Today's blog will cover a "classic" Stud hand, specifically when to play the split underpair, with an unrelated kicker, against a raising or re-raising higher door card on 3rd street. Whenever I analyze these types of hands, I am assuming that your cards (your pair and your kicker) are completely "live," i.e., where no others of those ranks can be seen at that point in the hand.

When I refer to an "unrelated kicker", I mean that this card is unlikely to help the hand other than when it pairs up. A "related kicker" might be the same suit as one of the cards in your pair (slightly increasing your chance of making a flush) or be within range to make a straight. A hand like ([7s] [8s]) [8h] has more ways to win than a hand like ([2c] [8s]) [8h].

For example:

You have ([4h] [9s]) [9c] vs. (?? ??) Qc, where you believe it's likely (but not definite) that your opponent has split Queens.

How do you decide whether it's a good idea to play this hand? Before going any further, I must point out some potential scenarios that might affect the way you should play the hand:

These sorts of questions should always be considered when trying to make the best poker decision.

Personally, if the situation is "normal", i.e. a good player raises or re-raises me on 3rd street in early position in a cash ring game, and if no one else has already entered the pot, I am going to fold my split underpair with an unrelated kicker. The math of Stud makes me an underdog in this situation, and it's a bad gamble. If I make two pair and lose to two bigger pair, it can be very costly indeed.

I don't care if my read on this player is wrong - I just don't let it bother me. If he has actually made this play with a hand other than one that mathematically has me beat, i.e., the three flush, the three high cards, or the buried under pair, I tip my hat to him.
A simulation of 100,000 hands using Mike Caro's Poker Probe software shows that if in fact your opponent is holding the overpair, your "real odds" make you a 36% underdog, with a QPR rating of 60 vs. 167. (QPR is a hand power rating that is shown in Poker Probe.) Those are tough odds to overcome.

Of course, there are things that can happen in the hand which may enable you to win it, i.e. board misrepresentation (you could catch an overcard, bet to represent that pair, and win if your opponent believes you), but, if everything is factored in, your odds in this particular hand aren't good.

Now, in reality, there is more to this decision than just the odds. Let's factor in the money that is already in the pot.

Let's assume that this is a $10/$20 fixed limit cash game. We will first analyze this with a $1 ante, which is a 20:1 structure used in most games at PokerStars.

Assuming this is a full ring game, where there are eight players in the game, you will have $8 of antes in the pot to begin the hand. The bring-in is another $3. That makes it an $11 pot when the action gets to you. If you complete to $10 with your hand, get re-raised to $20 by the hand with the higher door card, and everyone then folds, there will be an additional $30 in the pot from that betting, which will make it a total of $41, and you need to call the additional $10 raise. Although this may seem like a bargain, you must also factor in the additional money you may have to put into this pot on subsequent streets during the hand, assuming it goes to the river. Your poor odds to start, potential pot odds and implied odds will offset this so-called bargain. It's not just a single $10 call you're making, but potential bets on four more betting rounds, three of which are at double the stakes. You not only have to climb uphill, you have to pay an expensive toll along the way. And if you're lucky and pair your door card right away, it's unlikely you will get paid off the rest of the way.

It would be even worse for you if the higher door card raises and you flat call, with no one else in the pot, because in this scenario you have no earlier bets already invested and your pot odds are even smaller. You would be calling $10 into a $31 pot, not even a $41 pot.

I would not even advise you to play this type of hand in a scenario where the ante would be $2 (like it is in some casino games), which would make the pot already $19 when the action is to you.

Let's take a look at that scenario....

Assume you are playing $10/$20 with a $2 ante, and the same bring-in of $3. You won't generally see this structure at this limit, but, as game limits rise, you will see a bigger ante structure.

In this scenario, in a ring game, you will then have $19 in the pot before your first raise on 3rd street. Having more money in the pot from the start may change your opponents' style of play, especially with regards to their raising and calling hands on 3rd street.
The higher ante does make my recommended strategy a bit more "borderline" because of the extra money already in the pot, and there is higher potential for players to use that extra money as a reason to make plays with lesser hands that they may not normally make with a smaller ante structure. Even with that in mind, I prefer "living to fight another day" and fold the big underdog hand in this situation. Even with $8 more in the pot, the bigger potential win does not overcome the bad odds you're facing. That's less than one additional "small bet" relative to five streets of betting (and raising).

Now, let's consider when a third player has also called the raise or re-raise. You will then have the proper equity to call the raise. I recommend that with both the lower and higher ante structure. The most important factor in this decision is the higher pot odds for the call, and better implied odds you will be getting with the additional player(s) entering the pot. In a three-way pot, there is the possibility of getting paid in two places if you make the best hand, giving the hand a much larger up side.

Although it is hard to analyze on 3rd street what the pot and implied odds will end up being, there are enough possible hands that will be played to the end with the third player in the pot, thus increasing your potential payoff. There are too many of those potential hands to discuss here, but this concept will hold true enough times to make your 3rd street call worthwhile in this scenario.

