BORGATA SUCKS

About four years ago I was playing 5-10 no limit hold ‘em at the Borgata Casino in Atlantic City when I found myself in a heads-up preflop all-in with one of the Borgata regulars (a guy who played there every day and was dating one of the cocktail waitresses so that made him about as regular as anyone can be). I turned up pocket aces and he had pocket kings. The board ran out and I won and had him covered but the dealer immediately grabbed chips from both of us and started matching stacks of colors. For some reason we had yellow chips at the table which I believe were $20 chips as well as the standard reds, greens and blacks. I yelled for the dealer to just count the other player’s stack but he didn’t do that and pushed all the chips to me except the yellows (which totaled $600) which he pushed to the other guy. Three Chinese players began to animatedly talk in Chinese as I called for the floor supervisor. As he approached, Kevin who was one of the Chinese players pointed at me and said “they just cheated him out of $600.” I explained the problem and the supervisor said that they would review the surveillance tape. Twenty minutes later he came back to the table and said they could not differentiate colors and the tape was inconclusive. I knew that I had been cheated but what could I do except cash out and avoid going back. (As an addendum, that dealer now deals at the Parx Casino and recently apologized and admitted to me that he had screwed up on that day). I very rarely returned to the Borgata, especially after the Parx Casino opened. But during the past couple of months I have really been in a zone in tournament play (having won a $500 entry WPT regional event for $14,000 and then only days later finishing second in the WPT regional main event cashing for more than $45,000). This being the case I decided to play in the Borgata $500+60+200 double black chip bounty tournament. I was pretty card dead for most of the day but scratched and clawed to the 90k chip mark (average stack about 70k) with about 80 of the original 276 players remaining. We had played from 11 A.M. and now at about 6:15 P.M. we were on our last ten minute break before the dinner break. From the loudspeaker the tournament director informed us that we could not stay in our seats but had to take a ten minute break from the private tournament room. I wandered into the main poker room to say hello to a few acquaintances and returned to the tournament room with about a minute left in the break. As I walked into the room I saw another player IN MY SEAT, HOLDING MY CHIPS as he spoke to the dealer and a floor supervisor. As I approached the table the other player stood up quickly and went to his seat. I angrily asked the floor supervisor why the other player was in my seat playing with my chips and he smiled and responded that the player was hitting on the young female dealer. I told him that this was totally wrong and that the Borgata was responsible for protecting my chips and I wanted to complain. He responded that he would talk to the tournament director and at that very moment play began for the next level. Since blinds and antes were high I had no choice but to sit at my seat and play. I counted my stack and instead of approximately 90,000 in chips I had about 75,000. I was distracted and for about ten minutes looked towards the front desk but saw no action. When the same floor supervisor passed my table again I asked him what was going on and he responded “Oh I will go talk to the tournament director now.” I saw him go to the front desk and speak to the tournament director who then sent a replacement dealer to my table and summoned the young female dealer to the front desk where they spoke. In the meantime I was seriously distracted and lost a great deal of chips in one hand that I would not ordinarily have played. Play continued and nobody approached me to explain anything. After about another 30 minutes and severely shortstacked I played a hand and was knocked out of the tournament. I rushed to the front desk and asked the tournament director why nothing had been done about the egregious situation. Frankly his response stunned me. He said that had I reported the problem to him initially he could have delayed the new round and examined the surveillance tape but now it was too late. I pointed out that I HAD IMMEDIATELY told his floor supervisor who was actually at the table when it happened and it was not my fault if the supervisor delayed notifying him. Another supervisor who was seated at the front table then said “We run the best tournaments in Atlantic City,” as if that would assuage me. I argued that we players were ordered out of the room for a break and it was incumbent upon the Borgata employees to insure the integrity of the game by not allowing players to handle other players chips, and I stated that I believed that some of my chips were missing. But as I had learned once before, the Borgata doesn’t really care about the integrity of the game. In days gone by the Casino Control Commission maintained an office in every casino. Now there is no Casino Control Commission. The other supervisor who was seated at the front table arrogantly told me “If you have a complaint you can go to the Gaming Commission on Tennessee Avenue. But it’s Saturday evening so good luck with that.” I didn’t even know where Tennessee Avenue was (Okay I do know it’s orange and between St. James Place and New York Avenue but that doesn’t really help). This latest Borgata lesson cost me at least $760 and perhaps as much as $37,000 which was the prize for finishing first. There’s an old saying which I will paraphrase. Fool me in a cash game once, shame on you. Fool me in a tournament once shame on you too. But Borgata you will never have the chance to fool me in either again.

