Hold 'em Plays Like a Circle, Stud Like a Straight Line

The Ante Up! Intercontinental Poker Series II continues tonight with Event No. 2, Stud. The tournament starts at 9 p.m. Eastern over on Full Tilt, with a $5.00+0.50 buy-in. Like most of us, Stud ain’t my primary poker pastime -- I rarely play it, and couldn’t honestly rate it among my top three games. So I’ve been honing up a little here in the effort to keep from embarrassing myself too much tonight. Been skimming through a few chapters of Roy West’s 7-Card Stud: 42 Lessons How to Win at Medium & Lower Limits, the book from which I first learned the game. I’ve also finally read Chip Reese’s chapter on Stud in the original Super System.

Reese’s Stud chapter is written in that same chaotic style of the rest of Super System, with its several directives loosely-organized and dotted with seemingly random instances of italicized, emboldened, and capitalized text. As Al Alvarez says in The Biggest Game in Town, “the prose will not win any prizes.” But as Alvarez also says (of the book as a whole), “as a postgraduate guide to the intracacies of high-level, high-stakes poker the work has no equal.” I particularly like -- and by “like” mean “think I might understand” -- some of Reese’s advice about playing draws, as well as his suggestions for getting the most value on later streets. His instructions for playing fifth, sixth, and seventh streets seem to reinforce a lot of what you find in Sklansky’s The Theory of Poker, actually, particularly the chapters on check-raising, bluffing, and heads-up play.

Have occasionally jumped into some $0.50/$1.00 ring stud games this week to try to put some of these ideas into practice. Prefer doing so over on Stars, where the ante is just a nickel, as opposed to Full Tilt where the ante is a dime for the same limit. Reese’s advice has been working for me, although I’ve blundered enough hands to be just about back to quits for the modest number of hands I’ve played (about a buck down after 200 hands).

I keep thinking of this line I threw out at the beginning of a post last summer, where I said “Hold ’em plays like a circle, Stud like a straight line.” Sounds smart, huh? Of course, I don’t elaborate there, probably because I didn’t know what I meant and thus couldn’t try to explain. The idea keeps coming back to me, though. I think what I’m really doing there is trying to make some sort of observation about the difference between “flop games” like hold ’em and Omaha that use community cards, and “stud games” like Seven-Card Stud and Razz that do not. (“Draw games” ain’t part of this here discussion.)

When I say flop games “play like a circle,” I’m not referring to the betting (which always goes in a circle, no matter what the game). I’m referring to the way one builds a hand by going back and forth between one’s hole cards and the community cards. If you play a hand to the end, you make this trip several times, butting heads with your opponent(s) every time you do as each player mentally ventures out onto the felt and back again. Unless you’re a hopeless palooka stuck at “level one” who doesn’t ever consider your opponents’ possible hands, you can’t help but be aware of what your opponent might have since you’re sharing cards with him or her.

Meanwhile, stud games play “like a straight line” because you build your hand independently, as do each of your opponents. And the cards are delivered one after another with no redraws, so you each march along parallel to one another down to the river. The trick, I think (and Reese has actually helped me see this idea a little more clearly) is to develop your “peripheral vision” here and consider closely where your opponent is heading at each stage of your respective journeys. Easier said than done. I’m positive when I first started playing Stud I was so focused on completing my own draw or picking up that elusive two pair or trips that I barely noticed what was going on to my left or right.

This here distinction might be the sort of thing that only really occurs to a novice Stud player. I do believe those with a high comfort level playing all varieties of poker -- like those who play in the Big Game -- see through such superficial differences to engage directly with higher-level nuances of poker strategy. But I think it does represent something those of us who primarily play flop games -- where you are all but forced to look at (part of) your opponents’ hands -- have to work through. In stud games, you gotta make yourself look around and try to recognize what others are doing (and how it relates to what you’re doing) as you try to build your own hand.

Good luck to everyone tonight.

News You Can Use

Thanks again to Spaceman for coming around and commenting on that last post. He makes a great point about the oft-unacknowledged hard work of those whose job it is to report news from the professional poker circuit. He also offers some insight into what actually might have occurred at the Borgata that inspired CardPlayer to deliver its less-than-professional accusation about a Bluff Magazine reporter a couple of weeks ago. Check it out.

For those of you who don’t know, “Spaceman” is Jason Kirk, and happens to be a reporter for Bluff Magazine. He was himself involved a different, mini-controversy last month that also highlighted questions about the poker media and journalistic integrity. His reports from the World Poker Open main event at the Gold Strike Casino in Tunica included some humorous references to Daniel Negreanu’s apparent distaste for the local cuisine (among other things South). Bluff Magazine decided some of Kirk’s comments about Negreanu’s were inappropriate and suspended him for the next two circuit events (as Dr. Pauly reported). They also edited some of his updates, removing some of the more pointed references to Negreanu being a “hater” and the like.

If you’re interested, there’s a summary of the matter over at Kick Ass Poker in the second part of their 2/2/07 post. It’s also possible to compare some of Spaceman’s original reports (quoted in various places, including in this comment to Dr. Pauly's post) to Bluff’s edited versions of the updates (located here). I personally think Kick Ass Poker’s conclusion (from yesterday’s post) -- that “both sides [Negreanu and Kirk] were trying to be funny” and things got a little out of hand -- sounds about right.

