My Worst Experience Playing Poker and More Learning

Image via Wikipedia

My Worst Experience Playing Poker and More Learning

I entered a $15-$30 limit game yesterday. I am not sure the odds of this happening but I have never been dealt so many premium hands and lost so much!

I had pocket Kings eight times and pocket Queens one time. I lost them all.

The thing that was sadly remarkable was that on the flop I was heads-up or against two opponents, and on the river I was always just against one opponent.

Here is what happened with the pocket Kings:

• I lost twice on the flop when an Ace flopped. I got away from those hands.
• I lost once when my opponent hit a set of 8's on the flop.
• I lost the other 6 times on the river by flushes, straights, trips, and two pair.

I estimated that I lost over $1,000 on these hands. At the end of the night, I was down $500.

Disclosure: I did get dealt pocket Aces one time. I was heads-up on the flop and won. A small win.

More learning:

1. There are lucky seats in poker.

Many poker players say there is no such thing as lucky or unlucky seats in poker. In the short term there are good and bad streaks in all forms of gambling. The craps player will lose long term. But, it are those lucky short term streaks that make the craps player believe he is a winning player or will hit it big again.

Heck, if it wasn't for luck, Phil Hellmuth would win all the poker tournaments.

Yesterday, the player in seat 10 went on an amazing hot streak for the first 40 minutes. After he lost the next two hands, he left. He was ahead $800.

A new player took that seat and the seat was still hot! When I left the game, he ahead about $2,500. The hands he showed were all premium hands.

2. Winning betting pattern? Raise, bet, bet, bet.

The player to my right was also winning big. He rarely had to show his cards, since he was clearly playing his opponents.

95% of the time he came into the hand, he did so with a raise. He would just fire away on the flop, turn and river. He bet 100% of the flops, about 90% on the turn, and 80% on the river.

The weird thing to me was that I don't believe anyone was noticing. Everyone was so fixated on their hand and to see if the flop fit their hole cards.

Of course, maybe he had big hands all those times, but I don't think so. He did get called a few times on the river. He showed good or great hands every time, which helped his image.

I did bluff him twice when I was heads-up and knew he had to be weak. I also flopped a big hand against him once. But, overall, he was ahead about $2,000 when I left.

3. There are unlucky seats in poker.

Sometimes you just have to be smart enough to know when it's just not your night.

Frankly, despite this incredible run of bad luck with those pocket Kings, I was down only about $50 most of the night. It wasn't until I got KK for the 7th and 8th time, yeah, and lost, that it effected me.

I guess I should have left earlier... oh well, bad streaks do happen. It is called gambling.

5 Things I Learned From Watching Phil Hellmuth Play Poker at the Bay 101 WPT

5 Things I Learned From Watching Phil Hellmuth Play Poker at the Bay 101 WPT

Image via Wikipedia

The Bay 101 Shooting Stars event had a webcast where you could watch the action live. The camera was fixed and you got to see play at only one table. Overall, it was excellent! If you are a poker club and want to attract more players to your tournaments, this is a great way to do it.

Daniel was the at the featured table on Day 1a, while Phil was at the featured table for the last three days.

I spent a lot of time watching Phil play poker and spotted a few trends in his play. One caveat: you don't get to see hole cards or the community cards. Yesterday, they added a second shot that tried to show the viewer the community cards, but frankly, it was difficult to see.

Giving these limitations, here is my learning from watching the action.

5 Things I Learned From Watching Phil Hellmuth:

1. Players willingly revealed their hole cards to Phil way too often.

At the start of the event, Phil would ask a player what they had. Almost all of the players would not reply.

So Phil started to show his cards to loosen things up. And it worked. I have never witnessed so much sharing at a poker table. I am convinced Phil was getting more information on his opponents than they were getting on him.

A similar thing happened on Day 1a with Daniel Negreanu. But since the players like Daniel, he would just have to ask a player what they had, and often, the player would just tell him! Were all these players lying? Maybe. But, I don't think so.

Hey...it's tough to lie when you actually show your hand! It was amazing to me. Do these players think Daniel and Phil are going to be their new best friends?

