Poker News

Annie Duke

Our fearless reporter, Jennifer Matiran, caught up with Annie Duke a while back and the result is this multi-part interview. Part 1 ran last issue, and we’ll wrap things up next time. But for now, here’s a chance to hear Annie Duke expound on teenage poker phenomenon Annette Obrestad and a plethora of other subject too.

JENNIFER: What do you think of Annette Obrestad, who just won the WSOP Europe Tournament?

ANNIE DUKE: She actually knocked me out of that tournament. I finished twenty-first. I think she’s incredible. She’s the most talented 18-year-old I’ve ever seen. I don’t think I’d seen an 18-year-old play professional poker before. You know, she turned 19 the day after she won that tournament. She has incred-ible instincts. If she continues to improve I wouldn’t want her at my table. She’s very good at reading people. Another thing she is really good at is figuring out the logic of a hand. She really thinks things through, which is something that a lot of people don’t do. That’s really nice to see in an 18-year-old. She is so beyond her years. You see many people who win events and you think, “Wow that was a fluke.” The thing that I can tell you about her is that she deserved to win. She is extremely aggressive, very talented, and really good at thinking a hand through. She really understands game theory.

She’s a little bit reckless, but that is not surprising since she trained on the internet. I’ve seen a lot of internet players that start off a little bit reckless when they first play in the brick and mortar world, and then they pull it back a little bit for these slower structured tournaments. There is no question that she will do that. She is one of the most talented young players I have seen in my life. She’s really good.

JM: What are your thoughts on internet gaming, its legalization, and direction?

AD: I think the Unlawful Internet GamingEnforcement Act (UIGEA) is a shame because poker isn’t a game of luck; it’s a game of skill, and skill games should be legal.

Its okay that people play baseball, I think people should be allowed to play poker. I think that poker as an educational tool is incredible. It teaches a lot of math skills, game-playing skills, as well as negotiation skills.

You know, there’s a lot of options trading groups that force there traders to play poker because it broadens their skills. I know lawyers that play poker because they feel it sharpens their negotiating ability. If I had a choice between my kids cruising around or being at clubs, I would prefer that they spend their time playing poker. There is a lot usefulness that comes from playing poker. It’s definitely a skill game and I wish that people would view it that way.

I think the government is making a big mistake. If they just regulated it there is a tremendous amount of revenue that could come from it too.

One thing that is really insulting about the legal landscape right now is that in the same breath-in the same bill-where they made it impossible for online gaming to succeed in the United States, at least from the banking standpoint, they legalized online lotteries. And that’s just gross because the lotteries are just a complete game of luck- there’s no skill involved whatsoever-and they are also an incredibly regressive tax. I guess it depends on whether or not you believe in regressive taxes. I believe lotteries only give people a way of just dumping their money off to a completely luck oriented operation. It has become a state institution with a constituency all its own-all of this while not allowing them to do something [poker] that might actually help people improve their cognitive abilities.

JM: You know my dad is an avid poker player. At 75 years old, he is as sharp as a tack. I believe his poker playing is exercise for his mind. More on the Annie Duke interview next issue!

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Russ Fox

Aaron was sitting at the breakfast table, enjoying his hotcakes, when his wife Anne asked him how the poker game went at the casino yesterday.

“It went very well, honey. There’s one hand in particular that I thoroughly enjoyed playing. I was up against Mick-you remember, the maniac I told you about?”

“Oh, sure, dear.”

“Anyway, I was in the small blind in the $1 - $2 no-limit game with [7c]-[7s]. Mick was in middle position, and he raised to all of $4. Three players called, so I did but the big blind folded. The flop came [7h][5h][3s]. I looked at Mick, and I just knew he had [Ah][Kh].”

“How much did you have in your stack?” Anne asked.

“It was a new game, and we all had $200 in our stacks. Let’s see, I decided to bet out so I made it $20. Mick said raise, and then he moved all-in! The next player quietly said call, the next two players folded, so I had to decide what to do.”

“You folded, right?”

“Well, I worked it out at the table. It would cost me $176, and I could win about $440 more. I knew where Mick was assuming I made the right read, but I had to figure out the other player. I was thinking for several minutes when I realized it didn’t matter.

“The only hand that was ahead of me would be if the other guy had 6-4, and if that’s the case I had seven outs on the turn and ten outs on the river. If he had an underset, then I just had to sweat Mick’s draw. So I called.”

