2008 WSOP, Day 29: Love

Well, the Love show didn’t disappoint. Definitely one of the more entertaining spectacles of the many from which to choose here in Las Vegas.

Have written here before in praise of the Beatles. Grew up listening to them. Learned to play guitar from a Beatles songbook. Long ago committed all two hundred-plus of those tunes to memory. (Like a lot of folks, I imagine.) Also had someone pass me the Love soundtrack a couple of years ago when it first came out, so I was additionally aware of how for the show the songs had been recombined, sometimes quite ingeniously, so I wasn’t necessarily surprised by any of that at the performance.

The show’s form resembled that of the previous Cirque du Soleil show Vera and I had seen, O. Lots of high-flying gymnastics-slash-modern dance supplemented throughout by various, clever machinations to redistribute the set design. There were a few dozen “characters,” none of whom perfectly corresponded to the ones inhabiting the Beatles songbook (to me, anyway). Although one could argue they were all suggested in an indirect way -- e.g., the lovelorn, flower-carrying shy guy, Teddy boys, the mustachioed British bobbies, Liverpudlian kiddies, etc.

The production definitely emphasized the more surreal-leaning, latter era of the Beatles repetoire, both in the song selections and the René Magritte-meets-Barnum & Bailey aesthetic. Lots of fun moments, perhaps the most fun being when a bed appeared in the center of the stage and its linens rapidly extended outward, enveloping the stage and then, to everyone’s delight, the entire audience as well. Vera said it reminded her of games with parachutes in elementary school.

As was the case with O, the show never moved too far away from the land of spectacle and into something more meaningful. That is to say, lots of moving around, but nothing too terribly moving. Still, that message of love that so indelibly informs the Beatles’ music was consistently delivered. One never hears in Love the Fab Four’s most profound lyric “the love you take is equal to the love you make,” though the idea is successfully implied throughout. Everybody, including Vera and me, had smiles on as we filed out of the theater.

As we walked out we passed the poker room at the Mirage, and hearing somebody telling his buddy about finally hitting quads quickly recalled to me the purpose of my being here. Back to poker today, as I return to the Rio to help cover Event No. 46, the $5,000 No-Limit Hold’em Six-Handed event. Looks like 805 signed up for that one yesterday, and they played all of the way down to 96 today. Might take a good while for those 96 to turn into just six for tomorrow’s final table, I imagine.

Meanwhile the $50K H.O.R.S.E. (Event No. 45) moves into its third of five days, with over half the field gone. Just 67 of the original 148 remain. Many the big names are over there, with Greenstein, Lindgren, Negreanu, and Doyle Brunson near the top of the chip counts at present.

Oh, by the way, I couldn’t let it go unnoticed here that Dan LaCourse, the winner of Event No. 42, the $1,000 Seniors No-Limit Hold’em World Championship, is a retired police detective. According to LaCourse, his training as a detective came in handy at the poker table, as “people reveal themselves through subtle gestures and mannerisms within three seconds of being of being confronted with a question or decision.”

Interesting stuff. Of course, you probably knew that already -- that in the end, the info you take is equal to the profit you make.

2008 WSOP, Day 28: Horsin’ Around

All eyes on the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event (Event No. 45) which kicked off yesterday.

Like you, I read the reports about how tourney staff had removed tables, creating more space for extra media there in the front left corner of the Amazon Room. When everyone finally registered, there were 148 runners total -- exactly the number who entered last year. Kind of jibes with how the entire Series has gone thus far, with numbers mostly mirroring last year’s in most events (aside from those Omaha events, which have uniformly attracted more entrants).

Also noticed how PokerNews had assigned extra bloggers and reporters to cover this one, which combined with a smaller field means more comprehensive coverage. I liked seeing all 148 players in the chip counts right off the bat. (I’m guessing media was provided with a list for this one, although PokerNews might’ve been able to identify everyone anyhow.) That’s something that isn’t really feasible with most events. Take the last one I covered, the Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw event that had 238 enter (Event No. 40). Even with several reporters we were only ultimately able to identify a little over a third of the field by the end of Day 1.

Thanks to the slow structure, almost all of the 148 are coming back today. Just eight fell out, including Phil Hellmuth, David Williams, Amnon Filippi, Shun Uchida (who finished runner-up in Event No. 40), and Jamie Pickering (who was runner-up to Vanessa Selbst in Event No. 19).