Speaking of poker journalism, let me recommend a couple of other reads from the last twenty-four hours. First, go check out Amy Calistri and Tim Lavalli’s long awaited follow-up article regarding the infamous extra two million in chips that appeared near the end of the 2006 WSOP Main Event. In “Two Million Chips: Six Months After,” the pair explain why Harrah’s has been hush-hush for the last six months, the Nevada Gaming Commission’s role in the (still ongoing) investigation, and -- perhaps most intriguingly -- who likely got the extra chips.

If you logged on yesterday at all, you no doubt saw how rumors of Doyle Brunson’s supposed arrest (for what?) had clogged up all them tubes of the internets. One of the funnier moments was Gambling911 posting a midday update that included a Doyle’s Room representative saying (and I quote) “As far as we know, Doyle is at home sleeping in his bed. Don’t quote me on any of that . . .” (emphasis added). Thankfully, the guys at Up for Poker came along before the day was over with a nice dose of intellectual Drano to restore the natural flow. Their smart commentary titled “Deconstructing Doyle” does a terrific job speculating what a story like Doyle’s arrest might say about the current status of poker.

As the Doyle story aptly demonstrates, it is certainly a weird time to be a player in the world of poker journalism. I’m just a railbird, of course. And I have to imagine all of this incessant, ill-informed chattering from the rail must be pretty damn distracting for those inside the ring.

Common Knowledge & Common Sense

You might have heard about that tiff between CardPlayer and Bluff Magazine. A couple of weeks ago, CardPlayer posted a three-and-a-half minute video on its site purporting to show a Bluff Magazine reporter cutting and pasting chip counts from the CP site over to Bluff’s site during the Borgata Winter Poker Open. While the video is not entirely unambiguous, the unidentified Bluff reporter does not deny that he is indeed copying content when he is asked on camera about what he is doing. A self-satisfied Rich Belsky (co-host of The Circuit) introduces the clip and then comments afterwards, congratulating himself and the CardPlayer staff for having been able to disgrace a rival. Bluff Magazine has responded -- in a way -- via a post on its forums. As one might expect, Bluff denies the implications of the video.

If one reads the forums and blogs, reaction to this here “story” has been somewhat muted. Ambivalence about CardPlayer’s own journalistic integrity has perhaps prevented most from jumping to their defense here. I’ve complained before about CardPlayer’s frequent blurring of the line between reporting/journalism and advertising/promotion. Hell, Belsky himself is an agent who represents a few of the professional poker players about whom he writes in CardPlayer and converses about on The Circuit. Does that matter? Not necessarily. But let’s say Belsky is writing an article about the UIGEA and begins with a line like “To say that it's an interesting time for the poker industry would be like me telling you Mike Matusow is kind of a loud person” (as he began an article in the November 1, 2006 issue of CardPlayer College Magazine). A perfectly reasonable way to start such a piece, right? As it happens, Belsky is Matusow’s agent, someone who is being paid to get the Mouth’s name out there at every opportunity. Does it matter now how he chose to open his article? (On his MySpace page, Belsky says he represents Matusow, John D’Agostino, and Jennifer “Jennicide” Leigh.)

Sort of thing tends to make some of us -- even those of us who actually care about issues like intellectual property or journalistic integrity -- less animated about CardPlayer’s supposed victimhood here. The other factor lessening the impact of CardPlayer’s “scoop” is the fact that the “content” being defended here is not editorial in nature -- it’s chip counts. Something akin to your local paper getting the score of Hometown U.’s lacrosse match off the college’s website, then reporting it in their pages without attribution.

Some, such as Jennifer Shoots, co-host of The Tournament Trail (on Hold ’em Radio), cry “plagiarism” here, and believe appropriate penalties should be assessed. “It really is a disgrace,” says Shoots (on the 1/31/07 episode). “If these magazines and media outlets aren’t going to do anything to prevent plagiarism . . . [the WPT] need[s] to take some steps to deny credentials to anybody who is going to participate in that fashion, because it’s just ridiculous.” She also believes that Bluff Magazine “need[s] to make a spectacle out of this guy . . . . To prevent things like that from happening again, they need to make an example -- not just for the magazines involved, but for the media in general. It’s just wrong. I say, destroy the guy.”

Shoots has a point. Of course, whether the Bluff reporter was actually guilty of “plagiarism” is perhaps a matter for debate. Regarding plagiarism, the Hodges’ Harbrace Handbook tells students “You must give credit for all information you use except common knowledge and your own ideas.” Are chip counts “common knowledge”? Perhaps not. However, chip counts are certainly closer to common knowledge than other kinds of content, e.g., reporting and/or editorials containing genuinely “original” words and ideas. (Not to be overly catty here, but a lot of the “content” one hears on a show like The Tournament Trail -- a show that consists largely of reports on tourney circuit results -- appears to come from that same category of “common knowledge.”)