Other hands I would call no matter what in this scenario are the following:

Any buried underpair. Although your actual odds do not change if your pair is buried or split, you do have the potential for board misrepresentation, as well as getting in extra bets if you catch a third of your hidden pair at some point during the hand. So the potential payoff if you hit your trips is higher.

I will be presenting similar hand scenarios in Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo, and Razz in my upcoming blogs.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!

]]> http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/strategy/2009/stud-analysis-062507.html http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/strategy/2009/stud-analysis-062507.html Strategy Stud Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:44:15 -0800 With our satellites for this summer's World Series of Poker in full swing (see here for details), those already bagging one of PokerStars' brilliant main event packages might be looking for a little advice on how to play the "Big One".

Handy, then, that on Team PokerStars Pro we have current WSOP champ Peter Eastgate, so we asked him to write down his thoughts on going deep in Vegas. As he scooped more than $9.1 million doing just that, then it may be best to read what he has to say...

by Team PokerStars Pro Peter Eastgate

A question I have been asked repeatedly is: "What is the best way, from a strategy perspective, to play the WSOP Main Event?" I think the WSOP Main Event is unique: the number of players is more than in any other big buy-in tournament and the quality of the players is also very varied.

A lot of recreational players play it, either through qualification online or because it is the tournament to play if you are going to take a shot at fame and fortune. This makes for a special tournament and, unlike a PokerStars EPT or a WPT event, it is very hard to come up with a pre-tournament strategy.

My personal strategy when winning the event last year was that I had no pre-tournament strategy! At a big event like the WSOP Main Event, there are so many unknown variables, such as table draw, quality of the cards dealt and, most importantly, the immediate emotional state of the other players at the table. You have to pay close attention to what is going on at the table - and how the other players are reacting to playing in such a big event.

It is very important to be in tune with your opponent's emotional state and base your decisions on how you feel he or she is feeling in any given situation.

Team PokerStars Pro Peter Eastgate

The key to playing in a long and hard tournament like this is to find the balance between accumulation of chips, and maintaining your chips stack. Obviously, the best way to maintain a healthy chip stack is through accumulation, but it is important to keep in mind what kind of risks you are willing to take in order to accumulate chips. In last year's tournament I pride myself with the fact that I was only all-in (with the chance of losing my entire chip stack) two times. The reason this was possible was that the structure of the tournament is nice and slow.

I had an above average chip stack most of the tournament and I did not play many hands where I had a lot of chips invested in the hand pre-flop. I played a kind of small-ball strategy that has become very popular among some of the better professional poker players, which in essence is a strategy that tries to control the pot size. This strategy was not pre-determined, but was the best feasible approach considering my table draws.

I have spoken to several very good young professional tournament players, who told me that they had tough table draws, in that the overall level of aggression on their table was very high, thus creating a much higher volatility. I was very lucky that my tables were fairly soft, which allowed me to slowly chip up and control the pot size, since very few of my opponents played back at me.

It is also important to understand that no two people are the same. When playing a long and grueling tournament like the WSOP Main Event it is very important to know yourself and your habits. Some people like running 10K before they play; some people eat fruit or smoke a pack of cigarettes. You have to do whatever makes you the most alert and physically fit to withstand the pressure of the tournament.

To sum up, I do not think there is a correct pre-tournament strategy that will guarantee success. Take every situation and evaluate throughout the tournament what strategy fits best to the situation you are faced with. That way you will have the best possible chance of making it deep. Always think a couple of steps ahead when you play a hand. "What will happen on the river if I call the turn?" And: "What amount will my opponent likely bet?" But always remember that there will be more tournaments in the future and that putting too much pressure on yourself will make you more tense.

You need be relaxed to make the right decisions. Stay cool when the money and pressure increases.

Good luck with winning your PokerStars WSOP package - and then in the Main Event!

]]> http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/team_pokerstars_blogs/peter_eastgate_1/2009/world-champion-peter-eastgates-guide-to-039881.html http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/team_pokerstars_blogs/peter_eastgate_1/2009/world-champion-peter-eastgates-guide-to-039881.html Strategy Peter Eastgate Team PokerStars Blogs Team PokerStars Pro World Series satellites Wed, 13 May 2009 04:45:29 -0800 If you've been keeping an eye on the PokerStars tournament lobby, you know the World Series satellites have been rocking and rolling over the past couple of weeks. Once again, you have countless ways to get into the world's biggest poker event. PokerStars continues to offers one of the most popular qualifiers online. If you've yet to climb the Steps, here's a quick primer from our friend ElkY. He's no stranger to winning these kinds of things, so if you need a little help, best give him a read.

Strategy for Step SNGs on PokerStars

by ElkY

Steps have become a very popular way to qualify for events of PokerStars. In this article, I will give you a few strategy pointers to manage your play in Steps tournamets.

