Poker News

Jennifer Newell

As has been detailed in the first four parts of this series, the Absolute Poker superuser cheating scandal has been in the news since September 2007. Though the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, which holds the gaming license of Absolute Poker, had initiated an investigation, a final report was due from the auditors, Gaming Associates, in early December. Until the second week of January, there had been no further word.

While most media outlets let the story slip from their front pages, a select few continued to demand answers. Poker Player Newspaper allowed me to continue these columns, for which this writer is grateful. And when Chuck Barnett, a member of Mohawk Internet Technologies Board of Supervisors heard Keep Flopping Aces , Lou Krieger’s radio show?with yours truly as a guest, and an intense focus on the Absolute Poker scandal?he called in. Barnett shed some light on the connections between the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC) and Absolute Poker, which I will detail in the next column. He also informed us that a decision was forthcoming.

In less than 24 hours, a decision was rendered and published by the KGC. Dated January 11, 2008, the decision confirmed that cheating occurred on Absolute Poker for six weeks beginning on August 14, 2007 and involved nine different user ID names.

Those responsible for the cheating are no longer connected with AP, and AP as a corporate entity did not sanction or initiate the activities. The decision confirmed that all players known to have been cheated were reimbursed, and anyone not included in that reimbursement of monies can contact the KGC within 60 days for consideration.

The KGC decision noted that AP had ?taken the appropriate actions to address the vulnerability in its systems.? In addition, some new information came to light. AP failed to contact the KGC within24 hours after they became aware that cheating occurred, which violates the Commission’s regulations. And person(s) associated with AP’s operations deleted certain gaming logs and records that hampered?but did not prevent?the investigation.

As a result of the violations and breaches, sanctions were imposed on Absolute Poker by the KGC as follows:

Within hours of the release of the KGC’s decision, Absolute Poker released a statement. The company recognized the completeness and accuracy of the decision, adding that it appointed a team of internal and external members to improve controls and install safeguards on the site. In addition, a series of ?poker security summits? with ?respected and independent members of the poker community? will be held to further improve AP’s security.

AP noted that it ?regrets the inadvertent deletion of certain gaming logs and records during the course of the investigation,? though it is unclear how records are ever inadvertently deleted. Most striking about the AP statement was its several mentions of relief to have this experience over. It was a ?most distressing and regrettable experience,? and it is glad to ?close the book on this sordid affair.? Clearly, this was an attempt at an apology.

The next (and possibly final) column in this series will look at the ownership of Absolute Poker and the subsequent connections to the Mohawk Territory .

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Richard Burke

in the last issue of Poker Player newspaper, we showed tactics for tournament play derived from the Independent Chip Model. In this issue, we present more tactics, and counter-measures for small, medium, and large stacks.

Suppose you’re in the stage of a tournament, I told Fred, where half the remaining players will make the money and the stacks at your table range from five to fifty times the big blind. Furthermore, suppose that one of the small stacks is the big blind and her starting hand requirements are any pair, any ace, any king, or any two cards ranking higher than sevens.

The short-stacked big blind will therefore call an all-in raise 45.1 percent of the time. Her win probability is .6138 (or better) against 9♦ - 8♥ (or worse). Should anyone raise her all-in? The ICM answers that question.

The second column shows your ?fold equity,? the dollar equity that would arise if the big blind were to fold times the probability that she would fold. The last column shows your probable change in equity from putting the big blind all-in. If the big blind were to call, then as shown in columns 3 and 4, a small stack has the most to gain, and also the most to lose.

The above table suggests that someone ought to raise the short-stacked big blind, even with hands as marginal as 9♦ - 8♥ . According to the ICM calculations, any stack size would gain equity.

Fred asked about raising a small stack with ?air.? The next ICM table shows the results of raising all-in with the hammer , 7♦ - 2♥ . Since the probable change in equity is negative for all stack sizes, the ICM doesn’t support raising all-in with ?air? against a short-stacked big blind, or limper, with those calling requirements.

Everyone at the table increases his equity when someone busts out, so if a small stack limps, then either he’s foolish or trapping. He would be foolish because anyone could raise him all-in. But knowing that, a short stack might trap with a big hand, hoping to entice someone to raise him all-in and thereby double up. Fred said he might try that play himself, although he rarely had a big hand and never when he needed it.

