We've all been there. We win a few hands in a row and,
predictably, start telling jokes, high-fiving and gleefully stacking
chips while broadcasting our genius to all within earshot.
It is almost irresistible. We're on a
"rush." It's a real high. We feel invulnerable. We believe it was our
skill that led to this tsunami of chips in front of us.
Eventually reality will tiptoe back in, but who cares? Of course,
there isn't anything wrong with this. Winning a whole lot of chips is
great fun and if we can't enjoy these moments, what's the point?
But, on many an occasion the guy marked cards who just went on that rush will then do something very interesting.
He'll look down at his cards on the next hand, call an early-position
raise from a tight player and say, almost sheepishly, "Hey man, gotta
play my rush" and proceed to make what he knows is a strategically poor
play.
Is this sensible? Is it smart to play a rush - in the sense that, in
the long run, doing so provides additional profits? Or is it stupid - in
the equivalent sense that it costs you money in the long run? In short,
are rushes "real?"
The answers are tricky. I can think of at least three fairly obvious
reasons why someone might want to play a rush, not of all of them convincing.
2014年3月15日星期六
2014年3月12日星期三
Event 37, $1,000 No-limit Hold'em w/re-buys - Live Updates
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Jon Heneghan is the winner!
The flop had come J♦ K♠ 4♦ when Paul Deng bet all-in and Joe Henegan called. Paul turned over 10♦ 5♦ for a flush draw and Joe held J♣ 10♣. The turn came 8♣ and the river came 7♣, awarding $324,303 to Paul Deng and $611,015 and WSOP gold to Jon Heneghan.
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Paul Deng has taken over the chip lead
Paul Deng 1,300,000
Joe Henegan 1,200,000
Joe Henegan 1,200,000
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
We are now heads-up
Robert Aran has been eliminated in third marked cards place by Joe Henegan's A♣ 8♦.
Paul Deng 680k
Joe Henegan 1,900,000
Paul Deng 680k
Joe Henegan 1,900,000
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Down to 3
Gary has been eliminated in fourth place by Paul Deng. The money went in before the flop and Gary turned over K♠ J♦, Paul turned over Q♠ Q♥. The board came 6♥ A♠ 2♥ 7♣ 8♥. Gary Doe wins $164,500.
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Joe Henegan is big chip leader
Chip counts are:
Paul Deng 300k
Joe Henegan 1,300,000
Gary Doe 300k
Robin Aran 375k
Paul Deng 300k
Joe Henegan 1,300,000
Gary Doe 300k
Robin Aran 375k
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Alex Balandin has been eliminated
For his fifth place infrared contactlenses Alex Balandin recieves $141,000.
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Pictures of the last 6 players are up
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Freddy Deeb is out in sixth place
Freddy bet all-in and Alex Balandin called. Freddy turned over K♥ 8♣ and Alex held A♣ 4♣. The board came 6♣ K♣ 3♣ 8♠ 10♠.
07/06/2005 (9 years ago)
Chip count
Paul Deng 360k
Joe Henegan 800k
Alex Balandin 320k
Gary Doe 210k
Freddy Deeb 140k
Robin Aran 560k
Joe Henegan 800k
Alex Balandin 320k
Gary Doe 210k
Freddy Deeb 140k
Robin Aran 560k
Barry Greenstein has been eliminated
Barry bet all-in before the flop and Joe Henegan called. Barry held A♠ J♣ and Joe held Q♥ 10♥. The board came 6♠ 5♦ 2♥ 10♦ Q♣. Barry Greenstein wins $94,000.
2014年3月6日星期四
Don't Let Your Mistakes Compound
Poker is a game of decisions.
It doesn't matter if you're multi-tabling online or playing a single table live, you'll be put to the test often and every decision is important.
You areplaying poker
- by definition, you win money by making better decisions than your
opponents. The fewer bad decisions you make, the more success you will
have.
Mistakes are inevitable however. Nobody plays perfect poker, and even the best in the world make mistakes.
If nobody made mistakes, nobody would ever win in the long run. Everyone would justtrade money back and forth playing perfect poker marked cards while slowly losing money to the rake. That's not my idea of fun. Mistakes are what fuel the poker economy.
So if even the best players in the world make mistakes, what makes them different from you or me?
Great players never let their mistakes compound. They take each decision independently and make the very best choice of action they possibly can, whereas when a new player makes a mistake, they often fall off the rails and allow their blunders to multiply.
Here's an example:
$1/$2 No-Limit Hold'em; effective stacks are $200. Villain raises to $12 from the button. You mis-click and accidentally call with 4♥ 7♥ from the big blind. The board comes 5♥ 6♥ A♠. Villain bets $20.
