10 Reasons NOT To Play Online Poker

10 Reasons NOT To Play Online Poker

The previous post reviewed my 10 Reason To Play Online Poker. Now, here is my list of 10 Reasons NOT To Play Online Poker. You may not like my list, but that's poker.

1. Online Poker Sites Are Not Regulated or Licensed in the US.

Without some type of oversight, poker players can not be sure if the sites are cheating them. Some argue that it is not in a poker site's best interest to cheat, since so much money is coming in anyway. Unfortunately, greed can corrupt. And unregulated companies have proven time and time again, where there is a will (to dupe the people to make more money), there is a way.

2. The Online Poker Sites RNG (Random Number Generator) Ain't So Random.

RNG's are complex computer programs. However, software can be altered to create subtle changes that effect play and results. Are there more bad beats online? Are there more big hands, like quads and straight flushes that occur online? Does it seem that there are too many heads-up situations where one premium hand loses to another premium hand to create more excitement? Yes, yes and yes.

3. Online Poker Sites Support Their Integrity Claims by "Independent" Audits--Are They Really Unbiased?

The sites audits may be independent, but they have to be biased. Why? The firms who audit a poker site get paid by that site. In recent history, a top ten accounting firm closed down to their "independent" audits. And major US corporations have also been forced into bankruptcy due to fake accounting; e.g. Enron.

4. There Have Been Major Cheating Scandals Online That The Online Poker Sites Never Caught.

There have been a handful of major, public cases where poker players have been cheated by outsiders. Did the online poker site catch this cheating? No. The only reason that these cases became public is because other poker players did their own analysis of what had happened and reported it.

5. Other Cases of Cheating Are Happening Online, But No One Gets Caught.

There is so much money being gambled every minute, it is too juicy for unscrupulous people to take advantage of other players. For example, do you think collusion has ever occurred at an online poker site? What about other forms of cheating, like playing in the same event under different user names? Or, a top player who plays under a friend's user name to help increase his bankroll? It happens. It is usually transparent.

6. What About The Frequency of Stories Regarding New Players Getting An Edge or A Player Losing After Withdrawing Money From A Site?

It would make business sense to help new players have an edge. If a new player wins, s/he is more likely to keep playing--even if s/he loses it all a few weeks later. There are also complaints on how a player who withdraws money after winning at a poker site, seems to forget how to play and now loses.

7. The Sponsoring of Poker Players Results In An Uneven Playing Field.

Do sponsored players risk their own money? Reports are that sponsored players get 100% rakeback and get paid hourly at an online poker site. Is it fair that you risk your own money, while a sponsored player takes no risk?

8. If the New UIGEA Regulation Goes Into Effect, Will Your Bank Cash Your Poker Site's Check?

Now you have to worry about what will happen if you do win money at an online site. Assuming you play at a legitimate site and win, the site will pay you. It won't be able to transfer money into your bank account. It will have to use another method, which is most likely going to be mailing you a check. Will your bank cash that check if the new law goes into effect?

9. Are Online Poker Sites Causing A Brain Drain in Teens and College Students?

Joe Cada admitting to playing online poker before he was 21 and even dropping out of school to play poker. It worked out for Joe, but what about the majority of teens and college students who won't be winners at poker? The seduction of winning millions playing poker is strong for everyone. It is no doubt strongest in teenagers and college students, given the millions won in poker by 20-somethings. Online poker sites should not allow underage players.

10. You Play Online Poker Naked And You Are Not A Beautiful Woman.

You know who you are...so stop it!

I realize this list will eliminate my chance of ever being sponsored by an online poker site. And I also realize that whenever I say anything negative about online poker, a few readers write how I am an idiot or worse.

Whether you do or do not play online poker, there is one thing I strongly believe. That is, that every adult in the US should have the freedom to play online poker and win or lose as much money as s/he wants.

The politicians who strive to stop this freedom will be voted out of office, as many were in the last election.

After all, there are only 40 million Americans who play poker. And while most of them don't play online, the thought that their Congress won't let them play poker, even if they wanted to play, is simply un-American.

Is Joe Cada, WSOP Main Event Winner, A Donkey?

Is Joe Cada, 2009 WSOP Main Event Winner, A Donkey?

After ESPN televised the final table of the World Series of Poker (WSOP) main event, many poker players started to post negative opinions about the way Joe Cada played the game. The nicest of these opinions was that Joe was lucky and the most critical called him a donkey. In poker, calling a player a donkey is a sign of disrespect as it is reserved for only the worst of poker players.

Let’s analyze the three key hands at the final table where Cada has been called a donk.

Hand No. 1

Situation: It is down to the final five players. Shulman and Joe Cada are the low stacks. Shulman has $18 million. Cada has $11 million. The blinds are $300,000-$600,000. Shulman raises to almost $2 million with pocket Jacks.

Cada goes all-in with pocket threes. If Shulman calls, he will be risking almost all of his chips. He calls. Shulman is an 80 percent favorite. On the flop Cada hits the set and wins the pot.

Analysis: Cada has about six percent of the total chips in play. Shulman has been playing very tight poker and his pre-flop raise should signal a big hand. However, Cada has also seen Shulman fold to a re-raise earlier in the game.

Cada can’t fold a pocket pair being low in chips. A call is a bad play—he would be risking almost 20 percent of his stack in the hope of hitting a set on the flop. If he moves all-in, he is putting the pressure back on Shulman (if he has a hand like A-J, or K-Q he would probably fold) and even if he gets called, he has a better chance of getting a set by seeing all five cards.

One final point: If Cada had just made the call, Shulman would have lost the same amount of chips given the eight, four, three flop.

