Capture the Flag -- Eugene Katchalov

Eugene Katchalov has almost $4 million in tournament winnings, but he’s been a consummate cash-game grinder throughout his poker career. After graduating from New York University with a degree in international business and finance in 2003, Katchalov became a regular in New York City’s underground games, and steadily built from there. He now plays in high-stakes games both live and online, under the screen name “MyRabbiFoo.”

Kristy Arnett: When you started out playing low-stakes no-limit hold’em in New York clubs, were you successful immediately?

Eugene Katchalov: No, I don’t think I was winning [laughing]. I remember that I played very tight. I waited for some people in the game who gave a lot of action.

KA: How did you learn to become a winning player?

EK: Besides experience, the way that I improved my cash game was by watching a lot of high-stakes cash games online. You don’t get to see their cards most of the time, but once in a while the hands would go to showdown. I would always look through the hand history, and I would see how they played their hands. Then, I would try to figure out why they did what they did, and try to make sense of it. After a while of doing that, I started picking up certain ideas about how to play.

I would incorporate what I saw into my own game and experiment with it. At first, I wasn’t very successful, but I kept trying, and at some point, it started to work. It was hard for me to figure out what style would work for me in cash games. Like I said, I was tight at first, and then I tried a super-aggressive style. That didn’t work, either. I just lost a lot of money. Then, I would go back and forth, trying to find a good middle ground. I just didn’t have a good understanding of what good-tight and good-aggressive meant. There’s bad-tight and bad-aggressive and good-tight and good-aggressive. It was about finding a balance.

KA: Is it a mistake to stick to a style you’ve become comfortable with, since there might be more profitable ways of playing?

EK: I certainly think it is very important to try every different style of play to see what works, and in what situations. First of all, you can’t always play one style. That’s one of the most important things that I’ve learned. You have to be able to adjust your style based on your opponent. Whether you are playing one-on-one or against the whole table, you have to understand how your opponents are playing. Generally, the way to play is the opposite of the way your table is playing. Even if you are an aggressive player, if everyone else at the table is a maniac, you’re supposed to play tight. If everyone at the table is tight, you have to play very aggressively. And actually knowing how to do it is a different story.

KA: Earlier, you mentioned “bad-aggressive.” Can you give me an example of how a player misuses aggression?

EK: For one, people try to bluff the wrong players. You can’t just try to bluff everyone at random. A very tight player who has not been putting money in unless he has a big hand enters the pot, and a crazy aggressive player will try to scare him off or bluff him big. He thinks that because the tight player hasn’t played a hand in a while, he will fold, but he’s probably been waiting to slow-play a big hand.

You have to be able to put your opponents on a certain range of hands, and a good-aggressive player will narrow that range and play accordingly, instead of just forcing the action. For example, on a low flop, a lot of times if a tight player is giving you too much action, he might be trapping you with a set. If there are high cards, he might have top pair. His range is pretty narrow, so a good-aggressive player will know that and generally won’t lose too much by bluffing against that tight player.

KA: What do you play these days?

EK: Live, at Bellagio, I’ll usually play $25-$50 with a $100 ante on the button. If there’s a $50-$100 or $100-$200 game running, I’ll play if it’s straight no-limit [hold’em]. Sometimes they’ll mix in PLO [pot-limit Omaha], and I’m not a fan of that game. I don’t think I’m very good at it. When I play online, I play $25-$50. I’ve just started playing more on the Internet, as I used to prefer playing live. I’ll play six-max or heads up, and I generally play only deep-stack. On Full Tilt, there are 200-big-blind tables. There is much more poker to be played deep-stacked. It’s much more complex. There is more poker involved, and it becomes much less about the cards. It becomes more about the flow of the game, your image, your opponents’ images, what they think of you, and what you think of them. If you are short, there’s not much action on the turn and river. Everything happens preflop and on the flop, and you are pretty much committed.

KA: What is an important adjustment to make when making the transition from 100-big-blind poker to deep-stack 200-big-blind poker?

EK: I would say that you need to realize that you should be three-betting more and calling three-bets with a wider range of hands. You need to open up your game, because you won’t be committed in three-bet pots. You can see flops and play turns with plenty of side money to win or lose.

KA: What is your take on running big bluffs in cash games?

EK: I think they are necessary and profitable, but they shouldn’t be used too often. I think they should be used only in specific spots. I would think about making a big bluff only if I have history with my opponent, and I have a good read on the hand or what’s going on. Let’s say that I’ve played with my opponent a couple of times before, and in similar situations, he called me and saw that I had a big band both times. If I can gauge what he thinks I have in a certain spot, and I don’t think he has a strong hand, I can try a bluff. You have to be able to sell the hand you are betting, and it has to be against a thinking opponent. Against good players, you are guaranteed that they are paying attention to everything that is going on.

It is necessary to bluff once in a while, because if you are never showing up with a big bluff, your opponents will realize that at some point, and will never play big pots with you unless they have a big hand themselves. If they know that you can run one, you are now capable of being called with one pair when you go all in, because you could be bluffing. It’s just really important to do it in the right spots.

KA: In order to make sure that your opponents know you are capable of making a big bluff, would you condone showing your cards after a successful one, or should you always make them pay to see it?

EK: That’s an interesting question. Personally, I think it’s situational. I’ve shown bluffs sometimes, but generally I have a plan if I’m showing my cards. If I show a big hand, it’s maybe because I want people to back off, and I can bluff them later. Or, if I show a bluff, I probably won’t be bluffing anytime soon.

KA: Of course, in cash games, you can’t win every session, so have you come up with a system for knowing when you should quit?

EK: That used to be a big problem for me, and I think the problem with a lot of people is that when they start winning, they are more willing to quit than when they are losing. It’s just human nature. That’s bad, because when you are winning, you are probably confident and playing your best, and the opposite is true when you are losing. If I’m losing, I have to ask myself, “Do I feel confident? Do I feel like I know what’s going on? Am I losing because I’m getting unlucky or because I’m being outplayed?” If I feel that I’m still a favorite in the game, I’ll continue to play.

KA: What’s the biggest piece of advice that you would give to beginning cash-game players?

EK: Learn not to play the game so automatically, no matter what style you play. Have the capability of playing a hand three different ways in the same situation.