$o$o's Blog

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

Ok today is Sunday, March 22nd and today I want to talk about Multi-Tabling as with online players this is by far the biggest thing people have trouble with. Especially if you are older( by older I mean over the age of 30:eek
First and Foremost I do not approve of Multitabling MTTs. This is stupid and all in all a very bad decision.
MTTs require concentration and when your playing 3 or 4 MTTs at a time, you are only hurting yourself and in the end you will NOT be profitable at all.
SnGs, is a different story. Normal sitngos start with 9 or 10 players and pay the top 3. However there are also 6max SnGs where they only pay the top 2.
Dpending on what site your playing on is where I wanna start talking about multitabling.
Stars/Tilt- Multitabling on stars and tilt has its advantages and disadvantages. Each game has its own screen, I see that as a disadvanatage merely because If you want to multitable you have to tile each screen and create a full screen of nothing but poker tables, so your not free to do anythign else if you want to, such as listening to music, surfing the web, getting on NDN.
The advantage is that you can see every screen at once so you know when its your turn etc.
Merge/Cake/Other- Multitabling on these networks also has its advantages and disadvantages. On these networks there is only oen screen no matter how many screens you are playing. This makes it easier to do other things while playing, so your not limited to just poker.
The big disadvantage is say your playign 9 tables. Well you may have 9 tables popping into the main screen at once, and this can cause for alot of hectic scenese:( Something you definatley do not want is to be all frustrated by playing so my advice is do not do more tables then you are ready to handle.
Thanks for reading in and hopefully Ill be able to update this blog everyday with new strategys and what not. Thanks for listenin.
$o$o

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

Ok everyone just wanted to add on to what I'm saying because I know that people are going to say that I am being biased towards bad players and I am not at all.
The actual difference between good Holdem players and less-good ones is that a good player will more often bet second pair when good and fold it when it's a loser. Thus, even though everyone gets approximately the same cards in a game with very high short-term random luck, the good player will extract a little positive value from marginally good situations and save from losing a little negative value in marginally bad situations. That phenomenon is not difficult to understand (even if challenging to do).

What occurs in blind play is very similar. Better players take more value from their opponents' blinds while losing less while in their own blinds. Some players mistakenly only try to do the first: attack other blinds. But that is actually the less important skill. Playing from the blinds well not only has the benefit of earning us some profit, it encourages weaker players to similarly play from the blinds, where they will tend to play in an unprofitable way -- not just because they will play relatively poorly from out of position, but because the more hands weaker players play, the more likely they are to get frustrated and go on tilt. It's an absolute: if you play with players who do go on tilt, doing small things to encourage them to play more hands directly leads to them going on tilt more often.

Some players simply are unable to comprehend the concept of playing when you are an underdog, but have pot odds to do so. This is one enormous difference between great players and merely good ones. If someone raises your big blind and everyone folds, you're getting 3.5 to 1 on calling the raise. It does not matter at all if your opponent is a favorite in this situation. What matters is if mathematically those 3.5 to 1 pot odds are profitable to you. You don't have to win anywhere near half the time to make this call be profitable. You merely need to extract more value from the pot than you put into it. That's it. Get some of that 3.5 bets worth of value. After you call there will be 4.5 small bets in the pot. You should be quite happy to regularly get back the equity of 1.5 or 1.7 or 2.1 small bets. Even 1.1 is a good return. It makes no difference at all if your opponent does better than that. What matters to us is we took the most profitable action available to us.

One of the most intimidating plays in Holdem is to call a raise before the flop from the big blind, and check/call after the flop when the flop comes out a bunch of low rags. Watch this sometime. You can almost hear the pre-flop raiser's brain say: "Uh-oh". The point here is not to advocate that you often make this play, but only to emphasize that playing against a player in the big blind ( much less so in the small blind) is a difficult thing to do -- especially if they are solid player. The range of hands the blind player could have is not easy to pinpoint, for one thing. People often say they hate playing from the blinds against a pre-flop raiser because it is hard. It's hard to play against a player who has better cards than you. That's true, but the reverse is also true. It's very difficult to play against a tough/solid/tricky player in the big blind (assuming the raiser doesn't flop a no-brainer hand) who could be playing a very wide variety of cards.

