To Make Haste Slowly (On Limit Hold ’em Tourneys)

Am hopeful to take a seat in the first event of Ante Up! Intercontinental Poker Series III in 3-D tonight (9 p.m. EST). The game is limit hold ’em. Still up in the air whether circumstances will allow me to make it, but at the moment it appears more likely I will than I won’t.

Haven’t played a single tourney yet in 2008, thus not getting very far with my resolution to try to play more MTTs and SNGs. I think it was one of the hosts of Hardcore Poker Show I heard recently use the term “resolosers” to describe those exhibiting this sort of non-follow through.

In my defense, I was looking around online earlier in the week for a limit hold ’em sit-n-go to join. But as you might imagine, it takes awhile for one of those suckers to fill up.

I say “imagine,” ’cos I know damn well you haven’t actually looked for one. Have you?

Anticipating the tourney, I’ve been thinking a little about how unpopular limit hold ’em tourneys are. Decided one of the reasons -- besides the patience-thing -- was that the idea of a “limit tournament” represents a kind of oxymoron to most. You know, like “soft rock.” Or an “open secret.” Tournaments are by definition all-or-nothing affairs -- only one of us is going to have any chips at the end, while everyone else will be wiped out. So it perhaps seems oddly inharmonious to have to recognize betting limits as we collectively march toward that ultimate, all-or-nothing terminus.

I think there might be another, more tangible incongruity that distinguishes limit tourneys, though. Let’s see if I can translate this ideer into words in a way that makes sense to anyone else.

When pros are asked about the difference between cash games and tourneys, one of the more frequently cited generalizations is that while tourneys tend to emphasize preflop and flop play, in cash games the turn and river are where the more crucial decisions tend to occur. I might be wrong, but I think this idea applies both to no-limit and limit games (with a flop, natch). And, despite being a generalization, it seems to ring true.

In tournaments, we are dealing with increasing blinds, and thus often find ourselves edging over into situations where a lot of the strategy is necessarily taking place before the flop or on the flop. Such is the case even in limit games, where we sometimes (often?) find ourselves pressured to make earlier decisions about whether or not to see a hand through to the end. (In tourneys with especially rapid structures, this change of emphasis happens sooner than later.)

Problem is, in limit hold ’em, the bets double on the turn and river, meaning that “normal” tournament strategy, when evoked in the limit hold ’em tourney, actually tends to focus one’s attention on the lesser value streets. Which makes our brains hurt. Which makes us not want to play limit hold ’em tourneys.

Does that make sense?

I’m not enough of a theoretician to be able to sort out this problem more fully (or precisely). But I think there might be something here that helps explain that “backwards” feeling I tend to get in limit hold ’em tourneys.

I suppose yr better limit HE tourney players are able to adjust their focus appropriately and not get overly caught up in the usual preflop/flop stuff. I haven’t read Howard Lederer’s chapter on limit HE in the Full Tilt Poker Strategy Guide: Tournament Edition, but from Foucault’s review it sounds as though Lederer doesn’t say a heckuva lot in particular about tourney-specific strategy.

Meanwhile his dad, the linguist and self-described “verbivore” Richard Lederer, has quite a lot to say about oxymorons.

As I say, I hope to be there tonight. And if I do, my plan is to do everything I can to keep my chip stack from growing small.

Get it?

Hold ’em Radio Cashes Out?

First found Hold ’em Radio in the fall of 2006. I believe the site had only gone live a few months before. Can’t recall exactly what path led me to locate the site, but as a fan of poker podcasts and forums, I was delighted when I did. Besides hosting what appeared a fairly active forum and sponsoring a number of online freerolls, the site’s main attraction (for me) were the dozen or so podcasts I saw listed, most of which I’d never heard before. The shows could be heard streaming live on the site and/or could be downloaded afterwards as podcasts.

I soon tried out a number of the shows, finding Beyond the Table and Keep Flopping Aces the most consistently enjoyable and informative. BTT ended up moving on in the spring of 2007, going “independent” with its own site and feed. (And recruiting some goofball to write posts for them every now & then.)

Soon afterwards I found myself in Vegas playing poker in Binion’s poker room, and when I was done I went over to visit with Wade Andrews in the Hold ’em Radio kiosk. As I wrote about later, I found Wade a friendly guy and enjoyed our meeting very much. At the time, I recall him talking about future plans for the site, including adding some video broadcasts.