For the sake of this article, we will assume that you are playing a Step 2 with the following structure:

Even though they are Sit and Go tournaments, Steps are very similar to satellites. The bubble factor becomes a crucial concept to play steps optimally, and you should always keep it in mind. Indeed, if you don't reach at least fourth place, you will lose all the work you've done to reach the current step. Obviously, you should really try to avoid such situations.

For the above reason, I suggest that you play a very tight style until you reach six-handed play. Until then, you should try to avoid big confrontations that could potentially hurt your stack a lot, including big coin flips. My suggestion is to pick on small stacks as much as possible. Always use position to keep the initiative so that you can force your opponents to make difficult decisions.

Again, you need to always keep in mind the importance of the bubble factor. For example, when you cover your opponent in a hand and you're holding a medium pair in position, don't hesitate to put you opponent all-in pre-flop. You will often force him to lay down big hands like ace-king. Like is always the case in SNGs, one of the best strategies is to abuse the short stacks whenever the spot is right and until you reach the next pay jump.

To sum up, play tight until you reach six-handed play, and use your position to abuse short stacks by capitalizing on the bubble factor. Furthermore, your greatest weapon will be your ability to constantly adapt to the situation, therefore allowing you to pick your spots in an optimal manner. You will need to be able to distinguish those opponents who are aware of the bubble factor from the others in order to implement your strategy efficiently.

Good luck at the Step tables!

In my last post, I began blogging about which tournament events to enter. More specifically, which ones may have the most value.

I want to make clear that I didn't mean to NOT make a regular buy-in to a specific event. What I did state, and stand by, is that you will get more value when you can get into an event by:

But if you have enough of a bankroll, buying into regular events may be enjoyable, profitable, and give you beneficial experience.

There are few things more enjoyable in poker than making a final table. Even just lasting longer than anticipated, especially against high-quality opponents, may make losing your buy-in a fun experience for you. This applies at whatever buy-in event you decide to play, and there is always the chance that you will cash in any given event.

Poker tournaments are also a great way to gain experience, without exposing yourself to too much potential damage. It's not a bad idea to buy into small events, whether it is in your best game or not, to gain tournament experience which may end up valuable to you down the road.

But as we have discussed before, if you are using poker to make a living or to make needed money, you will have to manage your bankroll accordingly, and not "waste" any of it on frivolous items both on and off the poker table. Poker tournaments can be profitable, but the difficulty of cashing and the high variance involved can place an enormous strain on a bankroll. That's why I suggest looking for the best opportunities, the ones with extra value.

You should also take into account that live casino events can necessitate travel costs (hotels, airfare, rental cars, etc.) which must be taken into consideration along with your actual tournament buy-ins.

Also remember that the time you spend competing in a tournament will take away your time in cash games, which (if you are a winning player) cost you your average earn for the hours you could be spending in those profitable (for you) games.

While it is possible to accurately assess your hourly earn in a given cash game (please read a previous blog which covers this topic), it is much harder to do the same for your tournament hours, because of the very high variance in tournaments.

It took me less than one year to play 2000 hours on PokerStars in the $30/$60 limit games in the Stud section. Therefore, I pretty much know what my hourly earn should be in those particular games, over time.

In multi-table tournaments, it's very difficult to play enough hours to get an accurate assessment of your hourly expectation for a particular type/buy-in event. Even if you compete steadily in the same weekly or daily events (even given the vast array which PokerStars offers), it will take you longer to log 2000 hours in each game/type/buy-in.
To explain further, I generally compete in PokerStars' weekend $215 buy-in events in Stud, Stud Hi/Lo, and Razz. If I play in one of those events every week for one year, and on the average last three hours in each event, that would only give me approximately 150 hours in that event per year. Conversely, I could fairly easily play 2000 hours during one year of play in a single type of cash game.

There are stories of players, especially high-limit ones, who want to actually quit a tournament which they were still competing in, because there was a "juicy" cash game at a high enough limit to where they felt that their hourly expected earn was far greater in that cash game, and were willing to give up on their tournament to try and take advantage of that cash game situation. In their mind, winning big in the tournament was unlikely, but winning big in the cash game was more of a sure thing.

I disagree with that concept, but do understand their way of thinking. In tournaments, you really have to have "blinders" on. In addition to the physical and mental preparation we discussed previously, there can be no distractions, since one mistake in a tournament can cost you your whole buy-in, or cripple you enough to make cashing in that event unlikely.

That is why I actually value online tournaments more than live ones, especially at a site such as PokerStars, which

Again, added money may give you a nice overlay to shoot for. Using your FPPs gives you a total free roll, which I always like. And, like in cash games, you may be more adept at, or just prefer to play, a certain type of tournament structure or game. PokerStars offers a wide variety to suit your personal taste, ability and bankroll. Plus, the tournaments online go a lot quicker (as do their cash games) as more hands are dealt per hour. Online, you're just not tied up for as long. Some people value the alacrity of online play, whereas others prefer the longer, drawn out structure of live tournament play.

