How NOT to play poker.

I played so bad today it's sick. I have no idea what just happened, I guess some days you're just not all there. Here's a hand where I misplayed pretty badly. It was a 50 player $30 live donkament. I started with 2400 in chips, blinds were 25 and 25. I'm in the small blind with J3 of diamonds. A few players limped, I checked and the big blind checked. the flop comes KKJ. I check and it checks around to this guy who plays a little loosey-goosey at times and he bets 150. I call and the big blind calls. Now, here's where I should have been totally done with the hand. First of all, I read the bettor for strength, but I decided to call anyway. And then when the big blind overcalls, I have to know I'm in trouble. Best case scenario is both players have QT.

So there's about 600 in the pot and the turn is a 5. It checks around. The river is another 5, so basically nothing has changed. Either both opponents missed their draws or I'm beat. Maybe the flop bettor has an underpair to the board, but he wouldn't bet the underpair on the river. If the flop bettor bets here, he either missed a straight draw, has total air, or he has a king. Maybe AJ or QJ. So I check, the big blind checks and now the flop bettor bets 500. Curiosity got the best of me and I decided a pot sized bet here didn't want a call. The big blind folds a jack face up and the bettor turns over K8.

I was a little steamed and mentally berated myself for calling him down when I knew I was beat. "If I was really in the zone," I said to myself, "I could have check folded the flop." Sure I had a read that he was strong, but a read isn't everything. Can I really just check fold here? I know I'm supposed to be the World's Nittiest Poker Blogger, but this just takes nittiness to a whole new extreme. The fact of the matter is I played it so passively, I got myself stuck in a pretty tough spot. I basically had to guess whether he had a draw, or he had a hand. If I bet the flop, I can gauge the strength of his hand based on how he acts on his hand, not just how far back he's leaning in his chair or how casually he throws his chips into the pot. Basically, when I check the flop, I'm forced to call because he could have anything. He has position and when it's checked to him, he'll bet a draw, he'll bet a hand, and he'll bet air. So now I've put myself in a spot where I have to guess. On the other hand, if I bet out on the flop, I'll have a better idea of where I'm at based on how the rest of the table reacts to my bet.

Here's the soundbite, bumper sticker, nugget of wisdom from this hand. If you're out of position and you can call a bet, then you should bet yourself. You have to use your bets not only as a way of building pots or winning pots, but of gaining information. If I check and he bets, I have to call and I've learned nothing about the strength of his hand. Whereas if I bet, I've committed the same amount of chips I would have anyway, and I get to learn something about my opponents hand. In this spot, with a weak jack in a multi-way pot, I should have bet out and then if I'm raised, I can confidently lay my hand down, having lost the minimum, rather than committing a third of my stack just guessing whether or not he has it.

"But he could raise you with a draw. Or if he knows you're making probe bets out of position, he can raise you with nothing, knowing most of the time you're going to lay it down. Isn't betting out and then giving up just a bit... nitty?" Well, maybe. But here's the advantage of playing it that way. If I bet out and he has a draw, first of all, he's probably just going to call. And even if he does have the draw and he decides to raise, well, go ahead and take it. If he has QT, it's basically a coin flip with two to come (maybe 55/45), so I'm happy to sacrifice a little equity there for the times when I'm a slight favorite, to save a lot of money for the times when I'm a huge dog (or drawing stone dead.) Second of all, if he knows I'm making out of position probe bets, and he's going to raise me with air, fine. Let him take a few small pots, because eventually I'm going to make the same bet with a huge hand and he's going to get into trouble. The key is to be consistent. If you're making a lot of small bets with weak hands, you should be making the same bets with big hands. You never want to be predictable (bet with nothing and check with a monster, or vice-versa.)

Cliff Notes:

1. Playing marginally strong hands passively out of position can get you into a lot of trouble, basically calling off a lot of money trying to catch a bluff.
2. If you can call a bet, then you should go ahead bet.
1. Set the price yourself.
2. Don't give up control of the hand.
3. Gain information about the strength of your opponent's hand.
4. Give your opponent a chance to fold.
3. Use small bets to gain information. Take into consideration every action your opponent makes in response to your actions and try to put the pieces of the puzzle together to put him on a hand or range of hands.

Until next time, this is the World's Nittiest Poker Blogger saying sometimes it's best to give up on a marginal situation to wait for a better spot.

WSOP Rumor: final table delayed three months?

Rumors have been circulating that Harrah's and the World Series of Poker plan on implementing a little change for the 2008 Main Event. The word on the street (or I guess the word on the superhighway, as it were) is that the Main event will be played down to the final nine as usual, but then play will halt for three months and the final table will be played out some time in November 2008.