Allowing the mistake to compound? You just call or fold because you mis-clicked pre-flop.
The flop now changes the hand completely and you have an open-ended straight flush draw. Though you made a mistake pre-flop, the bigger mistake would be to fold the flop and/or play the flop passively. Your best move now would be to raise with your OESFD.
Another example:
$1/$2 No-Limit Hold'em; effective stacks $200. It's folded to you on the button. You raise to $7 with T♠ 9♠. The big blind marked cards contactlenses, who is one of the tighter players at the table, reraises to $20.
You believe he would only do this with big pocket pairs and A-K, and decide you can stack him if you hit a straight and call (perhaps flawed thinking in itself).
The board comes T♣ 3♥ 4♠ and he bets $30. You now have top pair, and since you elected to call pre-flop you talk yourself into calling the flop.
The turn drops the 7♠ and he bets $65. Now you feel you have too much invested to fold, so you call the turn. The river comes off 2♦ and he bets his last $85. You feel you are pot-committed and make the call.
This is an awful hand, and a classic example of mistakes building on one another.
You did one thing right - you raised pre-flop. After that, the hand is a full-on debacle. You let your problems compound and you didn't once think things through in order to make the best possible decision.
The three-bet from a tight player clearly shows strength. Don't bother trying to outflop him; chances are if you make a big hand this tightwad isn't going to pay you off anyway.
Then the flop comes and you make top pair. After he bets, there is nothing that you can beat, but you choose to call again. You then make yourself feel pot-committed and end up stacking off with one pair.
This is not good decisionmaking . This is getting yourself emotionally tied up in a hand and opting for the wrong course of action - more than once.
Instead of one misplayed street, you have a completely misplayed hand. On top of that, you may go on tilt and ruin an entire session, or worse.
Good poker players don't let things like this happen. So what's their secret?
As Phil "OMGClayAiken" Galfond said in his 2+2 well post, "Every time the action is on you it is your opportunity to make the best possible decision."
It doesn't matter if you are in the middle of a downswing, or you just got sucked out on, or you mis-click raised to see the flop. When the action is on you, the only thing that matters is that you decide on the optimum play.
Doing so is going to require thought. Meaning if you're still obsessing about that hand where you just donked off a stack, you're not going to have a clear enough head to make the right decision. You're better off picking up than you are to keep playing in this state.
You need to be able to get past the last hand, and you need to be able to focus on the situation you're now faced with.
So make that your goal. As soon as you stop letting your mistakes pile up and start taking each decision as it comes, you'll be on the way to becoming a better player.
It doesn't matter if you're multi-tabling online or playing a single table live, you'll be put to the test often and every decision is important.
You are
Mistakes are inevitable however. Nobody plays perfect poker, and even the best in the world make mistakes.
If nobody made mistakes, nobody would ever win in the long run. Everyone would just
So if even the best players in the world make mistakes, what makes them different from you or me?
Great players never let their mistakes compound. They take each decision independently and make the very best choice of action they possibly can, whereas when a new player makes a mistake, they often fall off the rails and allow their blunders to multiply.
Great players like Johnny Lodden never let a misclick mistake multiply.
$1/$2 No-Limit Hold'em; effective stacks are $200. Villain raises to $12 from the button. You mis-click and accidentally call with 4♥ 7♥ from the big blind. The board comes 5♥ 6♥ A♠. Villain bets $20.
Allowing the mistake to compound? You just call or fold because you mis-clicked pre-flop.
The flop now changes the hand completely and you have an open-ended straight flush draw. Though you made a mistake pre-flop, the bigger mistake would be to fold the flop and/or play the flop passively. Your best move now would be to raise with your OESFD.
Another example:
$1/$2 No-Limit Hold'em; effective stacks $200. It's folded to you on the button. You raise to $7 with T♠ 9♠. The big blind marked cards contactlenses, who is one of the tighter players at the table, reraises to $20.
You believe he would only do this with big pocket pairs and A-K, and decide you can stack him if you hit a straight and call (perhaps flawed thinking in itself).
Don't let a mistake pre-flop turn into a bigger one later.
The turn drops the 7♠ and he bets $65. Now you feel you have too much invested to fold, so you call the turn. The river comes off 2♦ and he bets his last $85. You feel you are pot-committed and make the call.
This is an awful hand, and a classic example of mistakes building on one another.
You did one thing right - you raised pre-flop. After that, the hand is a full-on debacle. You let your problems compound and you didn't once think things through in order to make the best possible decision.