And if you have the head for it, you can actually do both online, playing in a tournament and a juicy cash game. I only recommend doing that if you have had successful experience multi-tabling, as it's very difficult to focus on two different types of games at once, especially in Stud games where board cards need to be remembered. In a sense, if you're up for it, you can have the best of both worlds online. Obviously, it's impossible to do that in a live tournament!

We will elaborate on this discussion next week, as well as proceed with our tournament strategy.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!

Most of the tournaments we see today are the "conventional" type, i.e. single buy-in events, with no rebuys. Although I have had success in this type of structure, I believe that for most people there is much more value in the following types of events:

To close this discussion, although tournaments are a lot of fun, and in rare cases can have life changing monetary profitability, the reality is that because of short term luck, most likely you will just lose your buy in, regardless of how well you play. I think that this high variance makes it much harder to succeed, so I try and look for some additional edge.

Remember, in a cash game, you can take breaks when the cards are not going your way, when you are tired, when the game is not that potentially profitable because there are too many good players in it, etc. You can't do any of that in tournaments.

On the flip side, though, following good habits both on and off the tables may enable you to become a successful and profitable tournament player, too.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com. See you at the tables!

Poker tournaments have certainly come a long way since a handful of players showed up in the late '60s to compete in the fledgling WSOP. Play has increased exponentially since I popped onto the scene in the early '90s. Today, not only has the WSOP added many more events, but there are comparable tournaments in various other casinos around the world and online.

The television boom we have witnessed this decade has also helped promote poker tournaments. But there was poker on TV before this decade. As a teenager, I remember watching the Wide World of Sports, a show which had a penchant for televising odd events, which poker certainly was considered at that time. I remember watching a poker show because Gabe Kaplan was playing, and Welcome Back, Kotter was one of my favorite adolescent TV shows

My own tournament experiences have been positive. In only 25 or so events which I entered between 1992-2002, I made six final tables, placing 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 7th and 8th, all in Stud High and Stud Hi/Lo events. I have also had some smaller cashes in other live and online events.

What I remember most vividly about those WSOP finishes was that after each one, reporters came over to me and asked me "what I did" to place so high. Although I really wanted to give them some "pearls of wisdom," I could not. That's because I did not believe I did anything in particular, strategywise, other than play good, solid poker. I think those reporters were disappointed because they truly expected me to give them some hidden secret.

There aren't very many successful cash game and tournament players, even at the higher limits. So that is why these scribes were hoping to find out "my secrets." There are many players who will tell you that they apply different strategies in cash games (whether high or lower limits) than in tournaments. Personally, I do not. The only time I may vary my play, and err on the tighter side, is when I am "on the bubble" which means I am one spot away, or very close to, cashing.

On the flip side, I was never one who just "looked to cash." Yes, there is a sense of accomplishment when you have competed for many hours with very little break time, and now will be getting your money back plus a profit, small as that may be. Many players are very happy with that, and, there were times when I was as well, especially when I was short stacked on the bubble. It is a "mental victory" to cash, regardless of the buy-in and circumstances, so I do not want to discount that.

But the reality is that unless you are playing in a huge buy-in tournament, an event which has a large number of entries, or a rebuy event (which may have less entries but a high prize pool because of the re-buys), the big money is in the first three or so places. That is your primary goal in tournaments - to reach the big money.

These days, there are some tournaments which pay more spots, which make the prize payouts a bit more equitable for everybody. Personally, I have always favored paying less spots, but having more "bling" for the players who last.

To delve a bit more into my own tournament strategy, I just play the same as I would in cash games, whether those cash games have higher or lower ante ratios. I feel that is actually the "secret" to my success.

I say that because I noticed very quickly that many other tournament players change their strategy to try and adapt to what they felt was correct tournament play. I use that to my advantage. Some of those players use a strategy where they "gamble it up" early to try and get a large amount of chips and then try to coast, or to keep putting pressure on the shorter stacks.

Some famous players, like John Bonetti and Barbara Enright, have had lots of success with this brand of tournament play. But it's not right for me.

You tend to also witness more of their type of play in rebuy events, even from tighter players. Many players in those type of events feel that even if they go broke they can still rebuy as much as they want, so it "doesn't matter" if they go broke multiple times. I strongly disagree with that strategy, and will discuss this topic more in upcoming blogs.
Mostly, though, you will find players in tournaments (rebuy or standard) who tend to play tighter, for fear of getting knocked out and losing their buy-in. Although I do not agree with that strategy either, I understand it more than the other one.

Although I do appreciate erring in the direction of caution in tournaments, I have found
that these types of players may cash a bit more often, but rarely win or even place high enough in these events to make that strategy optimum. One example of someone I respect and who has employed that type of tournament strategy is Mike Sexton, though Mike has admitted to opening his game up recently, with much success.

Again, as we have discussed in previous blogs, the key is to find out what works for you.

