Capture the Flag - Sami ‘LarsLuzak’ Kelopuro

Finnish poker professional Sami “LarsLuzak” Kelopuro may be only 23 years of age, but he has played at some of the highest stakes in the world for the past few years.
Kelopuro exploded onto the scene when he was still a teenager, eventually crushing the nosebleed games on Full Tilt Poker in 2007 and 2008, against the likes of Phil Ivey and Brian Hastings. He is up nearly $2 million lifetime versus Ivey, and is in the black $1 million against Hastings.

Despite being absent from the big online cash games in the late stages of 2010 and so far this year, the young pro is still grinding out a career on the felt. He has given a lot of attention to the live circuit recently, cashing for six figures in 2010.
He spoke with Card Player recently about his start in poker, what makes Scandinavian players so aggressive, how his game has evolved over the years, and where he is today.
Brian Pempus: How did you get started in poker?

Sami Kelopuro: I started playing poker the last year of high school. My first poker experience was when I was invited to some friendly home games. I got excited about the game, and shortly after that, I started playing online. Six months after graduation, I went into the military service for nine months. At that time, I already was playing for pretty high stakes, and when I was done with the military service and it was time to figure out what to do next with my life, I was making so much money from poker that there was no point in doing anything else. So, in a way, I didn’t choose poker to be my profession, it chose me. In most cases, it goes like this: First, you win a lot, and decide to quit your job or school. I’m glad that I didn’t have to drop out of anything because of poker.

BP: Can you describe your progression up in stakes?

SK: I played small stakes, 25¢-50¢ and 50¢-$1 no-limit hold’em, for about six months before my breakthrough. The 50¢-$1 game was the biggest on the site I was playing. I cashed for a little more than $1,000 in a small tournament, and decided to try bigger games at another site. I tried some $1-$2 and $2-$4 at first, and started winning quickly, so I moved up in stakes fast. I didn’t care much about bankroll management at first, but why would I? I wasn’t doing it professionally; I was just having some fun. It didn’t take much time for me to start taking shots at $25-$50 and $50-$100. For me, playing with tougher opponents and learning from their games worked, and I eventually became better than them. I was very lucky not to go broke at any point.

BP: What was it like to play the nosebleed stakes at such a young age? Also, a lot of your early success was against Phil Ivey. Can you talk about your matches with him?

SK: It was awesome, of course! About four years ago, I played $200-$400 for the first time, which was the highest game back then. It is pretty unreal when you think about it. The games are so much tougher now. The more you go back in time, the softer the games were. A couple of years before I started playing, the games were sick, from what I’ve heard. There were so many fish back then. I’ve pretty much played only no-limit hold’em heads up with Ivey. I wouldn’t play him in pot-limit Omaha, or any other game. I’d like to think I’ve found a small edge against him, but I’m not sure if we’ve played enough hands to say that for certain. I guess my style works well against him.

BP: So, I have to ask: What makes Scandinavian poker players so aggressive? What creates this fearlessness in Finnish players?

SK: I think Scandinavians are smart, and they don’t let emotions run their game. People from southern Europe, Spain, France, and Italy, for example, go on tilt easily and don’t play smart, systematic, and mathematical poker. They do things just because they feel like it. I think [Finnish players] are not that different from Swedes, Norwegians, and Danes. It’s probably mostly coincidence that at one point, there was Ilari [Sahamies], Patrik [Antonius], and me in the highest games, and all the rest were Americans.

BP: Has your poker game evolved away from this aggressive and fearless style? Would you advise amateur players to adopt your style? What does it take to develop an aggressive image?

SK: I don’t consider myself aggressive and fearless anymore. I used to be, but I think I’m actually tighter than most of the pros now. Overall, an aggressive style is the one that wins. Tight and passive won’t take you far.
The only bad thing is to be too aggressive, as you shouldn’t try to win every hand. Being aggressive in general is the best way to play poker in most situations, because you put the pressure on your opponents and try to create the illusion that you play every hand and bluff all the time, when you actually don’t. That way, you make them go on tilt and make some mistakes.

BP: Can you talk about the big differences, for you, between playing no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha?

SK: They are two totally different worlds. I started playing Omaha in the highest games, and I wasn’t good at all back then. That is not the way to do it, and it cost me a lot of money. But I’ve learned a lot from those days, and now I play mostly Omaha, and think I have a good enough edge on my opponents.

Ring hold’em, especially five- and six-handed, has been very boring, and there is no point in playing these days unless there is a big fish at the table. It’s a simple game, and there are a lot of regulars who play almost the same way, so it’s very hard to find any value in it. This is why I prefer Omaha: It’s a much harder game, and a lot of people don’t have enough experience in it, like me in the beginning. When they move from hold’em to Omaha, they are not willing to go down in stakes. Also, the high variance makes Omaha much more interesting.

BP: How do you deal with the variance in poker?

SK: I’ve both won and lost $1 million in a day. You can’t think about money too much, as variance is a big part of the game, and you shouldn’t let it affect your game too much — or at all, ideally. Everyone knows this, though; yet, it affects everyone’s game at least a little bit. It’s not hard to play well when you’re winning, but when you start losing, and even the best players in the world lose every now and then, that’s the real test — how you handle it.

BP: Can you discuss bankroll management, and give some advice to beginning players in this area of poker?

SK: It’s hard to give a strict rule for buy-ins. It depends on so many things: the game you play, whether it’s heads up or a ring game, cash or tournament, or what style you play. The best rule that I can give is this: the more the better. You also shouldn’t keep all of your money at one place. You should keep money on many sites and in your bank account, and invest in something that is not easy to sell.
It’s not very easy to climb up in stakes fast anymore. People should put a lot of time and effort into game selection and bankroll management. There are still some good games out there, just not as many as there used to be.

BP: What hobbies or interests do you have outside of poker? What are your plans for the future?

SK: I try to stay in decent shape: I go to the gym, jog, and play squash and golf. I’m still figuring out my plans for the future. I play poker full time for now. I’m not planning to quit, but I’d like to do something on the side at some point in the future, or play poker on the side of something else. I don’t want to be 30 and still playing poker full time, but I’m still young, so there is no need to rush on anything yet. ♠