So a Bluff reporter was lazy here. Does he deserve to be punished? Yes, I think so. (EDIT [added 2/12/07]: Please see the comment below from Spaceman -- who has reported for Bluff -- that casts light on what happened, and casts doubt on the notion that the reporter here deserves any punishment.) Should CardPlayer have posted the video and sensationalized the affair in such an obviously juvenile way? Well, that’s an editorial decision CardPlayer chose to make. An article over on PokerBiz characterizes the whole affair as a “pissing match,” then goes on to make the point that the poker industry could probably do without such nonsense at present: “at a time when the poker industry is facing major challenges the fact that CardPlayer went out of their way to belittle another key player only shows that there is little, if any, solidarity in the industry.”

In my opinion, CardPlayer shouldn’t feel as though it needs to be at all loyal to Bluff Magazine as a “colleague” in the industry. However, when it comes to trumpeting its own “integrity,” CardPlayer might consider not underestimating its audience once in a while and instead use a little common sense.

No, I Haven’t Just Written 54 Posts

Finally got wise about a month ago and signed on over at Bloglines where I’m currently subscribing to a few dozen different blogs. I think I’ve subscribed to all of the ones listed on the right-hand column (and a few more as well). Much easier to keep up with all my faves.

I know a few folks have similarly added Hard-Boiled Poker as a subscribed feed, though I ain’t sure how to determine how many of you have done so. If you are subscribed to the blog, you might have noticed that today I appear to have something like 54 new posts. No, I haven’t been typing nonstop for the last thirty hours . . . I’ve just made some small edits to a number of earlier posts. Haven’t altered any content -- just went back got rid of all the links I had previously made to online poker sites. So unless you’re interested in tripping your way back through the last few months of HBP, you can safely mark them there posts as read.

I haven’t been bothering to include such links to the sites for a couple of months now, mostly because I decided to stop messing around with the affiliate nonsense. I’m also vaguely mindful of that nasty little part (c) of section 5365 of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (titled “Civil remedies”). That’s the part (discussed before) that says federal agents can force Internet Service Providers to block access not only to online gambling sites, but to sites that link to online gambling sites.

The UIGEA doesn’t appear to be as menacing about forcing ISPs (or, as the UIGEA imprecisely terms ’em, “interactive computer services”) to do the DOJ’s bidding as it is with banks, credit card companies, third-party vendors, and other “financial transaction providers.” The Act says that ISPs will be responsible for “the removal of, or disabling access to, an online site violating section 5363 [i.e., an online gambling site catering to U.S. players], or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section,” but does not explicitly say that ISPs have to police themselves. Nor does the Act threaten ISPs with felony charges (as it does the “financial transaction providers”).

You could say my decision to remove all links from Hard-Boiled Poker to online poker sites (which are, according to the feds, gambling sites -- no matter how much we might want to argue otherwise) is yet another example of someone giving in to the pressure of the UIGEA. Of course, I have no real financial interest in keeping those links up anyway, so it ain’t such a hullaballoo. (Incidentally, that paid ad for InterPoker up in the corner will remain up until the end of March when our agreement ends. If I understand the UIGEA, that ad doesn’t include links to a site in violation of the Act, anyway, since InterPoker does not accept U.S. players.)

I wonder, though, whether the proprietors of any other blogs or sites are at all concerned about this section of the UIGEA, and the possibility that ISPs somewhere down the road actually might disable access to their sites. Folks don’t seem too bothered about this particular part of the Act right now. Bill Rini didn’t refer to it directly in his excellent “Top 10 Myths about the UIGEA” post from last week, which seems to indicate to me that it isn’t really an issue for most at present.

Of course, just yesterday a bill (the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation Online Act) was introduced in the U.S. Senate that would require ISPs to monitor traffic and report any images exploiting children to federal authorities. There’s been a lot of discussion about how “financial transaction providers” aren’t equipped to monitor each and every check that passes through their institutions, perhaps rendering ineffectual whatever regulations they are due to be given by the feds. But would it be that burdensome for ISPs to monitor traffic to and from, say, a few hundred offshore gambling sites? My impression is that if ISPs can monitor for images, they can certainly monitor for links to sites violating good ol’ section 5363. (Whether they will or not, who knows?)

Then again, I can’t prezactly figger how to monitor the traffic at my own site -- at least to guess how many subscribers I might have -- so who am I to speculate about such things . . . ?

What is Your Online Poker Cash Worth?

Heard something interesting over on Beyond the Table this week (the 1/31/07 episode). And no, I’m not talking about Tom Schneider yelling “Shamus, get yr ass in here!” Though he’ll be glad to learn that Vera has now started saying that to me whenever I ain’t where I'm supposed to be. No, this was something else, something Tom said about the future of online poker. Tell me what you think.

I’ve been writing here about how I’m carefully preserving my balances on each of those four accounts on which I play. Since Neteller pulled out, I’ve yet to sign with any other third-party vendor for moving my cabbage in and out of sites. Been kind of a rocky year thus far, tho’ I am up a reasonable amount overall in 2007. Only about even, though, since that moment three weeks ago when Neteller stopped allowing U.S. customers to deal to and from online poker sites.