I’m off again today (Thursday), but will be back in the Rio on Friday where I’ll join Don Peters to help cover Event No. 46, the $5,000 No-Limit Hold’em Short-Handed event. So I’ll be around to catch some of the buzz as the H.O.R.S.E. plays out the last three days of its scheduled five.

Yesterday was a fun day with Vera. We started off having brunch with the PokerGrump over at a place called Hash House a-Go Go. It’s just a couple of miles off the strip and all three of us definitely recommend it for some good eats. Vera and I then spent the afternoon goofing around the Mandalay Bay-Luxor end of the strip.

We had considered visiting the Shark Reef Aquarium, but decided against. Instead on a lark we ended up on this Imax motion simulator thingy in the Luxor. Was a little like spending 15 minutes inside a bad Mystery Science Theater 3000 film.

Our group included just us and a family of five, and the kids’ mostly whiny comments were the funniest thing about the whole ride. There was some sort of nonsensical narrative associated with the “adventure” -- something to do with finding a much-cherished obelisk. A couple of minor thrills but mostly a bunch of applesauce. Aside from the hokey “plot,” the thing felt pretty damn dated from a technology standpoint. Indeed, looking it up online I see the whole production was put together fifteen years ago.

“I don’t get it,” said one of the kids as we walked out. Dad couldn’t really explain it either.

We had thought about going back out later, but ended up just taking it easy, creating our own simulator of home life here at the apartment (eating in, watching some tube). We were both a bit fatigued, Vera from the time change, and me from having worked the three previous days.

We’re rested up now, though, and are looking forward to heading over to the Mirage for dinner and the Love show tonight. Meanwhile, you can head on over to PokerNews for yr H.O.R.S.E updates.

Fossilman Sighting

Was looking for a $1.00/$2.00 H.O.R.S.E. table yesterday afternoon on Stars and saw three full ones. Then noticed one had a waiting list of 26 players. First thought was there must be an ATM sitting there donating like mad for that many folks to want in.

Opened the table and watched a couple of hands. Nothing unusual. Then I noticed a lot of railbird chat. Finally I saw the reason for all of the hubbub. Greg “Fossilman” Raymer had taken a seat.

Raymer had around $185. I watched him mostly fold through the Hold ’em round, then play a couple of Omaha/8 hands. The players at the table weren’t chatting that much, but the observers were typing numerous observations about the play as well as the occasional question to Raymer. He wasn’t responding, though. Funny, one of the other players at the table actually had a pic of Raymer as his avatar as well.

Finally, after about ten minutes Raymer typed “OK, the videos are done, thank you all for your participation.” Apparently he had come on at some point and informed all of the players what was up. “You should be able to find these on proplaylive.com within a month or 3.” He then remained at the table for a while, responding to a few chatbox questions. He added that he was recording a number of videos for the soon-to-be-launched ProPlayLive site these days since he wouldn’t be playing online much during the WSOP.

Raymer thanked everyone again, saying “hope you all enjoy my $16.” My favorite response came from the player with Raymer as his avatar: “OH GOD...OH GOD...NO THANK U....U GOT A CIGARETTE GREG?” The 2004 WSOP Main Event Champ stuck around for a few more hands, lost a couple more bucks, added “I meant to say, enjoy my $21,” and finally left.

Would’ve been interesting had I logged on just a short while before. Perhaps we’ll see him again at the low limits before the end of May.

Gonna be a tourney-heavy day for me as I plan to try to play in both the AIPS event and Saturdays with Pauly (mentioned last post). Again, let me invite all you Omahalics to join the fun.

An Epic Razz Hand

Had been at this particular H.O.R.S.E. table for a while. Probably 70-80 hands or so. Had sat down with twenty clams and had chipped up to $26.20 when the following Razz hand took place. Even if yr not a big Razz fan, take a look at this one. It’s worth it, I promise.

The table had been on the passive side, without much raising/reraising on third street in the stud games. So when I picked up 2-6-3 with the trey showing, I looked forward to raising it up. Glancing around the table at everyone else’s upcards, I noticed one other trey, two fours, two eights, and two queens. That’s right. Everyone’s upcards were duplicated. Shoulda known then this was going to be a strange one.