While the larger stacks might prefer to wait patiently until the smaller stacks eliminate each other, often a large stack is last and only to act. If so, then he can pressure the blinds with a min-raise at least.

Medium and large stacks might better use their ammo to pound on medium stacks. The small stacks are desperados and more likely to push with anything; the medium stacks tend to play too tightly, hoping to keep a low profile and to back into the money. Because they play too tightly, any attacker has very large fold equity, and may profit from raising with ?air.? A frustrated medium stack may play back at you, I told Fred, after you’ve raised his big blind yet again, so you need to pick your spots, and trust your reads.

ICM Part 1

ICM Part 2

ICM Part 3

ICM Part 4

ICM Part 5

ICM Part 6

ICM Part 7

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Limit Hold’em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies by Terry Borer and Lawrence Mak with Barry Tanenbaum D&B Publishing 2007 366 pp, $24.95

Online poker has introduced many new developments to this beloved game.

One of these is the advent of intentionally short-handed tables. Despite the popularity of these games, few books have been devoted to examining the special circumstances surrounding short-handed play. One of the few to do so is Limit Hold’em: Winning Short- Handed Strategies by Terry Borer and Lawrence Mak, with assistance from Barry Tanenbaum.

The book begins with several chapters that serve as an introduction to the topics it covers. The authors discuss differences between online and live play, as well as general differences between short-handed and full games. They also go into considerable detail about using statistics and online player-modeling tools as playing aids.

After the introductory material, we get down to it. Around half of the book steps through each hold’em betting round; explaining how to play at each stage assuming the game is fi ve or six handed. Following this we have chapters that cover “super short-handed” situations, defi ned as those with fewer than five players.

The book concludes with several chapters on miscellaneous topics, including bankroll management, tilt, poker ethics, and personal development. One of the things I really liked about the book was its use of supplemental software to help profi le online opponents. Instead of poker book hand examples characterizing opponents as “loose/aggressive,” “tight/ passive,” or the like, the authors’ metrics were calculated from hand histories.

The chapters on each betting round contain mostly good advice. I’m sure these techniques make the authors winners in the games they play. The suggestions are thoughtful and aggressive, just what I expect you’d need to beat short handed games. The supplemental material at the end of the book is again, good advice, but all stuff that has been covered in more detail in other places.

I have to admit that I did have a problem with an overarching theme of the book, though. The authors state that playing in a three handed game is different than playing in a full game where everyone folds to the player on the button.

Does their rationale have anything to do with the possibility that the folders in the full game may have had especially poor cards? No. Their claim is that the game is different because it plays differently. Since the game plays differently, they focus on how their opponents play and don’t consider why it is that these situations are different.

They don’t consider whether it is the full game, short game, or both types of players that are playing poorly. Apparently, they don’t think it’s an important question. Well, I do think it’s an important question, and it’s one that I wish the book had addressed.

So, while I think this book is likely to be valuable to those looking to improve their short-handed online play, and I while I think the way they parameterize opponents is nothing short of outstanding, I don’t think the authors did such a good job of providing a strong foundation that justifies the way they play. As such, I fear that the fundamental techniques described in this book will not have as wide an applicability or as long a shelf life as one might hope.

Despite this, I do expect that those who presently play in the sorts of games specifically discussed here will find Limit Hold’em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies quite beneficial.

Limit Hold’em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies by Terry Borer and Lawrence Mak with Barry Tanenbaum D&B Publishing, 2007 ISBN: 978-1-904468-37-0 366 pp, $24.95

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Ashley Adams

I’d like to use this column to urge all poker players to read more. Reading opens up your mind to the thinking of other people-broadening your mind by broadening the experiences you can understand and consider. Whether it’s poker strategy, fiction, or just life experience that you’re reading about, you’re entering a world you would not normally enter yourself. By broadening your mind you broaden your perspective and expand how you think- which, in my view, can only help but develop your ability at the poker table.

As the year ended I was lucky to find myself with two books of fiction, which I read for pleasure. They were also, at least tangentially, booksabout poker. Though neither is a book about poker strategy, I recommend them each to you.