“You did WHAT? Didn’t you realize you gave Mick the right price?”

“No honey, I didn’t; the other guy did. Once that guy called, there’s nothing I can do assuming I’ve read Mick right. Mick would always be getting the right price. He has about a 1-in-3 chance of hitting his draw, assuming I call. And how can I not call? I had the best hand, and I was a big favorite. The other guy flopped a set of threes, and Mick had the [Ah]-[Kh]. Yes, Mick was getting just under 1-in-3 odds, but I was going to win the pot two-thirds of the time. And assume that the other guy had the 6-4; I would be getting the right price. In that case I’d be getting 1.8-to-1 on my money, about a 36 percent chance of winning. I’ll take those odds. Not to mention the chance of putting Mick on tilt.” “Did he go on tilt?”

“No, and I was surprised. An orbit later, after he rebought, he got in a hand with that same guy. Mick raised with some piece of cheese, say [8c]-[5s], against the other guy’s A-A. Mick got lucky, though, and flopped two pair and stacked the guy off. That guy went on tilt, though; he changed his game from tight to very loose, but he didn’t know what to do. He never followed up his bad hands with continuation bets when he missed the flop. Even Mrs.

Goldman cleaned up against him. He must have dropped a thousand.”

“Wow, that’s a lot in a $1-$2 game.”

“Yeah, but I did really well. Justplayed a patient game and took the few opportunities that came my way.”

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Oklahoma Johnny Hale and Oklahoma Sarah

I want to introduce you to Carol and my daughter, “Oklahoma” Sarah Hale. Forgive me, my buttons are busting when I talk about OK-S!

She is Hollywood beautiful, Vegas street smart, college smart, and employed by Caesars Palace in Las Vegas! OK-Sarah is also one hell of a poker player, and was the first woman to win a poker tournament at the Wynn poker room in Las Vegas.

On September 30, 2007 OK-S won first place in my eightieth birthday poker party at the Venetian!

OK-Sarah was born to play poker. Herfirst recorded words were “I raise the pot.” Thousands of poker players knew that she was on her way because when her mother Carol was pregnant with Sarah, Carol would sit beside me knitting while I was playing poker with them.

Sarah graduated with honors from UNLV and will be returning to the University of Nevada at Las Vegas to attain her masters in hotel and gaming management.

OK-Sarah has hosted her own poker tournament, The L.A.C.E. ladies poker tournament at the Horseshoe in Tunica, and will soon return there for the second annual L.A.C.E. tournament this March, just before she hosts the cruise on “The Freedom of the Seas”!

If OK-Sarah sits down to play in a poker game she may look like she will be very easy to beat, But She has the beauty of her mother-the money of her grandfather– -the luck of her father-the courage of a lion-and when she gets up she may have your money in her pocket.

Well folks—I could go on and on; there is much more to tell of “Oklahoma” Sarah, but I want to leave OK-S enough space for her to say a few words to you.

Go for it Sarah! Gosh, Dad I did not think you were ever going to wind down, but thanks for the intro.

I already know a lot of you poker players and I also know some of the ones that dad fondly calls the “whippersnappers.” Yes, I do love poker, and have played poker all over the world with dad and mom-at the world famous Aviation Club on the Champs Elysee in Paris, and played poker in the Victoria club in London and Amsterdam.

I took lessons and received my licensee as a deep sea diver.

I love to ski, snorkel, and rock climb, go snow boarding in Switzerland, and visit our Thousands Pines Ranch in Arizona. I also love dancing and seeing all the shows here in Vegas! Vegas is my home town!

I know this town. I have walked its streets, played poker in all the poker rooms, eaten in all the gourmet rooms, and have been to the fancy suites and in a lot of the penthouses and multi-million dollar homes.

I will be telling you about all the hot spots here in Vegas, at the Palms, Caesars Palace, Venetian, Wynn, Sahara, and all the trendy night clubs!

I will report to you folks about the best places to go in Vegas for poker tournamentsand all the “in” places in Vegas where you can have fun with all the young whippersnappers. I invite you to come with me to Vegas and on the cruise and have fun around the world of Poker.

I am the luckiest girl in the world. My dad is a great teacher-a great person and a great father, and my mom is awesome. I will reveal some of dads poker secrets and how mom can get dad to fight a tiger-or to save a kitty. I’m “Oklahoma” Sarah Hale and I always stay lucky!