2. Phil often says he has a "good" or a "stronger" hand than the other players.

It was funny how often Phil would say "I had a hand" after the hand had ended. He would sometimes even say what it was to his opponent (or show one or both cards.)

By doing this table talk, my impression is the following:

• Phil added the perception of strength to every hand he got from the dealer.
• Phil loosened up his opponents to make it acceptable to share information/hole cards.
• Phil got his opponents to like him more.

At one point Phil even mentioned how his opponents always tell him how likable he is in person, unlike the way he is shown on TV.

3. Phil was the more aggressive and intimidating player at his table.

Phil raised pre-flop more often than his opponents. His opponents did not want to tangle with Phil, so he would steadily build his stack.

4. Phil played his opponents rather than his own cards.

Clearly, almost every time an opponent checked, Phil would take it as a sign of weakness and bet. Phil was great at playing his opponents whether in position or out of position.

Here is a typical sequence when Phil was in position:

Player A raises pre-flop. Phil calls. It goes heads-up to the flop.
Player A make a c-bet. Phil calls.
Player A checks the turn. Phil bets. Player A takes longer time than usual to decide his play before he mucks.

Here is a typical sequence when Phil was out of position:

Player A raises pre-flop. Phil calls on the big blind. It goes heads-up to the flop.
Phil checks. Player A make a c-bet. Phil calls.
Phil checks the turn. Player A checks the turn.
Phil bets on the river. Player A takes longer time than usual to decide his play before he mucks.

Was Phil floating all these times? I don't know if he had a big hand or not. But, if he had a big hand every time he said he did, than he was playing with a different deck of cards than everyone else:-)

It was like Phil was playing at a higher level of poker--and frankly, I think he was doing just that!

5. Phil was more cautious against the professional players.

When the tables got down to 6 players, Phil was playing against better opponents and a few pros. He was more cautious in his play. And, of course, the pots were going to be a lot bigger with the bigger blinds.

The one additional move he used more often was the pre-flop re-raise against an aggressive player. Phil would identify his aggressive opponent and allow him to win a few hands heads-up with pre-flop folds. However, eventually Phil would re-raise the aggressive players pre-flop, and take down a nice sized pot.

Conclusion:

Phil has been playing great against his weaker opponents. He has also gotten lucky a few times where he found pocket Q's vrs pocket 10's, and a boat against a straight. Fact: You gotta be lucky to win a poker tournament.

It will be interesting to see how things go for Phil at the final table. Right now he is in second place in chips.

Since I play in the Bay Area, I think the local players were at a disadvantage in that we do not have much experience in tournaments with this kind of structure or this level of competition.
I believe that the longer rounds and more starting chips gave the local players a false sense of security; that is, you can just wait a lot longer for big cards. Watching Phil and Daniel play poker I can tell you that is not the case if you want to win.

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.

Who is The Best Tournament Poker Player?

Who is The Best Tournament Poker Player?

I have played against some but not all of the top tournament poker players. Here is my ranking as to the top 5 players:

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

1. Phil Hellmuth.
I know he does the brat routine for the TV cameras, but I think Phil is the best tournament poker player I have ever played against. He is smart, aggressive, tricky, and knows how to take control of a table. The thing about Phil is that he works hard at getting better each year, and I think it shows.

2. Phil Ivey.
This guy is so intimidating. He lets his chips do the talking. You just want to fold when Phil Ivey comes in raising pre-flop. I mean do you really think you are going to outplay him on the flop, or turn, or river? Phil may be the best reader of his opponents hand strength. Since he doesn't speak at the table, this is something that casual poker players don't get to see. Maybe we will learn more about Phil's poker playing skills at this year's final table.

3. David Pham.
David is one of those players who doesn't stop raising pre-flop. He is so relentless. He doesn't get much TV time, but he always seems to be one of the top ten finalists each year in the CardPlayer Player of the Year.

4. Layne Flack.
Layne Flack can play any two cards and win. He is aggressive and smart. Layne has different speeds, meaning he knows how to change his style of play in the middle of a tournament. The one thing going against Layne is that he doesn't have that same intimidation factor that the other top Pros tend to have.