Although you may think that changing your game to play tournaments is the right way to go, it may not be, mainly because you are not playing your natural style. I think that players who mainly compete in cash games, and play fewer tournaments, would often be best suited sticking close to their normal ring game strategy, as it will keep them comfortable and confident.

Then of course, there are the tournament "specialists", who will compete year-round in tournaments and only sometimes (if ever) play in cash games. I will cover these types of players next week.

Until next time, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com. See you at the tables!

There are so few places you can get variety in your life. Restaurants rarely change their menus. The TV networks are all the same thing. If you're married, you best have kissed goodbye the concept of variety a long time ago. Trust me on this one.

Fortunately, PokerStars has once again stepped up to offer us that proverbial spice of life that we so lack in other life arenas.

You might have noticed the games popping up at PokerStars in recent months. Among the crowd favorites is Badugi. Now I could go on and on about the game and probably destroy any chance you ever have at winning. Or, I could let the experts do it.

Fortunately for both of us, the fine folks over at PokerStars.tv have already hooked us up with some tips from the pros on the game. Check it out below.

Now, Badugi should be enough variety to get you through the dark night, but if not, and you have a little gamble in you, then check out the Deuce to 7 instructional video below.

Finally, if you are one of those people who needs constant variety all the time, then PokerStars has the table for you. The 8-Game Mixed tables are a constantly moving rotation of some of the most fun games at PokerStars. Based on the variety alone, my wife prefers I don't play, lest I start getting ideas.

You might have also noticed, PokerStars opened up a nosebleed version of this game at the $400/$800 level.

For more on how to play the 8-Game Mixed tables operate, see the video below.

See? Variety?

Hold'em isn't going anywhere and you can play the above games for less than a dollar per blind or, frankly, as big as you want. You can find them all under OTHER GAMES in the PokerStars Lobby.

I, in deference to my wife, will return to hold'em.

These past few months, many of you have suggested different topics for me to blog on. One of the most common is tournament play, and all its aspects. I have decided to write on this important topic for the next few weeks.

To segue into that, I wanted to tell you about an interesting discussion I recently had with one of PokerStars Team Pro members, Chad Brown. Chad and I are the same age. Along with various other "known" players our age (and also from the New York area) such as Ted Forrest, Howard Lederer and David Grey, Chad and I "hit the poker scene" around 1990. Although I had not seen Chad for many years, he and I had played many hours together through the 1990s.

Not only do I respect his "game" as one of the best all-around poker players in the world, I also have respect for his lifestyle, both on and off the felt. At different junctures in our lives, Chad and I were semi-professional athletes, he in baseball and me in basketball and martial arts. After getting too old to compete in those sports on that level, Chad and I remained very active, and have always taken care of our bodies.

I never really gave much thought or credence into how this affected my poker results, but obviously Chad does. Over a leisurely glass of wine last week at the Commerce Casino, we talked about this idea, especially how it relates to tournament play.

I happened to be at that casino to play in their $500 Stud tournament, in which I placed 8th. Before last week, I hadn't played in a casino tournament for many years. And when I did, I only competed in the Stud, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz events intermittently at the WSOP.
Chad, however, travels around the world, where he competes in virtually every major event.

Although I remember how grueling my own tournament play was (and felt again after it took until 2AM to reach that final table), I can only imagine how physically and mentally demanding it must be for him, and everyone else who plays in so many events, requiring constant travelling over global distances.

When I had mentioned to Chad that we should have dinner some evening, his reply was that when he is on the tournament trail, which is almost all year-round for him, he follows a very strict training regimen with regards to exercise, diet, sleep and time management.

His response did not surprise me, nor did his explanation. Chad feels that his due diligence away from the poker tables plays a big part of his success on the poker tables. His disciplined regimen makes him able to mentally endure the long hours of constant concentration which his type of tournament play requires.

Most major tournaments are multiple-day events, with each day capable of lasting 12 hours. This is unlike cash games, where you can quit any time, and return any time you want, or even take reasonable amounts of break time with your chips still on the table. Cash games leaves you much more room for both mental and physical rejuvenation, and that applies even if you are a regular, daily player, who puts in many hours, whether live or online. Even just knowing that you can walk away any time is refreshing, even if you choose to play long hours.

My personal style in cash games is to play "quality hours" over "quantity". I covered that concept in one of earlier blogs. For those of you who compete against me here at PS, you will know what I am referring to.

Although I always give myself a free 6-8 hour window to work, most days I actually play multiple 2-3 hour sessions. This enables me to remain totally fresh, both mentally and physically. I get enough sleep, enough exercise, enough food, and my errands taken care of, while putting in enough quality hours of poker each week. In fact, in my 15 year career, both live and online, I can remember playing longer than eight hours straight only a handful of times in a ring game.

But in the tournaments where I advanced to the final tables, I played continually for much longer than that in one day alone. In tournaments, there are also minimal break times, which are all scheduled beforehand. Tournaments can always turn out to be marathons.