Written with co-author Robert Randisi, Vince Van Patten’s The Picasso Flop sets a murder mystery inside the exciting and, for we poker players, familiar world of a major poker tournament in Las Vegas.

Van Patten should be familiar to anyone who watches the World Poker Tour events. He is the announcer. He has also been a screenwriter, producer, and director-as well as a professional tennis player. He joins forces with acclaimed mystery writer Randisi to produce one of the few realistic poker mysteries. I liked three things, chiefly, about this fast paced mystery. First, and most important, I really appreciated that they got the poker content right. So many authors these days don’t. They use poker in their stories-but without really understanding the game, the rules, or the trappings of it, it comes off either unrealistic or dead wrong. Not so here. The details are clear and accurate.

Van Patten also uses real poker figures to spice up his fictitious tale. Mike Sexton plays a large role in the drama, as do Doyle Brunson, James Woods and a thinly disguised Eskimo Clark. Finally, I enjoyed the rapid pacing of the story. It is high energy throughout-and can be finished in six hours or so of steady reading. It’s the absolutely perfect book for your next flight to Las Vegas (at least if you’re coming from the east coast).

I was also pleased with the latest offering by Susie Isaacs. Susie is probably best known as one of the greatest female poker players competing today. She won the ladies tournament at the World Series of Poker in successive years (1996 and 1997) and finished at the final table in the $10,000 main event in 1998. She is also an accomplished author, having written five other books and the long-running poker magazine column “Chip Chatter.”

Since most of her writings have been focused on women in poker, I wasn’t sure that I’d really enjoy her latest book and her first novel, White Knight Black Nights. But, surprisingly, I found that I couldn’t put it down. It was a terrific read. It’s the story of a woman who is caught in the conflict between being a dutiful and loving spouse while at the same time discovering and becoming a thoroughly independent woman-who happens to be a successful poker player and writer. Her journey includes more than enough spice, drama, sex, and violence to keep the attention of men and women alike.

Isaacs is at her best in developing her two main characters- one of whom seems to be based at least loosely on the author herself. Their dialogue is realistic and moving. Their experiences are poignant and unpredictable. Isaacs’ interweaving into the story line of the realistic poker world of Las Vegas is also a nice touch for we poker players who thrive there. The concluding scenes are as powerful as they are unexpected. I’m eager to see what other fiction she might have in the year to come.

As we begin a new year, I wish all of you a successful, literate, and profitable 2008.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

John Caldwell

SHOULD ONLINE SINS BE PUNISHED OFFLINE?

As part of a public mea culpa issued just weeks before his 18th birthday, admitted internet poker multi-account user Josh “JJProdigy” Field announced his plans to attend and play in PokerStars’ Caribbean Adventure. Not so fast, said PokerStars. In its widely distributed email response, Stars announced that it was extending the ban against Field through the PCA, and Field was not welcome. On the other side of the world, the Aussie Millions, after considering the matter, decided to let Field play, citing the fact that Field had never violated any of their terms and conditions, and therefore should be allowed to play. We haven’t heard the last of this issue yet, and internet message boards are aflame with the debate.

YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!

With action in the main event of PokerStars’ Caribbean Adventure nearing conclusion, a little bit of fun ensued for players not deep in the final rounds of play. That fun was the return of the PokerStars World Championship of Battleship Poker, where players put their laptops back to back and play an online heads-up match where they can see their opponents’ cards, but not their own. The match was won by Dustin “neverwin” Woolf, who defeated Vanessa Selbst to win the $48,000 first prize. Selbst collected $25,600 for finishing second. Terrance Eischens and Sorel Mizzi both won $12,800 for making the semis, while quarterfinalists Steve Silverman, Elia Ahmadia, Matt Kay, and Mike Glasser each collected $8,000.

CAN GUS BUY A VOWEL?

Gus Hansen hopes to cement his status as one on the world’s most recognizable poker players with the launching of his ThePlayr.com poker website. Loosely evocative of Daniel Negreanu’s Full Contact Poker, ThePlayr.com will offer news, articles, a poker forum, events and competitions, an “Ask Gus” area and a complete “Gus Hansen’s Poker Academy,” where Gus “… will teach poker the way poker should be played-aggressively.” A number of the site’s features were designed with the assistance of Full Tilt, where Hansen remains under sponsorship. The site launched on Friday with a kickoff conference at the Aussie Millions.

