Back surgery, WSOP plans, and online poker

-
Quote of the day: “Poker is the only game in the world where it pays to surround yourself with the biggest morons you can find.” Phil Gordon


I’ve been busy battling back pain and have been playing mostly online since I can’t sit in a chair very long. I’m scheduled for back surgery June 28. I was hoping to play in the first preliminary event at the WSOP this year on June 27 ($1500 n/l) but that isn't going to happen. If all goes well I hope to be well enough to play the $1000 no-limit event on July 10. I also plan to play the $1000 seven-card stud h/l split event on July 24, and maybe one more of the July no-limit events that have buy-ins of $1500-$2000 (there are several). If I cash significantly in any of them I will play more events.

Last year I had some personal issues which kept me in New York during the WSOP. In 2004 I played in the $1500 stud h/l split event and went out with six tables left, missing the cash and was knocked out by Hassan Habib (who went on to win). That tournament, along with the nightly $200 "second chance" tourneys was about all the risk tolerance I could handle. Toward the end of that trip I cashed in one of the "second-chance" tourneys as well as the Mirage tournament and was able to manage a break even for the series.

I haven’t gotten involved in any of the satellites for the main event simply because I have a certain amount of risk allowable and I’d rather use it for cash-making tournaments rather than satellite seats. In other words, winning a $10,000 seat means much less to me than $10,000 in cash, which I think would be more profitable to invest into smaller buy-in tournaments. I’m sure I could win a seat, but it’s likely to cost me 2-3K to win it and I’d rather put that money into other ventures/tournaments like the WSOP preliminary events. Perhaps I’ll try a freeroll or two before they’re done but I just find them a time killer as there are so many people in them. If anybody wants to put up the $10K for me or even $1500 for one of the preliminary events, I’ll work out a good deal with you :)

So I've been playing alot online since I can lay on the couch while doing it. It’s tough to say which is more profitable; online or live. I have found them pretty close from an hourly rate standpoint. Online gets more hands, you can multi-table, no tipping etc. But I also play lower stakes online since it provides less variance and the play is generally considerably tougher online at equal stakes. For example, the $1/2 and $2/5 no-limit blind games live are full of many more recreational/tourist players without much experience, while online the average player is much more experienced at those levels. Overall the online games I play provide a similar hourly rate for me as live with less variance (which is good), but I can only play so many hours online in a day. I don’t see how some guys can play more than 30 hours a week of online play without burning out, but some players do it. Live time goes by fast, as there is lots of social interaction and the pace is slow, which makes discipline and patience a more important part of the game. Online is more like poker on steroids. If I’m not involved in other activities, 50 hours a week is easily doable live for me, while I doubt I could ever play more than 30 online in a week.

I’ve gotten a few emails about the posts I did on credit ratings. I was working on another one but it spun off on so many tangents (with a few examples) that I haven’t finished it yet. I’ll probably beak it into several more posts on credit ratings as I think it is a very important and often under-utilized concept in poker that can help many players. It will be good to post them and then later if I talk about a hand and why a certain move was made I can just reference those posts. And that’s what I think poker blogging, forums, and articles are all about; I try to share ideas of mine and get back from others by reading about their ideas.

Enjoy your day!

107 in Vegas

-
"We know everything we need to live in a balanced way. We know how to breathe, pay attention, stretch, eat healthy, visualize success, and so on. Being out of balance is a simple matter of forgetting what we know. Being in balance is a simple matter of remembering what we know." Jack/Zen


There is a real good thread here over at 2p2 about last week's WPT show reagrding some of the hands played between Barry Greenstein and Blair Rodman. It is one of the most interesting/informative threads I've seen on theat site in some time. Barry (barryg1) and Blair (Blair) both posted in the thread regarding their play and their analyses is very interesting. One of the hands they talk about is where Blair raised with TT, someone called in between, and Barry moved all-in with 77 and both Blair and the other player folded. Barry also talks why he declined to hold up a beer for the toast.

107 degrees today in Vegas. Welcome to June and thank God for a/c. I still can't sit too long at the table becuase of my back problems so I've been playing mostly online, mixing up n/l cash on Pokerroom, S&Gs on Paradise, and some h/l stud on Pokerstars.

In a S&G last night 4-handed I made a late position raise with T9s and got minraised and called and the flop came T94. We got it all in and I took down his KK. So much for the min-raise. He was very polite and said "Go read a poker book you fxxxin donkey!" Now, honestly, why would he want me to do that? So that I can get better? Obviously he thinks I made a bad play.