One of the queens brought in the quarter. Then the other Q surprisingly called. Then one of the fours completed to fifty cents. I raised to a buck, and the other trey made it $1.50. The original bettor capped it, and in the end there were four of us left to see the flop: yr humble servant, the other 3, a 4, and a hard-headed Q. Pot already $8.65.

Fourth street looked as though it might have been favorable to everyone.

*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d] [4h]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd] [5s]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s] [3h]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c] [As]

I have the lead with my ace, and so bet the half dollar. Phyllis makes it a dollar with her 3-4. (Probably believes I paired up, I remember thinking fleetingly.) Nirdlinger calls the two bets. Then WalterHuff makes it $1.50 with his 4-3. I call the three bets, as do Phyllis and Nirdlinger. Pot now $14.65.

*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d 4h] [Kh]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd 5s] [Js]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s 3h] [Qh]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c As] [Ts]

Enough bricks to build a shed. Could have seen that coming, actually, as most of the baby cards have already been dealt. I’m technically leading at the moment, though, and so I bet out again. Everyone calls my dollar. Pot is now $18.65, easily the biggest pot of the session. Much like the previous streets, sixth street was also essentially the same for all of us.

*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d 4h Kh] [9c]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd 5s Js] [Td]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s 3h Qh] [9d]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c As Ts] [9s]

Nothing has changed, really, although I do see I could now be behind. I bet my 9-6, Phyllis and Nirdlinger both call. (That’s right, with his Q-J-T showing and all that action, Nirdlinger is sticking around.) Then WalterHuff raises to $2. Looking back, I can see now it is pretty clear that Walter must have had an ace, deuce, or five in the hole, and thus was surely ahead of me. At the time, I didn’t really think about that, though, and so three-bet it. Two calls, Walter caps it, and we all call again. (Incidentally, Nirdlinger runs out of chips on the fourth bet here.) “HUGE pot" types a player not involved. Huge is right. The pot is now a whopping $34.50.

As I await 7th street, I’m consciously thinking that if I happen to catch a four, five, or seven, there’s a decent chance I’m going to be good here. I know the fours are about gone (I’ve seen three of them). Have only seen one five, though, and no sevens. Of course, the pot is so friggin’ big, I’m probably not folding no matter what comes on seventh. Here it comes . . . .

I get a seven. Sweet. I’ve made a 7-6-3-2-A. And all that money in the middle. I like it. I bet.

And Phyllis raises. Walter Huff just calls the two bets. I like Walter just calling, as he was my primary concern. I three-bet. Phyllis just calls. NICE! Walter just calls, too. The final pot is $43.50. (Fifty cents will be taken for the rake.)

What does everyone have . . . ?

Short-Stacked Shamus: shows [2s 6c 3c As Ts 9s 7h] (Lo: 7,6,3,2,A)
PhyllisN: shows [Ah 5c 3d 4h Kh 9c 7c] (Lo: 7,5,4,3,A)
WalterHuff: shows [Ad 2h 4s 3h Qh 9d 7d] (Lo: 7,4,3,2,A)
WalterHuff collected $9.45 from side pot
Nirdlinger: mucks hand [4d 2c Qd 5s Js Td 5h]
WalterHuff collected $9.45 from side pot
WalterHuff collected $33.55 from main pot

All three of us caught sevens on seventh street. (Stars does not reorder the cards as Full Tilt does, so we can be sure of the order of things.) Not only did I not win the hand, I was third-best! (Hell, I was third-best on sixth street, too!) In fact, if you look at our relative levels of confidence there on seventh, the poor sap with the third-best hand (me) acted with the most confidence, followed by the second-best hand (PhyllisN), followed by the winner (WalterHuff).

Looking back over the entire hand, it was almost as though each of us (aside from crazy Nirdlinger, that is) had been dealt essentially the same cards on each street. I believe it is a general truism of all forms of poker that whenever players get dealt hands of equal value, action tends to increase. Here we had three of us getting pretty much the same cards every step of the way. (Plus a goofball fourth who couldn’t bring himself to leave the party.)

I’d lost a total $11.50 on the hand, so my six-dollar profit for the session had instantly become a six-dollar deficit. Wasn’t too upset, though. In fact, I kind of enjoyed it when the entire table began chatting amiably about the marvel we’d just witnessed.

Don’t imagine any of us will be seeing any 43-big bet pots again anytime soon.