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Mike Eikenberry

I recently played extremely well and just killed a $10-$20 limit hold’em game. It was like leading the lambs to slaughter. I felt like I deserved a good meal, and decided to head for the “All you can eat buffet.” There I consumed a rack of ribs, roast beef, fish of the day, and all the trimmings, along with a sampling of the desserts and two glasses of merlot.

When I got back to my game, a large turnover in players had occurred. In no time I not only found it hard to stay awake, but lost my large earlier winnings. I finally quit a substantial loser initially thinking my luck had gone from good to bad. Then it hit me. ATAYCEB*, the game had changed. Now it was like leading the hog to slaughter and I was the hog. (*ATAYCEB: After The All You Can Eat Buffet).

Playing the Ego. A poker player’s excessive ego can cost him money, especially in Las Vegas. Often, the egotist does not even realize what has happened.

I was watching a $20-$40 hold’em game at the Mirage Casino with a local poker pro named John. There were three tourists in the game who were playing loose and winning a high percentage of the hands. Although they seemingly did not know one another previously, they had become friendly during their 4-5 hour poker session. As a courtesy, after one of them won a pot, he would give the other two players $10 apiece. Since they were all winning about the same number of pots, this practice amounted to no more than giving the same $10 chips back and forth. John claimed if he got in on this arrangement, however, it would be very profitable. I was about to see what he meant.

A seat came open and John sat down in the game next to Joe, one of the tourists. John noticed that Joe looked like he was doing well with about $2,000 in chips in his stacks. John bought in for $500.

Shortly thereafter, Joe won a bigpot and gave his two comrades their $10. John asked in a friendly tone why he had done this. Joe said it was just a friendly courtesy. John said it looked like a good idea and he would be happy to join in. Joe hesitantly smiled; uncertain whether he wanted John to participate. John then gave Joe two $5 chips, saying, “If you’re short on funds, let me give you $10.” Joe’s ego now took over and he threw John $20 saying, “No. No. Here is your $10 and $10 more.” John, profiting $10 already, said, “Okay, but I’m giving you and your friends $10 apiece whenever I win a pot.” Not to be outdone, they all agreed to do the same with him.

Over the next few hours, John kept track of the results of the “courtesy exchange.” The three loose players won 110 pots between them. John played much more solid and selectively, only winning 20 total hands. John received $1,110 while paying out $600. His net gain was $510. Joe never noticed the cost of his excessive ego.

IN AND OUT RIDDLE

What determines the In and Out List? The answer will appear next issue. Thanks to everyone who purchased my new book. The first printing sold out and the second printing is due in late January. If you ordered after December 1, you should receive your copy no later than February. Your patience and support are appreciated.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Post Content

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Barbara Connors

What’s the fastest, most reliable way to lose money in this game? Make hands that look good, but just aren’t good enough to win. Second-best hands. Oh so promising, oh so seductive, but in the end … oh so deadly.

This is not about middling second-best hands like second pair, or top-pair-lousy-kicker, where you should probably know better. No, it’s those hands that actually look like they have a chance to win- bottom two pair, baby straights and flushes-that are most likely to suck you in and bleed you dry. And one of the most common, and costly, second-best hands is the sucker straight. This is the straight you make by using your hole cards to complete thelow end of a straight draw on the community board. An example would be holding 9-8 suited with a flop of Q-J-10 rainbow. It’s the low end of the straight, often referred to as the ignorant, idiot, or sucker straight.

Let’s say you limped in from late position with that 9-8 suited and caught a Q-J-10 flop. Since there was no preflop raise, it’s unlikely that any of your opponents are holding A-K, so there’s a good chance that you have the best hand now (though you’d be behind to K-9), but you must play this hand carefully. In a multiway pot, it’s easy to get out-drawn on the river. If any king appears on the board, your straight is probably toast, since so many of your opponents will play any ace. For that matter, if an ace appears, anybody holding a solitary king now has you beaten. If a nine shows up, that counterfeits part of your hand and any player with a king has a higher straight than yours.

The cards needed to make a better straight are exactly the high-value cards your opponents like to play. For this reason, you would actually be a little safer if you made a sucker straight in the lower ranges-like holding 4-3 on a 7-6-5 flop. Your opponents are less likely to be playing eights and nines than aces and kings. So there will be less chance that another player has already made, or is drawing to,a higher straight.