I just started reading Harrington's volume three. It's written in Quiz format with spaces for answers and can be graded as a test. I got through the first 8 problems so far and it's well-done. I disagree with Dan's analyses a few times and his scoring, I think some of the questions can have several stylistic differences. Also I think he advocates bets that are too small in a number of circumstances when a slightly larger bet will allow you to know where you are in the hand, such as betting 80 into a 110 pot rather than the 55 he recommends. For 55 I think we are too likely to get called by a very wide range and/or to be bluffed off the hand. But I like that there is a scoring system and it's good to see which type of hands you miss points on and can pinpoint that type as something you may want to analyse and keep an open mind about alternatives. I skimmed ahead and there are 591 total points available and he says anything 400 or better is a player who clearly should make good money in multi tournaments and 500 is a wold-class player. I think he is leaving some flexibility for different stylistic approaches by allowing a world class player to disagree with him by as much as 91 points. So far I scored 84/110, and I really need to think through the Jen Harmon hand cause I just can't see folding this hand on the turn right now and his suggestion of calling the flop makes for a very tough turn decision if the board doesn't pair. Anyway, I definately recommend this book for tournament players even if you don't have the first two Harrington books (but I recommend getting them as well).

Fixed-rate credit

-
Quote of the day: “For twenty-five years when I have raised with a big up-card in stud, I have invariably had a big pair. But they always think I don’t have it this time and they call me.” David Grey


In the last post on credit we saw how playing opposite to your perceived style, credit rating, or image, will produce profitable opportunities in poker. We can break our opponents into two broad categories when they issue us a credit rating. One category is people who will give you a credit rating based upon how they see you play, we call these “adjustable-rate creditors” and they are abundant at high stakes and although less common at low stakes, there are still plenty of them there too. The other category is players who will issue us their “default” credit rating and never adjust it simply because they don’t bother to pay enough attention to what you are doing. This second category is rampant at small stakes, while rare at higher stakes. We will call them “fixed-rate creditors.” Realize that these are the opposite ends of the spectrum and there are many players who fit somewhere in the grey area in between, but most players usually have a heavy leaning toward one or the other.

As for fixed-rate creditors, they rarely bother to update your rating to the true credit rating that you deserve. This means that you can have a very profitable situation against these players by playing a style which is different than the credit they are giving you. These players are mostly casual internet players, players playing for entertainment in local games, or tourists on vacation. On the internet, games are so quick and have such a high turnover rate, and there is often nothing to tell the difference between players except a screen-name. These players won’t notice the difference between “Spankme69” and “EuropeRick” no matter how different those two guys might play. As far as live games, the entertainment players and tourists are there to enjoy themselves, and trying to figure out a game-plan to play against various players seems too much like “work” to them.

So how do we handle fixed-rate creditors? This is easy, and it is what makes low stakes very profitable and much easier to beat than higher stakes games. First of all, realize what makes up someone’s default rating. Normally they issue you a credit rating similar to the style they play themselves. After all, if they play that way, they assume you will to, no matter how differently you actually play from them. Their default rating might also consist of the style that is normally played in their home games or the style played on the poker they watch on TV. In the case of the internet, they default you to the “typical” online player. While most of these players issue default credit ratings that are similar to each other, also recognize when they are not. For instance, a tight by-the-book player who doesn’t observe others well will assume you will not bet big without a big hand, so you can steal pots from him. But typically, the default ratings are very loose, low credit ratings that fall somewhere between thinking you are a LAG (loose-aggressive player) and LAP (loose-passive player). In general, they usually assume you want to play a lot of ands and will bet and raise with a wide range. They assume that you will bluff somewhat often, so here is where the LAG looses on bluffs but gains on value betting. The fact that these fixed-rate creditors are so abundant in low stakes cash games means that playing a generally TAGish style usually gets their money because you simply fold bad hands and get paid off for good ones. If you can throw in a little bit of a LAGish value betting against these players as well, more power to you. The lack of understanding this (or lacking the patience to play TAG) is often frustrating for players and causes them to make ridiculous statements like “higher stakes games are easier to beat.” While complete LAG can be more fun and you might learn better skills for when you graduate to higher stakes, it is more difficult to play and usually won’t make any more money than a simple TAG game, and often less.

Do keep in mind though, even though you will normally be issued a loose, low, fixed-rate credit rating by many low stakes players, there are subtle differences in some of these default creditors. So if you pay attention, you can formulate a slightly different plan of attack against each one. Some will pay off value bets more than others, some will fold to scary boards more than others. Watch what they do against other players. If they give credit for a good hand on a scary board and lay down against one player, they will likely give you the same credit and lay down to you even if you are a well-known bluffer. If they pay off river bets with one pair against a loose player, they will likely do the same against a tight player. If they always bet when checked to against one player, they are likely to do it against you even if you constantly check-raise. They usually won’t adjust to this until they have been check-raised to death, and if they do adjust, they will usually adjust for the entire table and not just the check-raiser. If they call raises with KT, they assume you will too. If they refuse to fold top pair, they assume you will too and will bet their two pair into your set or well hidden straight all day. If they chase flushes, they assume you will too, so if you flop a boat and a flush comes out you may lose your fish. If they like to bluff, they assume you will too and will pay off your value bets and call down your bluff attempts. If they talk about poker on TV, they will assume you play like the guys on TV and might push all-in with QJ preflop and they will happily call with AJ. In general, the more opposite you can make your actual style against this player’s default credit rating, the more you can make from that player.

Also, watch for some who may smarten up after a while and decide to adjust your credit to closer to the way you actually play. Remember, these are not dumb people, just not experienced or responsive poker players. Eventually, a little something you do may resonate with them, but it usually takes a long while to sink in until they make an adjustment.