IS SOME OF THIS THIRTEEN MILLION YOURS?

While many U.S. based poker players have long since had a fading interest in NETeller’s well-being, there are many that should pay heed to the online payment processor’s latest press release. While NETeller announced it had reimbursed $81 million to US customers affected by the company’s account freeze in early 2007, there is still approximately $13 million that has gone unclaimed. Former US account holders have only until January 26 to claim their assets using the NETeller website.

MORE ELECTRONIC TABLES COMING AS LIGHTNING POKER, INC. IS AWARDED PATENT

Pennsylvania-based Lightning Poker, Inc., one of the two largest makers of electronic poker tables for use in liveaction casinos, has been awarded a patent for one specific element of its products. The 10-seat Lightning Poker tables continue to be distributed under an agreement signed last year with leading casino-equipment supplier Shuffle Master, Inc. The automated Lightning Poker tables offer both Texas hold’em and Omaha programming options and are available for play in several casinos in the U.S. The firm also has installations in Canada, Australia, Macau, Germany, Australia, Bulgaria, Romania and Lebanon among other countries.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

I. Nelson Rose

On February 5, 2008, Californians will vote on whether four tribes can triple the number of slot machines in their casinos, from 8,000 to 25,000.

But, no matter who wins, the losers will sue. And they will have good arguments on their side.

Opponents, primarily unions and competing tribal casinos and racetracks, believe this legal mess was created by underhanded attempts to guarantee that these four tribes would get their slots, even if the voters disapproved.

I believe the problems were the result of federal and state bureaucrats following what they thought was the letter of the law, without using common sense.

This particular fight started a couple of years ago, when Gov. Schwarzenegger signed compacts giving these tribes more slots in exchange for the state receiving up to 25 percent of the net gaming revenue. The compacts had to be approved by the State Legislature. The Senate approved immediately. But opponents stalled the approvals in the Assembly until the tribes agreed to a few additional terms in side agreements. This creates the first legal question: Are side agreements between the state and tribes enforceable, when they are not part of the compact?

The opponents did not give up. They launched referenda campaigns and got enough signatures to put the compacts on the February 5 ballot. Meanwhile, Gov. Schwarzenegger, with approvals in hand from the State Legislature, signed the compacts and gave them to state Secretary of State Debra Bowen to forward to the federal Department of the Interior. That she did, because she read state law as requiring her to do so.

This creates the second set of lawsuits. California law does require her to forward approved compacts. But were the compacts approved? Technically, the State Legislature’s approval has to be in the form of a statute. Statutes normally don’t take effect until January 1 of the following year. So, maybe Bowen sent the compacts too soon.

Plus, under California law, normal statutes do not take effect at all, once they have been challenged by a referendum. Opponents argue the approvals only take effect if the voters say they do in February. The Secretary of Interior is not supposed to rubber-stamp these compacts. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires that he review them to see that they meet all legal requirements. But government bureaucrats being bureaucrats, his office apparently misplaced the compacts. No big deal … except the Act also says that the compacts are “deemed approved” if the Secretary fails to take any action on them for 45 days.

These compacts were big news. Anyone in the Dept. of Interior with common sense would have treated them with special care. And the Secretary should have returned them to California, or at least asked questions whether the approvals by the State Legislature were still valid. Even after screwing up for 45 days, the Secretary should have done something, such as ask for guidance from the courts. Instead, he announced that the compacts had been deemed approved.

In the uproar that followed, someone noted that federal law requires more than an announcement by the Secretary. To be official, the Secretary’s approval must be published in the Federal Register. So, all the Secretary had to do was not publish his approval until after the February election.

On December 19, this Bush appointee published his approval in the Federal Register.

When asked why he did such a bonehead thing, his reply was pure bureaucratese: Once deemed approved, the law required him to publish the approval.

So one way to look at the February referenda is not that it will decide whether there is a massive expansion of tribal casino gaming. Rather, it is a make-work project for lawyers.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Annie Duke

This is the third and final installment of Jennifer Matiran’s interview with Annie Duke.

