Archive for September, 2008

WSOPE Heartache

Monday, September 29th, 2008

Last week I embarked on my first ever World Series outing where I pitted my wits against the finest players on the planet, who had all descended on Leicester Square. My event was the £1500 No Limit Holdem contest in the second ever World Series of Poker Europe (WSOPE). I had wondered if all the top American stars would make it over for this appetizer course, with the main event still a week away. I needn’t have worried. The pursuit of ‘bracelets’ ensured that the Empire Casino was the venue for the who’s who of poker all week.

I initially found myself to be a little edgy in such illustrious company. My starting table put me alongside several familiar faces who ‘I knew off the TV,’ even though I was struggling with names. This was a little frustrating because I desperately wanting to check who I was up against but was not prepared to ask. ‘I know you’re a famous player and all, but what’s your name again,’ I thought sounded a little pathetic and, at the same time, a bit insulting. Instead I just hid behind my sunglasses that I had adopted for the day and decided to keep a low profile. The shades are not something I normally bother with – particularly for my internet play I hasten to add – but on this occasion it just felt right.

My efforts to keep a low profile were soon compromised when I spilt my water over ‘Gentleman’ Ben Roberts whilst turning round to see what Phil Hellmuth was up to. This clumsy act summed up my first session at the table. My 6000 starting chips were rapidly deserting me through a heady combination of ill-advised betting and missing every flop I saw. When I went to the first break after two hours I was languishing with little more than 2000 chips. I knew that if I didn’t turn things round fast then my WSOPE debut was going to be a bitter personal disappointment.

Thankfully, when we resumed my performance improved along with the quality of the cards I was dealt. I quickly doubled through with KK against AQ and picked up another nice pot when I flopped a set of 10s on a 9c-10h-Qh board. The pot was welcome but might have been more had I not felt compelled to check-raise all-in to avoid the many potential outdraws. The highlight of the second session was knocking out the aforementioned Ben Roberts after he pushed his short stack with A-9 against my J-J. ‘You spill water on me and then you knock me out!’ he lamented with a smile on his face. I can confirm that he is indeed deserving of his ‘Gentleman’ status.

The following session was largely uneventful as once again I found myself card dead. For a while this was unproblematic as I had jolted my chip stack up to a respectful, playable position. But inevitably if you’re not moving forwards then you’re moving backwards in this game. I didn’t want to be card dependent and was looking for spots to at least pick up a few blinds but this was easier said than done against such high quality opponents. US star Andy Bloch was just one character at the table with a decent chip stack to his name and he wasn’t afraid to use it. Of course when I did pick up AA for the one and only time in the day it inevitably clinched me no more than the blinds and antes.

After two hours without a significant hand win I was back in the short-stack ‘push or shove’ position. In the final hand before dinner was scheduled I made my big move. I was sat on the button with A-6o and was desperately hoping to be first in so I could push. Then, annoyingly, the guy to my immediate right beat me to the count and shoved his similarly short stack all-in. My immediate thought was to fold since A-6o is no great calling hand, especially with the blinds still to act. But on considering my spot a little more I was tempted. The all-in had come from possibly the loosest player at the table and although he would still normally play something better than A6 he was also very aware that this was the last hand before a 2-hour dinner break. I had little doubt that he was unprepared to wait around for that long only to nurse a stack even smaller than my own. With that in mind I felt that an ace could well be good against him and if I ran into a better hand in the blinds then that would just be my bad luck. Furthermore, since I had only shown good hands all day there was some chance one of the blinds would throw away a slightly better ace than mine when confronted with two all-ins. I called, the two blinds folded and I was encouraged to see my hand up against K-7o, and thrilled when the best hand held up.