I can easily remind myself of the exact instant Neteller shut its doors, by the way, because I just happened to have moved the $100.00 I had sitting in there over to Full Tilt about an hour before the shut down occurred. (Thanks again to Bill Rini -- if I had not read on his blog a forewarning that Neteller was about to pull the plug, I might not have bothered to move those funds when I did.)

You’ve probably heard and read about the headaches many U.S. players are having currently regarding their Neteller accounts. After a myriad of ambiguous communications between Neteller and individual customers regarding how quickly their withdrawals would be processed, we have now learned that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has indeed seized at most around $55 million worth of funds from Neteller. This news comes via Neteller’s own press release, dated 2/8/07. So even though Ron Martin, the Group President and CEO of Neteller, is quoted in the releasing saying that “The return of funds to our US customers is a top priority for NETELLER,” those awaiting withdrawals to clear appear to be in for a lengthy wait. (Never mind how all of this makes most of us feel about signing on with any other third-party vendors at present.)

Amy Calistri says she logs on to visit her money once a day, as though it were a family member in prison. I’d been doing something similar now and then with the $0.46 left in my PartyPoker account. When I jettisoned all of my funds from PartyPoker back in early October, for some reason the software wouldn’t allow me to take out the last 46 cents. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but this week I heard from another player over on the Card Clubs forums that he, too, had a pittance left in his Party account that he couldn’t extract. Then he received an email from Party telling him that since he had not logged into his account for 180 days (he had pulled out of Party last summer), his account was being marked “Inactive” and that an “Inactive Account Fee shall be deducted from your Account Balance at the end of each calendar month in accordance with the Inactive Account Fee Schedule.” Wha?

How is he supposed to reactivate his account? “Reactivating your account is easy,” said the email. “Just log in and place a cash wager, enter a tournament with a cash entry fee, or play a raked hand.” Ha ha. Like any American can do that anymore. So he’s looking to forfeit the one dollar and change he has sitting over in Party. And I suppose I’ll be losing my 46 cents the same way over there in a month or two.

(Reminds me of Office Space. You know, that scheme to skim a few cents from every account. If that is what’s happening here, and Party is indeed scamming thousands of American players a few pennies at a time, I think somebody probably deserves to go to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison, don’t you?)

Of course, our fretting over pennies is nothing compared to what others are experiencing, such as those who have tens of thousands of dollars either tied up in Neteller or on online sites where they haven’t a secure means to extract it or move it around. Which brings me to that interesting thing I heard Tom Schneider say on last week’s Beyond the Table.

Schneider thinks that given the fact that a lot of players have already pulled their money out of online poker sites -- plus the many obstacles Americans presently face when trying to reload -- money on poker sites will soon become worth “more than cash.” In other words, according to Schneider, some players will be willing to pay “a premium” (i.e., higher than actual dollar value) to get money moved into their online poker accounts with which they can play.

Schneider was speaking primarily of high stakes games, but the observation might well apply all the way down the line. It’s a bit like we’re all getting collectively blinded down in a tournament, with each individual chip increasing in value as our stacks dwindle. Could it be possible that within a few months we’ll see folks buying and selling cash that resides in online poker sites?

Whaddya think? Is Tom on the money here? Or is he full of applesauce? Or am I for thinking this theory might apply (to a lesser degree) to us low limit types?

Gotta go . . . think I hear somebody hollerin’ for me . . . .

Luck Be a Lady

Started with a simple “nh.” I’d won a small pot in an unremarkable hand. Holding kings in late position, I’d raised and one of the blinds called. Flop was all babies. Checked to me, I bet, and my opponent folded. Not the sort of hand that warrants congratulations, really. But I responded with a “ty” nonetheless.

This was over on Bodog, where I’ve chosen a woman’s name as my screen ID. A half-conscious act of rebellion, I suppose, forged in response to Bodog’s hypermasculine promotional campaign. (Every time I log on, I’m reminded it’s “Poker. Play Hard.”) I’ve also uploaded a cartoon pic of a woman as my table image, although I didn’t go so far as to fill out the profile with further misleading information (as one can do on Bodog).

Play continued, and after a few hands I happened to notice that the “nh” hadn’t come from my opponent in the hand, but from another player -- LarryLizard -- who had not been involved. I won another hand, this time showing down top pair, top kicker, and got another “nh” from Larry. This time he also addressed me directly by my screen name.

A few more hands went by, then Larry tells me “i like your pic.” I immediately recalled a friend of mine -- a female player with whom I used to play online quite often. She had a picture of Betty Boop as her avatar. The picture, coupled with a friendly personality and willingness to chat, had gotten her a lot of attention at the tables. More than she desired, actually -- eventually she had to give up playing on the site because of all the “friends” she’d picked up. She told me about how some players seemed genuinely to respond to the cartoon image of Betty Boop there on the screen, as if it were somehow related to what she looked like in real life. Or what anybody looks like in real life.