Antes & Options

Have mentioned a few times of late how I ain’t playing a lot of tourneys these days. I guess we can’t all be Hoyazo. (Congrats on taking down the Fifty-Fifty, man!)

Had to miss Saturday’s with Pauly last week -- way to go, Pauly (1st) and Amy (4th). Am hoping to be back there this weekend. Also had a conflict causing me to miss last week’s AIPS III in 3-D event, though to be honest I’m not too broken up over having to pass up a Stud hi tourney.

And I have yet to try that Bodog Poker Blogger Tournament Series. Happens again tonight at 9:05 p.m. EST. Follow the link at the end of this sentence for more on the Bodog Poker Tournament.

No, am still primarily sitting down at the cash tables, splitting time between PLO and H.O.R.S.E. Have preferred H.O.R.S.E. on Stars as the antes in the stud games are half what they are on Full Tilt (e.g., a nickel for the $0.50/$1.00 games on Stars, as opposed to a dime on FTP). For a relative novice like myself, it is preferable to be allowed a bit more time to sit and wait for playable hands.

Speaking of . . . was listening to the most recent episode of The Poker Edge (the Feb. 22 show) on which Phil Gordon answers listener questions. Someone sent in a question about H.O.R.S.E. tourneys, in particular asking about how best to endure those games in which one is less strong. Gordon has confessed before on the show his lack of knowledge concerning mixed games (stud games, in particular). He even had a recent series of shows devoted to H.O.R.S.E., though had guests on to offer their knowledge rather than try to do it himself.

In his answer, Gordon says to “play extraordinarily tight during those rounds” where one is least comfortable, and “don’t get involved with marginal hands.” Then his co-host, Andrew Feldman, asked him what to do when you get short-stacked and suddenly it is time to play your worst game? After joking around a little, Gordon added the following:

“The great thing about a H.O.R.S.E. tournament is that there are no antes. You know, it’s always the small blind or the big blind in the Hold ’em and Omaha rounds. And I think that’s a really powerful weapon you can use if you’re willing to play tight. You really have a lot of time to wait to get involved.”

Huh? No antes?

I think Gordon must’ve been thinking of pot limit games. Obviously, there have to be antes in H.O.R.S.E. tourneys, otherwise a player really could just avoid “R,” “S,” and “E” without much penalty at all (other than having to pay the bring-in now and then). E.g., here's the structure for the 2007 $50K H.O.R.S.E. event. (Pic courtesy the Fail Blog.)

Will cut Gordon some slack for the slip-up. Like I said, at least he has admitted he ain’t a big H.O.R.S.E. guy.

Meanwhile, as I’ve been promising, I’ll provide some H.O.R.S.E. stats here once we reach March. Have a feeling I’m going to be reporting big success in one of the five games, and a lot of mediocrity in the other four. (Betcha can’t guess which game has been my big winner.)

Inertia

Nat Arem had a post a couple of days ago in which he offered some ideas related to creating websites and marketing oneself over these here intertubes. The post looks to be the first part of series on the subject, and in this one he focuses particularly on “the idea” one is trying to sell, as well as how clients/consumers tend to behave in response to one’s idea.

Interesting stuff, but really I just wanted to quote his conclusion in which he recommends (in bold) to “Get inside the minds of your users and never forget that you’re fighting irrational levels of inertia.”

Nat’s point about human nature -- about how we tend as a species to resist anything different or unfamiliar -- has wide-ranging application. Will probably play some role in the 2008 Presidential election in November, I’d imagine. Has fairly obvious application to what happens at the poker tables, as well.

Was playing my usual H.O.R.S.E. game yesterday ($0.50/$1.00). Am doing okay; nothing too spectacular, though (making about a big bet per 100, on average). Still feel like Omaha/8 is my weakest link, but I continue to compile data to try to get a better idea. After each session, I’m recording how I’ve done in each of the five games. Once I get a decent sample together, I’ll share what I’ve found.

Yesterday I experienced several instances of players -- including myself -- exhibiting “irrational levels of intertia.” You know where I’m going here. I’m talking about the never-folds. The guys who cannot let a hand go once they’ve put that first chip in the middle. In H.O.R.S.E., the phenomenon is particularly obvious in the three stud games (Razz, Stud, Stud/8). You’d think the key moment (or “inflection point,” as Harrington says in another context) would usually be on fifth street, when the bets double. But in reality, it is fourth street -- or even third -- where a lot of players seem to commit to going all the way.