Somewhere around the time of the 2007 WSOP the site went down for a short period, then returned with a different look (a lot of which seemed permanently “under construction”). After that, the archiving of shows became less frequent and inconsistent, and it became increasingly difficult for me to keep up with the two shows I most enjoyed on the site -- Keep Flopping Aces and Poker Psychology.

Then a couple of weeks ago I noticed the site had apparently disappeared altogether. Saw Lou Krieger’s announcement last week that Keep Flopping Aces had moved over to Rounder’s Radio. Then saw Barry Tanenbaum make a similar announcement that Poker Psychology (which he sometimes co-hosted with Al Schoonmaker) was also moving over to Rounder’s. The buzz is a number of other Hold ’em Radio shows will be following suit.

The future of Hold ’em Radio is now up in the air. I’ve seen Schoonmaker mention on a forum that the site “may or may not come back online.” Have also seen posters on other forums saying within the last week that the site would “be back in a week or so.” If I had to guess I’d say those betting on the site’s return are drawing thin. (I hope I’m wrong.)

It was a great idea. And I, for one, am sorry to see it doesn’t seem to have panned out as well as it might have. The successes of other “poker networks” like Rounder’s Radio and PokerRoad attest to the fact that there’s an audience for such a thing -- not necessarily the case when Hold ’em Radio first came on the scene. I guess being “all in all day” proved too difficult to maintain.

Best of luck to Wade and all of the hosts of Hold ’em Radio shows.

Uncorrected Personality Traits That Seem Whimsical in a Child May Prove to Be Ugly in a Fully Grown Adult

A few excerpts from the PokerRoad Radio interview (1/14/08) of Josh “JJProdigy” Field at the Aussie Millions:

PokerRoad Radio: Is this the first of the live tournaments you’ve done?
JJProdigy: Yeah. I turned eighteen on the 2nd.

PRR: The difference between you and some other high-profile multi-accounters . . . is that . . . you were caught multi-accounting and then you continued to multi-account knowing it’s against the rules. What is your response?
JJ: Right, well, I did. I mean I’m guilty of that. I don’t know what else to say.

PRR: Do you even care?
JJ: I care what my friends think about me. But when people bash me who don’t even know me, that doesn’t faze me that much.

PRR: Say you entered 6 or 7 different accounts [into the same MTT]. Were you sometimes taking slightly negative EV plays because you knew that your tournament life really wasn’t on the line . . . ?
JJ: Yeah. I think I started playing worse when I . . . like the longer it got, because you realize if you get out of one then you still have more to play with. So I would take marginal spots where I normally wouldn’t take them.

PRR: The set-up that you had . . . [you had] about six different wireless cards so you could get different IP addresses, so that [the multi-accounting] was undetectable. Now, you were 16 and 17 at the time . . . . Did your parents have any involvement in any of your activities, and what did they think of the situation? Did they understand the full ramifications of . . . what you’ve been doing over the last couple two years?
JJ: No, my parents have been always . . . like [they had a] “don’t ask” kind of mindset. Like they never really . . . like even when I was playing poker underage and making all the money, they just tried to ignore it.

PRR: Are you remorseful because maybe you felt like what you did was wrong, or are you remorseful because you got caught?
JJ: Well, I think first I got caught. I mean, it had to take them to catch me for me to realize that I was wrong and what I was doing was wrong.

PRR: So you are telling the world right now that . . . you right now are not playing on the sites that you’re banned from and you have no plans to play on the sites that you are banned from?
JJ: At this moment in time, yeah. I can’t tell you in a month I’ll be thinking the same, because it’ll be really hard not playing all those sites. But right now, yeah.

(Post title from “Uncorrected Personality Traits” by Robyn Hitchcock from his 1984 album I Often Dream of Trains.)

You Should Subscribe to These Blogs

Been pondering the Kahnawake Gaming Commission’s report on the Gaming Associates’ audit of Absolute Poker a bit more. Got a chance yesterday to listen to the latest episode Keep Flopping Aces (the 1/10/08 episode) on which appeared Chuck Barnett, a member of the Board of Directors of Mohawk Internet Technologies and former administrator of the KGC. Worth a listen, but I have to admit I get a queasy feeling listening to Mr. Barnett “explain” the hierarchy of power over at Absolute & Kahnawake (home to approximately 60% of the world’s online casinos).

Am gonna keep pondering this one a little while longer. Meanwhile I will keep my eye on those threads on Two Plus Two regarding some funny business on Ultimate Bet. Might have to listen to PokerRoad Radio’s interview with mega-cheater JJProdigy from yesterday as well.