The three-bet from a tight player clearly shows strength. Don't bother trying to outflop him; chances are if you make a big hand this tightwad isn't going to pay you off anyway.
Then the flop comes and you make top pair. After he bets, there is nothing that you can beat, but you choose to call again. You then make yourself feel pot-committed and end up stacking off with one pair.
This is not good decision
Instead of one misplayed street, you have a completely misplayed hand. On top of that, you may go on tilt and ruin an entire session, or worse.
Good poker players don't let things like this happen. So what's their secret?
Listen to Phil Galfond.
It doesn't matter if you are in the middle of a downswing, or you just got sucked out on, or you mis-click raised to see the flop. When the action is on you, the only thing that matters is that you decide on the optimum play.
Doing so is going to require thought. Meaning if you're still obsessing about that hand where you just donked off a stack, you're not going to have a clear enough head to make the right decision. You're better off picking up than you are to keep playing in this state.
You need to be able to get past the last hand, and you need to be able to focus on the situation you're now faced with.
So make that your goal. As soon as you stop letting your mistakes pile up and start taking each decision as it comes, you'll be on the way to becoming a better player.
2014年3月2日星期日
Mental Edge and the WSOP Final Table
As all poker fans know by now, the final table of the 2008 WSOP Main Event is going to be played in less than two weeks.
Harrah's radical decision to move it to November has been assaulted by many, praised by a few and viewed with a mixture of confusion and curiosity by the rest.
But, no matter. The day dawns, and it's time for me to think out loud about the psychological factors introduced by the four-month hiatus.
What follows are my speculations. I don't know any of the folks who've made the final table, and have no special insight into how each will handle the situation. But there are reasons for suspecting that this temporal lacuna will benefit some more than others.
Recovery from Fatigue
It took seven days and nearly 66 hours ofplay to get down to the final table. The break gives everyone the chance to recover.
Those who benefit the most will be those who were the most tired - most likely Dennis Phillips, 'cause geezers get tired faster than 20-somethings (trust me on this one).
What would have been a disadvantage has been removed. Phillips also gets a boost because he's older, more mature and, as he's put it, "I'm just having a blast." And, of course, he will be sitting behind a freakin' mountain of chips.
Gratification, Now or Later
Some react badly to being forced to wait for anticipated goodies - an effect that has been softened somewhat by everyone receiving ninth-place money (a shade over $900k) immediately after the final table participants were decided this summer.
Delaying the distribution of the remaining pool may impact some negatively and others not so much. Those whostart to twitch when they have to sit at a dinner table waiting for everyone to be served may not have liked the time gap.
Those with a Zen-like calm about things will not be bothered. Keep in mind that whoever gets knocked out first will add exactly zero to his bankroll - and who wants to come back after four months, play marked cards one hand and get nothing but a bunch of handshakes and a TV moment?
Just contemplating this is depressing. The big stacks should be primed to take advantage.
Sharpening Your Game
I'm assuming all final-table participants took the time to analyze the play of their opponents, tease out patterns and tendencies they hadn't picked up on before and, importantly, worked on finding new ways to mix up their own games to neutralize such efforts on the part of their opponents.
Several of the finalists have played in other tournaments, gaining experience and honing their skills.
If anyone got an edge on the field here, it was Ivan Demidov. Demidov has been busy, most recently in the WSOP Europe Main Event where, amazingly, he finished third.
This accomplishment certainly cements his reputation; the final table in London was heavy with talent, including Daniel Negreanu, Scott Fischman and John Juanda (who won). The "book" has Demidov as the one to beat.
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" or "Out of sight, out of mind"?
These two clichés are among my favorites as each seems so real when uttered, yet they are mutually contradictory. Which one will we see here? Will our nine survivors care as much about the final table as they would have without the delay?
You may think this sounds silly. How could they not? Nine million coconuts is a seriouspayday .
However, the latter cliché actually has the data behind it. As the weeks and months have dragged on, they all have lived their lives, bought clothes and cars, traveled, played in other venues, gone out to dinner, formed and reformed relationships
The significance of the final table may have psychologically diminished. For some, it may begin to look less special, more like a date marked on the calendar. Will they be able to "crank it back up?"
Probably,
but some will get sharper, others not. If there's an advantage here I
suspect it goes to the young and hungry, with Chino Rheem looking good
here with two WSOP final tables to his credit.
Momentum
In virtually any game, stopping play juice cards is unhelpful when things are going your way and a blessed relief if you're getting thumped. Those on a roll tend to be alert, focused and show little fatigue, while their opponents are down, distracted and exhausted.
This is why coaches call time-outs, and one reason why the second half of a game is often different from the first.