To give you an example of how physical game preparation (both good and bad) affected one of my opponents, I want to share a story. In 1998, I was competing in an $800/$1600 ring game of 7 Card Stud Hi/Lo at the Mirage hotel in Las Vegas. I got onto a good rush, and wanted to see how far I could take it. I began playing in the game at 12 noon, and I was still playing at 4 AM the next morning. That was by far the longest I had ever played continuously in any type of poker game, tournament or cash game included.

I was substantially ahead when it got down to just me and Hamid Dastalmachi, heads-up. Hamid had won the main event the WSOP in 1992. I was still on a good rush when during the middle of hand, Hamid passed out and fell to the floor. He had been drinking and smoking while we were playing, but he had not been at the table for more than a couple of hours.

It was a bit scary, because paramedics had to come and administer oxygen to him. When they revived him and attempted to put him on the gurney to take him to the hospital, he refused, saying that he wanted to finish the game. We ended up playing for another four hours, when he finally did quit.

This is just an example of what I have covered in previous blogs, emphasizing the importance of being mentally and physically prepared for a long, grueling session, be it live or in a tournament. Poker can be enormously draining, mentally and physically.

Many times you will end up getting knocked out early, but when you sign up for a tournament you should be prepared for the long haul, as there WILL be those times where you will have to play long hours. And if you want to succeed, you must be at your best the whole time.

Remember, mistakes in cash games are costly, but they can sometimes be recouped. Mistakes in tournaments usually put you on the rail, with that buy-in lost.

Chad Brown's way of thinking is sound. Proper diet, rest, sleep and exercise, as well as limiting stress and distractions, are all imperative to your success regardless of what level, stakes, game, and setting you choose to play poker. Before you play one hand, you should be fully prepared to play your best. To an extent, the game starts even before the first hand is played.

Until next time, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com. See you at the tables!

Danny Robison is now in his early 60s. He is a fixture in the $2000/$4000 limit Stud game at the Hustler Casino in Los Angeles. But in 1989, he had just returned from a self-imposed five-year hiatus from poker.

Although I had heard people talk about him while playing in the Rounders game in Manhattan and the $30/$60 limit Stud games in both Las Vegas and Los Angeles, I had never actually seen him play either as a spectator or an opponent. That happened in the summer of 1990 at the Bicycle Club in Los Angeles.

I have mentioned Danny in a number of past blogs, so I will not labor on his history any further. What I want to cover here is that everything I learned from Danny was picked up without his knowledge. Although Danny and I became friends and socialized together, we never discussed poker strategy.

Everything about poker that I learned from Danny I learned as I watched and studied his actions on the table. When you're fortunate enough to play with a true master of the game, it should always be looked at as an opportunity to learn. Even with all of the great teachers and mentors I have had through the years, I would say that I picked up more from Danny without him even knowing, than I did from people who intentionally taught me things.

Case in point... Early that summer, I still had not officially met Danny. I was at the Bicycle Club waiting to get into a $75/$150 game and sitting at an empty table reading a Card Player magazine.

At an adjacent empty table, Danny and another Stud player (who I later realized was also an excellent player) named Tony Latorre (now deceased) were discussing strategy.

Although I was trying to mind my own business, any of you who know these guys realize that they are LOUD, even when not trying to be. So, I could not help but overhear their conversation. They were discussing a certain 4th street strategy in Stud poker.

At first, I thought that they were joking. I say that because what they were saying made absolutely no sense to me. In fact, it seemed totally contradictory to what I would do in that same situation on 4th street (at that time in my career). Then I realized that they truly were serious, and I clearly recollect thinking that these guys were suckers.

But then I remembered that both these men were also considered great players, so I decided to not only listen, but try an experiment when I got back to my hotel room. I dealt out random cards for hours upon hours, over many days, to see if what they had been saying was correct, even though I had strong doubts. Of course not only were their concepts correct, but they were so advanced that I do not think many people to this day know about them or know how to correctly incorporate them.

What I am getting at here is that this same experience may very well happen to you, and you should be open to it when it does. Do not discount or underestimate the strategy and concepts of long-time winning players, even if those concepts seem wrong or foreign to you. Try them out; see if they are mathematically correct and if they might work for you.

Poker is an ongoing learning process; you should try different things out, to see if they fit with your personality, style of play, games you play, and your bankroll. (If a certain strategy is high risk/high reward, it may not be right for someone on a limited bankroll.)

With regards to learning from your peers, as the limits get higher, I think this might get tougher. I did it covertly with guys like Danny, Tony, Jack Weiss, Roy Whitaker, all players in that $75/$150 Stud game.

Very few people, especially the ones you compete against regularly, are willing to discuss strategy. But, there may be some who will. In my case, those guys were Ted Forrest, Bruce Migdal and Fast Eddie (who I knew from Brooklyn). Ted and I would have these long conversations about many different types of poker strategy. Listening to us would be funny because our views were so different on just about everything. Yet, we made them work for us.