Hand No. 2

Situation: It is down to the final three players. Blinds are at $500,000-$1 million. Cada is the low stack with $39 million. He finds pocket twos and raises to $2.5 million. Antonine Saout is in the big blind with QQ and he re-raises over $5 million.

Cada moves all-in, risking his entire chips stack. Saout calls, risking half his chips. The pot is almost $80 million. Saout is an 80 percent favorite. On the flop Cada hits the set and wins the pot!

Analysis: When Cada is dealt pocket twos, there is only about a 12 percent probability that an opponent will be holding a higher pair. However, when Saout makes a re-raise, Cada should have slowed down. Saout had been playing a solid game.

I think a fold would have been a smarter play than moving all-in here. But, in a poker tournament, you do have to get lucky.

If Cada had called the re-raise, Saout would have lost the same amount of chips given the nine, seven, two flop.

Hand No. 3:

Situation: It is still the final three players. Blinds are $500,000- $1 million. Cada has A-K and raises to $2.5 million. Saout with pocket eights goes all-in for his final $47 million. Cada would risk half his stack with a call.

Cada calls. It’s a $95 million pot. Saout is a 54 percent favorite. The flop is five of hearts, four of spades, five of clubs. The turn is 10 diamonds. If Cada misses the river, Saout would be back in the lead. But, the river is the King! Saout is knocked out.

Analysis: This is really a typical all-in, heads-up situation in poker tournaments; an A-K heads-up versus a pocket pair. After Saout took a bad beat in the previous hand, it was even possible that he had a hand worse than pocket eights.

Conclusion:

Overall, if you haven’t been in a WSOP tournament, you don’t realize how difficult it is to get to a final table. You not only have to be a skillful player, but you also have to get lucky to win.

There were over 6,400 players in the 2009 WSOP main event. There is no question that every player at the final table got lucky at some point during the eight days of play, and put a bad beat on an opponent.

Joe Cada is far from a donkey.

He is an accomplished online poker player and he won the most prestigious title in poker. While he got lucky at the end of the event, the fact is that anyone who criticizes his play doesn’t truly understand tournament poker.

Tournament poker is about winning all of the chips in play. This often results in risking all of your chips and putting your opponent to the test for all of his chips. Sometimes you lose. But by getting lucky and winning one major event, you can win millions of dollars.

Note: My article originally appeared a few days ago on the SF Bay Area Bleecher Report.

What I Learned From the WSOP Final Table

What I Learned From the WSOP Final Table

I spent over 15 hours the past few days listening to the online telecast via Bluff Magazine and watching the ESPN broadcast of the final table. This may have been the most talented group of nine players to ever appear in the final table.

The first thing: Congrats to all the players! Congrats to Moon! Congrats to Cada! It was really super poker.

The second thing: To the poker players who criticized the play, give me a break. If there is one thing I've learned when it comes to a small group of poker players is that they love to criticize--especially anonymously and/or without any credentials to do so. Until you are under the pressure of playing for a Main Event bracelet, give it a rest.

The third thing: To the moderators on the Bluff Magazine online telecast and Phil Hellmuth, super job. I really enjoyed the poker commentary.

My Learning from the WSOP

1. Don't Play Too Tight.

I think Shulman played real tight at the final table. While he got unlucky with pocket Jacks, he either didn't get good cards or he didn't want to gamble. He folded pocket 9's against a re-raise from a worse hand. It would have been a race, but it seemed to me that he was always leaning to the fold rather than a willingness to gamble. Maybe that was the right thing to do--after all, Hellmuth was his coach.

But...Poker is gambling. It is impossible to control the risk in the game. Did Jeff get a "read" that his opponent was stronger than him? Or, was he was avoiding the risk?

"Risk is Good."

2. Even The Great Players Don't Read Their Opponents All that Well.

I was really surprised that the players did not appear to, or could not get, a read on their opponents. Hellmuth did a great job of reading players from the booth. Even Hellmuth said once, "I wish Cada would look up at his opponent" when Cada was making a key decision.

Ivey misread an opponent's strength. I guess if he can fold a winning hand, anything is possible.

I believe Buchman is a great player. Yet, he lost all those chips with A-Q at a time he was outplaying his opponents. Later on, Hellmuth tried to get Buchman to realize his play was wrong, but Buchman resisted and stated the math was right.

I agree with Hellmuth. Why risk everything when there was no urgency? He was the chip leader and on his way to winning the main event. I think the math in this case was not in assessing hand probabilities, but in the overall risk-reward probabilities of the game itself. But, I'm not sure since I'm not a pure math guy.

3. Super Aggressive Equals Super Wins.

I think Cada was super aggressive. I don't believe he even cared much about his opponents hands when he made those re-raises/all-ins with small pairs. The one thing I took away from Cada was that maybe winning poker is forgetting about "reading" your opponent. Just play more aggressive than your opponent.

Maybe this is what Cada learned from playing 20 events at the same time online. If you have a pocket pair or a big Ace hand, make a move with it and hope for the best.

I think one reason Cada had a problem with Moon throughout the event is that Moon was making super aggressive moves with and without hands. At least Cada needed a small pair to make those plays. Moon did not.

Overall, I believe being aggressive is the way to play winning poker. But, maybe, it is time to look at being super aggressive like Cada.

What was your impression of the final table?

Maybe poker is headed back to those days of the "all-in specialists." These players had one move in their arsenal--an all-in pre-flop move. If they won and doubled up early, it made them more dangerous. These all-in specialists went broke because opponents knew that they could outplay them by trapping them or calling with a wider range of hands.