5. Erick Lindgren.
Erick is one of those players who I would describe as brutal. The guy is not just out to beat you, he is out to take all of your chips. He is smart, aggressive, and a great poker player.

The Common Ingredients of a Top Tournament Poker Player
Aggressive.
Forget about terms like loose aggressive or tight aggressive. They use sheer aggression to win.

Intimidating.
When you sit down at a poker table against these guys, they have an immediate edge. They are pros and intimidate the hell out of you. But it's not their celebrity that intimidates, it is their overall level of play.

Play their opponents more than their cards.
Maybe its instinct, but the top players know how to get a read on their opponent's strength. My belief is that they read betting patterns a lot more than they trust poker tells; although, they certainly can spot tells.

Smart.
They know when to take a risk, and when to put an opponent at risk. They know the odds and the percentages. They know more poker moves than the rest of us. Most importantly, they understand that the fame and fortune comes about from winning.

Tricky.
The pros know how to take advantage of situations. They know who to trap and how to trap. They know who to bluff and who not to bluff.

Great timing.
The pros often seem to have more card luck than the rest of us. This could be their positive outlook to the game. Or, it could be that they play every day so they just have more experience and card sense than the rest of us. Most likely, it is all of the above.

Who is the best tournament poker player you have ever played against and why?

Did Hellmuth Play His Pocket Aces Poorly at the WSOP?

Phil Hellmuth busts out from the Main Event with Pocket Aces

First, Phil Hellmuth is a great tournament poker player. The fact is that he has cashed more than any other player at the WSOP and he has won the Main Event. You may not like his antics, but he has created himself into a brand as the Poker Brat. It works for him very well.

Second, it is easy to second guess players based on outcomes rather than the decision itself. I think we need to evaluate the decision that was made and not the outcome.

Third, I only know what happened based on what I've read on Cardplayer.com. If you know specifics, please let me know.

Finally, the key in reviewing his play is not to criticize but to see if you can learn from his play.

A Few Hands Before The Pocket Aces

Abraham Mourshaki raises to 20,000 and Phil re-raises to 36,000. His opponent calls. Phil can re-raise with a range of hands, but it looks like a min re-raise. A min re-raise usually signals pocket Aces. Phil knows he will be called.

Note: I don't know the levels, but it looks around 2000-4000 blinds.

The flop is Jh-Jc-3d.

Phil bets 40,000 and his opponent calls.

The turn is the 7s. Both players check. This is a good play by Phil. If you are beat, you don't want to lose more chips. What if you get check-raised? Why give yourself a tough decision?

The river is a 5h. Mourshaki bets 120,000. Hellmuth calls. His opponent has As-Jd.

“I’m gonna vomit on the floor,” Phil said. “You had to find jack-jack for him. You couldn’t find just one jack so he could sail off? Phil's speech means he had pocket AA, KK or QQ, or he is just bs'ing.

Phil is down to 100,000.

Pocket Aces and He Is Out

A few hands go by and Mourshaki raises to 22,000 preflop. Hellmuth calls with pocket Aces.

Is that a good play?

My opinion is that Phil made the right play since he was so low on chips compared to average chip level and the leaders at the time. He wants to take the risk that he will be heads-up again and be able to double-up plus. He is playing to win. I don't believe Phil is targeting his opponent because he beat him a few hands earlier.

Unlike the last hand, though, three players call the raise. This is a problem. My estimate is that you lose about 8% per player when it comes to the probability of winning the hand with AA. With 4 callers, I think my Aces will hold up only about 2 out of 3 times. (I'm sure there is a more accurate formula but this is what I use when I have AA and get callers.)

The flop is Jc-10d-5c.

One early player moves all in for 83000. Hellmuth moves all-in for his last 110,000 (I guess he won a hand since his previous loss.) And another caller, also calls the all-ins.

Now, before we reveal the hands, I want to make one point here. This flop is dangerous since it is so coordinated with straight and flush draws, especially with cards 10 and over. I can't stress enough that a coordinated board with two cards 10 and higher are action flops--and a potential problem against many callers (like here).