So Larry likes my pic. Uhh . . . okay. I didn’t respond at first. Then, for the sheer hell of it, I typed another “ty.” Bad idea. Next thing I know Larry is asking me where I’m from. I didn’t reply. I won another hand -- this time successfully trapping someone after flopping a set to take a medium-sized pot. Again Larry didn’t miss a chance to congratulate me. Suddenly another player from across the table chimes in with a “u go girl.”

Shamus scratches his head. Pretty soon these two are engaged in a lengthy conversation, mostly about me. Or, I should say, their impression of who they thought I might be. Some of their discussion concerned my ability as a player. Some was about my apparent unwillingness to chat. Meanwhile I found that whenever I’d open bet a flop, all would fold. I did get the idea that whether or not they read me as a woman, they certainly didn’t think I was capable of betting without a hand. Was my “image” (literally speaking) helping me here?

The eCOGRA study notes that about 12% of online poker players play under a different sex. It also suggests that this group “reported having less profitable play than any other type of player.” One theory proposed is that those who do play as a different sex “may have been less successful as a consequence of over estimating [sic] the advantage of playing poker as a different sex.”

I can definitely see this as a possibility. It didn’t take long for me to become fairly preoccupied with how others at the table seemed to be viewing me. Still, I have my doubts about the theory that those who play under a different sex -- the “trannies,” as Amy Calistri referred to ’em in her post on the study -- really are the players who lose the most. Again, we’re dealing with players’ own testimonies here. Why should we believe what the players are saying about their own profitability, particularly when we’re dealing with a group defined by the way they lie about themselves when playing online?

I’m sure others have had more extensive, more interesting experiences along these lines. Makes me think of some of those sci-fi stories and novels such as Ursula LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness that throw into question the whole idea of what it means to be a man or a woman. How much of this really matters, though? Toby Leah Bochan, author of The Badass Girl's Guide to Poker: All You Need to Beat the Boys, claims “When you're playing poker online you're genderless.” Read that in an interview over at Bodog Nation, as it happens. What do you think? Do you pay much attention to the apparent sex of your online opponent? Does it matter?

I told my friend Vera Valmore about the incident with LarryLizard. “Can you believe some dude told me he liked my picture?” I said, incredulously.

“And it made you feel pretty?” she replied with a smirk.

Under the Microscope

A week or so ago, a group called eCOGRA (e-Commerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance) issued a “Media Summary” version of its study of online gambling. I’d seen references to the study -- called “An Exploratory Investigation into the Attitudes and Behaviors of Internet Casino and Poker Players” -- over at Calistri’s Corner and IGGY at Pokerworks (and other places). Finally got around to reading this here 17-page summary and thought I’d share a few observations about what I found there.

The specific objectives of the study, according to the authors, were (1) to learn more about the “basic dynamics of Internet poker and casino behaviour” and (2) to foster “player protection and social responsibility” in the realm of online gambling. In other words, the researchers are partly motivated by academic interests (i.e., they simply wanted to fill a gap in our understanding of online gambling and those who partake) and by practical concerns for players’ welfare. eCOGRA is a non-profit organization that independently monitors online casinos and poker rooms. They give a “seal of approval” to sites that meet certain criteria for fair gaming. Perusing their list of approved sites, I see none of my regular haunts appear on their list of poker rooms -- not sure whether that’s a reflection on the sites or on the current reach of eCOGRA as an industry-recognized certifying agency. (Probably the latter.)

In any event, their study is certainly intriguing and maybe even useful. They surveyed over 10,000 individuals who logged onto online casinos and/or poker rooms during a three-month period. They also conducted some focus groups with a much smaller group. Their findings cover a number of areas, including establishing demographics (age, sex, nationality) for players, discovering what factors motivate individuals to gamble online, developing a profile for winning players, and determining what issues and concerns were of utmost importance to those who do play.

The summary of the study includes some general observations about the differences between the internet casino scene (where folks play games like blackjack, roulette, slots, etc.) and that of internet poker. Those who play internet casino games are generally older than internet poker players. The study cites others’ speculations that older players may prefer casino games because they require less concentration, less complex decision making, and are generally less time consuming.

However, the most absorbing stuff –- for me, anyway –- concerns online poker players. I found three observations to be particularly intriguing.

Who Are the Winners?

According to the researchers, “those who reported doing financially better” playing online poker had certain characteristics in common. They were “less likely to chase losses” (something I’m trying to train myself to stop doing). They were “more likely to play at more sites” (always a good idea, in my view). They were “likely to listen to music when playing” (hey, that’s me, too). They multitabled, with four tables being the optimal number for the most successful players (no thank you). They “play with a smaller percentage of their bankroll” than do those who report losses (gotta manage them pesos). They “play to win money” (some folks play for other reasons). And they “play more frequently” than those who report losses.

Most of these findings make intuitive sense, I’d say. One observation occurs to me, though. I see nothing here that explicitly acknowledges a possible discrepancy between players “who reported doing financially better” and players who are actually winning. Elsewhere in the summary, we read that “less than a third of poker players claimed to lose money on a monthly basis.” We all know, of course, that there is no possible way for us to have more winners than losers playing online poker. I recall a CardPlayer article (I cannot track it down -- this was probably at least two years ago) in which a couple of different executives from online poker sites affirmed that only 7 or 8 percent of players on their sites actually realize any profit at all. Whatever the percentage really is, it’s pretty clear that either the 10,000+ surveyed here are either non-representative or non-truthful. (Come to think of it, when it comes to poker players, being non-truthful is representative . . . !)