World Poker Tour Regional Tournaments

The Parx Casino recently hosted a World Poker Tour regional series of tournaments for which I anticipated playing only in the three day main event (which featured two first days). Players had the option of playing their first day on Sunday or Monday – or both if they got knocked out on Sunday. The tournament would then continue on Tuesday by combining the survivors of the Day1A with those of Day 1B. It would then end on Wednesday. The Friday before this event I was at the Parx playing 2-5 no-limit hold ‘em when a friend approached and suggested I play in a preliminary tournament which had started earlier that morning and for which late signup was permitted. It was a $500 + 50 tournament with a prize pool guarantee of $50,000 and there was a big overlay meaning that the break-even point for the casino was 100 players (500 x 100) but there were only about 46 players signed up. This translates to an edge for the player because he would have 1 chance in 46 to win but would be getting paid roughly double. Any decent poker player knows that if the odds are in your favor you play the hand – or in this case the tournament. My problem was that I thought the tournament was scheduled for two days and we had theatre tickets for Saturday. But my friend assured me that it was a one day tournament and so I quickly cashed out my chips and signed up. Having second thoughts (a little too late of course) as I approached the tournament area I asked one of the supervisors whether it was indeed a one day tournament to which he replied that it had been scheduled for two days but with 40-something players it would surely be finished the same day. What neither of us anticipated was the late rush as other players learned of the overlay and before I knew it there were 89 players, insuring that the tournament would last two days. Okay well maybe I would be lucky and get knocked out the first day and not have to figure out how to tell my wife that I could not go to the theatre. But alas this was not to be. At the end of the first day I was second in chips and we were down to the final two tables. I had to face the music. To her credit my wife’s response was simply “if you win a lot of money then we can replace the tickets.” As an offer of compromise I told her that I would forego playing in the main event since it wouldn’t be fair to play poker for 5 days out of 6. With that issue off my mind I returned the following day determined to cover the cost of the theatre tickets and stay out of the doghouse. If you’ve ever played in tournaments such as these you know the feeling as you glance at the monitor and watch the number of players dwindle. 89 becomes 79 becomes 65 becomes 42 becomes 34. In this case I watched as 14 became 13 became 12 and so forth. I mucked when I could, played when I had to and the field continued to dwindle. As we arrived at the final table one point had been made perfectly clear to me. The young hotshot (former) internet players played in only one speed – hyperfast. The overwhelming chip leader was one such young gun as was the player who was second in chips. Since each knockout represented a higher cash payout to the remaining players I decided to inhabit the sidelines for as long as possible. The girl sitting to my right was obviously using the same strategy, laying down hand after hand as the two chip leaders gambled against the rest of the table and continually won. Then the player who was second in chips took a huge hit as he unwisely challenged the chip leader, sending him to the middle of the pack. And then there were five. Choosing my spots carefully I had actually moved Into second chip position after looking down at pocket 10s and felting a shortstack shove. But as the winds of war changed direction, by the time we reached four players I was the short stack having lost with AK on a board of K8876, keeping my tournament hopes alive by laying my hand down to the girl on my right when she shoved on the river. With only 400k in chips to a chip average of over 700k I resumed my “stay out of the way strategy” and it paid off handsomely when the two young guns squared off in a 2.5 million chip all-in, one felting the other. And then there were three. The internet kid was the chip leader with about 1.3 million, the girl had about 1 million and I had 400k. We played on and while I remained at about the same level the girl slowly took over the chip lead. And then it happened. With the blinds at 20k-40k the internet kid raised to 140k and the girl instantly shoved her chips to the center. I mucked just as quickly and without hesitation the internet kid shouted “I call,” turning up King-Queen offsuit. KING-QUEEN OFFSUIT!!! He called an additional 800k with king-queen offsuit to the tightest player in the game and as she turned up Ace-King my heart skipped a beat. AND THEN THERE WERE TWO! We battled for three solid hours and at one point she was a 3-1 chip leader. Finally, short-stacked I shoved with Q-J offsuit and she instacalled with A-10. When the flop came A-7-7 I stood, extended my hand and said great game. But before we could shake hands the craaaaazy world of poker reared it’s ugly (or beautiful) head and the turn came a king and the river a ten and I was aliiiiiive and with chips. She never recovered and I won a World Poker Tour tournament that I wasn’t even supposed to play in. My wife and I celebrated on Sunday by having dinner at our favorite restaurant – Don Pepe’s in Newark. I had removed all thought of playing in the main event from my mind and we were overloading on sangria and maybe it was the very sangria overload that caused it but suddenly out of nowhere my wife blurted “aren’t there two first days for the main event?” I nodded and she continued “Why don’t you play tomorrow? You’re in a zone.” This was so unlike her that I thought I had better lock up the seat before she changed her mind. “You’re right,” I quickly replied. “I should play while I’m doing well.” And I did. The World Poker Tour main event featured a $1600 buy-in and a $200,000 guaranteed prize pool. Many of the top area (and out of area) pros signed up for the Sunday “first day” (Day 1A) of this reentry tournament and as my wife and I ate dinner they knocked each other out at an astonishing pace. At the end of Day 1A only 29 players remained from a field of 98. I arrived early Monday morning at the Parx and sat down at a 2-5 no limit table to relax before the grind. I know it doesn’t make a lot of sense to people that someone would play poker to relax before a poker tournament but it makes sense to me and that’s all that matters. As the tournament began I noticed that I was listed on the Parx blog among the notables in the field along with Miami John Cernuto, Matt Glantz, Brian Lemke, Little Man Sica and Joe Black. Notables who survived the first day included Paul Darden, Charley Hook, Paul Volpe and Joe Wertz. And then there were those who weren’t even listed on the notable list yet who were even more notable than many of the notables. Lee Childs and Ryan D’Angelo for example, both of whom are nearing the 2 million dollar mark in live tournaments. I was excited just to be listed among the group, not that I didn’t think I was as good as any of them (poker players including myself always think they are much better than they really are) but as a cash game player I did not have a tournament history that would match up to most of them. I played my usual game of avoiding play against big stacks and it was small-time give and take for me until after the dinner break. My buddy Frankie Fed (we play in the same home game and I eat at his restaurant - “Frankie Fed’s” believe it or not) had been moved to my table and he had a pretty big stack. Frankie is a shoot from the hip gambler and while in the long run that can be a good thing for a solid player, Frankie could swing for the fences and knock anyone out of a tournament. I looked down at pocket 6s and raised, called by the button and by Frankie in the big blind. I smiled inside (and hopefully not outside) as the rainbow flop came J-6-2. Frankie checked and I made a pot sized bet hoping that someone had a jack. The button folded and I bit my lip to contain my excitement as Frankie donned his shades, a huge tell that I was aware of whenever he had a strong hand. After pushing a bunch of chips around he raised an amount which my experience with him led me to believe he wanted a call. I did not fear pocket jacks because Frankie would surely have reraised preflop. His range of hands to me was A-J to J-6 or J-2 or 6-2 suited. So I flat called. The turn was a 7 and Frankie bet out significantly. Again I flat called. Having played against him for years I knew that no matter what fell he was normally a three street bettor once that train started rolling. A 10 fell on the river and to my amazement Frankie checked. I could not play the hand any slower and it was time to push the rest of my chips into the pot. Frankie lowered his shades and stared at me. “I can’t lay this hand down Marvelous.” (yes he calls me Marvelous). “I have a set.” And in went the chips and over turned the pocket deuces and thank you Frankie!!! And Day1B ended and the chip leader for the day had 333,300 and I had 78,000 but I had a seat for Day 2 and that’s all that really mattered. When Day 2 arrived I found myself at a table with Paul Darden, Charlie Hook. Jason Paster and Paul Volpe among others. The table was rock solid, and since I was card dead for the first 2 hours it looked like an early Day 2 exit for me. And then I heard the words “who is the next big blind here?” It was me and to my utter joy that meant I was moving to another table and hopefully new life. My new table included Lee Childs and tournament chip leader Brian Lemke who had now amassed more than a half million chips. But the cards started falling better and my stack began to slowly grow. And as it grew others did not fare as well. Charley Hook and Jason Paster who remained at my old table were knocked out as were other notables including Matt Glantz. Shrinkage was taking place and tables were breaking and by dinner break there were 29 players left. After the dinner break I found myself at about 100k in chips, less than half the chip average for the remaining players. I continued my strategy of mucking when I could and playing when I had to but as more players dropped to the rail I found myself in a similar position to one I was in at the main event last year when I scratched and clawed and finished 20th in a tournament of 18 payouts. DE JA VU!!!! 19 players left in a tournament of 18 payouts and with 46k I was the short stack. I waited patiently for a spot at which to shove and when I looked down at K-10 of diamonds in the cutoff I knew that my time had come. Everyone mucked around to me and I pushed the anemic stack forward. The button was also fairly shortstacked and it looked as if his muck was reluctant. And then it was up to the small blind, who with 70k in chips was also extremely shortstacked. He fingered his chips as I prayed silently to the poker gods for him to muck. While waiting I glanced at Paul Volpe who was in the big blind. Paul is a very successful and aggressive young player who had essentially been controlling the pace of the table to that point. We locked eyes and he shook his head as if to tell me that I had chosen a bad time to shove. Clearly Paul had a big hand. The small blind continued to fidget and then counted out 46k and pushed the stack forward, leaving himself with a little over 20k, and the play was now Paul’s who announced that he was all-in, forcing the small blind to make a decision, and causing him to call for the floor. Pointing to my stack he asked “If we are both knocked out who finishes 18th (in the money)?” I already knew the answer which was confirmed when the floor supervisor stated that whoever started the hand with more chips would finish 18th. Satisfied with that response the small blind compounded his alread huge tactical error of calling in the first place, with a call to the all-in. Paul turned up pocket 9s which was somewhat of a relief to me since I had two overs and was in a race with him and incredibly the small blind turned up J-10 suited a terrible hand to play in this situation. When a king hit the flop and no help came to anyone else I tripled up, the small blind was knocked out of the tournament and the celebrations began as everyone who remained was in the money. Despite the fact that I was still shortstacked I decided to let the other shortstacks start a shove-fest and play rope-a-dope so that I might try to move up the payout ladder. And it worked as the remaining players began to fall by the wayside. Volpe finished 14th, “Miami” John Cernuto finished 13th and suddenly play was halted as we had reached the final table of 10 players. By chip count I was in 6th place and since it was 2 AM they were sending us home for the evening to rest and start fresh the following afternoon. I did not get much sleep that night but then again I don’t sleep much anyway. At 2 PM the following afternoon I took a good look at the final table. To my left was Lee Childs who finished 4th in the 2007 World Series of Poker and whose lifetime winnings exceeded 1.6 million. To my right was Ryan D’Angelo whose lifetime winnings were approximately 2 million. Brian Lemke, lifetime winnings 1.1 million was a few seats to my left and there wasn’t a slouch in the rest of the crew either. Since I rarely play tournaments I could not compete statistically with these guys. But I knew that I could compete poker-wise. The tournament supervisor ordered the “shuffle up and deal,” and the ten of us were on our way. And then there were 9. And I played a game which I knew was giving me a tight-weak table image but that was fine. I felt that when I wanted to make a move I could do so with impunity although in the meantime my tight play was draining my stack through blind attrition. Finally being near the bottom in chip counts and being card dead for a couple of hours I knew I had to make a move. Joe Wertz was the button and min-raised my big blind. The small blind mucked and I looked down to see K-3 of diamonds. I called the min-raise made by the very aggressive Wertz and the flop came J-4-4, all black. I checked the flop and Wertz made a pot-sized bet of 125,000. I had about a half-million in chips and knew that it was unlikely Wertz had an overpair or for that matter any hand worth calling an all-in and so I made the move. To my utter shock he shook his head and said “Wow I guess I have no choice,” calling my bluff and turning over J-5. Frankly I think this was a terrible call against a player with my image. What was he beating except air and I seemed like the type of player who would NEVER bluff with all his chips on the line. In fact when I turned up my hand I could hear a shocked D’Angelo whisper “wow he has cojones.” Now it’s nice to be thought of as a guy who has cojones but I’d rather be thought of as the guy who didn’t bust out on a bluff. When a miracle king hit the turn I got my wish and a stack that may have made me the chip leader. And on we played. When shortstack Lemke shoved and everyone mucked around to me, I reshoved with pocket aces and picked up his stack and before I knew it then there were three, Wertz, Childs and me. Witihin minutes shortstack Childs shoved and I instacalled with A-8 suited. He turned up pocket 4s and an ace on the river sent him to the rail. AND THEN THERE WERE TWO! Unlike the earlier tournament in which my heads-up match lasted three solid hours, this one moved very quickly. It started with Wertz having a 3-1 chip advantage over me and I was now swining for the fences. About twenty minutes into the match I called his 125K raise with K-9 of hearts. The flop came A-3-10 with two hearts giving me the nut flush draw. I checked the flop and Wertz fired out a bet of 150K. I raised to 400K and he quickly called. At that point I did not believe that he had an ace because his style would have been to re-raise me with any ace. For this reason I put him most likely on a pocket pair or a 10 although I did hope he was on a flush draw because if it hit then I would surely double-up. When a king hit the turn I felt very strongly that I now had the best hand as well as the redraw to the nuts and I went all-in for about 1.2 million chips. Just as quickly as on the last street Wertz called and his comment made me think that I was ahead for sure. “I call, do you have an ace?” I confidently turned up my hand and winced as I saw his – K-Q! He called my raise with a gutshot and my huge all-in with second pair (and unfortunately a better kicker than me). When a brick hit the river Wertz scooped up first place money and the trophy. I thought that for the second time he had made a bad call but I could not complain because if it weren’t for his first call I would never have doubled up. I was elated at having done so well in the tournament and for the week. The next World Poker Tour event at the Parx is scheduled for August with the final table televised. Some of the players in my home game have been on televised World Poker Tour final tables and I’d like to do it as well. Those are usually the times when a bad beat sends you to the rail by level 4. Oh well, we’ll see.

Poker and God (is it blasphemous to list God second?)

I once wrote a controversial play about the existence of God and as a result I was invited to Malloy College, a Jesuit school on Long Island to debate the existence of God with (like a bad joke) a Rabbi, a Priest and an Ethical Culturalist. I was last to make opening remarks and in part, these were mine:

"I’ve been invited here to debate the existence of God and I suppose I should begin by telling you my position. Without equivocation I am a believer, an agnostic and an atheist. When my colleagues introduced themselves and their positions they too were unequivocal – although admittedly they each took only one position. So why then do I take three? It’s because unlike my colleagues who failed to define God, I will. If God is love then I am a believer. Love indeed exists. But then God is not omnipotent because if he were then nobody who was loved would ever suffer. If God is nature then I am a believer. Nature indeed exists. But then God is not benevolent because nature strikes cruelly and indifferently. If God is a creator who is benevolent but not omnipotent then I am an agnostic. There is no conclusive evidence and I do not know if such a God exists. If God is a creator who is omnipotent but not benevolent then I am an agnostic. There is no conclusive evidence and I do not know if such a God exists. If God is a creator who is omnipotent and benevolent then I am an atheist. There is overwhelming evidence that such a God cannot exist."

From there the debate raged and at the end it seemed that half of the audience of 500lined up to tell me that they were going to pray for me.