Oof. There’s that queasy feeling again.

Not gonna get into any of that today, though. No, I want to feel good. So instead of griping some more about the lawless applesauce that is online poker, I’m gonna invite y’all to click your way elsewhere across the intertubes.

I follow around a hundred blogs at the moment (all listed over there in the right-hand column). Obviously there will be days when I read some a bit more closely than others, though I do try to follow everyone’s ongoing narratives as well as I can. Thought today I’d take a moment to recommend three poker blogs that I think are especially well done. All are ones I only found in the last six months or so. And as far as I’m aware, none are among the oft-cited choices for “best poker blogs” one occasionally sees popping up on forums and elsewhere. But all should be.

Snoopy System

In addition to reporting from pro tourneys for Blonde Poker (and perhaps some other outlets of which I ain’t aware), U.K.-based Snoopy1239 keeps a high-quality personal blog where he writes about his experiences covering the circuit as well as his own play. Most recently Snoopy has been posting from the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure, detailing his encounters with several big-name pros in the Bahamas. (He cross-posts items like that both on Blonde & his blog.) Prior to the PCA articles were a dozen entries relating his own adventures at the 2/4 NLHE tables. Snoopy’s posts are well-written, convey a sharp sense of humor, and are insightful, too.

From the Desk of the Poker Philosopher

If you hang out a lot on Two Plus Two, you are probably aware of Foucault, a.k.a. Andrew Brokos, a.k.a. the “Poker Philosopher.” A frequent poster on the site, Foucault regularly writes shrewd, perceptive articles for the Two Plus Two magazine as well. He’s achieved some serious success both live and online, cashing in WSOP events and taking down major online tourneys. His blog features accounts of his own play, smart and helpful reviews of poker books, and occasional anecdotes from his experiences at debate camps and other intellectually-stimulating venues. He might also refer you now and then to neat sites like TED, where one can find eye-opening lectures on technology, entertainment, and design.

Poker Grump

Finally, go ahead and add the Poker Grump to your list of subscribed feeds if he ain’t there already. His blog, subtitled “All the Things I Hate About the Game I Love,” covers a wide variety of poker-related topics, though usually revolves around his experiences playing mid-level stakes in Vegas. His descriptions and judgments of poker rooms, dealer and player behavior, and other elements of the Vegas poker scene are uniformly well conceived and presented. If yr new to the Grump, a recent post, “Best of the Grump (so far),” is a great place to get acquainted.

While I’m at it, lemme also remind you about the other blogs where I sometimes appear.

There is PokerSift, where I’m blogging along with about 15 other interesting folks of different backgrounds. I started out cross-posting items both here and there, but beginning this week have decided to keep the content separate. So add that one to yr feeds. And I know yr already subscribed to Pokerati, where I’ll turn up once in a while amid the other poker news and fun stuff.

But enough of my musings for now. Go check out Snoopy, Foucault, and the Grump, why dontcha?

Turning Into Travis Bickle

Played some more H.O.R.S.E. over the weekend and did well. Will try to compile a reasonable number of hands and report back. Still putting in short sessions of PLO here and there, too. I imagine I won’t be leaving Omaha anytime soon.

During my most recent session of PLO25 (on Stars) I had one of those chronic minimum-bettors at one of my tables. One seems to encounter these fairly often at PLO -- probably more often than at NLHE (I’d imagine). With this guy, it wasn’t just a now-and-then thing. Every time he chose to bet or raise, he’d bet or raise the minimum. Or so it seemed, anyhow. Still haven’t gotten PokerTracker for Omaha, so I don’t have stats handy to quote at you. I did, however, look back through this particular session to see just how often MiniMouse did his thing.

I didn’t spend very long at this table -- just 41 hands. Looking back through the hand history, I see MiniMouse sat out five of the hands, so I’ve only got 36 in which he took part. Out of those 36 hands, he took a lot of flops -- 29 altogether -- and in those hands put out a minimum bet on the flop or afterwards no less than 13 times. Very often he’d open bet a quarter if a hand got checked to him -- usually on the flop, but sometimes on later streets as well. And he’d also min. raise bets, too (e.g., responding to the $0.75 bet on the flop with a raise to $1.50). He did end up getting involved in a couple of larger pots along the way, but by the time I left the table he was exactly $1.55 ahead. So I guess it was working out for him.

I actually ended up doubling up (from $13 to $27) early on in this session, then toward the end found myself wanting more and more to mix it up with MiniMouse. Called down his wimpy bets a couple of times -- won once, lost once. Then bet him out of another pot. Didn’t deter him, though. The quarters kept popping out of his avatar-less circle. One at a time.