As I say, I, too, am guilty of this “irrational” unwillingness to stop calling from time to time. Here are a couple of examples showing me demonstrating such tendencies, then one more showing someone else doing so.

The first example is a Stud hand where I was dealt . With my 4 showing, I was forced to bring-in. There was one caller (), then a player with showing completed (to fifty cents). I called, as did the other player. Fourth street brought me the , giving me four to the flush, but also brought the to the fellow who’d completed. With his pair of aces showing, a double bet (of $1) was allowed, but he chose just to bet fifty cents. The other player folded and I called. The pot was now $2.50.

Fifth street brought him the and me the , and he bet ($1). I have good odds here, actually. It’s 3.5-to-1 to call, and, in fact, four to a flush on fifth street is a 1.75-to-1 shot to hit. (Of course, I could be drawing dead.) Not really thinking of any of that, though -- my interia ain’t letting me even consider letting this one go. So I call, and a nicely arrives on 6th street. End up getting three more big bets out of my opponent. He’d made three aces by 4th street, but failed to fill up.

“Good for you,” he types afterward. Then adds, “Just don’t leave.” I didn’t bother to defend myself.

A little later had a Razz hand where I again let inertia take over. This time I’d made a “rough” 8 by fifth street. In fact, it was as rough as it gets: 8-7-6-5-4. Meanwhile, my opponent, who’d raised on third and had been leading the whole way, had 3-2-4 showing. I called his fifth street bet, though. The pot was relatively big -- $5.25 when I put my buck in on fifth -- and I found it hard to let go. Then sixth street brought us both jacks. He bet out again. I decided it possible he’d paired one of those low cards and so now only had a jack-high. Of course, a more likely explanation for that read were those “irrational levels of inertia” guiding my behavior . . . .

Whatever the cause, I decided to raise. When he just called, I knew I was right, though of course I still had to dodge seventh street. I did, and ended up winning a ten-dollar pot. Got a comment again from my opponent: “terrible.” He might have been right.

My last example also shows me in a less than favorable light, though I think someone else provides a better illustration of Nat’s principle. It’s an Omaha/8 hand, and I was in late position with . An ace and a deuce, and single-suited. Playable, I guess, though that nine kind of kills the hand, really. I limped in with three others, and the flop came .

I was last to act, and all three checked to me. I decided to bet, expecting anyone with a ten (or full boat) to call me, in which case I’d be done with the hand. Two players did call. The turn was the , giving me Broadway. Again, both checked (kind of quickly). Maybe I’m good here? I bet again. Again, both players called.

The river was the and both players again checked. Well, now I must be good. I bet again, and again both players just called. Talk about inertia. What could they have?

Turned out neither had a ten at all. One mucked -- a lower straight. Then the other showed . Wha? He’d rivered one of the two sixes to make the baby boat.

How could he have called that flop? And turn?

Nat has the answer.

Dazed and Confused; or, My Introductions to Omaha and Seven-Card Stud

Still keeping an eye on that H.O.R.S.E. event at the WSOP. They’ve finally whittled the original field of 143 down to the final 9. Gotta love that final table, with Doyle Brunson and T.J. Cloutier still there. Talk about a couple of tough “horses" -- a couple of 70-plus-year-olds making it through that ungodly 19-hour second day. Phil Ivey, Andy Bloch, Chip Reese . . . should be a great finale. A shame that they will now play it out as a no-limit hold ’em event, but I’ll still be checking in to see who survives.

Again, as a nod to the H.O.R.S.E. event, I wanted to make one more non-hold ’em post and talk a bit about Omaha and Stud. I used to play both games quite a bit, especially Pot Limit Omaha (high only), though not so much for the last six months or so. My introduction to Omaha was kind of interesting. I had only been playing for play chips on PokerStars for a month or so when some of the friends with whom I had been playing recommended giving Omaha a try. After only a few hands at a ring table, I entered one of those Sunday afternoon freeroll tournaments Stars regularly runs, a fixed limit Omaha (high only) tourney with over 6000 entrants. I searched around on the web a bit just before the tournament began and found what looked like a reasonable, simple little chart explaining how to rate Omaha starting hands by assigning certain points -- e.g., AA gets 30 pts., Ace & anything suited gets 10 pts., connectors get two points, etc. If your hand totalled 10-15 pts., you could call the BB. If you had more, you could call a raise. Even more and you could raise yourself. I propped my chart on the keyboard, loaded Led Zeppelin’s eight studio albums into Winamp, and watched as the first hand was dealt.