As a devout poker player I recently wondered whether I could find God through poker. Is there a Poker God? What would his powers be? Would he ever be considered for the Justice League of America? Okay well he would have to be a cartoon Poker God for that to happen so let’s not muddy the waters with side issues. I had a mission. Is there a Poker God? But how does one go about seeking the answer? And then like a miracle it occurred to me - a miracle! Nobody can argue with a miracle and I had been running pretty unlucky anyway and so I began to pray “Oh Poker God if you exist show me a miracle. I play regularly in a casino. Let’s consider it hallowed ground and I will be there awaiting your sign.” And then I waited.

I waited for a long time. During that time I had pocket kings six times and each time someone else at the table had pocket aces and I lost. I think the odds of that happening are about 24 to 1 and it happened six times in a row. 24 to the 6th power = 19,110,297. Nineteen million to one is a pretty good sign. But I had to be sure so I continued to wait. And I flopped 31 flush draws and never hit one. I’m not a mathematician but the odds of hitting a flush are roughly 34% or 1 in 3. I would suspect the odds of missing 31 straight times is astronomical. I was starting to see a pattern and I continued to wait. And my opponents who were behind on the turn 17 times but could only win if they hit their flush (roughly 20% or 1 in 5) hit their flush all 17 times another astronomical number. Assuming the latter two situations are simply 1,000,000 to 1, then the combination of the three would mean that I was looking at 19 million x 1 million x 1 million which equals 19,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 19 quintillion. Since there are only 7.5 quintillion grains of sand on earth (you can google) I can only draw one conclusion from the hands I’ve played. – IT’S A MIRACLE! THERE IS INDEED A POKER GOD! yippee

By the way I complained because I raised on the button with AJ and the flop was JJK and someone had king jack costing me my stack, and one of the players who I shall call James (for those of you who know him) said “Gee Marv you must own a vineyard because of all the whine,” and I snapped back “I’ll bet you heard that joke from at least a dozen people” as everyone at the table chuckled. So don’t mess with me.

Goodbye Parx (except maybe for a tourny)

I love the Parx Casino. It is only a forty minute drive for me and I have a lot of friends among the players, dealers and floor people. The poker room is very professionally run and for a while I staked my claim in the high limit room. But now I have been forced to reevaluate and while I am not a superstitious person by nature, I have convinced myself that I cannot win in their cash games. I may be off base but I have also convinced myself that I am blameless and that the fault lies in the fall of the cards and the bad play of others. This is a situation that has been going on for quite some time and recently I have avoided the Parx, giving things an opporunity to settle down. Today I decided to test the waters again. There was no 10-10 game when I arrived so I played 2-5 in a slow grinding game but was ahead a few hundred dollars when they called a 10-10 game. I spoke with my friend Brian who agreed that the field looked soft and we sat down. For the first couple of hours I slowly built my stack further, although I had few playable hands. And then in a half hour period the following three hands sent me from the casino knowing that I should never look back. I lay them out here step by step and would love to know whether any of you poker players disagree with my play, and why.

Hand number one: A new player to the table who I know as being very aggressive raises to 50 and gets a caller. I call with K-9 of clubs on the button. The flop is 9-7-3 with two diamonds. He bets $120 and the other player mucks. What would you do? I called the bet. The turn is a king of diamonds giving me top two pair and putting three diamonds on the board. Again he bets $120. What would you do? I raised to $360 and here is why. He was the preflop raiser with a wide range of possible hands. His having two diamonds would be unlikely. He flat called my raise. I now put him most likely on a hand like A-K or K-Q with a big diamond. The river was a 5 of clubs and he checked. What would you do? I am a big proponent of value betting and with top two pair was confident that I was ahead so I bet 500 and he called, turning up 2-4 of diamonds.

Hand number two: A player raised to $50 and three people called so I called with J-10 offsuit on the button. The flop was J-5-3 with 2 hearts. One of the blinds bet out $100 and three other players called. What would you do? I flat called the hundred. The turn was a 10 of diamonds giving me top two pair. Everyone checked to me. There was over 600 in the pot. What would you do? I bet 600 hoping to end the hand there, strongly believing I had the best hand. The original bettor folded and the kid to his left then went all-in for $1500 followed by an over the top all-in from the aggressive player from hand one. How on earth can you put either one on a set when the flop had two hearts and especially when a blank hit the turn and they both checked? Only a truly bad player would have played a set that way. Unfortunately I ran into a truly bad player with pocket 5s and the only card that could cost me was a non-heart 10.

Hand number 3: The very next round I had pocket kings under the gun. The player to my left had just commented that if he had my luck he would be tilting so when I raised to 50 and he made it 150 I focused on the possibility that he thought I was tilting rather than the possibility that FOR THE SIXTH TIME IN A ROW AT PARX SOMEONE WOULD HAVE POCKET ACES WHEN I HAD POCKET KINGS. Even so my immediate reaction was to slow play the kings but that decision was taken from me when 3 other players called the 150. I had 1200 left and the reraiser had me covered. What would you do? I raised to 750 and he went all in which meant another 450 to me. But before I could call two other players called his all-in for more than 1000 each. Of course I had to call. He turned up his pocket aces and we both lost to a guy who played 7-8 suited when two 7s hit the flop.

My work here (and there) is done!

Response to comment

Sorry I can't figure out how to respond to the previous comment so I'll do it as a new blog. Here is the comment and my response:

"I've heard it posited that poker is a game of skill, not luck. Is it skill when you win and bad luck when you lose?"


Poker is indeed a game of skill infused with an element of chance. It is a game in which mathematical odds and probability play a key role. For example, let’s say that you flop a flush draw and your chances of hitting a flush by the river are about 1 in 3 and if you hit the flush your chances of winning are close to 100%. Good players know that as a general rule if your anticipated return is more than 3 to 1 it is a good play to try to hit the flush, and conversely as a general rule if the return is going to be smaller than 3 to 1, the cards should be mucked. Other factors come into play as well, most importantly who your opponent is. If it is someone who easily folds his cards then a raise may be in order as a semi-bluff (a hand which is the worst hand at the moment but has a chance to significantly improve) If however the opponent is someone difficult to bluff then there is much more of an incentive to stick with the math. Good players understand this. Bad players do not. Bad players often play for the flush when they are assured of not getting at least a 3 to 1 return. This is a recipe for long-term disaster. But let’s go back to the good player. He faces a guarantee of getting 5 to 1 if he hits his 3 to 1 longshot. Any mathematician will tell you that in the long run this is an absolute winner. And so the good player puts his money in with a 34% chance of winning a 60% return. But he loses – and he does it again – and he loses and he does it 5 more times – and loses each time. It is as if he makes a bet that he can flip a coin 10 times and if at least 1 heads lands he wins the bet. He is of course a more than 1000 to 1 favorite – and yet it is conceivable that he could lose in the short run. Call it variance or luck or whatever you wish but for good players who make mathematically and psychologically sound decisions the answer to your question is an emphatic yes.

Complaining

WARNING: This is a blog about complainers by a complainer with complaints

I have always hated complainers at the poker table and yet I now find that I have joined their ranks and I’m at my wits end about it. Usually the guys who complain the most are the weakest players, the guys who bemoan the fact that they spent $800 trying to hit a gutshot straight without success, or who spend a thousand bucks to chase and catch a nine high flush when the board is paired and another player shoves on the river with Kings full.

In my case I am convinced that I’m playing well and am simply the victim of continuing horrible luck, bad beats and cooler hands. And yet I stop and wonder whether I am fooling myself. Maybe it’s my fault. To thine own self be true and all that.

And when my loving and supportive wife (who knows nothing about poker) faithfully listens to me rant and then says “are you sure you aren’t playing differently or something?” I have to reflect and wonder whether she may be right.

This year I have played in a few different venues - home games and casinos, and I find that it has become impossible for me to win in my favorite casino where I aver that the laws of mathematics have taken a sabbatical. No matter how much one might love a particular poker venue, if it becomes impossible to win in that venue there has to come a point where you move on. I fear that I have reached that point.

Tonight I was at that casino and decided to take contemporaneous notes in the event that the roof caved in once again. Rather than complain, I am going to simply list the facts as follows:

Hand number 1 – I have pocket kings on the button. The last three times I had pocket kings in this casino someone else at the table had pocket aces. Another player raises to $50 and I reraise to $180. He flat calls and we play heads-up. The player bets out 300 to a flop of 9-5-2 with two clubs and I shove. He calls and turns up – guess what – pocket aces.

Hand number 2 – Seven way limp pot I play 3-4 of diamonds in the cutoff . Flop is 2-5-6 with two diamonds. One player bets out $80 and I make it $240. He shrugs and shoves all-in which of course I snap call. The turn is a queen of diamonds and the river a black jack. The player turns up the nut flush.

Hand number 3 – I play King of diamonds/Queen of hearts in a six way limp pot. The flop is A-J-!0 with two diamonds giving me Broadway. By the time the betting and raising is done there are three of us in the hand and just about all of our money in the pot. The turn is the Queen of diamonds putting three diamonds on board but giving me the nut flush (royal flush) redraw. We all check the turn. The river is a blank and when one player bets $1000 and the other snap-calls I muck my straight. Both other players reveal that they hit the flush.

Now before I get to the coup de grace I need to set the stage. I had been sitting in the one seat which was pretty much a dead seat and when Dave Limo showed up I moved to the five seat and he took the one seat. Dave and I play in the same home game, and we are competitive –AND WE DON’T EVEN CHOP WITH EACH OTHER! Dave had essentially played all the previous night and he kept dozing at the table. This brings us to


Hand number 4 - On the button I look down to see two red queens. Dave and the guy to his left limp in for $10 and I raise to $60. Everyone mucks around to Dave who now has his eyes closed as he dreams of cherry blossoms or whatever. The dealer pokes him and says “there’s a raise to $60” prompting Dave's eyes to pop wide open as he grabs an additional five peach chips, tosses them into the pot and then settles his chin back onto his hands allowing his eyes to close once more. The player to his left remarks “okay I guess you dragged me in,” and matches the bet.