Dinner tasted considerably better after that and on the first hand after the resumption things got even better. My J-J held up again against A-J and I found myself in my best position of the day, albeit still only a medium stack. Sadly, this was to be as good as it got. The cards neglected me once again and it began to look as though I would be limping into Day 2 in a pretty desperate position. I stole the blinds once or twice uncontested but my destiny was to be shaped in the very final minute of the scheduled day’s play. I had already told myself that I would go all-in with any two high cards or even medium suited connectors to give myself a double-up or bust scenario. So imagine my pleasure when I woke up in the big blind with K-K. I got the early seat raise that I hoped for and gave only a brief ‘Hollywood’ pause before pushing my humble stack all-in. I was relieved to see a call from Q-Jo, right up until the flop delivered a Jack and a Queen. The turn and river brought no justice and I was out in cruel fashion, finishing 48th out of 219 runners on the day.

Winning that hand with the heavy favourite would have given me a fighting chance going into Day 2, but it was not meant to be. On balance, and it really is a tough call, it’s better to go out courtesy of a moment of gross bad luck than due to bad play. At least I could console myself with the knowledge that I had held my own against the world’s finest. Maybe next year…

Simon Ballou wirtes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Reading the Play Pattern

Monday, September 22nd, 2008

It’s very important to get a read on other players that can shape the way you will approach them in the future. If somebody bets whenever the play is checked to him then he might be trappable with a big hand. On the other hand if a guy wants to check-raise all his best hands then you need to ensure that you’re not the one getting trapped. There are other characters who like to limp in with AA to make sure they get some action. You need to be aware that these individuals may have strong holdings even in the absence of a pre-flop raise or re-raise. Another player may bet into the pot whenever he flops a flush draw. There are many play patterns to watch out for, and if they can be remembered, noted and digested then judgements will become smarter.

So how much can be learnt from the different observations that we make? In the case of a renowned ‘AA limper’ I’ve already suggested we need to proceed with caution because a call disguises a big hand much more than a raise. That said, what more can we deduce? Well, I would speculate that a player who limps AA all the time is inexperienced, over-values his hands and slowplays his way into trouble frequently. The reasoning behind this is that the strength of AA is greatly diminished in a multi-way pot and while calling adds disguise, it also makes the likelihood of several opponents much greater. Frankly, an experienced player has already learnt this lesson and will only slowplay rockets perhaps one time in ten. On the other hand an inexperienced individual will probably just classify himself as hugely unlucky every time he loses with AA in a multi-way pot. Over time the penny will drop.

What of the character who check-raises all his best hands? Let’s say he only leads the betting when he has nothing or very little, but the check-raise appears every time he is genuinely strong, or hits a draw. Once you’ve seen this pattern emerge over a period of time then you must be very wary of how much you bet your own hand, if at all. In a pot between the two of you it may sometimes be best to turn his check-raise play into the much less fruitful ‘check-check’ scenario. Remember the check-raise play ceases to exist where nobody else bets! This is useful when you have an average hand and wish to showdown cheaply. On the other hand, if you’re pretty sure that you’re winning even though he likes his cards as well then the pot is likely to become massive. Suddenly all you need to do is bet your hand as normal and wait for the check-raiser to dig his own grave.

When the check-raiser calls on a draw and the river card looks to have hit him then extreme caution is required more than ever. Most players bet out with their flush or straight on the river to make sure they get some pay-off. No so the check-raiser. If first to act he will probably still find it irresistible to check. The temptation for you to bet must therefore be resisted at all costs – unless you can beat his straight or flush of course! This can mean checking out a great hand such as a set on the river. If this is done then the frustration of losing with a great hand on the final card should be tempered by the knowledge that you didn’t pay-off your rival. Unlucky yes, but you did play the better poker and that’s what counts in the long run. Limiting your losses on the bad moments is as crucial as maximising the profits at the good times.

Finally there is the competitor who jumps into bet whenever he flops a flush draw. The psychology behind this play has much to teach us as well. The thing about drawing hands is that, like many a poker player, they seem full of promise but often amount to nothing. We all grow weary of calling on a draw only to see it fade into the abyss once more. So what’s the alternative? Bet into the draw of course! That way if you hit the draw you win, and if your opponent folds, you win. Easy right? You’ve covered all angles? Wrong. It doesn’t play out this way because nobody believes you have a strong hand. If for example you call a pre-flop raiser out of position and then bet into him before he has a chance to act, it always looks weak. The thought crossing your canny opponents’ minds will be ‘if he’s that strong, then why not wait for the inevitable continuation bet from the raiser to suck more chips into the pot?’