During their initial conversation, Annie said, “I know players that have more talent in their pinky than I do in my whole body and they’re broke.”

“What do you mean?”

Jennifer asked. “They have leaks,” said Annie.

“Leaks, what are leaks?” Jennifer asked curiously. “Leaks are when someone wins at the poker table and then proceeds to bet what they won on something else, and they end up losing everything they won in the first place.”

“Ahh, so you don’t have leaks?” Jennifer said. Annie laughed, saying “my children are my leaks.”

JENNIFER: How does your attitude affects your decisions?

ANNIE DUKE: We make decisions when we are thinking positively. Here’s a case in point. If you are losing at a poker table you are more likely to make a bad decision. You will play too many hands and throw good money after bad.

When you play too many hands because you’re trying to get your money back, it is a bad decision. It is bad mathematical decision-a bad game theory decision

JM: I think I’m a pretty good player, but I don’t recover well from a big beat. What would you advise?

AD: That’s a very good question. Most people can recognize the physiological signs of guilt, blushing cheeks, the heart rate thing, the breathing. If you can’t stop the feelings quickly, get up and walk away from the table.

Don’t keep playing, no matter how good that game is, if you can not stop those physical feelings, and the “why are these things happening to me” feelings. The first way that you deal with these things, especially if you are a new player, is to have a very strict loss limits when you sit down in a game. Not win limits, loss limits.

In a limit poker game, you can set 30 big bets as a loss limit. For example, if you are up 15 big bets and you get down 30 big bets you are done. You are now 30 bets down from your peak.

People at the table perceive you as a loser and will come after you, while you will lose the ability to knock people out of the game. When you are playing with confidence and are winning at the table, it is easy to continue winning.

But you are losing; you may not be the best judge of whether or not you are losing because you are playing poorly or because you are unlucky. None of us-not even experts-when losing is particularly good at judging our own play. When you first sit down, put a control on how we are might be playing if we begin to lose.

In a no-limit game you want to be looking between 50 or 100 big blinds. Now, in terms of overall bankroll management you don’t ever want to risk more than 5-10 percent of your entire bankroll.

You need to be a very good player to risk 10 percent. If you are playing $1-$2 no-limit hold’em, you should have at least $1,000 to $2,000 in your bankroll. That’s much more money than most people think.

When we play from behind we are never playing our best game. And try not to play tired. We have more emotional control when we are not tired. You want to put a limit on the number of hours for your tournament and you want to play tournaments that are no more than 6-8 hours long. In terms of the actual ideation that you have during the game, one thing you can do is get up and walk around until the physical symptoms go away.

JM: Even during a tournament?

AD: Yeah, even during a tournament, I get up and walk around. In turns of the ideation, there is really one good way to deal with those thoughts, whether they are good thoughts or bad thoughts. The bad thoughts are like “I’m so unlucky,” “I can’t believe I played so poorly, why did I let that happen to me?” “Bad things are always happening to me at the table.” The best substitutes for bad thoughts are good thoughts. If a hand was particularly bad, keep a journal and find someone to discuss it with so that you can learn from the experience.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Post Content

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Lou Krieger

Identifiable betting patterns are there for you to spot in most poker games, and any information you can glean about another player’s betting patterns will help you gain an edge on that opponent at the poker table. Every top-notch poker player is aware of betting patterns and knows how to capitalize on the information they provide.

Information picked up from betting patterns can serve a number of purposes-from tracking the playing styles of your adversaries to tracking down some areas of your own game that might need improvement.

When you put it all together and are able to combine information learned from betting patterns with physical tells exhibited by players at the table, then combine that with the community cards that show up in a hold’em game and the cards that other players turn up at the showdown, you can consider yourself to be a very skillful, savvy player. It might even appear to your opponents that you have some unerring, almost mystical sort of card sense, but most of this magic act can be learned and improved upon through diligence, practice, and repetition.

The most common pattern you’ll find in a hold’em game is one your opponents do all the time and you probably do yourself. It’s: call, bet, bet, check. That’s simple, isn’t it? You call the blinds before the flop, catch a hand you like- something like top pair with a good kicker-so you bet the flop and the turn too, but when you fail to improve to three-of-a-kind or two pair, you decide to check the river to save a bet just on the odd chance that you’re beaten. Becoming aware of this most common of betting patterns allows you to pick up a small leak in your game.

