Archive for July, 2008

Moments to Savour

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Poker is a very frustrating game. I can’t help thinking I may have mentioned this before; conceivably every time I’ve come to write on the subject in fact. But this inescapable truth masks the flipside that the glory days can be all the sweeter as a consequence. It’s the thrill of the chase that makes achieving the goal in the end even more special. Take Lewis Hamilton for instance. It would have been extraordinary if he’d won the Formula 1 World Championship in his very first season behind the wheel. But ultimately he narrowly missed out, ensuring that a future triumph will mean even more to him, having endured his own nasty ‘badbeat’. In poker, all long-term success seems to be hard-earnt.

So it came to be that this week provided me with some all-too-rare moments to savour of my own. Having endured a fortnight of lucklessness I entered a Blue Square sponsorship freeroll with the nagging feeling that I was due a change in fortune. In fairness, I’ve felt this way on many occasions and it tends to make very little difference. With 13 runners competing for one prize the odds didn’t look too promising. But after a few early casualties and an hour of quite uneventful play the interest level began to rise. Then, in my first significant moment of the tournament two players moved all-in while I waited in the big blind with KK. The first all-in looked a little desperate and the second all-in came from the chipleader who was in a position to call with an unspectacular hand. Given this, I had no hesitation to throw in all my chips knowing that if I was beat I was very unlucky. The KK held-up and I instantly became the chipleader myself. It seemed too good to be true and it was.

With confidence levels soaring I began to fancy my chances with 7 players remaining and a decent stack behind me. Having been very inactive for the first hour of the game the KK bonanza seemed to spark a card rush for me. I raised with good cards on three of the next four hands and won every pot uncontested. This was a little disappointing because although I won the increasingly desirable blinds it would have been nice to get some action with the great cards I was being dealt. Furthermore, my table image had transformed in an instant from a rock to a big stack bully. This is ok, but can make it harder to genuinely steal blinds from suspicious opponents later on.

Moments later I was dealt QQ on the button and immediately sensed that this could be a pivotal moment. The play was folded round whereby I raised the pot by 2.5 times the big blind hoping that my recent play pattern and the bet size would create maximum suspicion. I was hoping to entice an all-in re-raise defence from the relatively aggressive big blind but instead he flat called. The flop came 6-6-10 and I bet out for half the pot. The big blind immediately moved all-in and I had little hesitation in calling. To my joy he turned over 3-3. If the turn and river came without a three then I would have four times more chips than anybody else at the table and more than half the total chips in play with 6 players remaining. Of course I was spiked by a 3 on the river. It was the classic 2-outer badbeat and all that hope and expectation vanished in an instant.

When the dust settled and I tried to regain my composure I grudgingly had to tell myself that I still had a playable stack, which was true. It was time to stop feeling sorry for myself and to go about trying to rebuild a stack all over again. There would be plenty of time for self-pity and licking of wounds later on. Things quickly picked up again, even if it still felt like the world was against me. I seemed to be getting more good start cards than most of my rivals and with the obvious exception they were winning. I knocked out two players with A-J against very little and with J-J against 10-10 when we were 4-handed. There’s no doubting that this timing was lucky even though the best hand won. My most pleasing move was to come shortly after the play became 3-handed. I re-raised my ‘nemesis’ (who had 2-outed me on the river earlier) with a check raise bluff after which he had to move all-in or fold. Fortunately he folded, and once again in this rollercoaster contest I was chipleader.

But yet again disappointment was waiting just round the corner. I lost two coinflips against the smallest stack who consequently became the chip leader while I faltered. The new chipleader then continued his momentum by knocking out my ‘nemesis’ in third place. That should have been my job really but no matter, at least we were heads up now. There was just one problem. This was a winner-takes-all contest and my one remaining opponent had a 4:1 chip advantage. The situation looked bleak but I knew that if I could get lucky and win one all-in showdown then I had a chance. I pushed a few hands later with A-rag, was called by K-10 and narrowly won with marginally the best hand. After that I managed to win a few more of the small pots, edging me into a narrow lead before one massive hand decided matters. My opponent made a standard raise, off which I pushed all-in with JJ. He called for the rest of his stack with 6-6 and on this occasion there was to be no more two-outer heartache. Victory was secured and with it a $5000 sponsorship package, and a chance to mix it with the big names. Good times indeed.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Satellites | No Comments »

Satellite Delight

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Satellite tournaments are run to give players the chance to win big cash prizes for a small initial investment. The prize pool in a £500 entry event may seem very alluring but not that many of us want to put up that £500 to chance our arm. But a satellite tournament might give us a chance to turn £50 into £500 and then a few thousand more after that. This format appeals to the greed and vanity of any player who rates himself pretty highly but may not a have a sizeable bankroll behind him. The structure is equally attractive to the shrewd and thrifty individual who may have sizeable funds, but is protective of them, and likes the idea of a cheap shot at a hefty prize. All and all, satellites gain a lot of interest from punters across the spectrum.