But momentum in poker is a different kind of beast. Because the luck factor is so large, momentum fluctuates more and for different reasons.
Cards are mere slips of plastic and paint. They don't "know" that they gave the same player three huge flops in a row.
The impact of momentum here, as opposed to a game like football, is largely mental, and it can shift without anyone doing anything. In football someone has to do something (interception, great run-back); in poker all it takes is the random turn of a card.
While all the players know, consciously, that each hand is independent of every other hand, the player who got hit in the head with the deck during the playdown to the final table isn't going to like this break.
The
one who was mucking hand after hand and hanging on for dear life is
breathing a sigh of relief - even though both know their feelings are
based on a statistical illusion.
The lull will smooth out the momentum factor, which will benefit players who'd been card-dead. I'd give Kelly Kim an edge here, but his chip stack is sooo low ...
Prognostication?
I could find a reason for picking any of the nine (well, if Kim takes it down, color me surprised). But, to tell the truth, the one who wins will be the one who gets lucky.
I know, I know; I'm not supposed to say that. But history is on my side. Rerun the tapes of Varkonyi, Moneymaker, Gold and Yang. What do you see?
Final Analysis
I think that a break was a good idea. But four months? Sheesh, the Super Bowl does fine with an extra week.
Harrah's radical decision to move it to November has been assaulted by many, praised by a few and viewed with a mixture of confusion and curiosity by the rest.
But, no matter. The day dawns, and it's time for me to think out loud about the psychological factors introduced by the four-month hiatus.
What follows are my speculations. I don't know any of the folks who've made the final table, and have no special insight into how each will handle the situation. But there are reasons for suspecting that this temporal lacuna will benefit some more than others.
Recovery from Fatigue
It took seven days and nearly 66 hours of
Breather helps the geezer.
What would have been a disadvantage has been removed. Phillips also gets a boost because he's older, more mature and, as he's put it, "I'm just having a blast." And, of course, he will be sitting behind a freakin' mountain of chips.
Gratification, Now or Later
Some react badly to being forced to wait for anticipated goodies - an effect that has been softened somewhat by everyone receiving ninth-place money (a shade over $900k) immediately after the final table participants were decided this summer.
Delaying the distribution of the remaining pool may impact some negatively and others not so much. Those who
Those with a Zen-like calm about things will not be bothered. Keep in mind that whoever gets knocked out first will add exactly zero to his bankroll - and who wants to come back after four months, play marked cards one hand and get nothing but a bunch of handshakes and a TV moment?
Just contemplating this is depressing. The big stacks should be primed to take advantage.
Sharpening Your Game
I'm assuming all final-table participants took the time to analyze the play of their opponents, tease out patterns and tendencies they hadn't picked up on before and, importantly, worked on finding new ways to mix up their own games to neutralize such efforts on the part of their opponents.
Demidov: He's a certified beast.
If anyone got an edge on the field here, it was Ivan Demidov. Demidov has been busy, most recently in the WSOP Europe Main Event where, amazingly, he finished third.
This accomplishment certainly cements his reputation; the final table in London was heavy with talent, including Daniel Negreanu, Scott Fischman and John Juanda (who won). The "book" has Demidov as the one to beat.
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" or "Out of sight, out of mind"?
These two clichés are among my favorites as each seems so real when uttered, yet they are mutually contradictory. Which one will we see here? Will our nine survivors care as much about the final table as they would have without the delay?
You may think this sounds silly. How could they not? Nine million coconuts is a serious
However, the latter cliché actually has the data behind it. As the weeks and months have dragged on, they all have lived their lives, bought clothes and cars, traveled, played in other venues, gone out to dinner, formed and reformed relationships
The significance of the final table may have psychologically diminished. For some, it may begin to look less special, more like a date marked on the calendar. Will they be able to "crank it back up?"
Advantage goes to Chino when it comes to WSOP final-table experience.
Momentum
In virtually any game, stopping play juice cards is unhelpful when things are going your way and a blessed relief if you're getting thumped. Those on a roll tend to be alert, focused and show little fatigue, while their opponents are down, distracted and exhausted.
This is why coaches call time-outs, and one reason why the second half of a game is often different from the first.
But momentum in poker is a different kind of beast. Because the luck factor is so large, momentum fluctuates more and for different reasons.
Cards are mere slips of plastic and paint. They don't "know" that they gave the same player three huge flops in a row.
The impact of momentum here, as opposed to a game like football, is largely mental, and it can shift without anyone doing anything. In football someone has to do something (interception, great run-back); in poker all it takes is the random turn of a card.