The flop is 10-8-3 rainbow and when the dealer says "Dave it's on you," his eyes slowly open and he checks. The player to his left then bets $300 into the $180 pot. He has about $700 behind him so I shove my remaining $1500 in and to my utter surprise and dismay Dave looks at his hole cards and pushes his chips into the pot. The player to his left appears to be as surprised as I am, shows his Ace-10 and mucks. I stare with glazed-over eyes as Dave turns up 10-8 offsuit and sends me packing. He quickly pulls in the pot and settles back into dreamland as I contemplate throwing a chair so that they might forcibly remove me. Instead, dignity intact, baseball cap slanted in Bowery Boy fashion, I take a swig of my water, spilling some on the table - oops - and take the long escalator ride to oblivion once again..

Thank you for letting me get this of my chest and now I’m going to try some of that dreamland stuff, helped by some of this alcohol stuff.

The Unknown Poker Blog

I know this is supposed to be a poker blog and I’ll get to poker in a bit, but right now I want to talk about movies. I am a huge fan of the Liam Neeson movie Taken. It is one of just a few movies I will watch over and over if I happen to run across it while channel surfing (the others being My Cousin Vinny, Working Girl and Prelude to a Kiss).

So when I saw the trailer for Unknown I was pretty excited. It looked like a Taken kind of movie - BUT IT WASN’T! It was a movie that was probably constructed around an intriguing idea and some inviting trailer scenettes (my word for portions of scenes) for the purpose of luring Taken fans into a potentially bedbug infested theatre under false pretenses.

If you haven’t yet seen Unknown but intend to, then perhaps you should skip down to the poker portion of this blog because I may inadvertently – or advertently - reveal some spoilers. But for those of you who have seen the movie some of what I say may cause you to think critically. (By the way, my wife thinks I’m being ridiculous because it is simply entertainment and for two-thirds of the movie I will admit to having been entertained. Yet I have written a bunch of screenplays and she knows I get very troubled by inconsistent writing – and even more so by stories that paint themselves into a corner and then paint a cartoon door by which to escape).

So where do we begin? Okay let’s start with something that occurs in Unknown as well as many other movies and drives me craaaazy. Someone is out to kill the hero. In this case some mysterious person or group is out to kill the Liam Neeson character (whom I will refer to as Neeson from this point on for brevity’s sake). At one point he is dazed and strapped to a gurney in a hospital. In order to get to Neeson an assassin kills an orderly and a nurse by simply snapping their necks. And now of course he is alone with Neeson. So what does he do? Does he simply snap Neeson’s neck as well. No of course not. Instead for some unexplained – and unexplainable – reason he shoots some liquid into Neeson’s I.V. allowing Neeson a chance to pull out the I.V. and survive. Why why why not just kill him quickly and leave? My wife’s response was “well if he did that there wouldn’t be a movie.” OH MY GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

I’ll move on before I have a stroke. Okay let’s talk about another conceit of the movie. It turns out that Neeson is an assassin who, along with another assassin pretending to be his wife, has travelled to Germany to do what assassins do, assassinate someone. Unfortunately Neeson is the victim of a car accident rendering him an amnesiac unable to finish the job. But not to worry because the freaking assassination people have trained a backup IN ADVANCE to step into Neeson’s shoes just in case he were involved in a car accident rendering him an amnesiac. Luckily it was Neeson in the accident and not his fake wife because apparently they never bothered to train a fake wife backup.

And in one ultra-incredible scene both Neeson and the backup Neeson are trying to convince the target of the assassination that they are the real Neeson and are actually speaking the same exact words at the same exact moment like a couple of Doublemint twins.

Am I the only person who finds this ludicrous? Am I the only person who questions why everything else that Cinderella had turned to junk at midnight but the glass slipper remained a glass slipper till the end of the story?

Let’s move on for a moment to the accident. Neeson is in a taxi being driven by a beautiful young woman. Do we know instantaneously that she will have much more of a role in this story than just as his taxi driver? Even my wife admits to knowing that, and believe me she is not making my review easy. And thank God this beautiful taxi driver also happens to be an Olympic swimmer/diver/rescuer who is able to work effortlessly underwater to save an unconscious Neeson or else – yes you guessed it – THERE WOULDN’T BE A MOVIE.

Of course the cab itself drowns but not to worry about that either because an hour later THE EXACT SAME CAB (WITH THE EXACT SAME CAB NUMBER) is resurrected. Couldn’t the producers have sprung for another cab or at least changed the cab number?

Anyway, luckily for Neeson, late in the movie he regains his memory and recalls that he is an assassin whose profession it is to kill people. He certainly seems like a reliable, dedicated sort and yet as soon as he remembers everything he immediately sets out to thwart the assassination plan . WHY WHY WHY? I know – because if he didn’t.. etc etc etc.

This leaves one last “why” question. Why did I write this review? I’ll tell you why.

BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE WRITERS WHO TRICK PEOPLE BY LEADING THEM TO THINK THERE IS A REASONABLE ENDING WHEN THERE ISN’T. IT’S DECEITFUL TO LEAD PEOPLE ALONG LIKE THAT.

Oh by the way, there is no poker part to end the blog today. I just said there was in order to lead you along to get you to read the movie part. I hope you aren’t in some bedbug infested place as you read this.

The Bluto/Brutus Conundrum

Suppose a friend suggested that you assemble a deck of thirty red cards and twenty black cards and you cut the deck 300 times at $5.00 each cut. If a red card is chosen you win and if a black card is chosen he wins. I suspect you would jump at the chance for two reasons. First, the total maximum risk you would be taking is $1500 if by some billion to one chance (ok it’s actually 2 to the 300th power and I’m way too lazy to try to calculate that number) black cards were chosen 300 times in a row, and secondly because as a 3 to 2 favorite to win, you should win 180 times while your friend should win 120 times, giving you a net profit of $300. Of course in the short run the results might not hold true to the actual odds and in fact you might reasonably come to the exact opposite result – yet all in all it is still a pretty good wager for you.

Now let’s change the rules just a bit. Suppose that instead of playing for $5.00 a cut you were playing for $2,000.00 a cut. Using the same logic you should win $120,000 but at the same time your potential risk would be $600,000.00. Is it still a pretty good wager for you? What if you reasonably came to the exact opposite result and lost $120,000?

If you were a multi-millionaire easily able to withstand a possible short term variance then it would certainly still be a pretty good wager for you. However if there were a reasonable possibility that it would wipe out your entire life savings then your point of view might indeed change.

Now let’s change the rules one more time. Instead of cutting cards let’s play ANY game in which the odds of you winning are 60 percent AT BEST.
Would you be willing to shove thousands of dollars into the pot hand after hand as a 60 percent favorite? Maybe you would. Maybe you are enough of a gambler to be willing to risk everything for this potential edge. I can tell you that I am not because the one thing that any successful poker player needs to do is survive short-term variance.

And yet…. I now find myself in just such a position as I have begun to play pot-limit Omaha on a weekly basis, a game in which it is so rare to become a huge favorite that it is not unusual for a good player to muck the nuts on the flop or even the turn. Think about it. In what other poker game – or for that matter in what other competition in life – would the frontrunner quit because he doesn’t like his chances of winning.

Many players love the excitement of pot-limit Omaha but I will admit to despising the game. So why do I despise the game, and why do I play a game that I despise, two issues that are at odds much like Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics, or much like the fact that in some Popeye cartoons the fat bearded bad guy is named Bluto and in some he is named Brutus.

While physicists have still not resolved the conflict between the General Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics, in the case of pot-limit Omaha as in the case of the fat bearded bad guy I do have an explanation. (Bluto was the character’s original name but the studio changed it to Brutus to avoid a potential copyright problem, not that you care).

First, why do I despise the game? There are three reasons. To begin with as I have alluded above, luck plays a far more important role in Omaha than it does in hold ‘em. A simple way to illustrate this is to point out that often when a player flops the nuts in hold ‘em, he is a significant favorite to win the pot whereas in Omaha a player can flop the nuts and reasonably be an underdog. I am not a gambler. I play poker because it is a game of skill. If I wanted to roll the dice I would roll dice.

The second reason why I despise Omaha is that since each player is actually playing six different hands the permutations are so varied that it entices the true gambler to consistently up the ante. In the game in which I play it is rare that at least two players aren’t all-in by the turn. This kind of action (and thus this kind of risk) far exceeds that which is normally found in hold ‘em.

Finally I despise Omaha because you have to remember four cards and at least according to one annoying player in my game it is unacceptable to lift the cards off the table to look at them, and so you have some very difficult peeking to do.

Okay so I hate Omaha for two and a quarter good reasons. What then would ever possess me to play the game? In response I will tell you that the game I play in is a half and half game – alternating rounds of no limit hold ‘em and pot-limit Omaha. I will also tell you that there are three huge action players in the game who are only willing to play hold ‘em so that they can play Omaha. For this reason I am only willing to play Omaha so that I can play hold ‘em.

We have played for three weeks and I have been forced to readjust my strategy as I have found that these three players are using the hold ‘em rounds to smoke, eat, go to the bathroom and make phone calls. I don’t smoke, am on a diet, have excellent bladder control and have nobody to call in the middle of the night so I needed to find something to do during the Omaha rounds and then it came to me – bring my laptop and write my blogs.

Ooops time for hold ‘em. Gotta go!

I was beating up a game at the Parx recently when a young internet player sat down and within a few minutes I could tell from his playing style and conversation that he expected to plow through the table. There’s a certain arrogance that some players have, a way of playing with their chips while they talk about poker strategy that sends a signal that they are forces to be reckoned with. I have seen many of these kids at work and have learned that the way to beat them is to let them beat themselves through overconfidence.

(As an aside I have heard that a good tell on a player’s poker skills is to observe his ability to handle chips – you know the riffling and fancy fingerwork with them. However as a contrarian I have concluded that generally a player’s dexterity with chips is inversely proportional to his playing ability. Now I’m not claiming to be a great player but I do okay and I am unable to riffle chips at all. While others were practicing the technique, I was concentrating on the game itself. Admittedly I did watch a You Tube video teaching the riffling technique but gave up after a few minutes of frustration).