The drawback of these events is that the juicy, dangled carrot of big-time success will seldom be munched, even by good players. If we assume that a typical satellite will reward about 10% of the field with a place at the main event, we begin to see why. A decent player may reasonably hope to qualify about once in every three attempts with this ratio. Then, if the top 10% of players receive all the money in the main event, a similar conversion rate could be expected. I would suggest that these success rates are still optimistic for most mere mortals, but even they indicate that money back from the initial investment may only occur about once in every six attempts. This may all sound quite discouraging but slow conversion rates will be the last thing on your mind when you see that £50 turned into £8000.

Another pleasing revelation is that many players are simply horrendous at playing the satellite format, with its unusual dynamic. The key concept to grasp, and it sounds patronising to spell it out, is that there are no winners, only qualifiers. If 20 people earn a seat at the main event then 20th is as worthwhile as 1st. Yet unbelievably there are always clowns in these events who are determined to risk everything to have the biggest chip stack. ‘What can I tell you, I’m a winner. I play to win,’ is the sort of ludicrous twaddle I’ve heard too many times to count. What could be more impressive than beating a group of individuals who don’t mind being beaten? Well, pretty much everything. If I’m in 12th position and have accurately calculated that I can qualify from this spot without playing another hand then that’s what I’ll do. Mission has been accomplished. It’s what any sane individual would do. Poker prowess has very little to do with it.

Satisfyingly, if you play even a few satellites I can almost guarantee you will witness one of these macho bullies knock himself out when he could have left the room and still qualified. Adrenalin junkies feel compelled to play average hands when they should even be throwing away aces. Then, at the opposite end of the scale, but equally incompetent in their own way, lurks the satellite coward.

An online satellite I was recently in had a rather generous 100 seats to be won with 130 players remaining. Surprisingly, the blinds weren’t too high yet so most of us weren’t feeling much pressure. Then the rather inactive player to my left sent a message saying ‘Let’s all fold every hand and we’ll all qualify.’ This sentiment was soon followed by ‘Ok? Is everyone agreed?’ Only two other players were keen to join his gang largely because it was far too early for most people to coast home without playing. He simply had no idea how long these 30 people would hold on for and how the blinds would inevitably reach nosebleed territory. The result of his initiative was predictable. A couple of us stole his blinds every time round and he was the first at the table to bust out. He might as well have posted a note saying ‘I’m nervous about playing and will fold everything unless I have a monster.’

It’s always amusing to see a player try to organise a communal pact in an internet game. It may be possible if attempted in a live game by a large, unforgiving fellow who seems adamant about people toeing the party line – but not online. It seems to be the height of optimism to expect a group of poker players to abandon their natural instincts to join a socialist movement.

Satellites may be lucrative if played sensibly, yet not fearfully. Only time will tell. Success can’t be analysed in anything but the long term and may suit one individual more than another. But one thing is for sure, the format brings out all the game’s odd characters.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Satellites | No Comments »

Heads-up Poker: Don’t Panic

Friday, July 11th, 2008

Although caution generally goes out the window when it comes to heads-up poker it may not necessarily be time to panic. It’s crucial to understand that your chip size in relation to the blinds is much more significant that your chip size in relation to your opponent. If you have 3000 chips and your opponent has 12,000 then the situation appears daunting, but it may not be desperate. Perhaps players have been dropping like flies and proceedings reached the heads-up stage unusually early. If this is the case then the blinds will reflect that and it’s up to you to capitalise on the situation by appreciating the true pace of the game.

Let’s say the blinds are 100-200. Given the chip ratio described above, your opponent is in a strong position but he would be wrong to think he has the game won. There is still plenty of poker to be played in this game. One mindset I might adopt is to evaluate what my prospects look like if I doubled up. I realise that if I achieve this before my stack drops below 2000 then I will then have a minimum of 4000 in comparison to his 11000 maximum. If I then double-up again before I drop below 3000 then I will have a minimum of 6000 chips compared to his 9000 maximum. In this scenario there would suddenly be all to play for and I would have the momentum. This may sound like basic wishful thinking but it’s important to realise that winning just two hands I commit to could turn the game on its head. On those terms the predicament seems less daunting.

The other crucial aspect of this mindset is that I still allow myself some scope to fold. When I have 3000 chips and the blinds are 100-200 I’ve decided that the situation only becomes critical if I fall below 2000. Too many players panic when they face a huge chip deficit regardless of the blind situation. The psychology of the situation must not be discarded either. Your opponent may expect you to be desperate and panicky; he may be thrown off-kilter if you remain calm and collected. For his part he may think the game is won and get impatient if it drags out.

It’s quite likely that a big stack will push his chips all-in on most hands in this situation with a very wide range of cards. Remember, he’s probably gained his big stack by bulldozing through the rest of the field with considerable success. He’s feeling confident and he’s on a roll. This can lead to complacency and loose aggression. But in effect every all-in push he makes risks 3000 of his own chips to win a likely 300. This may not sound too outrageous with 12000 chips behind him but one wrong move could transform the game. One successful call with your short-stack and the net-swing is 6000 chips. Suddenly the cavalier push with 9-3 off-suit looks a little rash.