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

This is another great thign for people to learn and it is about Bankroll management. EVERYONE READ THIS. This has helped me out so much already.
It is from Chris Ferguson.
Starting from Zero
I had a losing streak there and had to go down to $5/$10. That was tough.
I'm almost a year into an experiment on Full Tilt Poker. I'm attempting to turn $0 into a $10,000 bankroll. With no money to start with, I had no choice but to start out playing Freerolls. Starting out, I'd often manage to win a dollar or two, but I'd quickly get busted and have to start over again. It took some time but, after awhile, I was eventually able to graduate to games that required an actual buy-in.

Even today, people don't believe it's really me when I sit down at Full Tilt's small stakes games. They ask what I'm doing down here, and often tell me stories about how they turned $5 into $500 or $100 into $1,000. Usually, these stories end with the person telling me that they went broke. There's no surprise there. These folks tried to quickly build a bankroll by gambling. They'd play in a game that was beyond their bankroll and, if they happened to win, they'd move up to a higher limit and risk it all one more time. Inevitably, they'd lose a few big hands and go broke.

For me, this experiment isn't about the money. It's about showing how, with proper bankroll management, you can start from nothing and move up to the point where you're playing in some pretty big games. I know it's possible because I did it once before, turning $1 into $20,000.

To ensure that I keep my bankroll intact, I've adopted some key rules:

I'll never buy into a cash game or a Sit & Go with more than 5 percent of my total bankroll (there is an exception for the lowest limits: I'm allowed to buy into any game with a buy-in of $2.50 or less).
I won't buy into a multi-table tournament for more than 2 percent of my total bankroll and I'm allowed to buy into any multi-table tournament that costs $1.
If at any time during a No-Limit or Pot-Limit cash-game session the money on the table represents more than 10 percent of my total bankroll, I must leave the game when the blinds reach me.
I think a lot of players would do well to apply these rules. One great benefit from this approach to bankroll management is that it ensures you'll be playing in games you can afford. You'll never play for very long in a game that's over your head because, when you're losing, you'll have no choice but to drop down to a smaller game. You can continue to sharpen your game at that lower limit until your bankroll allows you to move up and take another shot. These rules also prevent you from being completely decimated by a bad run of cards.

Dropping down and playing lower limits is difficult for a lot of players. They view it as a failure and their egos get in the way. Many want to remain at the level they'd been playing and win back their losses. But this can lead to some pretty severe tilt - and that can go through a bankroll in a hurry. I know that dropping down was difficult for me in my run from $1 to $20,000. When I first played in the $25/$50 game, I lost. Sticking to my rules, I dropped down to the $10/$25 game. I had a losing streak there and had to go down to $5/$10. That was tough. After playing $25/$50, a $5/$10 game was boring to me.

But I had the discipline to stick to my rules, and that motivated me to play better at the lower levels. I really didn't want to lose any more because I knew the consequences: I'd have to play even lower and work even harder to get back to where I'd been, which could take as long as a month. If you ever find yourself bored or frustrated playing at the lower limits, you're obviously not playing well. Take a break from the game. Often, stepping away can give you a fresh perspective and heightened motivation to play well when you return.

There are a couple of more tips I'd like to share regarding bankroll management. First, you should never play in a game that is beyond your bankroll simply because the game seems to be soft that day. It's never soft enough to risk money that puts your bankroll in jeopardy. The other point is that you should avoid playing in games that are at the top of your bankroll limits, when a lower game offers more opportunity for profit.

I'm confident that by sticking to these sound bankroll management rules, I'll make it to my $10,000 goal. These rules are sure to help you as well, as you pursue your own poker ambitions. So, if you want to start your own quest - or play against me while I'm continuing with mine - come open a free account at Full Tilt Poker and look for me online. But hurry, because I'm hoping I won't be in the lower limits for too much longer.

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

Good Players Vs "Winning Players"
I don't think this is right, but differentiating between them is a bit tricky - maybe more than you think.

A "winning" player is one who, over enough time and a sufficient number of hands for the data to be statistically reliable, takes more money off the table than he puts on it.

"Good" is trickier. You can be a good player without being a winning player. I know, that feels a little weird. It isn't.

A couple of weeks back I did a little pop psychology riff on Zen. We mused on the affective elements of the game, looking for ways to maintain emotional equilibrium no matter what was happening.

In essence, we were looking at ways to become a "good" player. If this also made you into a "winning" player, that would be cool, but it's not necessary and certainly not guaranteed.

Indeed, figuring out what makes a "good" player isn't straightforward. For starters, good poker players have fun, and they'd better - because they're almost certainly going to lose. Very few come out ahead over the long haul, due to differing skill levels and/or the house rake, the "vig."