I guess the idea is that during this three months, ESPN will have time to edit and broadcast the opening sessions of the Main Event leading up to the final table. Then in November, the final table will play out and be broadcast semi-live. When I first heard this idea, I was completely opposed to it. Now, after hearing lots of peoples' opinions on the matter, I'm beginning to see both sides of the argument.

Supporters of this idea argue that it will be huge for the popularity of poker. Think about how much hole-card cams changed the game, and how much people were opposed to the idea when it first came out. There's no question that the hole-card cam was one of the main factors leading to the explosion of poker as entertainment. So who knows, maybe turning to the Main Event final table into a Superbowlesque spectacle might actually bring in some more viewers. The other argument is that during this three month period, the final table competitors will have time to basically media-whore themselves. They can go on talk shows, promote the event, get sponsorship deals, etc. This will be beneficial to the player because of the added potential of more exposure, sponsorship money and so on. This will be beneficial to the viewer as well because it will give us time to get to know these people and develop a rooting interest. Also, when the final table airs, we won't know who ends up winning, so it will be more exciting and less anti-climactic.

Personally, I've watched the final table live on PPV the last two years and I loved it. Even without the hole cards and without the editing, it has definitely been one of the events I most look forward to throughout the year. Admittedly, I am of a very small minority. The general masses would not enjoy watching 15 hours of poker, without any hole-cards no less. So, I don't blame ESPN at all for wanting to draw in more viewers. Hey, that's business, I understand. However, I honestly can't see the general public watching an entire final table, even with the hole-cards. They don't want to see 20 hands in a row with no flop. That being said, I don't know how much editing they plan on doing, but I think the general public is fine with the two hour show they have now that shows 20 or 30 huge, exciting pots. That's what they want to see. They don't want to watch poker, they want to watch some ass-clown with a shark yelling "ALL IN!!"

But that's all good and fine. If ESPN wants to take that risk, more power to them. The biggest problem I have with this proposal is how much it changes the dynamic of the game. What it basically does is it changes the Main Event into a 6000 player satellite tournament, where the final nine players move on to a new tournament, the "Championship." A poker tournament is all about building momentum and learning about your opponents' game. Stopping play for three months is absolutely ridiculous. How much can a player's game change in three months? Some of these people will be completely new players three months down the line. Is it really fair to the better players who make the final table for the weaker players to get three months to study and practice and get coaching? I admit it will make for better TV to watch nine people who actually know how to play poker, but from an EV standpoint it's absolutely unfair to the Allen Cunninghams and the Lee Watkinsons who waded through a field of thousands and got to know how his opponents play, only to come back three months later to play for millions and the World Title against basically eight complete strangers.

Finally, the whole hype machine, Superbowl-of-poker extravaganza argument has one serious flaw. As far as I know, the final table will be played in a sequestered area where everyone will have to sign confidentiality agreements so ESPN will be able to edit it down and broadcast it before anyone finds out who wins. Well, great, it will be cool watching it on ESPN not knowing what's going to happen. The only problem is, how is there going to be this electric grand-spectacle atmosphere with no audience? It sounds like a petty grievance, but just think about it. What would the Super Bowl be without shirtless drunk dudes yelling at the top of their lungs? Or for that matter what would the Main Event Final Table be without "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! Oy, oy, oy!" Sporting events are sporting events because of the audience, period.

So, I guess I'm prepared for Harrah's to go either way on this. Whatever happens, the Main Event will always be the Main Event. Although, I am leaning towards wanting to keep it the way it is, but that's probably just because I'm a huge nit.

Daniel Negreanu: the Mike Tyson of poker?

This is a quote from Kid Poker's latest blog entry:

"I'm in that killer mindset, like I literally want to eat people's brains. Just literally rip their brains to shreds after an appetizer of ripping their hearts out of their chests, taking a big bite out of them, and then spitting the blood back in their faces."

I really have nothing to say about this. I just think it's hilarious. I hope he does as well as he seems to think he's going to do in Monte Carlo. Best of luck to you, Daniel.

Welcome to the World's Nittiest Poker Blog

Hello, internet. I decided to start a blog. Mostly to just rant about crap you may or may not care about. I'll be talking my own poker experiences. Maybe some interesting hands, or brag about a tournament I won. I'll try not to tell any bad beat stories, unless the hand in question presents a learning opportunity, in which case it's not really a bad beat story anymore.

I'll also talk about goings on in the poker world. News, gossip, juicy tidbits about Lee Watkinsin's monkeys. Who knows?

So sit back, grab a snack, and prepare to explore the wild wonderful world of poker form yours truly, the world's nittiest poker blogger.

-Jon