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 Stud Stud Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:44:15 -0800 by Adam "STUDSTOOD" Roberts

This past year, I have been blogging on many different topics and aspects of overall poker play, including bankroll requirements (both per session and for the long term), game selection (based on limit of game, type of game- especially with regards to your own ability), money management (also both per session and long term), table persona, table demeanor, game preparedness, getting staked, cash play vs. tournament play, etc.

I feel that those, as well as other topics, were necessary to discuss prior to delving into specific hand strategy. Based on the e-mails and phone calls I've received, you have seemed to appreciate this decision, and I have appreciated your feedback, questions, suggestions and comments.

But now it's time to get ready to move on to specific hand strategy.

Since my consulting responsibilities here at PokerStars include playing in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz, as well as their corresponding weekly $215 buy-in tournaments, I will try to focus my strategy specifically on those limits, and the ante structures which coincide with them.

There are many different ways to be a successful poker player. I will just try to help you along by giving you my opinions, but I want to make clear that my thoughts and recommendations are not necessarily those of anyone else at PokerStars.

There are "many different ways to skin a cat" with regards to the strategy used to play a specific hand, based on instinct and the table environment/situation (i.e., how you are doing in the game, how you are doing vs. your opponent, knowing your opponent's tendencies, etc.), plus there are the "cut and dried" mathematics of the hand, which should be learned and consistently incorporated into other aspects of your hand strategy in order to achieve long term success.

The phrase "long term success" in itself is quite ambiguous, since there is no specific number of hands, hours, days or sessions to accurately define the phrase. In a previous blog, I suggested using 2000 hours playing in a specific type of game and limit, playing against the same players, for you to try and accurately assess how much your hourly earn (or loss) will be for that particular limit and game.

The hand situation strategy I will be suggesting to you will be even more ambiguous with regards to how long it will take for accurate results to be determined for any given hand.
For instance, in Stud high, I recommend not to play a split underpair with an unrelated kicker on Third Street, in a heads-up situation when your opponent raises (or re-raises you) with a higher door card. Let's say you disagree with my assessment of that particular strategy, and decide to go against it. You may win your first few hands or even many of the hands you play, going against my recommended strategy, and you may even profit. This may go on for a substantial (also a very ambiguous word when it comes to poker) period of time. You might even come to feel that my advice is completely wrong.

One of the toughest parts of playing poker successfully is evaluating the significance of short-term experiences. Even if I am "in the ballpark" with regards to using a minimum of 2000 hours as a guideline to determine your results in a particular limit and game, how many specific hand results will you need to use along the way for you to determine whether a certain hand strategy is correct? I cannot give you a specific answer to that. All I will attempt to do here is give you the accurate mathematics for a specific hand, as well as various other opinions of how, when and why to incorporate certain other variables into your strategy.

Many software packages will give you the mathematics to a given hand at every point or "street" in that hand. Poker Probe and other similar programs give useful information on specific situations. Although I would be a fool to dispute those findings (which are mathematically sound), it's only part of the picture. There are far too many other variables to a specific hand to be able to solely use the software findings for success.
Among the variables you will need to consider are real odds (what the math is in a given hand at that time or "street"), implied odds (what the odds will be for you as the hand progresses), and pot odds (what odds the pot is offering). Although it is not always possible to predict those odds, especially implied odds, you must be able to at least be "in the ballpark" more often than not to truly understand when and why to correctly employ your hand strategy. Predicting how your opponents will act is a key poker skill that is extremely hard to master.

The key is to start thinking about hands on a higher level. While the math of a hand may dictate a certain action, how will that action affect the remainder of the hand? How will my opponents react to that action? Are there ways to get them to act incorrectly, making the hand more profitable to me?

All Stud games (Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz) have one more round of betting than flop games. All forms of Stud are also primarily played at "Limit" stakes, as opposed to various other games which are also played at "No Limit" stakes. This means that it's much less likely for the action to be completed early in the hand. These "extra" betting rounds in Stud complicate accurately assessing your implied and pot odds, because there are more potential future actions to consider.

As I have also done in previous blogs, I gave different scenarios in cash game play as opposed to tournament play. Although "real odds" (hand versus hand percentages at a given moment) do not change in those two different venues, your assessment of implied odds might change based on your opponent's different styles of play in cash games vs. tournaments, and/or his/her chip stack and/or the stage in a tournament at the time of your hand. In tournament play, you should consider these aforementioned factors prior to making your specific hand decisions.

And again, not to be redundant, it is important for you to play with the proper and comfortable bankroll in a cash game setting to enable you to make the "correct" play without fear. I have seen players unable to "pull the trigger" because they were playing on "short money" or even get "all-in" in a hand which prevented them from making the correct play. I feel that this is very important to understand and consider when choosing the table limit which is right for you.

Beginning next blog, I will begin covering specific hand strategy in Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz. Each week, I will discuss a different hand scenario, switching among those games.

In addition to hoping that you continue emailing me with your ideas, questions, and suggestions, feel free to present me with your own hand scenario and if it's appropriate I will discuss it in a future blog.

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!

PREVIOUS STUD POSTS

]]> http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/strategy/stud/2009/stud-hand-strategy-048066.html http://www.pokerstarsblog.com/strategy/stud/2009/stud-hand-strategy-048066.html Stud Stud Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:16:01 -0800 by Adam "STUDSTOOD" Roberts

Another topic I want to cover for tournaments is getting staked or "pieced out."