Many (most?) players don't quite grasp the role the vig plays in low-stakes games where the vast majority of players are found.

In a $2/$4 limit game, the typical maximum rake is from a reasonable $3 to a crushing $5, and I've seen $6!


Some dealers you don't mind tipping.
Add the dealer's tip and the bad beat jackpot takeout that players have a preternatural (and unfortunate) affection for, and up to 2BBs get sliced out of each sizable pot. This rake is essentially impossible to overcome.

So, while it'd be nice to be a winning player, the truth is that most of you won't be. So don't sweat it.

Poker is, at heart, a form of recreation. Recreation costs money. Movies cost, tickets to a hockey game cost, a dinner out costs. We are all perfectly content to "lose" money in our preferred forms of recreation, and "good" poker players view the game in just this way.

Good players also think about the game, how they're playing, how others are playing. They read, talk with friends and contribute to the dozens of Internet chat rooms and discussion groups.

If you're not already active in one of these groups, join in. You'll find an astonishing array of smart, engaging people - and, of course, the occasional flame-thrower. Just ignore them. Good players treat poker like a hobby, where you keep learning and look to improve.

Good players also work to diminish variance. There's a natural fluctuation to the game, and everyone is going to have ups and downs, but the game is far easier to enjoy when the swings are modulated.


Do you consider $3.3 million to be a big hit?
Lowering variance also makes it easier to play your best game more of the time. Few things derail the average player more than a huge hit to their bankroll.

One aspect of the game that gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that poker is likely the most complex competitive game routinely played. It is more complex, has more interwoven strategic levels and is tougher to master than any of the other supposedly intricate games like bridge and chess.

You chess mavens out there can scream all you want, but if you understand both games at anything close to a deep level, you know what I'm talking about.

OK; now you see how you can be a "good" player without being a "winning" player. Can you be a "winning" player but not be a "good" player?

Absolutely. There won't be many of this breed, but they are out there. My guess - since I've got no data here I'm running on my own fumes - is that there are at least three kinds of winning players who are not particularly good players.

First, there are the highly aggressive players with little regard for money, ones who view the game as a deadly competition, or a parade ground for their egos. These guys (and they are almost always men) can be long-term winners from a strictly cash point of view but not be good players in anything like the descriptions above.

Their visits to tiltville will undercut their game. The stress that comes with approaching each session with such a highly tuned competitiveness will eventually take its toll.


Just because I bet on everything doesn't make me an action junkie.
And, most critically, the high variability that a playing style like this carries with it will mean that this type of player will often not be playing his A-game. Most of these "action junkies" won't be winning players 10 years down the road unless they make serious adjustments.

Then there are the unmovable rocks, the tightest of the tight. Their style will ultimately yield a positive EV so, by definition, they are "winning" players.

But they will not be "good" players. They are often skinflints who play every day looking to grind out a couple of bucks for lunch, the car payment, rent. They're not having fun, and don't enjoy themselves - when they play poker, they are essentially going to work.

They have no A-game, because they are so protective of their bankrolls that they stay at B level. That's OK for them, but I wouldn't want to spend my life this way.

Lastly, there are folks like me. I'm a long-term positive EV guy. I know this because I keep records and am brutally honest with myself.

But I don't think I am a good player. In fact, I am a better poker writer than a poker player. I have too many brain farts, moments where I flatline and do something mind-bendingly stupid.

When these mental lacunae happen they undo hours and hours of "good" play. Worse, I get really, really ticked at myself and end up howling at the moon like a wolf who's lost his kill. In these moments I do not have fun and so, by my definition, I am not a "good" player.

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

This is a GREAT GREAT article from PokerListings.com. It is about knowing when to quit!!
How to quit, when to quit, what rules to use for quitting; ruminating over whether it's best to set proportion of bankroll limits or raw dollar limits; whether one should appeal to physical criteria ("I'm sooooo tired"), or emotional factors ("I'm tilting, tilting, tilt..."), or perhaps psychological thresholds ("My mind is a sieve with very large holes"). Whatever.

I hate this freakin' topic. But I gotta write about it, because everybody has it wrong. I need to begin by covering some boring stuff. Then, I'll tell you why all the honestly proffered advice isn't much good.

First, there's nothing special about quitting. By definition, we quit when the last hand is over. Every time we start we stop.

There are a lot of things that bring this about. Some of them are pretty obvious, like we've gone broke.