The common ground with all these examples is that they may have some value when deployed in exceptional circumstances. However, the players who make any of these moves routinely show a naivety of what those around them are thinking. The irony is that experienced players see many ill-advised moves coming a mile off because they made exactly the same questionable moves themselves in the past.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Reading Patterns | No Comments »

A Marathon, not a Sprint

Thursday, September 11th, 2008

It amazes me how often my best multi-table results have evolved from a seemingly hopeless position earlier in the tournament. I’ll be scrabbling around with a short stack for two hours feeling sorry for myself when suddenly my good moments arrive and turn things around. Equally, it’s frustrating to think how often a fantastic early position on the leader board and a giant chip stack has come to count for nothing. As the old adage goes, you can only lose a poker tournament in the early stages, never win one.

There is also a widely held view among players that you don’t want to ‘use up all your luck’ too early. On the other hand there’s consolation to be had in the thought that if you’ve had no joy for two hours then maybe you’ll be due some good fortune later on, at the business end of the tournament. Strangely, since we really know luck is intransigent and unevenly distributed, these largely superstitious views often seem to hold some credibility. Better cards and better luck will often come after a long barren spell in a tournament – assuming you haven’t already been eliminated.

However, there is a more logical reason why early multi-table leaders will rarely last the pace. The initial chip hoarders are often wild, aggressive players who have played a high percentage of pots and enjoyed the rub of the green more often than not. These players are often too reckless for their own good and such a cavalier approach is unlikely to prosper over several hours of competition. That is certainly not to say that all wild players should be dismissed as no-hopers. There are plenty of very good players who will take huge risks in an effort to build a formidable chip stack early on. This is particularly true and understandable during a rebuy tournament when the first hour will often create carnage.

I have seen many a ‘rock’ go to pieces in such a manic environment. A conservative player, unaccustomed to the lottery of the rebuy period will often get angry at the chaotic behaviour around him. To him, loose play equals bad play. If I hear a tight textbook player criticise an opponent for over-valuing AJ during a rebuy I know that fireworks are just round the corner. If you think Ace-Jack is a small hand in a rebuy period then you haven’t seen anything yet! It’s normally a matter of time before the wildest players start pushing all-in pre-flop with the likes of 8-5s. (If it’s suited, it’s good, right?). The rock is not amused when he see his AK, that he’s waited patiently for, cracked by the likes of that.

Tight players need to appreciate that others will put an emphasis on stack building early on and will not shy away from multiple rebuys in that pursuit. Instead of getting angry a rock is better off thinking how this can all work in his favour. Firstly, the prize pool becomes much more lucrative as people throw their money at establishing a good start. Secondly, the rock’s premium hands have a high chance of gaining action from much weaker holdings. In the short term the badbeats can be hugely irritating but in the long term these are clearly the spots one wishes to be in. And it’s not just a question of luck; the rock needs to adapt to this hectic environment he finds himself in. It’s no good crying that your AA didn’t hold up after 8 players called your puny pre-flop raise. If you know you’re surrounded by calling stations it becomes imperative to raise higher and bet stronger than usual.

As for the early hyper-aggressors, success will largely depend on their ability to change gears and calm down after the rebuy period ends. For many impatient people with short attention spans this simply won’t happen.  Other sensitive souls will slow down, but only because they have been so thoroughly chastised by disgusted tighter players. Bizarrely, being harassed and potentially getting embarrassed can lead to better play for the next phase of the tournament. This is just as well since some rebuy fanatics may need a high money finish just to break even after pressing that ‘more chips’ button somewhat excessively.