Next time: adjustable-rate credit

Credit check

-
Quote of the day: "Do not use this one day wastefully...this one day cannot be retrieved once it is lost" Dogen Zenji


When you are trying to buy a house, it is important to know your credit score. When you are trying to make money in poker, your credit becomes equally important. I am talking about how your opponents perceive you. Manipulating your credit and using it to your advantage is one of the most important tools you have in no-limit cash games or tournaments. Based upon how your opponents perceive you, you can formulate a gameplan around it, either for just one hand or for the entire session. You can make money regardless of whether you have good credit or bad credit, but you usually profit by making plays that are contrary to your normal line of credit. This is one of the most important concepts in poker. If you are aware of your approximate credit score, you can use this knowledge against your opponents.

Just like in life, a poker credit score is made up of many things and is a bit complex. But we can start by breaking credit into two general categories, good credit and bad credit. In general, a player like Dan Harrington has good credit. He can use this image to get others to lay down better hands. When he makes a big hand it is more difficult for him to get paid off because of his good credit rating. So he must find ways to manipulate his good credit to his advantage. He does that by getting other players to lay down hands that they should be calling him with. A player like Sam Farha has generally bad credit, he is seen as someone who plays a lot of pots and makes raises with weak or suspect holdings to try to get others to fold. Because of this, he cannot get others to lay down hands easily. So he learns when not to bluff, and uses his credit rating to get paid off on his big hands by players who should fold. Let’s look at a hand from each of them from ESPN and see how they use their credit to their advantage.

There was a hand during the 2004 World Series final table that involved Josh Arieh, Greg Raymer, and Dan Harrington. I would consider all three as solid players and all aware of credit scores, both their own and of the others at the table. Josh’s credit was not very high, as he was raising and involved in a lot of pots. Greg’s credit was more complex. While on one hand he was perceived as a “bully” at that final table and was raising and involved in many pots, on the other hand most of the cards he showed down were winners, so his credit while not high, was sort of a more complicated mix. In addition, he was chip leader so it made it less likely the others would make a play on him even with a lower credit score. Dan’s credit was high, he was seen as someone who would almost always have a big hand when he raised. So, on this particular play, Josh raised from early position (with K-9). Greg called with a semi-weak hand (A-2s). I would imagine he called because of the combination of Josh’s poor credit, his position advantage on Josh, and because his large chip stack was likely to intimidate all the players behind him into folding unless they held a big hand. After the raise and call, there was a very significant amount of chips in the pot. Dan had reason to believe that Josh did not have a real strong hand (based on his bad credit) and that if Dan raised Josh would likely fold most hands he might have based upon Dan’s credit score and the addition of Raymer’s call with an intimidating stack behind him. Dan was also to believe that Greg’s call represented a hand that Greg called because of position, his intimidating stack, and Josh’s poor credit. In addition, Greg’s credit was as a bully, so there was no need for Greg to slow play a big hand in that spot, so Dan did not figure Greg to have a big hand. So Dan looked down at his hand, 6-2, and made a significant raise into the pot. David Williams, who had AQ this hand, folded quickly based partly upon Dan’s credit. Josh and Greg folded as well and Dan picked up the blinds, antes, and the amount of Josh’s raise and Greg’s call, which was a significant increase to his stack. In addition, he did not have to show his 6-2 hand, so his credit remained in tact. A play like this is where Dan can make a profit from to make up for the lack of times he actually does get paid off when he has a good hand. If players started to call him in these spots because they know he can make this play with 6-2, then Dan’s credit would go down, and then he could simply play tight knowing he could get paid off when he hits a big hand.

In thinking of an example of bad credit that has been seen on TV, look at Sam Farha on the first episode of the 2005 World Series. On the very first hand, he was able to double through. With blinds at 25/50 and each having 10,000 in chips, Oliver Hudson and Sam Farha played a hand. Farha raised to 200 with A-T and Hudson reraised with T-T making it 450. The flop came A-A-T and both players checked trying to slow play. The turn was a Queen and Hudson bet 300 and Farha raised to 1300. If you think about the play, Hudson’s hand is not as strong as it appears. There are four hands that beat him AA, AQ, QQ, or AT. It’s unlikely that any opponent there would be willing to put all his chips in the pot unless he held one of those hands. But he was up against a player with a bad credit rating and so under that camouflage Hudson raised all of his remaining chips. Granted, Oliver Hudson may not be the best of poker players, but in discussing this hand with other players whom I respect, some say they would have also gone broke on the hand because it was Sam Farha. Yet none of those players said that they would have lost all their chips if it was a player like Dan Harrington. Against Dan, most would have just called the raise and either bet/folded or checked/called on the river. Sam’s bad credit here allows him to make a huge profit when he hits a hand.

This is the first of several blogs I’m going to do on the credit issue. In future blogs I’ll go a little more into credit using hands I’ve played recently and also talk more about being aware of your own credit and when it means something and when it doesn’t, specifically why credit does/doesn’t matter as related to small stakes games.