Tommy Angelo, in Elements of Poker, noted that when he was young (and stupid) he had a pretty simple rule. He would quit when he ran out of money and no one would lend him any. The modern version, of course, is: "Broke and maxed out the ATM."


Safe to say he doesn't have a rule for quitting.
Second, a lot of people are quite comfortable having no rule for quitting, other than their informed estimate of their edge in the current game. I've no quibbles with this. If you're a winning player with an edge in the game, then you shouldn't quit.

Even if they're smacking you around good right now, you should visit the ATM or hit up a buddy for another buy-in to keep in action, especially if you're doing this for a living.

But this isn't how most of us live our poker lives. We're not professionals and we don't need to do this.

Try this little thought experiment: You're a bank teller who likes to garden. It's Saturday, the sun is shining and gardening is good, very good. So you garden - all day long.

You're tired; you keep at it. You're getting calluses on your knees, thorns in your thumbs. It's great; you can almost feel the tomatoes starting their skyward climb, hear the bulbs thanking you. Keep at it.

Now it starts to rain. It gets cold and miserable. Forget the garden. It'll be there tomorrow. Go inside; have a cup of hot chocolate.

But if you're not a bank teller, but rather a professional gardener ... See the problem?

Third, think for a second about the mother of all poker clichés: "The game is all about decisions."Usually, the decisions are those concerning calling, folding and raising.


Hit it and quit it.
But there are others: when to play, where to play, when to move to another seat, another table, another game, another room.

Let's add one: when to quit.

Winning players fold more judiciously, call more carefully and raise more appropriately. They have better game-selection skills, change seats, tables and rooms judiciously, read hands more accurately. In general, they outplay their opponents.

They also out-quit them. Although, as Angelo succinctly put it: "Walking away is easy. The hard part is standing up."

Okay, that's the stuff you already knew, right? Now let's get to the deep question: What the hell is it that pegs us to our seats? Why is it so bloody tough to stand up, so hard to quit?

It shouldn't be, right? Like we said, we quit all the time; every session ends with a quit. We ought to be expert quitters. But we're not. At least most of us aren't, or else this idiotic topic wouldn't get chewed to death and written about ad nauseum.

Well, here's the answer; you may not like it. Too bad.

The thing that's pegging you to your chair is dopamine.

Dopamine? Yeah, dopamine. It's a neurotransmitter in your brain that is associated with rewards like food, sex, drugs and money ... and, importantly, the anticipation of such rewards.


Dopamine stimulator.
When you're tired, bloody near broke, when you're tilting like a three-legged pinball machine and really, really should be going home you stop, look around, think, "Well, one more hand (or orbit, dealer change, hour, ...); then I'll get my sorry butt out of here."

That's the dopaminergic pathways in your brain talking. You've been conditioned. The setting is associated with the anticipation of reward and when you think staying thoughts, dopamine flows.

Now suppose you do manage to stand up, actually walk out. How do you feel?

Me, I always feel good. No more pull to play; no more nagging voice, "Come on baby, one more hand, just wanna play my button ..."

No more dopamine. The setting has changed. All the cues that had you had become conditioned to, that were fostering the secreting of neurotransmitters, aren't there. They're back in the cardroom, at the table, where you aren't anymore.

Angelo got close to the truth here. When you stand up, you begin the process of removing yourself from the setting that evokes the desire to play. Just by getting on your feet you've changed the context.

If it helps, appreciate that you, the devoted poker junkie, are not alone. Quitting isn't easy for a sculptor chipping away at a block of marble. It's a struggle for a lawyer who feels that she's finally getting some insight into the horrifically complex case she's working on ... or a gardener with a penchant for roses.


Guy stops for no man.
You can lay out all the gimmicks, gambits, rules, heuristics and principles. You can counsel people to set loss limits, win thresholds, win/loss windows, bankroll proportions. You can set time limits, vow never to play when you're tired, running a fever, feeling anxious.

But it won't do much good when your brain starts tugging at you, when the sound of riffled chips activates the nucleus accumbens (a brain area with a fondness for dopamine).

So, what's to be done about it? Nothing. I have no advice. And that's the name of that tune. Now, I hereby quit writing about quitting.

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

yet another amazing article this time about why there is no "best" way to play poker!
I think it's more true than false, once we specify the circumstances. In a live, cash game or a multi-table tournament played No-Limit or Pot-Limit, I think it's deeply and importantly true, if not (yet) demonstrably so from a game theoretic perspective.

