has there been anything consistent with how you've played the tournaments that you've won?

SC: I usually play a bit tight until I get a rush of cards and am able to build some chips. When I get to that point, I am usually able to strike fear into opponents. This was the case especially with the World Series wins and the first win at Niagara Falls [Scott won the $2,225 no-limit hold'em championship event in October 2006, good for $222,000 and a seat in the next year's WPT Niagara event, which he parlayed into a $1.4 million victory]. I was able to build a large stack and I never relinquished it. I am able to find good places to bluff, using position. I remember a hand in pot-limit Omaha, when I won my second bracelet, where we were fivehanded. The board was something crazy scary, and I made a weak call because I thought someone was bluffing. The pot had gotten huge and I had made a bad read, since three other players called, but I had position on the button. The river was a queen, so J-10 made a straight. Everyone checked to me, and I basically knew that none of these players would check-raise with J-10 in this spot, and nobody was so short-stacked that they were committed to the pot. I knew that if I bet, I could take the pot. That is one of the things I love about Omaha; it is a post-flop game, and I believe that is where my strength is. I make good decisions post-flop. In a situation like this, I was able to pounce rather than just check.

JM: In both of your bracelet wins, you had your opponents completely dominated, amassing nearly all of the chips in play once play got shorthanded. What particular strategies help you achieve this?

SC: It is all about constant aggression. When I won the limit Omaha eight-or-better bracelet, I wasn't even looking at my cards and raising, because it was the kind of situation where first prize was twice as much as second. I doubled everyone up at least twice, but I never lost chips because every time I would do so, I would steal enough chips to make up the difference. I think this is another great thing about Omaha. It's not like hold'em, where if I raise with J-4 suited and a guy shoves with aces, I'm a huge dog. My blind raising hand is guaranteed not to be a huge dog against any hand. Plus, there is an added benefit, in that my opponent can never put me on a hand.

JM: You won one of the best WPT final tables in history at Niagara Falls, which was also the longest final table [271 hands] in WPT history. What stands out as memorable from the event that led you to that massive $1.4 million victory?

SC: I think it was staying composed and playing a post-flop game. I changed up my entire game in order to react to the gears that the rookie at the table, Dave Cloutier, projected. I was reading David in certain situations as to when he was getting tired and didn't want to play, and when he was getting into aggressive mode. This played in my favor on a huge hand. I had J-10 on the button, a likely raising hand, but my read on him at the time was that he was aggressive, and if I raised and he put in a big reraise, I'd have to let it go. So, I limped from the button, he raised, and I called with my drawing hand to try to hit. I hit a huge flop of 10-10-9. I ended up doubling up, and it was a situation in which if I hadn't been reacting and addressing how he was playing, the hand could have not played out like this.

Early in the tournament there was a hand or two in which my gut was telling me a player was weak and I should just shove all in on him, but I wasn't able to pull the trigger. I went to dinner with my wife and she told me to just play my game and go with my gut, because that is what got me there. My wife is a big supporting factor, and she keeps me on my game. When I came back, I made a call with second pair on a three-barrel bluff by Danny Wong. I had top pair on the flop with Q-J suited. I bet, and was raised. My gut said he was bluffing, so I called. The turn was a low card and he fired out large again, so I called. The river was a king, bringing an overcard to the board. I checked, and he put me all in. I thought I was good, so I called. That hand doubled me up and gave me confidence. I also made a good call against Kathy Liebert. I had a midrange ace, raised, she called, and the flop came A-K-2 with all clubs; she check-raised me all in. I didn't have a club. I thought she had a draw or that my ace was good, so I called. She had a king and the board bricked out. Making these sorts of calls for my tournament life was tough, but put me in a position to win.

JM: Who do you think are the best players out there playing the big buy-in circuit?