The United States of Anxiety

One area of the study I found particularly interesting was the discussion about international differences and some of the attitudes that American players had about online poker that differed from what the rest of the world thinks. I found the following paragraph especially revealing:

“Among the biggest differences in terms of attitudes and beliefs was a clear distinction between the extent to which the players felt that operators engaged in unfair practice. Specifically, North American players were more likely to think ‘pokerbots’ existed online, which were operated by the sites themselves, and they were more likely to feel that the gambling sites were likely to have an ‘on/off switch which can turn the software in favour of the operator.’”

The authors proceed to suggest that Americans in particular may be prone to such paranoia because of the current legal situation here in the States: “Particularly in the context of U.S. citizens, it is understandable that more players may be concerned about operator legitimacy if they are seen to be operating in an illegal or quasi-legal industry.” An excellent observation, in my view -- something I was partially getting at in that earlier post titled “A Game of Incomplete Information.”

Lo-lo-lo-Lola a Lo-lo-lo-loser?

Apparently around 12% of players pretend to be a different sex when playing online. And, even more interestingly, those who pose as a different sex “reported having less profitable play than any other type of player.” The authors cite another study that reports playing as the opposite sex to be “the number one predictor of gambling problems when playing Internet poker.” One theory suggested here is that those who do play as a different sex likely overestimate the advantage of doing so.

I mentioned a couple of months ago how I chose a woman’s name for my ID when I signed on over at Bodog. At the other sites I play, my onscreen names are all basically sex-neutral (or so I believe), but at Bodog I thought I’d experiment. I’ve actually had a couple of memorable experiences playing as a woman already -- I’ll share next post. I do see the potential, though, for overestimating the importance of one’s onscreen name.

Curious stuff. Perhaps not as curious as that image of Shamus in drag you’re now struggling to avoid conjuring, mind you. But curious.

Laying Low

A busy week here at Hard-Boiled Poker. As far as playing goes, I ended January on a small upswing and so was able to book a winning month (no great shakes, but being in the black is always good). And February has started well so I’m feeling okay at present regarding those smallish sums I’m nursing in each of my four sites. So unlike most of the world of online pokery (it seems), I ain’t fretting about deposit options at the moment. Nor am I really thinking about withdrawal options, either -- I’ll see if I can build the bankroll some and worry about that if/when it becomes an issue.

Been reading my new poker books. Have stubbornly worked through the first few chapters of The Mathematics of Poker -- a grind, but fascinating stuff, really. I’ve been dipping here and there in the Super Systems. Jennifer Harman’s limit chapter in Super System 2 has been particularly enlightening, showing how one can add aggression without becoming a blood simple maniac.

I’ve also finished Tom Schneider’s Oops! I Won Too Much Money, which I enjoyed quite a bit and can see myself going back to again. I’m actually going to try to get my non-poker playing friend Vera Valmore (whom I’ve mentioned here before) to read it before I post any formal review. She’s one to appreciate sound advice, so I’m curious to get her take on what Tom has to say.

Meanwhile . . . thanks to Ante Up! for playing my silly edit this week. I hope some folks got a laugh out of that. And thanks, also, to Falstaff for the nod regarding my last post. As I said, I do think he’s right about getting the poker sites to take a more aggressive role in the fight to save online poker. Along those lines, I thought I’d share a brief exchange I had with Bodog this week.

Bodog’s customer support has been particularly good in my experience. They are always very fast with responses to emails (invariably responding within 30 minutes or so), and the phone help has been good as well. A couple of weeks ago when I sent my question around to various sites about how they managed the funds in players’ accounts, Bodog was the only site to give me a straight answer.

I’d been hearing and reading various theories about the future of Bodog in the U.S. Most of these forecasts have been less than rosy, so thought I’d send Bodog a note asking them about it. Here’s my message:













Exactly 26 minutes later I received the following reply:

















Have to say, I respond well to such frankness. (Unusual, really, in this context.) Interesting, also, to think about a company that considers itself “completely legal” and “a legitimate business” finding it necessary to “lay low.” Like I say, I like the frankness. But it does makes me wonder a little how much we can really expect of these sites to take up the cause.

Thoughts on Various Subjects

“I must complain the cards are ill shuffled till I have a good hand.”
--Jonathan Swift, "Thoughts on Various Subjects" (1728)

Yesterday I listened to Chuck Humphrey interviewed on the 1/25/07 episode of Keep Flopping Aces. Humphrey’s a Colorado lawyer who maintains what is probably the most up-to-date and informative website around if you’re looking for information about current U.S. gambling laws. I’d read a few of his articles back in October regarding the UIGEA, including “Some Specific Points on the New UIGEA” and “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.” If you haven’t read those analyses and are interested in learning more about the possible implications of the UIGEA, both are worth checking out.

