Capture the Flag: Ben Lamb

Cash game pro Ben Lamb, a 27-year-old grinder from Tulsa, Oklahoma, won Card Player’s 2011 Player of the Year race solely based on his performance last summer at the WSOP. He won a bracelet, notched a runner-up finish, final tabled the $50,000 event and finished third in the main event. He’s not even a tournament player.

Lamb plays few events every year, and the 2012 WSOP has seen him play just a handful. He spends nearly all his time in some of the biggest cash games in Las Vegas.

Card Player caught up with him to see how the summer grind has been going.

Brian Pempus: How have the big pot-limit Omaha games been this year at the Rio?

Ben Lamb: They’ve been a little bit smaller than in years past. I think everyone is kind of shorter on money. They have been playing some big games at Bellagio. I think the $50-$100 game that used to run at the Rio has moved to the Bellagio. Most of the bigger games beyond that are being held privately.

We’ve had three or four super larger pot-limit Omaha games here at the Rio ($500-$1,000) which is about on par compared to last year. It kind of depends on who is in town. Seven pros don’t want to play $500-$1,000 pot-limit Omaha against each other. They need some other people in the game who are good action. A lot of the top pros won’t play unless there’s a non-professional in the game.

BP: So, it necessary to find a couple of “fish” to drive the game?

BL: Most of the people who play this high I wouldn’t consider “fish,” even if they are a non-professional. They are super smart and successful people who just happen to be less experienced at poker. It’s a different level of fish, as they are actually pretty good poker players. The less experienced players always have the say in the poker game in terms of what games we play. They are the customers. They get to make the rules.

BP: Can you talk about your summer so far?

BL: I have only played four tournaments and lasted any length of time in just one. I would say 90 percent of my hours played this summer have been in cash games. I have never really wanted to play a lot of tournaments. I think I played 10 last year and eight the year before that.

People had a lot of expectations because of my success last year; that I was going to play a ton of events, but that’s not how I ever made my money. Obviously last year that’s how I did it, but a lot of that can be attributed to running well. Cash games are less about running well, and more about putting in the hours and playing well. Obviously you can run well in them too.

BP: So, there was no pressure to defend your Player of the Year titles?

BL: Even if I played every single tournament and multitabled live, I think the chance of me winning POY has got to be like 1 in a 100, at best. I didn’t really see any reason to attempt that. It’s about doing what I succeed in and continue to do what I’ve been doing for years. I like that cash games allow me to come and go as I please.

BP: Can you give some basic PLO strategy for people playing a lot smaller than $100-$200? For example, I’ve noticed some mandatory button straddles in the games at the Rio. What kind of adjustments do you have to make with that in play?

BL: I think the button straddle is actually bad for the game. A lot of people have always thought that it makes the game better. What is really does it make the first three or four positions virtually unplayable. I am folding from the blinds and the first two spots with tons of hands that I am going to play in position. It gives too much strength to the button and makes being out of position weaker. It makes the game bigger, but if you put the straddle out in front, instead of on the button, it will be a lot better for the game. I always try to get the three blinds. Sometimes we do a straddle anywhere but the button, which is pretty good. I think it the button straddle needs to change. People are starting to become aware of how it makes the game tighter preflop.

BP: Have you been playing any big no-limit hold’em cash games this summer?

BL: I think I’ve played that just once this summer. We played a fun game of half pot-limit triple draw and pot-limit Omaha the other day, which was a good change of pace. Pot-limit triple draw is a fun game. One of the players in the game was probably winning about $500,000 in the pot-limit Omaha and losing about $700,000 in the pot-limit triple draw. He’s a good PLO player but was just learning triple draw. Instead of playing tight and just getting through the round, he wanted to play every hand, which was funny.

BP: If there is any, can you give some basic pot-limit triple draw strategy?

BL: Out of position you need a lot stronger hands than you need in limit, because you are going to get punished for more. You can’t call with all your one-card draws with one card left, because the pot just doesn’t lay enough. It’s too hard to get there. You just have to play tighter and more aggressive than you normally would in a limit triple draw game.

BP: Have you gotten more action this year after becoming a more prominent face in the poker world? Has it been better for you personally in terms of getting games going, having people play back at you or anything like that?

BL: In some ways it has hurt me and in some ways it has helped. For a lot of games that I could have gotten in as more of an unknown, they don’t want pros in the game. But sometimes they realize that even though I am a professional I am still good for the game because I see a lot of flops, raise a lot and straddle. So, usually once I get in the game the first time I get invited back. It is good and bad, I guess.

BP: Now does having that huge bankroll boost allow you to feel more comfortable in these huge cash games, or change the way you approach them in any way?

BL: I guess I’ve played a little bit bigger than I have in the past, but mostly I’ve just sold less. In the past in a $500-$1,000 game I would sell 50 percent of myself, and now I might sell 10 percent to a friend, just for a sweat. I have much more of myself these days, which is a good thing if you are trying to make money.

BP: Is selling pieces for cash games pretty common in poker?

BL: Kind of the way the poker world works is that at the bottom everyone is kind of medium strength and at the top you have the best players and also some of the worst players. So to get in the games that are really juicy, but might be enormous and you can’t afford, you have to sell action. Most of the professionals sell action to other players from time to time, in order to allow themselves to play at those stakes. It’s a big jump.

If you are playing no-limit hold’em in Las Vegas and you are moving up, you are playing at the Bellagio mostly. The biggest game there that runs regularly is $10-$20-$40, and then from there the next thing is a bi-weekly or monthly $200-$400 game. So if you grind all this time and you get in this game and you run bad and lose all your money, you have to start all over again. It’s really hard to make that gap, because you are playing guys with millions of dollars and you might have a couple hundred thousand. If you lose like $60,000 in one session you’d have to drop back down. That’s why a lot of really good poker players have not made that jump. You are going to have to run good eventually, because you are never going to be able to build a bankroll for the highest stakes at the stakes you’re at. You are going to have to take a shot eventually.

BP: I’ve talked to some split-game and mixed-game grinders who say that no-limit hold’em, for example, has kind of been “solved” by the Internet crowd. Do you think there is any validity to notion of games being solved?

BL: I think “solved” is an overstatement. Yes, some guys have gotten really good at certain forms of no-limit hold’em. Like tournaments, under 40 big blinds, is a pretty solved game. There’s like 10 people in the world who play it near perfect, but even then you can make huge mistakes. For heads-up under 150 big blinds, some people play a pretty unexploitable strategy, but there is always one person who can be exploited less and play better. Super deep no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha are really interesting games and can’t be solved. There are too many intricacies and giant pots. When you have unlimited options it’s unsolvable. However, capped pot-limit Omaha, for example, is one of the most solved games ever. If you can identify your opponent’s ranges well, you could play nearly flawless.

BP: Can you talk about the thought process of deciding how much you want to buy in for?

BL: I definitely want to cover who I think are the worst players at the table. I recommend buying in for the minimum at first; play a couple rounds to see how the table is playing. When I used to play the $10-$20-$40 at Bellagio I would buy-in for $3,000 and play like three rounds and reload for up to $20,000. I think that was a really good strategy because you can’t take money off the table, but you can always put more on. So it just gave an option to see if the kid to my left, who I thought was really good, is terrible and he’s sitting with $20,000, and I then want to sit with $20,000, even though he has position on me. But if he’s a good aggressive kid, I don’t want to play $20,000 deep with him. I’d rather play $3,000 deep with him, when playing out of position isn’t that big of a deal. ♠