SC: I am one of those players who doesn't believe that live pros are no good. There are so many live pros who play in such big buy-in cash games that they don't have time for the circuit. I've seen some online forums discuss players like J.C. Tran and rank him a six on a scale of one through 10. Some of these young online players play math-based poker - maybe not math, but certain ranges - and say they play perfect poker. But you know what? There is no perfect way to play. I think this is something that I frequently capitalize on. If my opponents are playing a certain way, I'll figure it out, but most of the time, since I play different styles, people do not know how I play. A lot of the live pros are adept at playing different styles. You have to give guys like J.C. Tran, David Pham, Daniel Negreanu, and a number of others the credit they deserve, as they have been tested and have lasted through time. Sure, they may not play perfect robotic poker, but they have had a ton of success. I am teaching one of my friends to play, and I frequently say to him, "You have to get it in bad more," because if you are not getting it in bad enough, you are not playing correctly.

JM: You're a two-time WSOP bracelet winner in Omaha. What are the major fundamental mistakes that you see beginning Omaha players make?

SC: People overplaying aces is the big thing. But you also see players mistakenly not addressing when a draw is hit. That is a big thing, as good players play their draws. Also, in tournaments, too many players, when they get short, will just shove all in, when someone will have to call them, instead of finding a fundamentally sound tournament strategy to put all of their chips in the middle.

JM: For the hold'em crowd, what do you think it takes to become a world-class Omaha player?

SC: It's all about playing huge draws and the nuts. It's a game in which aces are horrible (laughing). If you possess a good mathematical mind and are a post-flop player, the transition should be easy, especially if you are able to address the strength of hands. My transition was very smooth. When I won my first bracelet, it was only my second Omaha tournament ever. I really had not played pot-limit, but just eight-or-better. I just know how to play poker, know values, and can tell when I have really good draws. That is the gist of it.

JM: What is an aspect of your game that you are working to improve?

SC: Well, 95 percent of the time, I go with my gut, and the other 5 percent, I don't. Here is a good example: I had A-3 in a recent tournament in Lake Tahoe, and a player minimum-raised my blind. I called. The flop came K-7-3. He bet, and my gut said to call, so I called. He bet on the turn, and my gut said to call, so I called. The river came and he moved all in. I had been calling to get him to stop, but in this situation, he could be bluffing with a better hand, like fourth pair when I had fifth pair. I tanked it for a long time, and after I folded, I told myself that I never should have folded. Ultimately, he told my friend that he was bluffing with nothing.

JM: So, you're a Full Tilt Pro. What does that mean to you?

SC: I feel very lucky to be part of Full Tilt. They have always been the gold standard with their list of pros. When you compare their top players to those of other sites, there is no contest. I feel lucky to be a part of the site, and hope to continue, and be pushed up as high as I can with Full Tilt. I play quite a bit on the site. I play Omaha high-low, pot-limit, and no-limit cash games, and lots of the multitable tournaments, from the $20 rebuys on up.

JM: Over the last three years, you've won close to $3 million in live tournaments. How has this changed your life?

SC: It hasn't, really. There is nothing extravagant that both my wife and I want. The only thing I've ever wanted is a big nice house for people to come over to visit, and for my family. That is something I was building toward before poker. I bought my first house when I was still going to college. Poker just made it happen a bit faster.

JM: You decided not to play in a number of big events late last year to instead focus on family, and perhaps cost yourself a Player of the Year title. How important is it to have a balance between your personal life and poker?

SC: Balance is a big problem in poker. Poker, ultimately, is not the most important thing. It is a great thing that most of us enjoy, but family is the most important thing, and we have to make sure that we always make time for that. I think finding that balance, and having that support, makes you a better player.

JM: You once said that the WSOP is the time for all poker players to prove who they really are. In regard to awards and recognition, what do you strive for in this category?

SC: The WSOP will be the one tournament that I will strive to attend every year. I was an athlete while growing up. My wife and her family were athletes. I know that I'm going to be busy when we have kids, because I'm certain they will be athletic. But, I am going to do all I can to make it down there ever summer.

Scott recently donated bone marrow to aid in his father's ongoing fight against cancer. Card Player wishes the entire Clements family the best during these difficult times.