Phil knows that as well. Even if he is up against two pair, he has a backdoor nut flush, can make a better two pair, and may even be ahead on the flop.

Hellmuth: Ac-As
Early player all-in 9h-8h (a straight draw all-in move)
Late player caller Jh-10c (calls with two pair)

The 7 hit on the turn and the early player gets his straight. Hellmuth is out.

What do you think?

Do you agree or disagree with Hellmuth's play?
Do you agree or disagree with my comments?
Anything to add on the probabilities of the hand match-ups?

Thanks for your input!

Tournament Poker: Often You Will Lose Even If You Play Perfect

Just a quick thought...

Even if you play "perfect" poker during a poker tournament, the fact is that often the cards just run against you.

Sometimes that means that you go card dead. But, as noted in a previous post, there are ways to try to counter that awful situation.

The more frustrating way to me is when you play great but run into situations where your edges just don't pan out. Usually, I have found that I can handle one bad outcome, but two are tough too overcome and three are usually fatal.

For example, if you are playing great, raise with pocket Aces and a player moves all-in with A-K suited. If your opponent beats you with a flush, well, your stack will probably take a 25-50% hit (it depends on stack sizes, but I am assuming you are beating your opponents up to this point and building your stack.)

If you lose another tough one, like JJ against 99 (as I did recently), a few hands later, well, your stack is going to be nearly crippled or you will be out.

If you are crippled, you will be moving in with a big range of hands and hoping for the best.

The net of this is the following: It was just not meant to be. You can play great or even "perfect" poker, but the poker gods may be against you that day. I guess that's poker.

Note: I don't know how to define "perfect" poker. Phil says that he would win every tournament if it wasn't for luck. But, the other day at the WSOP, I read that Phil Hellmuth limped under the gun with pocket Queens and got upset when his opponent beat him with two random cards (a hand he would fold against a raise). So, if Phil is perfect, wh no raise?:-)

Unexpected Value: A New Idea in Tournament Poker

Day 55, the Countdown Continues

"The mathematically correct play is not always the best play."
-Chip Reese

What is unexpected value? Unexpected value is making a fold even though you have positive expected value, since you know you will get more value out of a later poker situation.

Example:

It was down to 18 players in a MTT. There were 9 players at my table and I was on the button. A tight player raised 3x's the big blind. It was folded to me. I found pocket Jacks. A call made no sense since it committed half my stack. It was a situation where if I moved all-in, the raiser would call me since he had committed about 40% of his chip stack.

Since I knew my opponent was tight, he was pot committed, and 65% of the time the flop alone will have one card higher than my Jack, I made the unusual play. I folded.

I believed the unexpected value of folding was greater than the expected value I may have enjoyed at the moment.

It ended up being the right thing to do since I was able to take my low chip stack and finish 4th.

Let's take this concept one step further:

You need chips to win a tournament, and our goal is to win.

Expected value is a solid cash game concept since it is about how mathematically in the long term you will be ahead.

Expected value does not play out in all tournament decisions because a tournament is one event that is limited in time and where the value of a chip changes over time.

Another example of unexpected value is a player who views the size of the pot and decides to throw in the last of his chips since the pot is so big. Well, one of the top tournament players mentioned that he used to make this mistake and get knocked out. Now, he will save those chips and use them to build his stack back up.

While he didn't give this idea a name, I think it is my unexpected value concept.

Another example is the way Phil Hellmuth plays no limit tournaments. Phil has cashed more often than any other player in these events. One thing I read is that Phil does not always make a call when he is on a draw. I wonder if it is because of the odds in the situation, or because Phil knows he has the edge by waiting for the right situation to accumulate chips.

One final example is where I took the above quote from the late Chip Reese. He told a story about how was much better than his opponent, and he risked a large percentage of his chips against this man since he knew he had a slight edge. He was right but he ended up losing the hand. That's when he said "The mathematically correct play is not always the best play." (Anyone recall the poker book I read that in?)

Perhaps that sums up the concept of unexpected value. Unexpected value is when the mathematically correct play is not the best play.

What do you think?