But, you may differ with me, and that's OK too, since the proof is still a faint hope. Let's take a look and see where we end up.

To keep the topic manageable, we'll stick with Hold'em, although the issue generalizes to all poker games of interesting levels of complexity. (Aside: One reason why some of the "simpler" games like Five-Stud are rarely played anymore is that there are optimal ways to play them and the more skilled players quickly bust the lesser.)

Limit - Heads-Up Play

Here, there likely is a reasonably well-defined strategic approach that approximates optimality. The foundations are based on principles involving the expected value of particular plays and a recognition of the importance of position, and on inducing probabilistic assessments of one's opponent.

The fully developed strategy isn't known but it has been approximated. We discussed this in two earlier articles on bots. The pride of these silicon-based poker warriors is a bot dubbed Polaris, a very long listing of code that resides on a computer in Edmonton, Alberta.


Phil know a thing or two about Polaris.
Polaris plays superb Limit Hold'em against a single opponent. In fact, it plays better than almost anyone in the world. It has taken on all comers from carbon-based entities to other bots and has won impressively.

So, from a mathematical perspective, the strategic features that have been written into Polaris are closer to the "best" way to play this particular game than anything any human player has developed - so far.

It's important to appreciate that Polaris is a genuine AI (an "artificial intelligence"). It learns. It's programmed with a set of effective initial heuristics, but its success depends on software that allows it to induce a representation of the features of its opponent's play and to make adjustments to them. In short, it doesn't have a "best way" to play; it has a "best way" to adapt.

It's worth noting that this learning feature is so powerful that several of the programmers who worked on Polaris and who play excellently against mere mortals have admitted they cannot beat the beast - even though they wrote the software that it's using.

No-Limit - Heads-Up Play

This game is one step up in complexity from Limit, and there are suggestions that particular strategies are more useful than others.

For example, Daniel Negreanu has developed a primitive approach to this game that is surprisingly effective. It goes like this: Min-raise on the button. If checked to you on the flop, bet two-thirds of the pot. That's it.

It has some interesting effects on opponents. They often get flustered and angry and do things like reraise two or three times the BB, giving you both position on the hand and solid calling odds. They also often try to play the same game but usually overbet pre-flop again, giving up the opportunity for nuanced play.


Kid Poker's mama didn't raise no fools.
Is it foolproof? Only against a fool, but it makes the point that the game is still sufficiently limited in complexity so that game-theoretic heuristics exist that provide a player with an edge.

But the game is more complex. Loosening the bounds on betting adds a substantial number of variables to the mix and no one has (yet) figured out how to program in a set of workable strategic principles. And, for what it's worth, Polaris doesn't play it.

Limit Hold'em - Full-Ring Game


The computational requirements needed to capture a full-ring game are off the charts, well beyond the capacity of any existing computer.

It isn't just that there are these other opponents whose approach and styles differ from each other, which would be difficult enough to represent. It is that each of these individuals "interacts" with each of the others.

That is, your play (and mine) changes as a reaction to the play of others at the table, whose approach to the game is similarly affected by the play of still others, including you and me. And so forth.

Consequently, the kinds of strategic approaches that Polaris uses cannot be instantiated in any manageable form. And, even if they could, from a pure computational capacity perspective, no one knows what they are so no one knows what code to write.

Of course, there are a bunch of heuristics that have been developed regarding position, hand strength, the impact of the blinds, the role of bluffing and the like. But most good players know them and they are far from algorithmic in nature.

No-Limit - Full-Ring Game

This is the game that Doyle Brunson called, back in the days when the phrase meant something, The Cadillac of Poker. He liked playing it just because it is so deliciously complex and when games get structurally and tactically complex, the psychological elements rise in importance and rules of thumb lose their effectiveness.


There's a best way to play, sonny boy ... MY WAY!
It is for this very reason that there is no best way to play. No-Limit is a not a card game. It is a money game played with cards.

Yes, aggression is important, but it must be scaled back in response to wildly aggressive opponents.

Yes, trapping is effective, but not against players capable of making exceptionally sound reads.

The one element of the game that must be acknowledged is that of position, but since nearly everyone knows this, your knowing it won't help a heck of a lot. No-Limit Hold'em is "interactive," and the shifting dynamic tilts the game beyond the domain of any straightforward strategic approach.

It is a good thing this is true. If there were a best way to play we would all learn it and the game would die.