Early in the second volume of Harrington on Hold ’em there’s a discussion of probe bets. After defining what he considers a probe bet to be (a smallish bet of 1/4 to 1/3 the pot), Harrington tells how he likes to handle others’ probe bets:

“When confronted with a probe bet, I like to employ the Travis Bickel [sic] Defense. ‘You wanna know somethin’ about my hand? You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to ME?!!,’ and then toss in a big raise. This usually takes the pot, and when it doesn’t, I’m gone. (I don’t actually start screaming, it’s just a metaphor.)”

I like the metaphor. For one, it’s funny. Just imagine mild-mannered Harrington suddenly erupt, Taxi Driver-style. The metaphor is also quite apt. Sometimes it’s hard not to let those tiny, annoying bets turn you into a nihilistic psycho. I found myself edging over into Travis Bickle territory, becoming increasingly desirous to smash MiniMouse into rodent ragout. One hand in particular woke me up to the unsettling transformation that was happening to me . . . .

I had chipped up to $34.10 -- nearly twenty bucks ahead of where I had started at the table -- when I limped from the button with . MiniMouse was in the hand, as was one other limper. So the pot was just 75 cents when the flop came . Checked around to me and with top two I went ahead and bet pot. MiniMouse called and the other player folded. Pot now $2.25. The turn brought the and MiniMouse checked. I bet $2 and he quickly bet $4.

Another friggin’ minimum bet. And a check-raise! Ahhh . . . .

That’s when I felt myself slowly turnin’ into Travis B. Wanting to say “Hey, Sport . . . ! SUCK ON THIS!” And maybe shoot him in the stomach or something.

“I got some bad ideas in my head.” (As Bickle confides to Wizard.)

Somehow I resisted losing it altogether, able to see clearly enough I had to be beat. I did stubbornly call the check-raise, though, telling myself I still had a couple of outs hidden in there somewhere. The came on the river, and MiniMouse bet a quarter.

Noooo, sir. No, thanks. No. I called.

MiniMouse showed . He’d turned a better two pair, and rivered the less-than-nut straight. I left the table shortly thereafter.

I’d lost a couple more bucks than I needed to on that hand. But I did manage to get the hell outta there before I made a real mess of things.

Something Is Missing Here

You might have heard that yesterday the Kahnawake Gaming Commission finally released its report on the Absolute Poker audit. The audit was conducted by Gaming Associates, and the report summarizes that group’s findings as well as the KGC’s planned course of action resulting from those findings.

I’m not gonna get too far into the particulars of either the KGC’s report or Absolute Poker’s response to the report. I did, however, notice a fairly obvious problem with the audit’s findings which I thought worth mentioning. Tell me if you see this one, too.

In the report, one reads a summary of what Gaming Associates believes to have happened at Absolute Poker last August, September, and possibly part of October of last year -– the so-called “impugned activities,” as the authors of the report comprehensively refer to ’em.

The report then lists items from the KGC’s “Regulations Concerning Interactive Gaming” the auditors believe Absolute Poker to have breached. That list contains exactly four items:

261. A person must not, in relation to an authorised game, dishonestly obtain a benefit by any act, practice or scheme or otherwise dishonestly obtain a benefit through the use of any device, equipment or software.

270. In the event an Authorised Client Provider, Approved Agent or any other employee or agent of the Commission becomes aware, or reasonably suspects, that:

(a) a person, by a dishonest or unlawful act affecting the conduct or playing of an authorised game, has obtained a benefit for the person or another person; or

(b) there has been an unlawful act affecting the conduct or playing of an authorised game; within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of, or suspecting, the dishonest or unlawful act, the person who becomes aware must give the Commission a written notice advising the Commission of all facts known about the matter.

245. Unless the information previously contained in the gaming record is kept in another way under an approval of the Commission, an Authorised Client Provider must keep a gaming record for five years after the end of the transaction to which the record relates.

275. A person must not obstruct an Inspector in the exercise of a power or someone helping an Inspector in the exercise of a power.

The report then concludes with a list of sanctions Absolute Poker must abide by if they hope ever again to be one of those “gaming operations that hold a valid and subsisting permit” granted by the KGC.

All righty, then. Let us take a look again at those four items in the KGC’s regulations the audit found Absolute Poker to have breached. Notice anything missing?

How about this one regarding “Confidentiality of player information”:

194. An Authorised Client Provider or an employee or other person engaged in duties related to the conduct of an authorised game must not, without authorisation under the following section:

(a) disclose information about the name, or other identifying particulars, of a player; or

(b) use information about a player for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was given.

Remember that Excel file mistakenly sent to CrazyMarco containing all of the email addresses, IP addresses, and other information regarding the play of those who participated in the $100K Guarantee on 9/12/07? You know, the one without which everything else listed here may never have been proven?

Absolute Poker without a doubt failed to conform to item #194 of the KGC’s regulations, but somehow the auditors likewise failed to acknowledge that in their report. AP probably could be said to have breached item #195 (“Authorisation for disclosure of information”) here, too. (No time today to look through all 370 items in the KGC’s regs, but others could have been overlooked as well.)

Not that we expected perfection, but that’s a friggin’ glaring omission. Ain’t it?

On the PokerRoad Again

Americans spend a lot of time behind the wheel getting to and from their jobs. The U.S. Census Bureau puts the average commute time for us Yanks at a little under a half-hour. Depends on where you live, of course. This fancy interactive map over at Time Magazine gives an idea how times vary from city to city. Sadly for me, I’m one of those saps who lives a little farther from his workplace than most, meaning I have about a 40-45 minute drive into work every day. And back.

Spending 7-8 hours behind the wheel each week certainly cuts into my poker-playing time. But it also allows me to keep up with a lot of different poker podcasts. Wasn’t long ago I’d run out of poker shows to listen to before the week was up, but nowadays I’m discovering I haven’t the time to listen to every single one of the shows I have listed over there on the right-hand margin. Of those noted over there, the ones I’m most likely to dial up on the iPod-like device include Ante Up!, Beyond the Table, Big Poker Sundays, Keep Flopping Aces (now moved over to Rounders Radio), Poker Psychology (currently vanished along with the rest of Hold ’em Radio), PokerRoad Radio, and the Two Plus Two Pokercast.

Head over to the Beyond the Table website if you wanna see my summary-slash-preview of this week’s show. Also, let me particularly recommend the latter part of this week’s Two Plus Two Pokercast (the 1/5/08 episode, listed as “Episode 5”) in which the friggin’ hilarious Norm MacDonald (of Saturday Night Live fame) appears as a guest.

Probably the most interesting show I heard all week, though, was PokerRoad Radio’s first episode from the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure, on which co-hosts Bart Hanson, Joe Sebok, and Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy (subbing for Gavin Smith) interviewed Isaac Haxton, runner-up in last year’s PCA.

Back in the summer, Sebok had complained a bit on the now-defunct PokerWire radio show about a couple of hands he’d played against Haxton in a WSOP event, so this week’s interview was hyped as a kind of “round two” between the combatants. Haxton and Sebok did butt heads, though I found their interaction much, much more civil (and constructive, even) than that massive, 500-plus post thread on Two Plus Two would suggest. Haxton, representing the young, “internet kid” archetype so prominently represented at the PCA, tended to oppose the approach of Sebok, who though only 30 was made here to represent the “old school” P.O.V. of the brick-and-mortar veteran.

Several topics arose during the interview, all of which could have made for a separate post, I think. Here are three of them:

(1) That online players may, in fact, be stronger (in a general sense) than live-only players. Haxton made the very provocative claim that in terms of skill “the average live 50/100 cash game plays like the average online 5/10 cash game.” Sebok found that a “staggering jump,” but Haxton maintained “almost everybody who plays a lot of [both]” would agree with him.

(2) That it is somehow possible to play “by math” (or be “a math player”) without taking other, less tangible factors into consideration, and vice-versa. Haxton, of course, appeared at times to take up the former position, and Sebok the latter, although I think neither really believes one can just “use math” or not when playing.

(3) That online poker, in its present form, may not be around forever, a factor that young (i.e., 18-20 yr. old) players who are having success and are contemplating whether to postpone or forgo college need to consider. Josephy suggested as much, as did Haxton who said dropping out “might be the right decision for some people,” especially since “there’s no guarantee that situation is going to be the way it is now for the rest of your life.”

By the way, PokerRoad’s interview with Lee Jones later in the week (the 1/9/08 episode) was also quite good. And also provocative. Incidentally, Jones takes the opposite view of Haxton regarding the future viability of online poker, advising young people to go to college and/or get some world experience. “You know what? When you come back, we’ll still be dealing cards. I promise,” Jones confirmed. “The games will be going on. It’s not like we’re going to shut down the sport anytime soon.”

Glad to hear that. Especially while I’m stuck in this damn car!

New Year, New Game (?)

Haven’t been able to play all that much so far in 2008. Started off with an especially crummy PLO session on New Year’s Day. Then for various reasons wasn’t able to play for a week or so, meaning that psychologically-speaking I’ve felt “down” ever since January began. I have had the chance to play a bit this week, though, and after piddling about at PLO some more decided the other night to move over to a low stakes H.O.R.S.E. table (0.50/1.00). Ended up playing what was probably my longest, continuous session of H.O.R.S.E. ever -- several hundred hands (at a few different tables). Came out a few bucks ahead overall, but more importantly I felt good about my play in all five games. And -- most important of all -- I had a lot of fun.

Whenever I played H.O.R.S.E. before, I usually never stuck around for more than two or three rounds before tiring of it. Can be a slow-moving game, especially if one doesn’t get hands to play. Since I knew I was going to play a longer session this time, I was able to be more patient and not be too eager to mix it up with less-than-ideal cards. Having such discipline is a key (the key?) to succeeding in any H.O.R.S.E. cash game, I’d imagine.

The longer session also helped me get a better line on my opponents’ play, figuring out who were the risk-takers, who were the nits, who were the more savvy players, etc. -- not a bad idea when playing any game, but certainly of relevance when playing H.O.R.S.E. I once wrote a post about limit hold ’em in which I suggested three factors had equal influence over one’s fortunes during a given session: one’s Ability, the number of Bad opponents at one’s table, and the Cards. There I concluded that to come away a winner in a given session, one usually needed at least two of these three factors on one’s side. (E.g., the only way to overcome poor starting hands was to play ’em well and have others make mistakes against you.)

I think my limited experience with H.O.R.S.E. had previously given me the impression that the “C” part of this formula -- the cards -- was somehow more significant than the other two -- my ability & the number of bad opponents I faced. Easy to do after a Razz hand where you start with 7-2-3 or something, catch paint cards on fourth and fifth, then have to fold to that guy who began with a 10 showing on third. It might be true, actually, that in certain high-level mixed games -- e.g., the WSOP $50K buy-in or the “Big Game” (apparently moving to the Venetian?) -- players for the most part can be equally-skilled at all the games, thus making the cards matter a bit more. Of course, even there you’ve got folks who are relatively less adept at one game or another. And down at 0.50/1.00, you’re necessarily going to encounter wildly varying skill levels from game to game, so it makes sense to pay attention to how others play the various games.

Looking at the five H.O.R.S.E. games, I’ve probably played more hands of LHE than any other form of poker, and so obviously am most comfortable there. Notice some players overvaluing ace-rag and other hands that in a regular LHE game wouldn’t be rated as highly but in H.O.R.S.E. are pushed because folks are tired of folding their way through Razz, Stud, and Stud/8. I’m also at ease with limit Omaha/8, partially from having played so much PLO, but mostly from having a decent idea about starting hands there. Razz is a game I’ve never enjoyed very much, but actually found myself looking forward to it coming around in the H.O.R.S.E. sequence. Again, I know some basics here -- look for 8-low starters (at worst), preferably not rough; know when to steal; avoid fancy plays on later streets; etc. Of the two remaining stud games I’m certainly more knowledgeable about Stud high, though have a long way to go in both. Actually, there’s are certain strategies associated with betting the stud games (Razz, Stud, and Stud/8) that are largely unfamiliar to those of us who spend most of our time playing flop games (Hold ’em & Omaha).

Plan to play some more and report back soon. Mentioned before how over the past three years I’ve tended to gravitate toward one game and then obsess over it for the entire year -- NLHE (’05), LHE (’06), and PLO (’07). Still early, but it could well be ’08 turns out to be the year of the H.O.R.S.E.

John D. MacDonald’s The Deep Blue Good-By

I was aware of John D. MacDonald’s Travis McGee novels, but had never picked one up until someone recently recommended him to me as an author I would like. I knew the books were set in Florida. That and the brightly-colored paperbacks had caused me to associate MacDonald with Carl Hiassen (a good, but not great mystery writer). I knew McGee was one of those irreverent, cynical types who populate a lot of hard-boiled fiction, although I wasn’t sure if he was a detective or what. I also had read somewhere the story of the houseboat on which McGee lives, called the Busted Flush.

Finally a week or so ago I picked up The Deep Blue Good-By (1964), the first of 21 novels by MacDonald featuring McGee. Was immediately struck by the confident, engaging voice of the protagonist, and particularly liked the way McGee smoothly inserts within his narration of the plot insightful meditations on the human condition. As one sometimes finds in the better hard-boiled novels, The Deep Blue Good-By not only keeps you turning the pages, but encourages you to step back and reflect on your own existence and its meaning.

In The Biggest Game in Town, professional poker player Jack Straus talks about his desire “to stay outside the system and to use his talents to enjoy life while he could.” The same could be said of McGee, a self-described “salvage consultant” or independent contractor who can be hired to perform jobs others deem too dangerous or unsavory. A female companion tries to explain McGee’s profession early in The Deep Blue Good-By: “if X has something valuable and Y comes along and takes it away from him, and there is absolutely no way in the world X can ever get it back, then you [McGee] come along and make a deal with X to get it back, and you keep half.”

McGee calls that description “reasonably accurate,” adding that “this is a complex culture,” and “the more intricate our society gets, the more semi-legal ways to steal” arise. Isn’t crystal clear whether he’s referring to his own trade or that of some of his clients (or their enemies).

The plot of this first McGee novel has him being hired by a widow to track down an illicit treasure her husband, a WWII soldier, had smuggled back to the States just prior to being imprisoned for a murder. The trail eventually leads McGee to the evil Junior Allen, a man who had earlier met the now-deceased husband in prison, learned about the treasure, and deceitfully made off with it after an abusive affair with the widow.

The plot is complicated, though not as hopelessly dense as your average Chandler. And, as I mentioned, the relation of events are neatly arranged around McGee’s smart reflections on modern life. McGee is a bachelor, and from the looks of things a desirable one to nearly all of the women he encounters. However, MacDonald doesn’t descend to Spillane-like misogyny, and in fact has his protagonist arguing the case for women more than once in the novel. As McGee puts it early on, “a woman who does not guard and treasure herself cannot be of very much value to anyone else.”

Descriptions of characters’ physical traits are also well-crafted and memorable. Even the description of a random Florida house exudes a certain flair, such as the “unsympathetic” domicile McGee visits early in the novel, the “surgical coldness” of which gives it “the look of places where the blood has been recently washed away.”

There are other readily quotable lines, many of which have connotations which might be applied to poker, such as when McGee notes “when you stalk game it is nice to know what it eats and where it drinks and where it beds down, and if it has any particularly nasty habits, like circling back and pursuing the pursuer.” Or late in the novel when, as he sets his sights on Junior Allen -- a cagey adversary for whom he has little respect -- McGee reflects “there is as much danger in overestimating as in underestimating the quality of the opposition.”

The most direct poker connection, though, concerns the 52-foot houseboat docked in a slip at the Bahia Mar marina in Fort Lauderdale that McGee calls home.

“I acquired it in a private poker session in Palm Beach, a continuous thirty hours of intense effort” explains McGee. He tells of a five card stud hand early in the session where he had the in the hole and showing. Three players remained, including McGee. “I was looking at a pair of eights, and the other player paired on his last card. Fours. Fours checked to the eights and I was in the middle, and bet pot limit, six hundred. Pair of eights sat there and thought too long. He decided I wasn’t trying to buy one,” and folded.

The fellow with the fours then considered the situation. As it happens, “pair of fours was actually two pair,” but “he came to the same reluctant conclusion” and folded as well. “I pulled the pot in, collapsed my winning hand and tossed it to the dealer, but that hole card somehow caught against my finger and flipped over. The black deuce. And I knew that from then on they would remember that busted flush and they would pay the price for my good hands.” The session becomes increasingly lucrative for McGee, finally resulting in his winning the houseboat which he necessarily christens the Busted Flush.

Glad to have gotten the recommendation. (Thanks, Tim.) The Deep Blue Good-By is certainly much better than any of the Hiassen novels I’ve read. And it definitely deserves a place on the Hard-Boiled Poker bookshelf.

Now if only I can find space for the other twenty McGee novels.

A Non-Hold ’em TV Sighting

Last night I happened to catch a few minutes of ESPN’s coverage of Event No. 7, the $5,000 Pot Limit Omaha (w/rebuys) event from the 2007 WSOP. I’d somehow missed this one when it originally aired, and so decided to go back and watch the whole thing over on PokerTube. (All of the segments from this event are collected here.) In terms of interest and name recognition, this final table had an above-average cast, including Humberto Brenes (who finished 8th), John Juanda (7th), Minh Ly (5th), and Dave “Devilfish” Ulliott (3rd). The nervy Burt Boutin ended up winning his second WSOP bracelet after a brief, exciting heads-up battle with Erik Cajelais.