Even worse than flopping a sucker straight is drawing to one. If you hold that same 9-8 again and the flop comes J-T-3 rainbow, technically you have an open-ender with eight outs, but really only four of those outs are good. If a seven comes on the turn you will have the nuts, but if a queen shows up, you’ll be in sucker territory. But worst of all is drawing to the low end of the straight with only one card. If you hold 9-8 on a board of 9-10-J, you’ll have to get very lucky indeed to pull out a win. Now even a seven might not do you much good, since anybody holding a single eight will chop the pot with you, and a queen could still kill you. True, you have bottom pair to go along with your draw, but all that really means is that you have two extremely weak draws on this flop, instead of one.

Sucker straights are difficult because you can’t really play them aggressively; you can never be sure where you’re at. They are defensive hands. Crossyour- fingers-and-hope-they-hold-up hands. If you commit to playing one all the way through, you’ll simply have to trust that luck will be on your side. Words like hope and luck might be good words to live by, but they’re sure not good words to play poker by.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Mike Caro is the ‘Mad Genius’ of Poker

When you enter a pot, you should always ask yourself, “Do I want to play this hand against a lot of opponents or just a few?” The answer isn’t always as obvious as you might think.

Today, we continue our series in which I get to both ask and answer the questions. Remember, except where federal, state, or local regulations prevail, you have the right to suggest questions by e-mailing mike@caro.com. And I have the right to modify your questions to the extent that they may be completely unrecognizable. Now that we both understand the rules, let’s play…

Question #19: What is the theory behind wanting more or fewer opponents? Your hands will generally make more money when played against many opponents under two conditions:

1. Your hand is very powerful;

2. Your hand is speculative.

Remember that simple truth and you’ll almost never be confused. When I say “very powerful,” I mean just that. Moderately strong hands usually make more money against a reduced field of opponents. In hold’em, it’s usually wrong to invite players into the pot by just calling with any pair smaller than kings. While a pair of queens has a significant profit expectation against each opponent individually, the hand usually makes most money when played against just one or two opponents. A starting pair of aces, on the other hand, makes more money- on average-against many opponents.

In seven-card stud, rolled up trips or a pair of aces usually makes more money against many opponents, but smaller pairs, particularly those lacking a large kicker, usually should only be played against fewer opponents whenever that’s possible.

Speculative hands are those that have no immediate strength, but have hope of growing into straights or flushes. Except for purposes of occasional deception or trying to steal the blinds without a fight, there’s no reason to raise prematurely with such hands. The secret is to just call and wait to see what develops. An example of a speculative starting hand is [10d]-[9d] in hold’em and [Kh]-[10h]- [9h] in seven-card stud.

Some hands can have dual strength, both speculative and initially strong, such as [As]-[Qs] in hold’em and [Ac]-[Kh]-[8c] in seven-card stud. Those dual-category hands should usually be played more aggressively, but you can make your decision in accordance with other factors that I’ll explain in future columns.

The trick is to first decide whether your hand is primarily strong, primarily speculative, or in-between for the situation. Always make a judgment before entering the pot. With very strong starting hands, you can always safely call in early positions and be confident that you’re not straying far from a best-profit decision. But you should often raise anyway, as I’ve discussed previously. And with speculative hands, you can also safely just call- and that’s what you usually should do. With everything else-moderately strong hands or moderately speculative hands-making the initial raise is usually the right choice, except in the blind positions, if you playthem at all.

Question 20: Are there limits to whether many or few opponents are ideal? Yes. In the early 1980s I did a seminar at the Hilton Hotel in Las Vegas, showing that there was a “right” number of opponents for hands. As far as I know, this concept hadn’t been dealt with previously. Too few opponents and you averaged less profit. Too many opponents and you also averaged less profit. As an example, four-and sometimes five- opponents turns out to be most profitable when you begin with a pair of aces in a limit hold’em game.

The concept here is quite obvious if you think about extremes. Having an advantage against each opponent individually doesn’t always mean you have an advantage against all opponents collectively.

Mathematically, the size of the pot relative to your wagers won’t keep pace with the increased chances that someone will get lucky as you add more and more opponents. The ultimate example would be if you’re playing draw poker, no drawing allowed to improve a hand, and were dealt a king-high straight flush: [Kc]-[Qc]-[Jc]-[10c]-[9c].