You’re leaving money on the table. Can you see how? When you have the best hand on the turn, most of the time the river card won’t promote your opponent’s hand to one that’s better than yours. When the river does improve an opponent’s hand, it’s usually a case of a third suited card that screams “flush,” or a sequenced card that has “straight” written all over it.

If a third suited card jumps out of the deck on the river, feel free to check as long as your opponents act after you do. But if you have the luxury of acting last, go ahead and bet. You’re likely to be safe, not sorry, if you do. The only time you’ll get in trouble acting on this assumption is when the river pairs your opponent’s side card to give him two pair. But there are only three cards in the deck that will pair his kicker, and if he’s willing to play second or third pair against your top pair you’ll win much more money from him in the long run than you will ever lose on those rare and lucky occasions that he pairs his kicker with a miraculous catch on the river.

A player who is fortunate enough to catch his flush card on the river will usually bet when it’s his turn to act. And if he had a bigger hand than yours before the river- suppose he flopped a set, or the top two pair-he’ll do his checkraising on the flop or the turn, not the river. What’s the message in this bottle? Most times you have the best hand on the turn, you’ll have the best hand on the river too, and you ought to bet it. OK, OK, so you’ll run into some nasty situations when you bet and are called or even raised and lose the pot. Don’t worry aboutit. It’s no big deal in the grand scheme of things because you’re far more likely to attract a crying call from a weaker hand than you are to induce a raise from someone holding a stronger one.

More on betting patterns next issue.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Bonnie Demos

A little Madness in the Spring Is wholesome even for the King. -Emily Dickinson No.1333 (c.1875)

As we eagerly wait for Punxsutawney Phil (named after King Phillip) to emerge from his winter hibernation, the spring forecast for poker action in the Midwest promises to be anything but mild. There will be more war than love in the air throughout the month of February, as three major events kick off the action packed spring tournament season. Cherokee Casino will be the host to The Oklahoma State Championship of Poker from February 14 through 26, starting with a special Valentine’s Day Jack and Jill event.

A variety of state championship tournaments are scheduled daily including Omaha, H.O.R.S.E., ladies, seniors, triple draw lowball, limit, pot-limit, no-limit, and the $3,150 buy-in main event that begins on February 24. Daily satellites are currently underway at Cherokee Casino. Players also have the opportunity to win one of five guaranteed seats to the OSCP main event at the Comanche Red River Casino in Devol, OK at their $125 buy-in satellite scheduled for February 10. Please contact the Comanche poker room at 866-380-2161 Ext. 2135 for further details.

Additionally, the Horseshoe in Council Bluffs, IA will be host to the largest WSOP circuit event in the Midwest from February 18 through the 27. Heartland Poker Tour begins its 2008 season with The Grand Series, at Grand Casino Mille Lacs, located in Odana, MN, from February 17 through the 24.

Enter March roaring like a lion at the March Madness $500 buy-in event on March 8 at the Menominee Casino in Keshena, WI. You can pre-register by calling (800) 343-7778 ext. 4024. Seating is limited to 121 players.

You can also take a shot at being crowned king of the jungle-at least for a day-at the Heartland Poker Tour Event No. 2 beginning on March 2 at the Meskwaki Casino in Tama, IA. Just don’t go out like a lamb! April promises to bring showers of dollars, beginning on the first of the month with Heartland Poker Tour Event No. 3 at the Golden Gates Casino in Blackhawk, Co. This will be followed by event No. 4 from April 19 - 28 at the Majestic Star Casinos in Gary, IN.

Caesar’s, located in Elizabeth, IN is host to the perennially popular spring WSOP tournament circuit event which runs April 2 - 16.

Canterbury Park’s Second Spring Classic Tournament in Shakopee, MN will also be on the agenda for many of the areas top players. Dates to be announced later. Wishing all of you an early spring filled with sunshine, warmth, and a little bit of madness, good luck.

Bonnie Demos from the midwest, Gambler, poker player and award winning chef, has enjoyed working in the gaming industry for the past several years. Write her at bdemos1@ wi.rr.com

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »