A Game for All Situations

Last week, the Poker Shrink wrote a post in which he shared a few “random thoughts,” one of which was to say he is “not a big fan of the ‘Poker is like Life’ books and articles.” His primary objection has to do with the fact that such comparisons are usually “too general to carry any more wisdom than a dribble glass.”

I’m with the Shrink on this one. I even claim over in my long-outdated profile that readers will not be finding any “of that dizzy ‘poker-is-like-life-because’ applesauce” on the blog, followed by an explanation that “Nothing is ‘like’ life, by the way -- either it’s living or it ain’t.”

About a year ago, I wrote a post in which I tried to explain further what I meant by that bit of sass. In that post, I joked about seeing a house for sale being advertised as “close to everything,” arguing that one gets about as much meaning out of saying poker -- or anything, for that matter -- is “like life.” Gonna have to be a little more precise than that, friend, to say anything at all.

Of course, that isn’t to say I won’t sometimes use poker analogies to explain particular non-pokery phenomena. Who doesn’t? Was kinda-sorta doing as much yesterday with that post about running that included a couple of indirect comparisons of my new exercise routine to poker.

But that’s a much more specific exercise (pun intended).

For example, over the last couple of days I’ve found myself in a few conversations about the Carolina Panthers’ shockingly awful playoff performance against the Arizona Cardinals this past Saturday. You might have missed it. The Panthers were big favorites and playing at home, and got crushed 33-13, with quarterback Jake Delhomme throwing five interceptions and losing a fumble, too. Just miserable. (And on his friggin’ birthday, too!)

After the second or third interception, Delhomme pretty obviously had come altogether unglued. He hardly seemed able to function. He kept stubbornly firing balls to receivers who were double- and triple-teamed. In other words, he’d become the football equivalent of someone on tilt. And frankly, the poker metaphor was so apt it seemed (to me, at least) to shed genuine light on what had happened Saturday night.

Basically, before he’d even gotten warmed up, Delhomme had lost a couple of big ones and gotten unsettled. Then he started playing emotionally, making poor decisions and acting desperately in order to get it all back as quickly as possible. And, as often happens to guys who play that way, such rash, undisciplined behavior just made it worse.

Speaking of using poker analogies to describe non-poker situations, yesterday I was watching CNN’s “The Situation Room” (where situations are always sure to be situated) and heard Wolf Blitzer reporting on how Roland Burris, the man picked by embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to fill president-elect Obama’s now-vacant senate seat, was in fact going to able to take the seat sometime this week. That despite the Democrats’ obvious desire not to allow Blagojevich -- who presently faces federal arrest charges accusing him, among other things, of soliciting bribes in exchange for the very senate seat appointment -- to be allowed to make such a decision.

Blitzer then spoke to Dana Bash, CNN’s correspondent on Capitol Hill. Blitzer asked Bash to explain how the Democratic leadership so quickly changed their tune after many of their highest-ranking members had said last week they wouldn’t allow the appointment to be made. Bash responded by saying “the bottom line is that Rod Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois, called the bluff of the Democratic leadership” by going ahead and selecting Burris.

Bash then went on to tell a “quick anecdote” about a conversation she’d had yesterday morning with a “senior Democratic senator” concerning the Burris situation. “I was talking to him getting into the elevator,” said Bash. “And this senator said, look, when you’re dealt a losing hand, you skip to the end. And that is precisely why you have seen this turnabout inside the Democratic leadership. And they’re going to seat Roland Burris later this week.”

Blitzer responded with a clarification: “When you are dealt a losing hand, you quickly fold. And that’s what they apparently did.”

Of course, in this case, it sure seemed like the Dems put in a hefty raise and stuck around a street or two with their losing hand before dumping it, but no matter. We get the idea. Thanks, poker.

Poker may not be not “like” life, but it sometimes helps in the explainin’.

In Which It Is Demonstrated Why Pocket Jacks Are Sometimes Called “Hooks”

So we played this little blogger event on Saturday, the PokerListings Run Good Challenge. By invite only. A nifty little freeroll with some decent cabbage for those who finish in the top three ($600/$300/$100). Only 12 were invited, and of those only 11 showed up (I think the “Entities” from Wicked Chops missed it). And Pokerati Dan also came too late to make anything happen, and so we were really starting with 10. A decent shot at some money, no matter how you look at it. Of course, as the name suggests, it would help to run good.

I’m hardly playing these no-limit hold’em tourneys at all these days, but as I’ve mentioned the last few weeks I have been reading quite a bit and so had some ideas swimming around in the ol’ cerebral stew about how I was a-gonna approach this sucker. Wasn’t terribly confident going in, but once things got started I quickly felt better, realizing I might’ve actually picked up a thing or two from my reading. Books are our friends.

To give you an idea how it went for me, I took a peek after all was said and done at my stats and discovered I’d managed to claim a ton of pots without showing. Out of 35 pots I won, PokerStars is actually saying I’d only shown three times the entire event. (That was of 130 hands total.) Not quite sure if that’s entirely accurate, but I do know I was avoiding the showdowns pretty much throughout.

Grabbed a medium-sized pot early to push out to 1,900 or so when everyone else was still hovering around the starting 1,500, and that gave me room to operate a little more freely and accumulate a bit. Maneuvered my way up over the 3,000-chip mark before the first hour was up, which had me in second or third place for most of those first four levels. During that time we’d lose Change100 and Matt from PokerListings, and just after the one-hour break the nine players remaining were consolidated onto one table. My opponents: Dr. Pauly, Amy Calistri, Kid Dynamite, Michele Lewis, the Poker Shrink, Spaceman, Poker Listings Dan, and Pokerati Dan.

At that point I had a little less than 3,000 in chips, which in fact put me in second behind the current leader, Poker Listings Dan, the strategy writer over at PokerListings, who had approximately twice that. It was at that point where I feel like I played only so-so poker, folding for a couple of orbits when I probably could have gotten involved a time or two. Was trying to gauge the table, though.

Finally at the start of Level 6 (blinds 100/200), I got active again. And players started busting. First Pokerati Dan, who’d blinded all of the way down to 95 chips before playing his first hand, got bounced. (“I played too tight,” said Dan in chat from the rail.) Then the Poker Shrink.

Then a short-stacked Dr. Pauly put a brutal beat on Kid Dynamite when he shoved his last 1,655 with the hammer (7-2) and got called by the Kid who held . The flop was benign, but the turn and river both came deuces, and the Kid was crippled. He’d go out in seventh, followed soon thereafter by the Spaceman (6th) and Amy (5th).

At four-handed (the money bubble), I was again in second place with roughly the same stack (3,160) I had when the final table started, a bit less than half of what Dan Skolovy had. After a dozen hands or so, I had held steady, but Dr. Pauly had snuck ahead of me, having about 4,200. Self-proclaimed “last woman sitting” was Michele Lewis with about 2,000.

Then came this hand. I’m a-gonna tell you what happened, but I offer it to all-a-you well-versed MTTers as a “what would you do?”

I’m on the button with 3,460 and get dealt . Blinds are still 100/200. Dan from Poker Listings, who has 6,785, raised to 600 from UTG/the cutoff. Now Dan is the head strategy writer over there at the PL, and we’d all already picked up that one key part of his strategy was either to raise or fold preflop, and almost never limp. So when he raises there, his range is fairly wide, I’m thinking. Probably has a better than average hand to raise my button, but not necessarily something better than pocket jacks.

Here’s where I ask you, what would you do?

Folding seemed weak. Calling with position might’ve been a good choice here, but if an ace, king, or queen flops -- more likely than not -- and Dan bets out, I’ve got a tough decision. If I call, the pot would be 1,200, and I’d have 2,860 left.

I decided I wanted to raise, and given my stack size figured I couldn’t make a real raise without pushing all in. So I did. Pauly and Michele folded, and Dan took a few seconds before calling and turning over . I was surprised he’d call with that, but elated that I was 70-30 to win here. (Do you call in that spot? What, really, could my range be there?)

Alas, an ace flopped, I couldn’t catch up, and I was out on the bubble.

So while I brood a little about how I might’ve folded into the money, Dan from Poker Listings eliminated Michele in 3rd on the very next next hand, then after 130 hands of back-and-forthing with Pauly would take first. That means the first-place prize money gets rolled over into the next tourney (this coming Saturday), although I’m not sure how it’ll be distributed.

My consolation prize: I get some leaderboard points for finishing in the top six. After three weeks of this, those who end up in the top six get to play a fourth freeroll the last Saturday of the month.

And I guess another consolation prize is the feeling that, for the most part, I played a tournament well. Congrats to Dan, Pauly, and Michele! And thanks again to PokerListings for the invite -- was a ton of fun, for sure.