Now these huge freerolls tend to attract a lot of less-than-serious players, and in the case of an Omaha tourney, I’m sure they also bring in a significant number of folks who aren’t even clear about the rules of the game. (I at least knew the rules, even if I didn’t have much of a clue about strategy.) I followed my little chart pretty closely, which I soon realized only permitted me to play about 10-15% of the hands. Such a super-tight approach allowed me to survive the first couple of thousand casualties pretty easily, although my stack wasn’t growing very much. Then somewhere around “Gallows Pole” I caught a rush of cards and found myself among the top hundred. I continued to limp along. A couple of hours later we were down to 800 and “Achilles’ Last Stand.” Then there were 300 left -- “Hot Dog”! Finally came the last, drawn-out chords of “I’m Gonna Crawl” . . . an appropriate title, as I had become one of the shorter stacks clinging for dear life. The music stopped and I looked up to see I was sitting at 9th out of 12 remaining. Then 9th out of 11. Then 9th out of 10.

The “prize” for the tourney was only for those who made the final table (top 9) -- an entry into the “Weekly Round 2” tourney the following Sunday (a freeroll with a $100 prize pool). I remember being dealt something like and actually folding it, nervously eyeing the guy on the other table who only had a single big blind remaining. Finally, after folding a few more hands, I watched as he was bounced. “Congratulations, you have made the final table!” The very next hand was an all-in fest, and I happily went out in ninth place. Ninth! Out of over 6000. I was starting to think I might like Omaha.

Only later did I realize that I had misread the chart I had used -- it was designed for Omaha 8-or-better (or “high-low”), not just Omaha high. So that’s why it awarded 15 pts. for having a deuce and a trey in your hand! (Shamus smacks forehead.) Still, somehow, I’d overcome even this self-imposed handicap to get through five-plus hours and thousands of opponents. Have to say, for someone who’d yet to make his first deposit to play real money games, this was some serious fun.

I checked the schedule and saw the following Sunday’s “Weekly Round 2” was actually a limit Stud tourney. I didn’t realize at the time that Poker Stars allows you to bank tourney entries and use them whenever you wish, so I thought I had one week to learn yet another game. I picked up a copy of Roy West’s 7 Card Stud: 42 Lessons How to Win at Medium & Lower Limits -- not necessarily the best way to learn how to negotiate a stud tournament (although there is a section in the back by Tom McEvoy about “Tournament Tactics”), but definitely a nice introduction to the game. I read through the entire book, took lots of notes, and made up a chart that compiled West’s recommendations for starting hands and fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-street play. Whereas I had prepared a total of ten minutes for the Omaha tourney, I had probably put in at least 15 hours getting ready for my big Stud debut.

What happened? Not much. I busted out within the first hour. None of West’s recommendations seemed to work as described. I was placed at a table where five of the eight players had neglected to show up for the tourney, so it was just me, the five “sitting out” zombies, and two extremely aggressive players who appeared ready to cap the betting on every street. I couldn’t keep up at all, and thus received both an early exit and a short-lived prejudice against Stud.

Eventually I came to appreciate Stud and played the ring games every now and then. Omaha I liked even better, and for a time played nothing but PLO on Stars (nothing above the $0.05/$0.10 tables, of course). I did reasonably well in a few PLO SNG’s, and I even made another final table in another Omaha freeroll, finishing ninth again out of another field of thousands. I gravitated back to hold ’em, however, where I’ve been mostly camped out ever since.

I’ve been leafing through West’s book lately and occasionally sitting in on a few rounds of Stud. I’d like to get my hands on a good Omaha book, also, and get back into that game as well. I’ve seen recommended Ray Zee’s High-Low Split Poker (which covers both Stud and Omaha) -- I may pick it up. (Can anyone who has read it tell me what they think of that one?) Even if the WSOP has decided now that we’ve reached the final table of the H.O.R.S.E. event that these other games are no longer interesting, I’m still curious. Would hardly be a self-respecting detective if I weren't . . . .

Image: Led Zeppelin, Led Zeppelin (1969), Amazon.