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

Yet another great article from Pokerlistings.com I hope these articles are helping you guys.
Big hands, big draws and big egos are all possible reasons you just went broke. Poker is a highly competitive game. Every player wants to be successful and come out a winner.

This translates directly into the imperative: "I will not allow another player to outplay me." Nothing hurts a poker egotist more than getting bluffed or outplayed.

In general, people tend to overestimate their skill level. Look at driving. Everyone thinks he's a great driver. All these "great" drivers park themselves in the left lane of the highway because no one thinks of himself as being "slower traffic."

Carry over this mind-set into poker and you'll start to see that it's very rare for a player past his first few games to see himself as a beginner. Get a player who's read a book or two, and she definitely doesn't see herself as a beginner.

This will typically bring a massive amount of ego into the game. Players don't want to feel like they're getting bullied, outplayed or outdrawn.

Once these feelings start to encroach on their ego, they start to believe that everyone is out to get them and that every large bet they face is a bluff.

Pot Envy and Hand Marriage


When Phil Hellmuth plays poker, Phil Hellmuth makes big folds.
When the pot gets large, it can be hard to sign off and pass on the action. Beginners are known to get excited by larger pots, refusing to let go of their hands. Hands in good standing pre-flop can be easy to get married to.

George McKeever displayed the difference between a pro and a beginner in the 1999 WSOP Main Event. With 90% of his chips in the pot, George folded the river, to the shock of the spectators on the rail. The railbirds berated his play, telling him that he had no choice; he was pot-committed.

George didn't share their view. As he said, you're not pot-committed if you're going to lose. George went on to rebuild his stack and finish in seventh place at the final table.

The size of the pot is irrelevant when you don't have the winning hand. One of the golden rules to stick to as a beginner:

If you think someone has you beat, they probably do.

No matter how strong your hand looks, there are situations where the best choice is to fold and wait for a better spot to get your chips across the line.

Scenario 1

You're sitting in middle position at a nine-handed Hold'em cash game (blinds 10¢/25&cent. The table has been playing rather tight; no one has gotten very far out of line. It's ABC poker where players are choosing actions at face value to their cards.

Your Hand:

The player under the gun raises to $1. Two players fold, leaving action to you. You reraise to $3. After the cut-off cold-calls, the original raiser min-raises you back to $5. You call and so does the cut-off, all three of you going to the flop.

The old-school rule for QQ states that you have to fold it after a raise and a reraise. Poker has gotten far more aggressive since then, but we still have to take a look at the action: there has been a raise, a reraise, a cold call, a re-reraise, followed by two more calls.

After all of this action, you have to believe that one of the two other players has you beat. The vast majority of the time here you're up against AA or KK, if not both.

The Flop:

Because you have to assume you're up against AA or KK, you are now playing the hand as if it's pocket sevens. Even though you have an overpair, which is typically a strong holding, you have to stick to the rule "no set, no bet."

If we go back to the pre-flop action for a second, you might ask why you called the re-reraise pre-flop, since you had to know at that time you were beat. Even though you know you're beat, you're getting laid odds far too attractive to fold.

At the point of our final action the total pot has $11.35, with you needing to call only $2. On top of the $11 you can be almost certain that the cut-off is going to call as well. The immediate implied odds put the pot at $13.35, just short of 7-1 on your money.

Your pocket pair is going to flop a set in the neighborhood of one in eight times. The pot odds at this time are slightly short, but knowing that your opponent has KK or AA gives you great implied odds to call. More than likely, flopping a set will win you your opponent's entire stack.

Just remember: no set, no bet.

Scenario 2


Rarely seen calling away his stack.

You're at the same table, but action has opened up slightly. More players are seeing flops, and more money is being thrown around, without players getting too far out of line on any hand.

You're sitting on the button with a deep stack:

Your Hand:

Under the gun raises to $1.50 and four players call before the action reaches you. You pop the bet up to $5. Both the blinds fold, and out of the five players still in the hand, the original raiser plus two of the callers head to the flop. The pot is $23.35.

The Flop:

Under the gun bets out $12, the first player calls, second player folds and the third player raises to $30. Action is on you - what do you do?

Again, here you are with an overpair to the board and a must-fold situation. Out of the entire range you can put your opponents on, you're now behind almost all of it; chances are you're in third place. The only logical hands for your opponents to hold are: KK, QQ, JJ, TT, A-K, A-Q, K-Q, J-T, Q-J.