ESPN devoted two whole hours to this one, no doubt because of the presence of the foul-mouthed, highly entertaining Ulliott. Since I’ve been playing a lot of PLO over the last ten months or so, I was intrigued to see whether the players’ strategies at this final table would appear comprehensible to me. There were a few odd-looking plays here and there, but a lot of the moves -- e.g., preflop limping, betting big draws, exercising caution with weak made hands -- were fairly recognizable.

I know some aren’t big fans of Norman Chad’s jokes or ESPN’s occasionally deceptive manufacturing of heroes and villains. However, I usually like how they end up piecing these highlight reels together, and I did find these two hours particularly fun to watch. Helped a lot that Brenes and his “chark” went out on the fourth hand shown.

Did have one minor bone to pick, though. And I’m not referring to that tepid segment of “The Nuts” with Phil Hellmuth -- who wasn’t even at this final table -- tossing frisbees across a pool at Norman Chad. (Hellmuth had entered Event No. 7, but was bounced on Day 1 in around 70th place.)

No, I’m referring to some of Chad’s analyses. I’ll give an example from one particular hand. This one came up during the first hour of the coverage -- it was the fifth hand shown (Hand No. 17 of the final table, overall). The hand was preceded by a short clip featuring Devilfish, after which Chad emphasized Ulliott “loves being the table bully,” noting his previous experience as a boxer and nightclub bouncer. As we’ll see, a not-terribly-subtle foreshadowing of the hand.

Seven players remain when the hand begins. Ulliott is the leader with 1,400,000, barely outchipping Cajelais who has 1,350,000. The blinds are 20,000/40,000. Three players limp: Boutin from EP with A-10-9-9 single-suited (clubs); Ulliott from the cutoff with 6-6-4-4 (with a couple of hearts); and Cajelais from the button with A-5-3-2 double-suited (spades & clubs). Juanda -- the table’s short-stack -- checks his option from the big blind with the crummy K-8-6-4 single-suited (spades). We go to the flop:

“Cajelais flops the wheel to take the lead!” exclaims Lon McEachern. Chad adds, somewhat less enthusiastically, that Devilfish has made a set of fours.

It checks to Ulliott who bets pot -- 160,000. No one mentions it, but part of what emboldens Ulliott here is the fact that he holds two of the four sixes, making it less likely someone else has the nut straight.

This is where Chad makes what strikes me as a fairly weak read of the situation. “If I’m Erik Cajelais, I would pop this baby right now,” says Chad. “You’ll get rid of the shoe clerks and crumb bums.”

Sure, Cajelais made a wheel. But this ain’t high-low. Nor is it Hold ’em, and holding the less-than-nut-straight can be pretty dicey in PLO. All in all a tenuous situation for Cajelais, particularly after Ulliott -- the only player at the table who has him covered -- has bet pot. Ulliott might well have the 6-3, and if he doesn’t one of the other two players might. Cajelais elects just to call Ulliott’s bet.

“Man, I’m in the big blind . . . why couldn’t I have that?” says Juanda, essentially pointing out what Chad did not -- namely, that he could well have had Cajelais beat here. Boutin also folds. The pot is 480,000.

The turn brings the -- the third diamond on board -- which Chad correctly describes as a scare card for both players. Both players check. The river is the , giving Cajelais the “check mark.” Ulliott quickly pushes 400,000 into the middle, prompting Chad to say “I think Devilfish believes he has the best hand.”

Really? Let’s see.

Cajelais thinks for a moment and folds. Understandably, in my opinion. He doesn’t have the nut straight. A flush beats him. And Ulliott has him covered. Nevertheless, Chad expresses astonishment that Cajelais folded a winner.

Again, the players’ commentary proves much more enlightening than the commentators’. “Flop the wheel?” Devilfish asks Cajelais, proving he didn’t necessarily believe his set of fours was the best hand. Cajelais instinctively nods as if to say yes, then quickly covers, saying he had two pair (which he did, actually). Devilfish also partially fibs: “I had a flush draw and a set of fours.”

I like ESPN giving so much attention to a non-Hold ’em game here. Not sure, however, who they are thinking about in terms of audience. For non-PLO players, the commentary is entertaining, I guess, but often misleading. For PLO players? Well, the commentary is also fun at times. But in terms of real strategy assessment it is mostly just noise.