In any event I saw the kid eyeing my rather hefty stack and I knew that it would only be a matter of time before he would try to raid the chicken coop.

Prevailing theory suggests that the strongest players are those who have a tight-aggressive style. I don’t fit this mold because I usually see a lot of flops which can send a signal to new players that I am a calling station and am generally a weaker player than the rest of the table. After about a half hour I was certain that this was the impression internet boy had of me.

I was involved in a few hands in this regard in which I called bets on the flop and turn only to muck the river. In each case I was on a draw at the right price and did not hit. Since internet boy did not see my cards he may well have assumed that I was flopping around, just to muck my cards to a large river bet.

After about an hour of play I found myself with pocket 7s in the cutoff seat. I would normally limp with a small pair but everyone ahead of me mucked and so I raised to 4 times the blind. The players behind me mucked except for internet boy in the big blind who called. I had a funny feeling that the call was the first step towards potentially making a move on me later in the hand.

The flop was K-J-7 with two diamonds and he checked. When I made a significant bet he made a significant raise. I decided that he did not have two pair because if he did my sense was that he would have smooth-called my bet to trap me on the turn. My reads are far from perfect but I decided that he either had a flush draw or was just going to make a play for the pot with air. I decided to smooth call his raise and peel a card. If it were a diamond I would check call the rest of the way and if not I would trap him later on.

The turn sealed the deal for me. It was another jack, giving me a full house. Internet boy made an overly large bet. I was now certain that he did not have a full house because the bet was too large. If he were holding something like KJ he would not want to push me off the hand at this juncture.

I stalled as I counted my chips, allowing enough time to pass so that it would appear that I had a very difficult decision to make. Knowing that internet boy was surely aware that a forceful call was an indication of weakness I confidently slammed calling chips onto the table as part of my triple-reverse psychology.

The river was a third diamond and internet boy moved another large stack of black chips to the center of the table. Now I was surely hoping that he was on a flush draw and this time I instantly raised, trying to look like a weak player who hit the flush. (I reasoned that if he were on a bluff he would muck anyway and if he were on a flush draw he would hopefully have high cards and call).

He seemed genuinely stunned by my action and responded to it shakily “You have pocket kings?” He then refused to act. He counted and shuffled and recounted. I knew for certain that he didn’t have a full house because the pot size would have demanded a call from any full house. Did he have the nut flush? I was hoping so because even the nut flush would be a callable hand to a player like me who could have chased a smaller flush.

Finally after an eternity he slowly pushed his cards to the dealer and I raked in the pot. And it was then that I knew that his play was totally a bluff. In an obvious attempt to save face at the table he muttered “I mucked a monster. I had pocket 7s but I’m sure you had pocket kings.”

Unfortunately I had to leave shortly after that hand but I’m sure we’ll cross paths again. At least I hope so.

My buddy Peddie pointed out that since I wrote a poker blog about a disasterous day that I had last week I should write one about yesterday which was the exact opposite. I'll make it brief but the overriding theme is that poker is a never-ending game interrupted by sleep, food, sex, shoplifting, whatever - but it always continues in a marathonic (I invented a word) sort of way, and the only time to really tally up is when you are gone and your friends and relatives say "he did very well in poker," or "for his sake I hope they don't have playing cards in heaven."

I wasn't going to play poker yesterday but knowing that I had a lot of ground to make up would have led to a mentally draining weekend (and at my age I really need to conserve the few brain cells I have left) so I pointed the poker van southward on the New Jersey Turnpike and found myself in the nine seat, which as some of you may know, was THE seat that led me to fame and glory in days of yore. Symbolism aside, the seat played as it did in those yore days. At first it seemed as if the bad streak would continue as weak player Dave called my pocket 8s raise with A-10 to a flop of 10-10-2. But as time passed and I continued to muck, muck and muck unplayable cards I sensed that this could be a special day. Two hours into the game, with barely a hand to play I was close to even. Surely mathematics would kick in.

And then it did with a vengeance. Weak Dave raised on the button and I called from the big blind with pocket 6s. A strong Asian player (I don't know his name but he insists that he's half-Italian and half-Jewish) called as well. The flop was 8-6-2 with two spades. I bet out 60 and Asian guy called. Weak Dave then raised to 360. I stalled for effect and then seemingly reluctantly called the raise. Asian guy then shoved his stack of over 2000 into the center of the pot. Weak Dave agonized for quite a while before mucking pocket kings, and of course I insta-called. I have played with Asian guy many times and was momentarily worried that he might have pocket 8s but I dismissed that because he would have raised with them preflop in front of Weak Dave, so I essentially knew he was on a flush draw. When the fourth six hit the turn I coasted home free.

And then it became the sky's the limit as I began to run over the table, bluffing weak players out of big pots and revealing monster hands to players who dared get in the way of this steamroller. I pushed one young internet player off a better hand and when I barrelled through him on the very next hand making an unusually large river bet he said "you can't be doing this every hand," and pushed his chips into the pot only to be faced with the fact that I hit runner-runner flush.

The coup de grace came with a flop of J-9-4 to my pocket 4s. I bet and got one caller, a very aggressive new-to-the-table player who had started bullying people even as he was first settling into his seat. The player smooth-called my bet. An ace hit the turn and I made another modest bet hoping to induce a raise. To my delight he reached for a stack of green chips and pushed them forward, raising 250 more. I frowned and squirmed and counted my chips before pretending to reluctantly make the call. The river was inconsequential and he pushed half of his 1000 dollar stack into the pot. Again I hesitated, squinted and frowned before uttering the golden words - "I'm all-in." He couldn't get his chips into the pot fast enough with his A-J and when I revealed my set he just slumped back as if hit in the stomach with a cannonball.

Grabbing my water bottle under my arm I proceeded to the cage with my racks of chips. Cashiers and other players on the line congratulated me on a great session but I never for a moment forgot that poker never ends. I smiled and said thanks and went home to eat and sleep and... well the rest is none of your business.

I’m writing this one for me. It’s not going to be interesting (not that any of my other blogs are) and it’s not going to be insightful (ntaomoba). It’s just going to be cathartic for me because when I realized that this was likely to be a disastrous day (I call it the real D-DAY) I started taking notes on my hands – well not ON my hands – on paper ABOUT my hands.

Some days you can just sort of tell that no matter how well you play you are destined to lose. This was one of those days. It doesn’t mean that you give up hope, it simply means that you continue to try to do your best not to start screaming and throwing cards at the dealer as you pray that the laws of mathematics kick in. They rarely do on days like this but if you’re going to pray for anything then you might as well pray for the laws of mathematics. After all, what could be more important in the universe than the laws of mathematics – and by extension the laws of physics – because without these laws our ipods would be too large to carry around.

If you are now thinking to yourself what the hell is he talking about, then you can see the effect D-DAY has on a stressed out poker player.

It’s a 2-5 no-limit game and for hand number one I sit down into the big blind and am greeted by pocket aces. Six limpers in front of me so I raise to 55. One caller to a flop of 9-3-3. Does he have 9-9? No! Does he have 3-3? No! He has 9-3 suited. 9-3 9-3
9-3!!!!! Rebuy.

Next big hand I limp with A-6 suited. The flop is A-A-6. Another player bets and I smooth-call. The turn is a 2. The other player makes a large bet and again I smooth-call. The river is a 7 and the other player goes all-in. Would Stu Ungar fold? Would Doyle Brunson fold? Would anyone who has ever held a chip in his hand fold?????? Of course not. I suppose you’ve guessed by now that the lucky b**tard (bastard for those of you who can’t read stars) held A7.

I’m getting tired (maybe because I’ve been playing online since I walked through the door) so I will summarize a bit. Five times I had big pocket pairs and five times players with small pairs flopped sets. Twice I flopped flushes (both times limping with Q-10 suited) and twice I was NEVER in the lead.

Twice I had pocket jacks on the button when everyone else folded to me and both times the big blind had pocket kings.

When Rod the floor guy approached and asked me if I wanted to lock up a seat in the big game that was starting I responded “sure if I have any chips left by the time it starts.” After the following hand I did not have any chips left. Ok I’m done. I hope you didn’t read this far. If you did I’m sorry for the abrupt ending. I warned you.

I’m going to take a position here that is contrary to everything I’ve ever read or heard from the “experts,” and while I will be the first to admit that I might be wayyyy off base, I have come to truly believe that the importance of being able to read one’s opponents cards is extremely overrated.

This epiphany came to me during a recent hand at the Parx Casino, and to preface the story I am reminded of Richie the Hat, a young aggressive player from my Palm days who was the best reader of an opponent’s cards this side of Daniel Negreanu. Time after time Richie would make amazing reads. To a board of 9-7-6-4-2 he would say “you have 8-10” and he would be correct. And yet he would still call the all-in with 3-5. To a board of 4 diamonds he would say “you definitely have the 9 of diamonds” and then call with the 8 of diamonds. Sometimes with a board of Q-9-7-5-2 he would say “you have the Q-3 of clubs,” and still call with A-9. He was ALWAYS right and yet always lost.

The fact is that while I had often envied Richie’s amazing abilities and while I was rarely able to deduce my opponent’s holdings in any similar fashion, I was a consistent winner and he went broke and far beyond, which should have been a clue even way back then. (Okay your argument will be that if Richie trusted his reads he would have been a winner, thus bolstering the importance of being able to read opponent’s cards. Thank you for pointing this out but I’m not really interested in facts because they get in the way of conjecture).