While all the players know, consciously, that each hand is independent of every other hand, the player who got hit in the head with the deck during the playdown to the final table isn't going to like this break.
But his chip stack is sooo low ...
The lull will smooth out the momentum factor, which will benefit players who'd been card-dead. I'd give Kelly Kim an edge here, but his chip stack is sooo low ...
Prognostication?
I could find a reason for picking any of the nine (well, if Kim takes it down, color me surprised). But, to tell the truth, the one who wins will be the one who gets lucky.
I know, I know; I'm not supposed to say that. But history is on my side. Rerun the tapes of Varkonyi, Moneymaker, Gold and Yang. What do you see?
Final Analysis
I think that a break was a good idea. But four months? Sheesh, the Super Bowl does fine with an extra week.
2014年2月23日星期日
Howard Lederer Doesn't Know, Can't Remember and Never Saw That Email
In case you missed it over the weekend, this gem of a montage has been kicking around providing some serious marked cards laughs to those who sat through any or all parts of the Lederer Files.
Put together by UK web developer Fraser Hart, it's just better seen than explained.
Put together by UK web developer Fraser Hart, it's just better seen than explained.
2014年2月10日星期一
A Guide to 3-Betting – Part 2
Table of contents for A Guide to 3-Betting
The marginal hands, meanwhile, are three-bet for speculation, with the three-bet achieving a number of things. Firstly, a player that three-bets a hand like T♣9♣ represents a hand like A♠A♥, and either forces his opponents to fold pre-flop, or sets up a bluff on the flop if a Ace or King hits. Secondly, he’s also building the pot should he hit the flop hard with his suited connectors, meaning his opponents will be unlikely to see the straight, and also be committed to large bets and calls post-flop marked poker. Thirdly, he can easily fold to a four-bet (a re-re-raise) pre-flop as the stacks are so deep.In low stakes tournaments, however, many less-experienced players will limit their three-bets predominantly to very strong starting hands.
Because stacks are deep, position is all-important. That means anyone three-betting out of position is most likely to have a strong hand that they’re betting for value.
You must also consider the size of your (or your opponent’s) three-bet. A standard three-bet size is anything between 2.5 to three times the initial raise. So if the blinds are 10c/20c, the initial bet is 60c, the raise is $1.80, then the three-bet would be between $4.50 and $5.40.
Less-experienced marked card tricks players will usually make their three-bets smaller the stronger the hand they have, purely because they want to get called when they have Aces or Kings. Conversely, the bigger their three-bet, the weaker their hand will be, in the hopes that it will induce a fold, but still have some value if called.
You should be aware of this tactic, and use it yourself sparingly. You only have to get caught playing this way twice for your opponents to get a very quick read on you, so make sure you mix your bet sizes up when three-betting.
- Fighting the Three-Bet
Flat calling is another option, and has two obvious benefits. Firstly you can flat call for deception when holding Aces or Kings, and also you avoid giving your opponent the option of folding hands like A-Q or J-J when you’re a big favorite.
2014年1月23日星期四
CASINO IN MACAU CITY
This casino game "Gambling in Macau" has been legal since the 1850's when the Portuguese government legalized the activity in the colony. Since then, Macau has become known worldwide as the "Monte Carlo of the Orient", and gambling has become a significant part of the city's economy. Until Western-style casino gameswere introduced in the 20th century, only Chinese games were played marked cards, the most popular being fantan. Now, with all the casinos built in the territory including a few number of new ones opening up soon, Macau is also known as the Asian Las Vegas.
Gambling in Macau plays an important role in the economy of the city. Many Hong Kong and mainland tourists like gambling there. Few local people in Macau visit casinos, though. Generally, gambling in Macau can be divided into three different categories: casino games (eg: VIP High Roller Casino, Roulette Casino), horse racing and greyhound racing. There is also sports betting and infrared contactlenses a number of lotteries. At the present time, Macau does not license online gaming operations.
Macau has twenty-eight casinos, of which the biggest is the The Venetian Macau. They all operate under a government franchise and under a common set of rules.
Many forms of casino gambling are legal there, such as blackjack, baccarat, roulette, boule, Sic bo, Fan-Tan, keno and slot machines. The most popular game by far is baccarat with VIP high-roller baccarat generating more than 70% of total gaming revenue in 2004. Poker was introduced only in August 2007, in an electronic table format at Galaxy Starworld casino.
Gambling has been legal in Macau for a long time beginning in 1851 where there was a licensing system for gambling houses until 1863. Beginning in 1934, casinos' ownership and operation was centralized where through private negotiations, some franchises monopolized the operation right of all casinos.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)