Out of that whole pre-flop range, you're ahead of two of those hands (one of which has a decent draw against you). After the flop action, you have to remove the hand you beat from the list, putting you behind pretty much everything.

You're going have to get very lucky to win this hand or chop the pot. This is a must-fold.

It's almost always correct to wait for a situation in which you know you're good, rather than play heavily into a pot where all you can do is hope. When you have to actually sit and think about what hand you can possibly beat, you're not in good shape.

Many beginners will think of that one hand they can beat out of a range of five hands, and make the call after convincing themselves that their hope is actually a read.

Remember, there is no shame in folding. It's better to get bluffed and fold than to make a bad call and lose your whole stack.

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

Previously I've written about the self-destructive tendencies of many players, particularly online, where they seek to blame black helicopters and endless demons for their inability to win. Instead of "just bad luck" or blaming the dealers like many casino players do, online there are unseen forces at work, including such mundane things as flaky Internet service providers, where players can make excuses for their lack of ability, study and commitment by blaming various fairies.

I'm not out to debunk those fantasies. Multiple software programs exist which track card distribution, strength of winning hands, success levels of opponents, etc. If someone still wants to insist the earth is flat, or that we didn't go to the moon, fine. Let them live with their fantasies. Proving the earth is not flat for the zillionth time is a waste of air.






What is valuable to explore though is the fact that these people do in fact exist, and are playing poker online and in casino tournaments in record numbers. The synergy of old world media (poker on TV) with the cyberage convenience of online poker has brought forth an avalanche of new poker players, including many who play very poorly but will refuse to their dying day to admit it.

The poor play online is at epidemic proportions. If someone thinks online games are tough, either they don't play very well or they practice hideously bad game selection. The higher limit games (and some mid-limit ones too) and multitable tournaments now include a lot of excellent, experienced players who have worked hard to make their game into a winning game.

In contrast, many newbies think they can just show up and win. Woody Allen said 90% of life is just showing up. That is not true of poker. In fact, without skill, hard work and discipline, "just showing up" is a direct path to losing.

Excuses are easier to create than discipline, which is why we see so many of the former and so little of the latter.

One goofball online theory is the "cash-out-then-lose" scenario. Despite the basic concept being preposterous (why would a site cause you to lose after you have taken most of your money away?) parroting this nonsense simply betrays a lack of understanding of fundamentals of the game -- especially those involving weaker players. Many of these weak players tend to cash out after they hit a rush, so when they "regress to the mean" how can they be surprised? If a person is a break even player (or worse), and they start with $400, and they withdraw $600 after they go on a rush, well... to be a breakeven player they need to lose everything they have left to break as close to even as they can.

Besides "regressing to the mean", many players end up playing scared money after they cash out. They try to play $5/10 on a $300 bankroll. If you keep cashing out any amount over $300, you will lose the $300 at some point. You must. Poker is a game of fluctuations. Even the best winning player will have major negative fluctuations.

But we aren't even talking about the best here. Even those players who fixate on booking winning sessions only win about 75% of the time. So now a person cashes out and what happens next... having a losing session for even the best players should be common.

But when it comes to mediocre, breakeven players, they should expect to lose half the time or so after they cash out, like they lose half or so of the time in any case. Now, how odd is it for this person to lose *two* times in a row (eating into their artificially small bankroll)? The answer is, it isn't odd at all for a person who wins 50% of their sessions to have two or three losing sessions in a row, and just after they had one or more winning sessions to boot. If you cash out, the next session that you play you will either win or lose. Why does it surprise people when they lose? Basically, some people complain that they had a good session before they have a bad session!

That is the way poker works. Fortunately many players can't deal with it. So if you track your online opponents, consider tracking when they win two days in a row, and look to go after them the following day -- when they may be playing on a short bankroll, obsessing about the black helicopters of a cashout curse. Watch the chat for comments involving cashouts. Give a person who likes making excuses an excuse for making a new excuse

[$o$o$ucce$$ful]

March 24th, 2009
Ok today I am so so tired because of the lack of sleep lately. This weekend we had alot of friends over for a home poker game and we were up til at least 4 in the morning every single day.
We also woke up early for all the weekend tournaments. Ive basically realized the human body is not meant to run on 3 hours of sleep every night.
I feel sick and feel like absolute ****.
So I might not be on for a couple days so I can regain my strength and what not.
Thanks for reading guys.
Ty Jordan