In any event, the hand that brought me to the final realization was as follows: In a 2-5 no-limit game I played K-Q offsuit in a 5 way limp pot to a flop of K-J-10 with two diamonds. The small blind bet out 100 and I smooth-called. Everyone else mucked around to Hui who was on the button and moved all-in for 400. Hui is a very aggressive player with a wide range of possible holdings. The small blind who had about 700 left took a great deal of time and then smooth-called the raise. The fact that he didn’t shove all of his chips into the pot led me to believe that he was on a draw. If he had a made hand like a straight, set or two pair the proper move would have been for him to go all-in over the top in order to make it more costly if I were on a draw. His failure to do so clearly indicated to me that he was playing two diamonds. Since I was likely behind Hui I thought it would be a good idea to mitigate my potential loss by going all-in over the top since I had the small blind covered and he appeared to be pot-committed for 300 more. And this way if he missed his draw I would get a rebate of 300 if I lost to Hui. So I shoved and to my complete surprise the small blind showed K-10 and mucked.

The turn and river were blanks and Hui just shook his head and said “I have a jack,” losing the pot to my kings. Had I made the correct read I would have mucked my hand and the small blind would have won the pot with two pair.

I have come to believe that this is not an isolated incident but that it is a regular part of a game which is often played with weak players whose failure to make the proper moves lead the better players to false conclusions. And by the same token excellent players can often disguise their hands making it as difficult to deduce their holdings as with the weak players.

What is the lesson to be learned from this? Frankly I’m not really sure but now I’m going to start thinking about whether reading your own cards is overrated as well. After playing online I’m becoming convinced that this may very well be true. In fact there’s a story about Annette Obrerstad who won a 180 player online tournament while only peeking at her cards once during the entire session. I guess she’s a step or two ahead of me on this issue (but then again she was 15 years old when it happened). Anyway I can see the ultimate consequences of such revolutionary ideas. Can you?

Some days are diamonds… some are hearts, clubs, or spades. Yesterday was a none-of-the- above day. Instead it was the kind of day that lives in poker player infamy.

I arrived at the Parx just in time to grab the last seat in a new 2-5 no limit game, the highest stakes game in progress at the time. I decided to post the $5 big blind out of turn in order to jump right into the action and as I gazed down at two black aces I smugly believed that I had made a wise investment indeed, once again failing to take into account the whims of the poker gods and their twisted senses of right and wrong. When the player in front of me raised to $30 I reraised to $100. Slow playing aces in a multi-way pot is an invitation to disaster and although I wanted one caller, I wanted ONLY one caller. With multiple callers preflop, pocket aces could go from a 65% favorite (or higher) in a heads-up situation down into the 30 something percent range.

As everyone after me folded back to the original raiser I breathed a slight sigh of relief, and when he reraised to $350 it was a poker player’s dream. I dawdled a bit for effect and then pushed the rest of my initial MAXIMUM buy-in to the center of the table. The other player had me covered and instantly made the call.

At the Parx there is no requirement to show your cards after an all-in bet and so we simply watched the flop. And by simply watching the flop of K, Q, 2 I knew that my 84% favorite position had shrunk to about 5%. There was no doubt in my mind that my opponent held pocket kings or queens and of course as the turn and river appeared to be irrelevant cards, much to my dismay my read proved to be correct as my opponent turned over two ladies and pulled the massive stack of chips to his bosom.

I rebought THE MAXIMUM again and that lasted almost 12 minutes when my big blind of J-4 of hearts in a 6 way limp pot met up with A-K-2 of hearts. Small bets and calls steadily built the pot and took us to the river where the three hearts had been joined by two black cards which also placed an inviting four card straight to Broadway on board. When this board elicited a bet followed by an all-in from a shoot from the hip bad, bad player I called with enthusiasm, only to watch him excitedly display the Q-3 of hearts which he played under the gun.

Two MAXIMUM buy ins gone in less time than it took to find a parking space. Suddenly however things quickly began to look up. – Or so I thought as the announcement came over the loudspeaker for the start of a 5-10 no-limit game, the big game at the Parx. I maneuvered quickly through the crowded poker room, grabbing my favorite seat du jour, the one seat, which allows me to have my back to the wall in case anyone were to go postal.

Before you could say cry me a river the cards were in the air and once again I found myself looking at a monster hand, A-K of clubs. I raised to $40 and a guy I’ll call John (because that’s his name) reraised immediately to $150. Now I have played with John many times. He has played in my home game and although he is one of those guys who travels to Las Vegas to play poker, he is actually a very weak inconsistently wild player who alwaysssss loses. Since I was familiar with his cowboy style of play I reraised to $400 and sensed that he was making a crying call. He then suggested we check it down meaning that we don’t bet any further. I took this as a sign of weakness and responded that I don’t play that way, But when the flop of 10-8-2 appeared and I knew that even if he had pocket threes I could not move him off the hand, I checked with a big smile as if to accede that we would check it down. This did save me a few bucks as a Queen hit the turn and his A-Q beat my A-K.

So now I was tilting. And this is where things can get way out of hand. All of the poker players who know me – and okay even my wife and daughter - know that with the possible exception of Jimmy D, nobody can tilt the way I do. Tilting has been the biggest detriment to my game, and yet has often proven to be the biggest asset as well. While the good players line up salivating when I am on tilt, many others run in fear, especially those who have played with me in the big Palm game.

Asian Kevin was playing at the table. Many players dislike Kevin because he is brash and often nasty to other players and especially dealers. As it happens I like Kevin a lot, primarily because back in the old Borgata days he was at my table when a dealer’s mistake cost me $600. I called for the floor and Kevin – who was not involved in the hand – immediately jumped up and started screaming that I had been cheated out of $600 and I always appreciated that.

Back to the Parx. I looked down at A-K once again as a player in front of me raised to $35. I reraised to $100 (which had nothing to do with the fact that I was tilting) and Kevin and the other player smooth-called, meaning to me that Kevin had a very strong hand. The flop was Q-10-2 with two clubs (I had no clubs). Kevin bet out $270 and the other player mucked. Normally I too would muck but since I was tilting I found a way to call. Maybe Kevin had two clubs and I was ahead. And after all I did have two overs to the board and a six-outer gutshot to the nuts. And so I pushed $270 very unwisely into the pot. The turn was a jack of clubs giving me Broadway but also putting three clubs on the board. Kevin moved all in for another $350 and when I called he said “do you have clubs?” I shook my head no and he smiled. “Then you lose,” he said turning over pocket queens for a set of queens. “Sorry Kevin,” I replied. “I hit a gutshot.” Kevin just stared at me for a moment. “You did me bad!” In the game of poker a tilt call is always welcome, except when it happens to hit.

So now I was off tilt. It only takes one suckout for me to do that and I was thinking it’s time to move up, up, up. So I played the rush on the very next hand, calling a raise with 7-8 of hearts from a chipped-up player who only plays kings and aces. When the player made a big overbet to a flop of 8-7-2 I appropriately moved all-in. He went into the tank as I took a swig of my lukewarm water. Finally with shaky hands he pushed his chips in. “NO ACE NO KING” I shouted over and over as the dealer turned the next card, but I forgot to add one other card to my mantra. I should have said “no deuce”as well. I forgot. The deuce on the turn sealed my fate as his aces up counterfeited my two pair and I understood the pain of a starting pitcher sent to the showers as I took that seemingly never-ending escalator ride to oblivion.

It’s going to be a long rest of the weekend.

By the way, I’ve played poker for a long time and have seen many crazy plays but I just saw a new one at the Parx 5-10 no-limit game. A player raised to $35 and another reraised to $175. There were two callers to the reraise. The flop was 9-6-3 with two spades and the reraiser bet out $400 attracting one of the callers. The turn was a red 4 at which time the reraiser shoved all in for $600 more. The other player insta-called prompting the reraiser to frown and comment “You called on a flush draw?” Apparently so because the river card was not a spade and the caller disgustedly mucked his cards forfeiting the pot to the reriaser who called for the chips but as is the house rule the dealer pointed out that he must show his cards in order to win. The reraiser sheepishly turned over 7-2 much to the chagrin of the mucker who surely had the better hand.

It’s been a while since my last blog but that’s only because I haven’t had anything new to say about poker and I didn’t want to force things and have you all thinking that my blog jumped the shark (if you don’t already think that). But after last night I need to unload a bit about a deadly game called seven-deuce, also known as 7-2.

As you may know 7-2 is the worst possible starting hand in Texas Hold- ‘em, and sometimes bored players agree to play a side game called 7-2. The premise is simple. If a player wins a hand with 7-2 he collects money from all the other players. Since a starting hand of 7-2 rarely wins, players often resort to bluffing in order to win the game.

So here it is Christmas Eve and I’m at the Parx playing at a table filled with Jews, Asians, degenerates and combinations thereof when someone who was way too bored to be at the game suggested that we play 7-2 for $25.00 a man. At first I objected, pointing out that the game is a form of gambling and that I don’t gamble, but when the rest of the table unanimously agreed to play I had no choice but to accede.

My buddy Peddie was at the table, and as we do whenever we are forced to play this ridiculous game, we related the story of Potter’s cousin Greg who lost $5500.00 trying to bluff with 7-2. At the end of the story I commented that although I was a part of the action, I would muck 7-2 in any event.

Approximately five hands later I looked down at my hole cards and of course there they were, 7-2 offsuit. Since poker is a game of deception and everyone knows that I won’t play 7-2, I raised to 40 dollars hoping that everyone would fold and I would win the $200 total bounty. In this situation it seemed certainly worthwhile to risk 40 dollars in order to win 200. To my dismay Sean called me. He is a solid player and in my mind I decided that I was done with the hand. Assuming I didn’t hit a favorable flop I would simply kiss the 40 dollars goodbye.

The flop came 4,4,6 with two diamonds and it was my turn to act first. Since there was now $80 in the pot I decided that there was a likelihood that Sean played two big cards and if the flop did not help him I could win the pot with a bet, so I bet $100. He instantly called. Now I decided that I was absolutely, positively finished with this hand and would accept my $140 loss as a lesson to avoid dabbling in forces beyond my control.