Posted in A Marathon not a Sprint | No Comments »

Damning Evidence

Monday, September 1st, 2008

The vast database of online sit and go tournament results provided by Sharkscope makes compelling viewing but I can’t help wondering if we should all hate its very existence. For the hoards of internet players losing money there is now irrefutable proof that you are doing just that. It’s all there in black and white, or red as it were. If you stopped keeping track a while ago of your precise profit or loss figures, it’s all there for others to see anyway. There can be no more assuming that you’re ‘just about breaking even’ because the proof is out there and tells us what we already knew deep down – ‘just about breaking even’ actually means losing.

At the other end of the spectrum the news is arguably not much better for the top players. It’s true that your outstanding results are there for all to see and may be a great source of pride. There’s no need to blow your own trumpet when Sharkscope is there to do that for you. That’s all great and good for the ego but whatever happened to keeping a low profile? In poker the ability to slip under the radar and be underestimated is a valuable asset. Yet an outstanding return on investment (ROI) can make that nigh on impossible. So the correlated results must be bad news for everyone then? Shame and embarrassment for the losing player and too much respect and wariness for the best players.

But this summary oversimplifies everything. Firstly, thousands of players never look at Sharkscope and don’t even know it exists. That means that everyone who does use the results service has information on new players that others won’t. That’s an advantage to have whether you’ve won $30k or lost $30k. In other words, the service is worthwhile because you will always learn more about your opponents than the table will learn about you. Secondly, even with all the results laid out for all to see, many players will misinterpret the information they receive and jump to the wrong conclusions. Don’t assume a player is good simply because he’s won more than he’s lost on aggregate.

For example, it is quite possible for a player to have a half decent profit total and still be a pretty lousy player. The key discrepancy to look out for on this score is a negative ROI figure that accompanies the profit figure. This is the truth statistic on Sharkscope and it appears that the special significance of the ROI is recognised by the site adjudicators. I assume this because players who request to have their statistics hidden can have their profit/loss details and game totals removed, but crucially not their ROI. The reason this statistic is so telling is that a poor player can temporarily achieve profit simply by chasing his losses and raising the stakes. If for example I played 10 games at $22 stakes and lost them all, I could still be in profit if I then played one $109 game and won it. This would distort my bankroll and make everything seem alright again. Yet in all likelihood I would have just got lucky in the biggest game and this would still be reflected by a negative ROI.

I might add that a player who reacts to losing consistently at a lower level by jumping up the stakes may well have a gambling problem. There is as yet no ‘addict’ symbol on Sharkscope to accompany the ‘fish’ and ‘shark’ epithets, as far as I’m aware. There is also a danger that unimpressive statistics can lead you to underestimate an opponent. For every lucky swine who wins when he moves up a stake there are dozens of the rest of us who seem to get our worst luck and worst results after moving up a division. Not that I’m bitter. In these instances the overall statistics might not do our true capabilities justice.

One mistake I was definitely guilty of in the past was jumping to conclusions based on too small a sample of results. If I saw an opponent had played 10 games then obviously I knew the information at my disposal was virtually worthless. However, if a rival had played 200 games then I was quick to make sweeping judgements. I realise now that this too is very risky. I only have to look at my own swings in fortune to underline this point. If an opponent looked at my results for one week my ROI could be 30% over 200 games. Equally, if he looked again the following week he might see an ROI of -8% for the following 200 games. I can’t overstate how big the swings are even for the most successful players. This must be considered when forming any player evaluation.

The sheer depth of statistical analysis possible on Sharkscope is mind-blowing. This is invaluable when putting your own play under the microscope. There might even be a time of day when your results are best because you tend to be at your most alert. It’s unlikely you would ever be able to even test that theory without the advanced filter searches available on Sharkscope. It’s a resource that I believe can improve your game. But remember, other players can develop as well. That guy you did a quick search for who’s $8k down is easy to dismiss as a fish. But you never know, delve a little deeper; three months ago he may have been $15k down. He’s on the charge, improving, and transformed from fish to shark! You never know, it could happen.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Sharkscope | No Comments »