Again, my point here is that keep an open mind, seek out as much information as possible in whatever venues you can find it. Then, don't be afraid to try things out. Even if you fail, you should learn from the experience.

If you have the ability and good habits, many things will work out for you and your game will improve.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekly $215 buy-in tournaments. Please check the starting times of each of those events for your geographic area under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com. See you at the tables!

In my recent blogs I have been trying to give you some sense of the various ways to help improve your game. Those include figuring out from what sources to learn, i.e. books, videos, television shows, teachers (both knowingly and otherwise), your own live and online playing experiences, etc. This also includes how to develop your own style based on your own personality (both on and off the tables), affinity and ability in different games and limits, and bankroll.

In last week's column, I gave you an encapsulization of my own poker history, and how I accomplished these tasks. I would like to continue this week.

To recap, I had begun playing in the $10/$20 Rounders Stud game in Manhattan in 1989. Although I started out as a small winning player, because various good players took the time out to teach me how to improve my game I quickly added to my hourly earn, enough that I was considering trying to play Stud poker for a living.

To do that, I knew that I would have to further improve my game, to enable me to win enough to make a living playing higher limits. So, I took my first trip to Las Vegas in late 1989; the Mirage poker room had just opened and there was a large selection of games to play. In those days, Stud was the clear poker game of choice at every limit. In the 10 days which I was there, I played in 27 sessions of $30/$60 limit, and won in 26 of them.

Although the money was certainly useful, more important to me was finding out that there were various different styles of play than what I was used to back in my Rounders game. I attributed that somewhat to the accelerated ante structure, i.e. $5 in $30/$60, which is a 12:1 ratio (big bet:ante), as opposed to $1 in $10/$20, which is a 20:1 ratio. But I also found a different "personality" among the people who lived and gambled in Las Vegas, whether it was for a living or just recreation. In general, the New York City style was more conservative, whereas in Las Vegas there was more of a gambling "get the last bet in" style. This was an important enlightenment for me, because it made me adjust my own play to the games in both of those geographic areas, as well as to the different ante structures.

It's important to account for these factors when you sit down to play. The ante:big bet ratio is your first clue as to the style that will likely be played in a game. For example, later on during the '90s there were times I played $40/$80 limit with a $5 ante, and other times it was spread with a $10 ante. That was a huge disparity, and the real, implied and pot odds value of each hand is affected by that difference in ante structure.

Mathematically alone (as well as the difference in your opponents play), your strategy must be changed to adjust to the structure; the higher the antes, the more hands you should play, as the pot sizes are larger. You also should attempt more "ante steals", since the payoff is higher. I first became aware of this important concept on this trip.
Getting back to that initial trip to Las Vegas, fortunately for me a couple of things happened.

First, I found that the great foundation my Rounders mentors had given me enabled me to be one of the better players in the $30/$60 games right away. Although one would think that because it was "Las Vegas" the games would be tougher, especially at a higher limit than I was used to, I actually found it quite the opposite. It's true that the top players in Las Vegas were better than the top ones in New York, but the worse players in Vegas played a lot poorer, and this applied even as the limits increased. The fundamental education I had received served me well.

I also found that my own innate style of play (based on my personality on and off the table) fit better in Las Vegas (and subsequently Los Angeles) than in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut style.

My next test was going back to my Manhattan Rounders game, apply my new skills and style of play and see how that affected my results. Would my experience from the West Coast help me back East?

What I found was that my earn increased approximately 33%. This was great news for me, because I felt that I was on the right track to achieve my goals. Having varied experiences, and learning from the players in different games, was paying off.

My next trip to Las Vegas was in mid-1990. Again, I had great results playing $30/$60 stud.

Since my ultimate goal was to live in Los Angeles, which was quickly becoming the poker capital of the world, I decided to drive there and see how those games played out for me. At the Bicycle Club casino, I played $30/$60 stud for a few days, and won every session. I found the Los Angeles and Las Vegas style of play similar, which may have simply been because many of the same players from both cities competed in both games.

After winning consistently in all my $30/$60 limit sessions, I decided to try the $75/$150 limit Stud games. Boy, was I in for an awakening.

The $75/$150 games was played with even more "gamble" to it, which also may have had to do with the $15 ante, which was a 10:1 ratio, the highest I had ever played in. I also found that the higher the limit, the less regard people seemed to have for money. Or, more accurately, they attempted to put more "money pressure" on me. The tactics employed at this limit were completely different than what I was used to.

I played three sessions at $75/$150, and lost all three. That was very bad, because the $15k I lost in those three sessions wiped out my whole earn for three previous weeks in the $30/$60 games.

The silver lining was that I witnessed things that would change my perspective in poker forever.