The turn card was a 2 of diamonds giving me a pair of deuces. There were three diamonds on board though and I didn’t have a diamond so I checked with the intention of mucking to any bet or just checking it down and losing to any pair. Sean reached for chips and bet $175. As I watched him carefully I thought I could see a moment of hesitation in his action. What if he had ace-king with a big diamond? I could actually be ahead with my deuces. So instead of throwing my cards into the muck I found myself reaching for raising chips and pushing $400 into the pot. To my great dismay Sean immediately pushed an additional $225 to the middle of the table, calling my raise.

OKAY OKAY OKAY I’M DONE! $540 to learn a valuable lesson. I watched helplessly as the dealer turned over the river card. It was a 6, making the board 4,4,2,6,6 with three diamonds. Now even if Sean was holding ace-king I would lose because my deuces got counterfeited (meaning that two higher pair made my deuces worthless and Sean would have a better kicker). Things couldn’t be worse. Or could they as I found myself pushing an additional $1800 into the pot. Stubbornness is a killer in poker. Stupidity is even worse. Apparently I had a huge abundance of both. In my mangled thought process I considered that maybe Sean had a small pocket pair, and that maybe he would think I had a 4 or a 6 or a flush. Or maybe the power in the casino would suddenly go out and I could grab my chips and run.

As I pushed the chips forward Sean stared into my eyes and said the words that took 10 years off my life (and I don’t really have 10 years to waste). He smirked and said “Do you have seven deuce? Why would you make this bet?” And then he took 10 minutes as he began to analyze the hand. My huge river bet made no sense to him whatsoever. As he talked he showed me his hole cards hoping for a reaction. He had pocket queens. At least five times he commented that the only thing that made sense was that I was playing seven deuce. And then of course I remembered that another friend had told me that Sean is a calling station and rarely mucks when he has a good hand.

Finally after an agonizingly long analysis (during which time I simply stopped looking in his direction) I could actually hear his cards hit the table. I turned quickly and saw them in the muck. I had won the pot and $540 of his money. I was almost embarrassed to turn over 7-2 but not enough to forego the $200 bounty. Sean just smiled as the internet whiz sitting next to him told me that he would have insta-called (information which I later used against him when I overbet the nuts).

So here is my vow. I will never play 7-2 again… well maybe just for a small bet.

Odds and Ends

Home Game

For those of you who have played in the same home game as I have draw your own conclusions. Limp pot with 5 players. Flop is 7-7-9 rainbow. The board is checked by everyone. Turn is a 10. Again the board is checked by everyone. River is a 6. Someone bets and two players muck their cards from the two blinds at the same time. One set of cards accidentally turns face up and is a 7-4. Both players vehemently deny that the exposed hand was theirs. One player is Tony and the other is Visor. Who is lying?


Tells

You raise preflop from middle position with pocket 8s. Everyone mucks except the big blind who calls. The flop is A-7-2 rainbow. The big blind looks at his cards and after hesitating he checks. What is your play?
In my opinion the very fact that he looked at his cards in that situation is a tell that he doesn’t have an ace and your play is to make a significant enough bet to end the hand at that point. When a player has an ace he doesn’t usually look at his cards when an ace hits the flop.


Straddles

A straddle is essentially a blind raise (a raise made before the player looks at his hole cards) and while it is only allowed in Atlantic City casinos as such, in home games the straddler is allowed to reraise after all the other players have had their turns to act. One of the players in my home game complained that when people straddle it brings the game to a higher level than he is comfortable playing. Surprisingly this is a player who knows the game very well and yet he doesn’t seem to understand that when other people straddle and re-straddle it is an advantage to the rest of the table because the straddler(s) are putting blind money into the pot. If a player is willing to risk putting a significant amount of money into the pot without looking at his cards, players should be fighting for seats in that game and anyone who is fearful of such an act shouldn’t be playing poker.


Sweating a hand

This term refers to having the player next to you looking at your cards if he is out of the hand, in order to bring you luck. Of course there is no validity to doing this but I believe that my record of sweating people is unsurpassed in the western hemisphere. One night I sweated Russian Lenny and he flopped two pair six times in a row. While he was grateful for the hard work I did for him, he was furious at me whenever I played a hand because that meant that I couldn’t sweat him. I offered to muck my hands for half his winnings but I guess he didn’t want my help that badly.

Lobster

I arrived at a friend’s home game and when he mentioned that Lobster would be arriving shortly I began to salivate. I haven’t been at a game where lobster was served since the days of playing at the catering hall. Imagine my disappointment when this skinny bearded guy sauntered in and Jimmy introduced him to everyone as Lobster. I was crying in my veal scallopine. Anyway another player whispered to me that Lobster should really be nicknamed “Fish.” I filed that away and watched incredulously as the crustacean hit hand after hand and built a considerable stack. When he felted Tiny and thanked him for the donation I knew that something had to be done. Of course normally when something has to be done the cards never fall right and nothing gets done. But on we played. Although Lobster was king I had built a considerable stack myself. He was now raising almost every hand and when I peeked down at jack-10 offsuit I decided to see a flop (as did 3 others). The flop came Ace-King-7 with two spades and Lobster made a considerable bet. There was no doubt that he was ahead of me but I eyed his skyscraper of black chips and after thinking about his continual loose play decided to call to try to hit the gutshot or perhaps try to steal the pot later on if another spade hit the felt. And suddenly – JACKPOT – a queen. I had hit the gutshot and was now holding the nuts. So many things going through my mind. I hope he has a big hand. I hope the board doesn’t pair on the river, I hope a third spade doesn’t hit the river. I hope he bets. I hope the veal didn’t stain my shirt.

First things first and I was delighted as his hand moved towards his black chips pushing some forward. And now the dilemma, how much to raise. Wanting him to call I raised just enough to insure that if he wasn’t on a total bluff he would continue to play. And he pushed in calling chips instantly. At that point I put him on ace-king or ace-queen. I held my breath as the river card fell. It was a 5 of hearts. No flush, no boat. I was holding the nuts. Lobster checked to me and I had to make a decision. Should I make a value bet which he would have to call or should I roll the dice. Every factor in my decision led me to the conclusion that I should go all-in.

First I could not lose. Second if he had at least ace-queen he would make the call. (Good players could lay ace-queen or maybe even ace-king down but Lobster would have to make the call). Third he could put me on a missed draw in which case he might even call me with a naked ace. So in went all my chips and into the tank went lobster. (get it?) He thought and he pondered and he pondered and he thought (okay I’m getting carried away). Finally he looked at me and said “Would you take 300 back?” I had no idea what he meant. Did he mean take 300 back and he would call or we each take 300 back and he would fold? Since the pot was way larger than that, the very question seemed designed simply to get information from me and so I sat stonefaced and unresponsive. Lobster then made a mucking motion with his cards as he stared at me to see my reaction. Once again he got nothing. Then he showed his cards to the other side of the table to see if I would react to their reactions. And on it went as I wondered whether there was anything I could do to induce his call, finally deciding that I just needed to remain nonresponsive. Finally someone called the clock and when the dealer announced 15 seconds left I had all but given up hope for a call when suddenly out of the cornber of my eye I saw the lobster claw shoving a stack of chips forward as announced his call. When I turned over my hole cards he mucked his hand which I later learned was king-queen a terrible hand to call with. I had won most of his chips and within 20 minutes he had lost the rest, rebought, lost his rebuy and headed out the door. No offense catering hall but Jimmy’s was the best lobster I ever had.

Losing

I recently played in a 5-10 no-limit game at the Borgata, and as I dragged my sorry butt to the car at the end of the twelve hour session I knew that I would be writing this blog. I am normally a very aggressive player but as the hands began to unfold I quickly realized that the table was filled with young internet kamikaze’s willing to push their chips in at any given moment. For this reason I decided to play an extremely tight game, choosing my spots carefully. It is a general axiom in poker that if your opponents are playing loosely, you play tight and vice versa.

Over the course of the day I only played about a dozen hands to the river. That translates to only one hand per hour and those of you who know me probably find it hard to believe, but it is true.

On five of those occasions when I played through to the river, I was all-in on the flop or the turn. Each time I got my money in right and each time I lost.

For example, on the first all-in hand I called an under-the-gun raise with 7-5 of diamonds from the big blind after six other players called. The flop was 7-5-2 with two clubs. The original raiser made a large bet and everyone else folded. Assuming that the raiser had an overpair or perhaps A-K my proper play was to reraise, which I did. He instantly shoved all of his chips to the middle. I discounted the possibility that he had flopped a set because I don’t think he would have raised under the gun with a small pocket pair and so I knew that I was a considerable favorite, therefore I made the call. The turn was a club and he excitedly turned his cards over, revealing A-J of clubs. As a harmless card fell on the river I knew it was going to be a long day.

As a playwright I have gotten to know many actors over the years and one truism among them is that when they are working they believe they will always be working and when they are out of work they believe they will never work again.

In a similar vein when poker players are on a winning streak they often think it will never end, and then when they are on a losing streak they think they will never win again. In some respects for poker it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because many players are more relaxed and confident when they are winning, allowing them to play better, while conversely many play much worse when they are on an extended losing streak, either tilting and playing erratically aggressively or by shriveling into a shell and allowing themselves to be steamrolled.

As my opponents know, I have always been the former. In the long term it has worked for me and one of the popular sayings in my old home game was “Uncle Marv is off the mat.” But I recognize the fact that it is a bad plan, and of late it has cost a lot more than it has gained, forcing me to work to overcome my desire to throttle people who are beating me.

So how does a player handle an extended losing streak? The first thing to recognize is that there are going to be days on which you are simply going to lose no matter how well you play. When this happens you have to accept the inevitable without allowing it to affect your future play. Easier said than done for most people but if you keep long-term records of your progress and you are generally a winner then you have to absorb the loss in your mind and just start fresh next game. Of course if your long-term records portray you as a long-term loser then you have to regroup and figure out whether you should even be playing the game at all.