Humphrey builds upon those earlier arguments during the Keep Flopping Aces interview. As in those articles, Humphrey continues to express pessimism about the fate on online poker in the United States. In the interview, Humphrey suggests that Neteller’s successors (like ePassporte) will very likely suffer a similar fate as “financial transaction providers” considered by the Department of Justice to be in violation of the terms of the UIGEA. He also doesn’t appear to give the idea of a “poker carve out” much of a chance. On the show they don’t specifically discuss that possibility -- the primary strategic tact being pursued by the Poker Players Alliance at present -- but Humphrey does say that he is not convinced we’re gonna to see poker being distinguished from other “games based on chance.”

Lot of people don’t wanna hear what Mr. Humphrey is saying. Indeed, reading or listening to Chuck Humphrey sure as hell ain’t gonna cheer any of youse up. Those who already felt somewhat powerless in the face of ever-mounting pressures might well feel more so after such study. What in the world can be done to ensure our ability to play online poker?

How about boycotting online poker? (“Huh?” you say.)

That’s the plan put forth by Falstaff (of PokerStage) about a week ago. His “Not Very Modest Proposal” is for online poker players not to play online poker from midnight (EST), Thursday, February 8th through midnight (PST), Sunday, February 11. According to Falstaff, doing so “would provide a clarion call to poker sites to take some of our hard-earned rake and throw more money at this problem until the UIGEA is repealed.”

A few folks, including Bill Rini, think Falstaff’s plan worth trying. (EDIT [added 2/1/07]: Bill has since updated his position.) Others, like Dugglebogey (of Go Be Rude) are less enthusiastic. Says Dugglebogey, “It would be great if we could send a message to the poker rooms that they need to do some more work standing up for the players in the US, but I just don’t think poker players are that organized.”

Falstaff recognizes this fact about poker players when he suggests we’re particularly affected by Newton’s First Law, a.k.a., the law of inertia stating “an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.” He’s right, of course. Though I think it goes deeper than simple inertia, which by definition is a state of passivity. I’d go further and say that unwillingness to move is more often than not an active, conscious decision made by poker players. We sometimes talk of “isolation” as a strategic ploy whereby placing a bet gets us alone against an opponent of choice. But isolation is also the preferred strategy for poker players, generally speaking. It’s not just that we’re hard to organize . . . it goes against our very nature to get along at all.

Poker players are always trying to go “against the grain.” You find yourself at a loose table, you play tight. Surrounded by rocks? Loosen up. We’re constantly antagonizing one another at the table -- in our play and sometimes in other ways, too. We also can’t agree on anything. I just happened yesterday also to listen to Lou Krieger’s interview with Howard Schwartz, proprietor of the Gambler’s Book Shop in Vegas, from last summer (available here over on Hold ’em Radio). Krieger asked Schwartz about which poker books sold particularly well in his store. “Interestingly,” said Schwartz, “the egos of poker players are more fragile than [with] any other form of gambling.” As a result, even though they have thirty different areas of gambling covered in the store, it is only over in the poker section where he witnesses heated arguments about particular authors or books. “Whatever works for some people is a total failure for others, and that’s what I think makes poker unique. Each person learns a different way.” He’s right. Each of us cultivates his or her own individual style, and thus each of us tends to think of the game itself in a way that makes it hard (sometimes) even to communicate with someone else. (Witness your typical medium-length thread on Two Plus Two or RGP.)

The biggest problem, though -- in this context -- is the way poker players tend to shut the world out in the effort to focus solely on the game at hand. In The Biggest Game in Town (1983), Al Alvarez speaks frequently of how isolated poker players are from the so-called “outside world.” He marvels at how events of great importance outside of Glitter Gulch -- say, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II -- aren’t even acknowledged at the poker tables. He tells one story of how a man he knew was playing hold ’em in the Golden Nugget the night Carter was elected president. It was well after midnight, and the man decided to take a quick break from the game to go up to his room and find out the election results. “When he returned, he announced to the table at large, ‘We’ve got a new president -- Jimmy Carter.’ The dealer stared at him coldly, as if he had broken some obscure house rule, and the man sitting next to him said, ‘The bet is three dollars.’ There was no other comment.”

Same scenario for online poker players, I think. A lot of us just can’t be bothered. Which is all the more ironic, of course, since in this case the “outside world” is looking to end the game altogether.

Just some of the many reasons why Falstaff’s proposal will have little practical effect. Of course, Jonathan Swift never intended for his “Modest Proposal” to be actually realized, either. And like Swift, I think Falstaff is on the right track by trying to get the message to the sites that yes, they should step up and do whatever they can to fight this cause. (Hell, Falstaff gets extra points for alluding to “A Modest Proposal” at all, in my book. They don’t come much more hard-boiled than Swift.)

So get yr head outta the sand, check out Chuck Humphrey’s arguments, give Falstaff’s idea (and some of his other ideas) some consideration, join the friggin’ PPA, and keep thinking about how we might actually work together here. For once.

Better than just sitting around complaining until we get dealt a better hand.

AIPS II Event No. 1 -- NL Hold 'em

Okay, smarties . . . what do these three guys have in common? (Keep reading.)