In 1975, Jon Landau wrote in a concert review "I have seen the future of rock and roll and his name is Bruce Springsteen." Well, in only three sessions playing $75/$150 stud poker at the Bicycle Club casino in the summer of 1990, I saw the future of my stud poker playing career. His name was Danny Robison.

More next week...

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekly $215 buy-in tournaments. Please check the starting times of each of those events for your geographic area under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com. See you at the tables!

by Vicky Coren

The art of multi-table tournament poker lies in the pace. There are two big general mistakes that beginners can make: either they play too slowly, waiting so long for good hands that they are blinded away by the relentless clock - or they play too quickly, pushing unnecessary hands and knocking themselves out as if they had a train to catch.

The balance is difficult to find. It's all about a mathematical equation: you are playing according to the size of your stack, the size of your opponents' stacks, the size of the blinds and the speed of the clock. But all these factors are changing all the time. It can be discombobulating. Playing a tournament is like climbing a long staircase, in which the size and shape of the steps is altered every few minutes, and (every so often) a tub of oil is tipped down them. If you stop concentrating, you'll tumble backwards and break a leg.

Generally speaking, the best principle is to let your pace gather speed with the blinds. That is the safest strategy: to play tight at the beginning (not overplaying marginal hands when the blinds and pots are too small to be worth stealing), and gradually broaden the range of hands you raise with, in direct proportion to the blinds going up and the field getting smaller. If people want to push you around at the beginning, let them. But when the blinds get serious, flex your muscles and take a stand.

By "playing tight", I don't mean waiting for aces. In a deep-stack tournament, where you can afford to see a lot of flops in the early levels, you can play pre-flop almost like a cash game: creeping in, or making unexpected raises, with those interesting hands like 8-10 suited or J9 suited, trying to catch a monster. It's more a case of (when you fail to hit) not throwing good money after bad. If you can afford to give up, don't get stubborn.

In a big opening field, such as the PokerStars Sunday Million, there can be a strangely hurried feel. Players want to jostle ahead of the crowd so they play aggressively, pushing marginal hands and even moving all in, from the earliest levels. Some of them want to build a big stack fast, or get out early. If this is the mood at your table, don't get sucked into the panicky betting frenzy: sit patiently and bet only when you want action. Pre-flop raises won't clear opponents away. Bluffs will fail more often than they succeed. But value bets should pay off nicely. Don't bother trapping with sets, straights or flushes: bet them openly. It's worth seeing a few cheap flops in late position with a wide range of hands, but play on only if you hit because you will get paid.

Remember, in a multi-table tournament you have two sets of opponents: those on your table (whose chips you are trying to take directly) and those on other tables who you may meet later. So you should always have an idea of what the average chip stack is for the whole field. On PokerStars, it's easy - the lobby will always tell you. In a live tournament like an EPT, there should be a wall clock with that information.

You are there to play poker and win the tournament, not count your way nervously towards the payout spots. But the chip average should be in your mind as a constant backdrop, to gauge the general health of your stack.

In the middle stages, you cannot afford to waste chips. At this point, it's all about selective aggression: picking your spots to play, and then playing like you mean it. In the early stages you can make speculative calls, in the middle stages you can't. Beware the mediocre hands like A-9 or small pairs; you're better off playing a 6-7 suited. Why? Because you'll know where you stand. You should be raising or re-raising your way into pots with hands where you know you want action, or know that you don't. The same applies after the flop. With every bet you make, be certain what response you want.

Around the bubble is a great time to increase your aggression. Many players will be loitering, trying to make the money. You must find the bravery not to be one of these people. But pick your targets with care. The small stacks are forced to gamble and the big stacks can afford to. Put pressure on the middle stacks, who may be trying to safeguard their chips for the payout spots.

What about the size of your own stack? You must make sure it never goes below ten big blinds. If you find you have 15-20 big blinds, it's time to start re-raising all-in while you can still make the original raiser pass. If you get to 10 big blinds or fewer, it's all-in or fold. You must not raise and then pass; it's like burning money. And you mustn't flat call, because timidity is tournament death. With ten big blinds or below, if nobody else has raised before the action is on you, you must be ready to move in with any hand at all. Anything. Even if you have 7-2 and somebody wakes up with A-A, you still have a 12% chance to win the pot - whereas, if you let yourself get blinded away, you have 0% chance of winning the tournament. And if you can find the nerve to start moving in with any hand in the late stages (or when you're on ten big blinds) you have a much higher than 12% chance that nobody finds anything to call you with, and you can boost your stack with those valuable blinds and antes.

Two important notes: what applies to you applies to everyone else as well. If you have good chips and someone else moves in with less than ten big blinds, you must widen your calling range to reflect their need to move with anything.

Second note: in any form of poker - cash game or tournament, Holdem or Omaha, multi-table or heads-up - you must always be counter-intuitive. Whatever your basic strategy (and the above, to increase aggression as the tournament goes on, remains the best) you must mix it up at least once per level. Never let your opponents get complacent. Do what's right but, every so often, just do what's unexpected.