So what cards do you chance your arm with against a big-stack bully? Well, if he’s all-in on every hand then we can allocate him a card range of any two. But obviously we want to call when we have an edge. I suggest a calling range begins at any ace, most kings, or any two high cards in this spot. If you succeed in doubling up to around 4000 chips before the blinds rise, you can then become more selective. It then doesn’t matter if you lose six hands in a row in blinds so long as you can triumph on the big showdown.

If your stack does recover enough to be threatening, then an aggressive player may refine his strategy from constant all-ins, to constant raising. If this happens at least you’re being taken a little more seriously. At this point you have gained an additional play option. With more chips at your disposal it is now possible to call a raise without going all-in. While this can be an advantage it will lead a weak player to ruin. For example, calling raises with decent heads-up hands like A-5 is generally ill-advised. Against an aggressive bully this is a re-raise all-in hand, because while it’s reasonable to think you’re ahead, it’s a lousy hand to see a flop with.

Having said all this, if the blinds are crippling in relation to your stack size then you really can’t hang about. I would suggest that your situation is critical if your chip stack represents 5 or 6 big blinds or less. In a SNG this means that if the blinds are 200-400 and you hold 2400 chips or less then you should push all-in on the small blind every time with any two cards. That really is no time to be choosy.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Heads-up Poker | No Comments »

Bubble Aggression

Friday, July 4th, 2008

The tournament bubble is the period of the game when the next person out will leave with nothing whereby everybody else will be assured of a prize. It is the cruellest time to lose, as for all your efforts you earn nothing; the same as that fish who bust out on the very first hand. And they didn’t put in all that time and effort to claim their nothing. This scenario creates a dynamic that changes the mentality of many players at the table. The key to your success is identifying who clams up under the pressure of the bubble and ensuring that you don’t do the same.

The worst thought process you can adopt is ‘I’ll just sit tight until I’ve made the money and then I’ll go for it.’ If this approach goes badly then you may simply be blinded out as the other players exploit your timidity. Rest assured that the best players will constantly be observing and making notes on weak players who can be bullied at this vital juncture. If you are destined to go out on the bubble, be bold and brave, not pathetic and gutless. The latter will be much harder to digest if the worst comes to the worst.

Biding your time is clearly self-destructive if you are the smallest stack at the table because everybody else is in relatively good shape unless you make a successful move. This is fairly obvious to most players but the dangers facing a medium-stack are much more frequently ignored. The smallest stack will frequently recover rapidly if the blinds are quite high and he is shrewd enough to throw his chips in at every good opportunity. Suddenly the medium stack has become the small-stack and the blinds are getting evermore threatening.

Crucially, even when a cautious bubble approach does result in a money finish it still may not have been a successful strategy. The reason for this is that limping into the smallest payout position should never be the objective – you must play to win wherever possible. This may sound like obvious posturing to some people because, of course, we all want to win. But the play-to-win approach has to be taken seriously when you consider the reward structure of most poker tournaments. Take for example the pay-out structure of a typical $55 SNG. First place will typically receive $250 (50% of the prize pool minus fees), second place earns $150 (30%) and third place receives $100 (20%).

Consequently, one first place finish is as good as a second and third combined. So how should this influence our bubble strategy? Put simply, go for the wins and don’t worry about a few fourth places along the way. If in a run of ten games at $55 I emerge victorious in 3 and don’t make the money in the other 7 I will earn $750 from $550 staked. However, if the run of ten games yields 0 wins, 3 seconds, 2 thirds and the rest outside the money I will earn $650 from $550 staked. In other words finishing in the money 30% of the time with all victories is more profitable than making the money 50% of the time with this combination of second and thirds.

In strategic terms this should mean that you aren’t afraid of making a big play which could win you the game even if it could also result in your elimination on the bubble. To illustrate this point imagine a typical SNG bubble scenario where one huge stack is raising every hand against three evenly matched short stacks, one of which is you. The play passes to the big stack on the small blind who moves all-in for the sixth hand in a row. You are sat on the big blind with A9, what should you do? If you know that the big stack is pushing with any two cards then A9 has to be an easy call. It only becomes difficult because of the threat of elimination at this critical stage. Of course you could be unlucky and he has a genuinely big hand this time, or you could be outdrawn by a junk hand, but no matter. All you can do is get your chips in when the odds appear to be in your favour. In the long term a call with A9 in this spot should be profitable. Doubling up at this point gives you a genuine chance of a precious victory. Folding is weak and lacking in courage.

The value of bubble aggression is only magnified further in a multi-table event when the temptation to limp into the money is even greater. You really want something to show for your time and efforts after several hours of play. But this survive at all costs mentality again needs to be banished. The prizes at stake for the top places are even more significant now. If 18th place is $100 then 1st place may well be $3000. Winning the event once is better than scraping into the teen positions two dozen times. Top players will judge their success on how often they make the final few spots rather than how often they make ‘the money’. Playing a strong bubble and picking up pots against the meek is a vital part of reaping such rewards.

The Poker Grafter writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Bubble Play | No Comments »