The Ante Up! Intercontinental Poker Series II: Electric Boogaloo began this past Saturday with the first event, no limit hold ’em. The Ante Up! guys have smartly planned a schedule that has tourneys occurring once a month. The buy-ins are $5.00+$0.50 (except for Event No. 12, which will be $24+$2). Saturday’s event attracted 111 players with enough money left over at Full Tilt Poker -- or who had figured out how to transfer funds there in time for the tourney. The top 18 spots paid.

I have to say I wasn’t terribly optimistic going in on Saturday. I’d had a pretty rough week at the limit tables, and haven’t been playing tourneys much at all for the last six weeks or so. Once the tourney finally began a little after noon on Saturday, I realized I was having a hard time even focusing on the action. Not the best frame of mind with which to enter a tourney, short on both confidence and concentration.

Nothing too remarkable happened for me during the first few orbits. I won a couple of small pots, lost those chips back in minor skirmishes, and was sitting with 1,490 chips in Level 4 (30/60 blinds) when I picked up in middle position. An early position player with 1,355 min.-raised to 120, and I bumped it up to 350. Everyone folded and the original raiser called. The flop came and my opponent quickly pushed his remaining 1,005 into the middle. I thought for a moment, typed “AJ?”, and folded my hand. He showed , typing “lol.”

Despite losing some chips, that hand actually helped my confidence a bit. The very next hand knocked it back down, though. I was now in early position (UTG+2) and was dealt . It folded to me and I actually just called, hoping one of the remaining players would put in a raise and I could repop it. A little more fancy than I usually prefer, and, in fact, if I had put in a raise here it probably would’ve been read by someone as steaming and I’d have gotten action anyway. But I was greedy. To my dismay, it folded to the button who just called, and three of us (including the big blind) saw a horrific flop of . I had to see where I was, and so when the big blind checked I bet out 120. The button smooth-called and the big blind folded. The turn was the . I timidly bet 220 into the 670 pot and the button rightly pushed all-in (regardless of what he had). I had to muck.

So we’d been playing just over a half-hour and I was down to 740 chips, putting me 89th out of the 93 remaining players. Now I just had to sit tight and be content to nurse the short-stack. And try not to beat myself up too much over bungling those pocket rockets.

By the start of Level 6 (50/100), I’d fallen to 530 chips (76th of 78). I pushed with A3, a pair of deuces called me, and doubled up when both an ace and trey came on the flop. By the one-hour break I had 1,210 (59th of 76). Still alive. But not too healthy.

Somehow I hung in, pushing about every other orbit or so and either picking up blinds and antes or occasionally winning a coin flip and a modest number of chips. I never really had enough chips to make more than a single move in a given hand, so I can’t honestly say I was playing solid poker. But I was at least doing enough to make those few chips I had last. The total players dwindled down to 50, then 40, then 30. I was near the very bottom the entire way, but I was still playing.

At one point we were down to about 27 players and I had a measly 1,795 in chips (25th place). The blinds were 150/300 (plus 25 ante), so once again it was desperation time. I was in the big blind and it folded all the way around to the button who raised to 800. The small blind folded and I considered my holding -- . With all of the dead money in the pot, there was 1,475 out there. He’s gotta be stealin’, I thought. At the very least I probably have two live cards. I pushed. My opponent thought for a bit and called me with . I think we both played that hand well, actually. I survived the board and had 3,915 in chips -- about the most I had all tournament, in fact.

After a couple dozen hands we had reached the bubble. I was getting absolutely nothing card-wise, and despite stealing blinds and antes a couple of times with squat I couldn’t stop my stack from dwindling back down under 2,000. When we got to 19 players left, I was one of three essentially tied for last. The tourney was played hand-for-hand. I watched as one dribbled down to 600 chips or so, then luckily won an all-in versus two other players to triple up.

Finally came the moment of truth for your humble servant. The blinds were 250/500 (50 ante) and I was in middle position with a pair of treys. I had about 1,900 chips left, and the blinds were getting close. I had a slight edge over one other player chipwise, but not enough to be able to ride it out. It folded to me. I decided to push and watched the table fold around to the big blind. He thought for 15 seconds or so, then called with K7-suited.

The flop came AQJ rainbow. The turn was another ace. If I could dodge ten outs on the river, I’d be okay.

But the river was a 10, giving my opponent the straight, and bouncing me out in 19th place.

I was initially bummed at having earned the ignominious distinction as bubble boy, particularly after that rough week at the cash tables. But I got over it soon enough. Indeed, looking back to where my head was at the start of the tourney -- never mind how that first half-hour went -- I was pretty thrilled to have lasted as long as I did. I never had much more than 4,000 the entire tourney -- that’s not even 1/40 of the chips that were in play -- and still somehow made it to 19th. Little bit hard to fathom, really. Talk about “Short-Stacked” . . . . (Figured out what Wordsworth, Fielder, and Moneymaker have in common yet . . . ? And me?)

Next up, Stud. Where’s my Roy West? Gotta go review his book. Perhaps I’ll cook myself up a steaming pot of macaroni-and-cheese and cut up some hot dogs to go in it, just to put myself in the mood.