All That Razz

All eyes on the WSOP today as the much-ballyhooed H.O.R.S.E. event finally began. I discussed the event in an earlier post, where I also mentioned how it had renewed my interest in games other than hold ’em. Coincidentally or not, today was the day I finally took the plunge on the Razz tables over on Full Tilt Poker. Intended only to play a few dozen hands, but ended up sticking around for close to two hours. I ended up on the losing side, but had a lot of fun and will likely be back soon.

Before playing my first hand, I had compiled some advice from a few different sources. No exhaustive study, mind you. But I did at least make sure I knew the rules of the game going in. The original cue to give Razz a try had come from an episode of the excellent Ante Up! podcast from a few months back. Hosts Christopher Cosenza and Scott Long discussed how the game is played and offered a few strategy tips, then Cosenza followed up with a post on the Ante Up! blog in which he shared some more advice. I read through Cosenza’s comments there, then (as he recommends) I also read over the brief section on Razz in Doyle Brunson's Super/System: A Course in Power Poker as well as Phil Hellmuth’s chapter on Razz in Play Poker Like the Pros.

(I am aware how Hellmuth’s book tends to provoke extreme responses -- mostly negative -- and one day will post something here about Play Poker Like the Pros. I won’t be blindly defending the book or Hellmuth, mind you, but neither will I reject it wholesale as most seem to do.)

When I clicked the Razz tab at Full Tilt I saw that there were only a few tables going. There were a couple of active tables at higher stakes (one $2.00/$4.00 and one $8.00/$16.00). I knew I didn’t want to venture there. I scrolled down to find a couple of $0.25/$0.50 tables going and so took a spot at one of those. I adopted Cosenza’s “tight is right” strategy and restricted myself only to playing hands where I had been dealt three cards eight or lower (non-paired, of course) -- i.e., a "three-card eight." Was actually dealt once and cringed as I folded. I was doing a lot of folding, actually, and after a while decided to fill the time calculating exactly the chances of being dealt a three-card eight. (If my math is correct, it is a little over 16% . . . just about 1 out of 6 hands.)

I finally got involved in a few pots, winning a few and losing a few. I won about half of my showdowns -- I don’t know if that’s a decent percentage or not, really. I realized fairly quickly how you can often know precisely whether or not you are holding a winner. Occasionally you have your opponent “board-locked” (as Hellmuth says), meaning you can know with 100% certainty that your hand beats what he is showing. This circumstance comes up more frequently (per hands played) than does having the “absolute nuts” in hold ’em, to be sure.

By far the most memorable hand came when I was dealt . Everyone put in the $0.05 ante. A player two seats to my right with had to put in the bring-in of $0.10. The player to his left, Petty, called with . I completed to $0.25, and GenialGeorge called with the . Petty called as well. Fourth street brought me the , giving me four-fifths of a wheel, so I bet out the quarter. GenialGeorge had picked up the and called. Petty folded. Fifth street was a sweet for yours truly, giving me a “smooth 6-low” -- a very strong hand, especially by fifth street. GenialGeorge, meanwhile, had picked up the and so he was first to act. He bet the $0.50, and I immediately raised him to $1.00. He called. He drew the on sixth street, and so I bet out again only to be raised by GenialGeorge. I reraised to $1.50 and he called.

Looking at the hands -- I had and George had -- I felt pretty confident I had to be ahead. He had to have precisely a deuce and a trey in the hole to be ahead of me, and I had one of each. (Also, Petty had folded a trey as well.) Seventh street cards were dealt face down, and I again bet. GenialGeorge again raised me. Could it be? I called and yes, indeed, he had the wheel: . We had been dealt the two best possible hands in Razz, and we both had hit those hands on fifth street!

I couldn’t complain, though. I did make a couple of wheels myself before I finished, and while I ended up down about $12 for the session I went back over to the limit hold ’em tables and quickly made that back. Looking back, I realize I did end up chasing a few times when I shouldn’t have and even allowed myself to play a couple of 9-high hands when I knew better. Most folks at the table seemed to know what they were doing, although there was that one guy who showed down a full house on one hand and quads on another. (That caused some chat.)

Fun to learn and play a new game. I certainly recommend it. Meanwhile, what is this I hear about marked cards at the H.O.R.S.E. event?! I can see how marking the cards would make Razz easier. Somewhat, anyway . . . .