The chance that someone will hold or make a royal flush to beat you is very slim. You’ll make the most money if everyone atthe table plays against you. But wait! What if you’re playing with an infinitely large deck? Under our rules, we’ll say you can’t use two duplicate cards in your hand, such as [7c]-[7c]. Duplicates must be immediately exchanged, so there’s no such thing as five or a kind.

The only hand that can beat you is a royal. Fine. Against one opponent, you’re almost certainly going to win one bet. Against seven opponents, you’re expecting to win seven bets.

With more opponents, it gets better and better …

until it gets worse! There are only four chances in 2,598,960 that an opponent will hold a royal-649,739- to-1 against. If you played against 650,000 opponents, you’d still win almost 70 percent of the time (I’ll explain the complex math to you some other day). That’s extremely profitable, so you’d rather play against all those foes than just a few.

But what about 6 billion foes? Then, although you’d get a 6 billion-to-1 return on your money, you wouldn’t have one chance in 6 billion of winning. On average, you wouldn’t just be beaten by one player, you’d be beat by over 9,000 of them! And the chances that no one holds a winning royal are so remote that you couldn’t even fathom the odds.

Clearly, there’s a point where there are too many opponents for a hand, even the second-best one in the universe. Once you understand that, you can see how-in real world poker games-two big pair sometimes might be more profitable against two opponents than one, but less profitable against five or six.

But understanding this theory doesn’t help much in actual play. There’s no way to dictate the exact number of opponents you’d like to face at a given moment, even if you could easily calculate it. So, we’re pretty much left with either wanting more or fewer opponents with a given hand in a given situation.

We’ll continue this question- and-answer series next time.

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Jonathan Raab

2007 was a bumper year for poker in Europe with more venues opening, more festivals being staged than ever before, several poker tours operating, and online poker still legal and booming. Although some countries, such as Norway, are considering a more hard line stance against Internet poker, the vast majority can look forward to a 2008 without interference from governments meddling in things they don’t understand.

However, UK gaming operators are concerned over possible new tax measures. New premier Gordon Brown has already stamped his mark on the UK gambling industry by reversing plans made under Tony Blair for a Vegas style super casino. He has also hit the bingo industry with increased taxation measures and a nationwide smoking ban, that’s threatening to kill off this favourite pastime of many of the UK’s housewives.

It remains to be seen whether poker will be the next to be hit, but until then, online poker continues to become more and more popular in the UK. This has helped increase the popularity of live poker and both the Grosvenor UK Poker Tour (GUKPT) and Gala Casinos Great Britain Poker Tour (GBPT) are set to return this year with bigger and better schedules than in 2007. Stanley Casinos, another of the UK’s major operators, is jumping on the poker bandwagon by launching the National Poker Championships.

The National Poker Championships will take place in late March with festivals taking place simultaneously in three of the chain’s casinos-one in the north, one in the south, and one in the middle of the country. The main events at each of the locations will be ?500 and with no fee to enter and no deductions from the prize pools.

It will represent great value to players. The GUKPT resumes in January at Brighton, on the south coast of England, and with ?200,000 in added value contributed by tour sponsor Blue Square, it seems likely that all events will be well attended this year with 300-400 players expected in the nine ?1,000 main events. The winners of all the main events will face off at the end of the year in a ?3,000 buy-in grand final, won last year by Londoner Michael Ellis. The GBPT is due to resume in February with at least seven ?500 events, and with the EPT expected to return this year as well, the UK is likely to continue as the best place in Europe to play live poker.

Other notable events taking place during the first quarter of the year include the European Deep Stack Championships in the Irish town of Drogheda. Sponsored and run by Green Joker Poker, a relatively new but up and coming online poker site, the events all feature great structures with huge numbers of starting chips. The =C1,500 main event will see players start with 50,000 chips and an opening blind level of 25-50, and even I might be able to make it to day two of the four day event. Even if I don’t turn up until day two, I will still have almost 80 percent of my original chips.

The Irish Open in Dublin in March also promises to be as good a tournament as it has always been. Sponsor Paddy Power bookmakers is guaranteeing the prize pool at ?3,000,000 for this ?4,000 event that set the record for the highest number of participants in a major European event last year. This year they are expected to break it once again. Happy pokering New Year to one and all!

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Post Content

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »

Post Content

Filed under: Poker News | No Comments »