But maybe it’s not just the luck of the draw. Maybe your game has changed somehow, even in a barely perceptible way and if you want to go back to your winning ways you need to identify the problem and correct it. In the clear light of day (not when you are sitting at the poker table) you should focus on the way you have been playing of late. Has something changed. Sometimes slight variations of play can turn a winner into a loser. (And then again - most frustratingly – poker is about change, about not being pigeonholed. For example, one player in my former home game always raised a certain amount when he had ace-king preflop. For every other holding in which he raised he used a different amount. Smart players would vie for position, playing his ace-king raise with any two cards because he always made a continuation bet. Therefore if the flop did not contain an ace or a king, a post-flop raise was always in order and would take down the pot).

But as I was saying, although change is good, unintentional changes may be throwing your game off. For example suppose your strategy when you flop second pair in a limp pot is to never call a bet. Now you have been running very lucky and so you decide to call a bet with second pair. You miss the turn and muck but you do it again the next time and the next. Occasionally your hand improves and you still lose. You have now slipped into a pattern and almost imperceptibly it has begun to cost you money but since it is a small change in strategy you may not even consciously realize that you are doing it.

Another example is your range of starting hands. You normally try to be a tight-aggressive player. You never limp with Queen-rag suited for example. But you have been losing, losing, losing and you need to turn things around. So now you are calling even small raises with Queen-rag suited or 5-6 offsuit or other hands which can only lead to trouble. You are pressing desperately and your fear that you may never win again becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Losing streaks are an integral part of the poker scene. Doyle Brunson once commented that he has probably been broke 600 times during his lifetime of poker playing. And he’s among the best in the world. If you explore your play during an extended losing streak and are convinced that nothing has changed for the worse then you need to understand and accept the fact that the more you play, the truer your results will be to the odds and you need to just hang on, not hang yourself.

And let me address one other thing that has been hotly debated among my poker companions, and that is the efficacy of locking down or playing almost no hands in a game when you are winning a lot. One super-lucky s.o.b. in my home game always locks down if we are in the last two hours of the game and he is ahead. And since I’ve gone from a big winner to a loser in the last two hours of the game three times this month, my friends have suggested I follow the s.o.b.’s play. I could not disagree more with this concept. Poker is a game that never ends. You play, you stop, you eat, you sleep, you do other stuff and you play again. It is a true continuum and when you are running strong (and perhaps playing strong) you want to maximize your results. This does not mean that you should loosen up your game. It simply means that you should play to win when the cards dictate it. On one particular night in the last hour of a game in which I was doing very well I lost back-to-back hands with a flopped set to a straight on the river and a turned set to a gutshot straight on the river. I ended the night in the red but simply because my 80% chances of winning did not hold up. I did not sleep very well that night but not because I thought that I played badly or that I should have been in lockdown. For every instance in which I have gone from a winner to a loser in that situation, there have been four instances of going from a winner to a HUGE winner. If there is a reasonable chance that you will never play poker again and you want to end your career on a winning note then by all means go into lockdown. But if you’re like almost all of the poker players that I know, continue to play as if it were the first hand of the evening. In the long run it will definitely pay off.

An Interesting Session

I was involved in an interesting set of circumstances recently at the Borgata where I regularly play in the 5-10 no-limit cash game. After being moved to the main game from a must-move table I found myself in the unusual position of going all-in on the river three times in the first hour. In the first two instances the flops involved two suited cards making potential flush draws. Each time a third suited card failed to hit the board, leaving me with the nuts both times. In each case I moved all-in on the river because of the remaining stack sizes of my opponents and the fact that any river call at all would have warranted an all-in call. In both cases however, my opponents mucked and my cards were not shown to the table.

In the third instance I played pocket sixes in a limp pot of five players to a flop of jack, six, deuce with two hearts. The player to my right overbet $100 into the $50pot. I decided to smooth call and trap any raiser. Instead the other three players folded. The turn was a jack and the player now bet $300.00. I was confident that he didn’t have pocket jacks since he had limped and would certainly not make a large bet with quads. It was also highly unlikely that he played jack-deuce or jack-six and so I thought that he was probably either playing a blank jack or two hearts. This being the case I decided to smooth call my full-house hoping to see a big bet if a heart hit the board. The river was a harmless seven of spades and my opponent checked. At this point I was convinced that he didn’t have a full-house. Therefore he either had a missed flush draw or a blank jack for trips. I decided to go all-in for another $2000 into the $850 pot. If he had the missed draw he would muck to any bet but if he had the blank jack he might make the call. After all, I wasn’t dealing with Negreanu or Ivey. So I pushed and he went into the tank for two full minutes after which he showed jack-queen and mucked. A young aggressive player on the other side of the table responded immediately. “Oh my God I would have insta-called that missed flush draw.” A friend on my side of the table then whispered to me ”you’ve got that guy right where you want him,” and I knew that given the right set of circumstances I could make a killing with that information.

The right set of circumstances didn’t come for almost five hours as play continued. Finally I found myself in the big blind with ace-king of clubs. I raised to $50 and the young aggressive player at the other end of the table was the only caller. I was thrilled at the flop of queen, jack, three with two clubs. It gave me the nut flush draw, a gut shot straight draw and two overcards. I continuation bet $100 and my opponent immediately raised the minimum to $200.00. After some hesitation (for effect only) I called. A dream turn card then hit, the nine of clubs giving me the nut flush. I checked to my opponent who had about $3500.00 left. He bet $300. Once again I deliberated and asked to see his chips since he was covering his stacks with his hands. Of course I already knew approximately how much he had but I was hoping this request might make him think I had a naked ace of clubs and needed to calculate the implied odds of calling. I then made the call. The river was a red eight insuring me the nuts and putting four cards to a straight on board. And this is the moment at which his earlier comment determined my course of action. Normally I would make a pot sized value bet here because good play dictates that if he didn’t have a flush he should check the river. Knowing however that I was dealing with an aggressive player who likely makes impulsive decisions I checked. To my delight, out of the corner of my eye I saw him reaching for chips. I then watched somewhat incredulously as he bet only $300 into the $1100 pot, thus opening the door for me. Either he had a flush and was making a “call me” value bet or he had no hand whatsoever and could not win without betting. Of course I did consider a third option – that he had a hand with some limited potential such as a straight, a set or two pair but the reward of value betting in those situations is far outweighed by the possibility of being trapped by a big flush or even smooth-called by small one.

In any event the time had arrived for me to raise. If he had no hand whatsoever he would not call any raise. If he had a low flush, a straight, a set or two pair he would be very unlikely to call a huge raise – except that I knew he was convinced that I was making all-in moves on missed draws. And so I raised all-in. I suppose it seemed like a bizarre play to most of the players but the unique set of circumstances leading to it made me think otherwise. My opponent took almost five minutes to decide as he first stacked and restacked his chips and then glared at me without blinking. Finally he uttered the two words that are music to the ears of anyone holding the nuts “I call.” I turned up the nut flush and he threw his cards disgustedly to the muck where they flipped up. He was playing queen, ten offsuit and hit the straight. It was a horrible call. If I had a ten he would have simply chopped the pot and if I had a flush he would have lost. Based on my earlier play he had to have decided that I was bluffing a missed draw. It was the only reason for him to make the call.

The lesson is obvious. You shouldn’t only be alert to tells from those who are in a hand. You can gather plenty of information about others at the table simply by paying attention to comments they may make about hands in which they aren’t even involved.

LENNY

I have played poker with Lenny for at least five years and as a reader of my blog he wondered why he wasn’t included in my colorful characters blog. Lenny doesn’t play blind like Lance, he doesn’t call-muck or raise-muck like Doctor Dosh, he doesn’t read cards correctly and then call anyway when he’s beaten like Richie the Hat and he doesn’t straddle for $400 like Paul but that doesn’t mean he isn’t colorful.

He was especially “colorful” the night that he was chip leader in a thirty man tournament with a very large buy-in. Doctor Dosh had arrived late and was not in the tournament, and when Lenny was forced to leave the table in order to take an important business call, Doctor Dosh took it upon himself to play Lenny’s hands. Lenny returned to the table fifteen minutes later just as Doctor Dosh was pushing in the last of Lenny’s chips on an ill-timed bluff. Yes Lenny was quite “colorful” that night.

He was “colorful” on another night at a home game in his own house, when at about 3:30 A.M. from the button he looked down at his cards to find pocket aces. I happened to have been playing that hand and when another player made a significant raise I reraised even more significantly with pocket queens. Sitting between me and Lenny was Ariel, a player whose style of poker could best be described as maniacal. Without a thought Ariel called my reraise. It was then Lenny’s turn and since we were all deep-stacked he raised enough to drive all mortal men out of the pot. Any of the players in that home game would tell you that I was the most aggressive fearless player in that game and yet when Lenny reraised, my queens shriveled like a dead lizard in the desert. There was no doubt to anyone that he held pocket aces. We all mucked – all except for Ariel - who nonchalantly tossed his chips into the pot. When the flop came 10-5-2 rainbow Ariel calmly turned to Lenny and said “I’m all-in.” Lenny instantly called and Ariel turned up 10-2 offsuit, which held up to win the monster pot. Yes Lenny was “colorful” on that night as well.

In fact Lenny can be quite “colorful” whenever anybody sucks out on him. If he raises with A-K and some poor shnook calls with A-Q and the flop is Q-Q-A, you can be assured that Lenny will be “colorful”. And if it happens at the beginning of the session you can bet your last chip that he will be “colorful” until the final card of the final hand of the night is a distant memory. In fact there came a point when I would ask Lenny what he wanted me to do when he raised pre-flop. ”Lenny should I call or muck? I’ll do whatever you say.” I did this so that Lenny could only blame himself for any mishap and yet even then I could never be sure that he wouldn’t get “colorful”.

Lenny is an intelligent, fun guy and I will say without equivocation that he is a loveable teddy bear with a heart of gold. He’s one of the people I enjoy playing with the most because the laughs rarely stop – exceptof course when he’s “colorful”.

This is my Lenny column but I want to make a quick comment about another player in my home game: Tony would love to try bluffing but he hasn’t been able to get cards that are bad enough.

Now back to Lenny. Lenny we love you. Don't ever change!!!