Being that tournaments have such a high short term luck factor, many players prefer not using their own money for buy-ins. This is all well and good, but if you are one of those players, you will have to be able to find sponsorship in one form or another in order to enter these events.

There are different ways to do this, but it is usually only possible after you have "made a name for yourself," whether in cash games or having already done well in tournament play with your own money. I did not get staked until I had already done well in high limit cash games for a few years.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I like getting staked in both cash games and tournaments, especially if the deal is fair and with someone who can be trusted to act with honesty and integrity, as well as not "micromanaging."

Some backers prefer staking players in tournaments as opposed to cash games. Their reasoning is that there is much bigger potential for a big one-time payoff, as well as the fact that they do not have to deal with the daily record keeping associated with regular cash game play. Also, when a backer stakes a player in live cash games, he/she may feel that there is a chance for "incorrect" records to be kept by the player. This cannot happen in tournaments, live or online, since the results are public knowledge. Nor can it realistically happen in online cash games since play histories are available from the site.

Personally, if I were a backer, I would look to stake someone trustworthy in daily cash games and use my share of the winnings to enter my player in various pre-determined tournaments throughout the year. As a backer, though, I would also have the option to enter my player in those tournaments even if he did not produce enough winnings to cover the cost.

There are many different options with regards to what type of deal I would agree to, whether the backer or the player.

Although I have never been in this situation as a backer, I have been in it as a player. Generally, the standard staking deal is to get fully staked (which includes buy-ins and associated expenses, i.e., airfare, rental car, hotel room, etc.) for a 50% split of the profits, with "make-up".

Here's how that would usually work.

Let's say there are three $1500 events your backer wants you to enter. He/she would give you $4500 for the buy-ins, plus money for agreed expenses, say $1000 for the three weeks. If you do not cash in any of these events, your backer would have laid out $5500. The amount the backer has paid so far is called "make-up," and before you reap any profits that money must be paid back.

That is, assuming the backer wants to continue doing business with you. If he/she does not, then your agreement is terminated, and you owe the backer nothing. Should you decide to resume backing in the future, you would then have to discuss up front whether the old make-up applies in the new arrangement.

In a typical long-term backing relationship, if you do cash in an event, you have to give back all the money that your backer has already put up before collecting the 50% profit due to you. Also, other expenses may need to be paid back first, like tipping, meals, travel expenses, etc. The particulars of a backing deal can vary wildly.

There can be numerous creative variations to these types of deals, and there are too many to mention. Some of the variations might be:

I cannot advise you on how to handle this issue, but I strongly recommend discussing it with a qualified CPA (familiar with these types of transactions) prior to making these deals with a backer.

In my personal experiences with this particular issue, most of my backers wanted to remain "silent," where I was responsible for 100% of the taxes even though I only reaped 50% of the profit. Although this may seem unfair, I did not think it was. After all, I was getting my expenses and buy-ins fully paid for, and 50% of the winnings. Although there was make-up involved, I thought that it was a fair deal for me to be responsible for 100% of the taxes on my gross tournament winnings. I just made sure I retained a quality accountant familiar with gaming tax law.

On the flip side, one of my backers, who is a well known high-limit player, requested that I give him a signed and notarized document stating how much his share of the profits were. I've also heard of arrangements where the player received a more than half of the profits as compensation for taking on the tax liability.

While poker players tend to be trustworthy, I do recommend signing and notarizing whatever deals you and your backer end up agreeing on, and that applies to both live and online, as well as for cash games and tournaments. There are plenty of stories of good partnerships that turn into a war when the player makes a big score. I have (briefly, lol) dealt with backers who tried to micromanage, "nickel and dime" me, "string me along" and go back on their word. Those can be expensive lessons.

As an astute poker player and businessman, you should be able to fairly quickly spot when you should "cut bait' with these types of people. It may be disappointing in the short term, but, trust me, you will be better off in the long run, even if it means struggling on your own for a while, not being able to play in either cash games or tournaments for as high stakes as you'd like.

Some backers may not want anything in writing, but as the player you should at least show "good faith" by offering. Remember, regardless of how well you think you may play, how much success you have already had or how many accolades have been bestowed upon you, it is your backer who is still putting up his/her money, which means it is his/her risk. You should feel honored and flattered that someone is willing to do that, which means that you should make that person (or people) as comfortable as possible.

If you are truly a good enough player, and show honesty, integrity and a quality work ethic, your time will come.

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!

PREVIOUS STUD POSTS

Now that the annual WSOP has begun, I am going to continue on with tournament strategy.

Although having a "game plan" is usually harder to do in tournaments than cash games, I think you should have one.

Among the items to think about is which events to play in - this applies whether it is over a specific tournament series (i.e. the WSOP, or PokerStars annual WCOOP and SCOOP), or over a whole year of events throughout the poker world. Money (for both buy-ins and other tournament related expenses) and time should be specifically put aside for your plans. If you can't afford the high buy-ins at the WSOP, should you even make the effort to go to Las Vegas then? Or would you be better off travelling to a smaller, less expensive series?

Also think about whether you should you play in cash games during the tournaments. This will apply both before, during (online), and after a given event you plan on playing. Some people can handle playing continuous poker, switching between tournaments and cash games with no problems, but others find that playing cash games between or during tournaments hurts their overall results. You need to make an honest assessment of what's best for you.

These questions will be hard enough to decide, but you need to stick to your guns, especially when faced with many different options once you are actually out there playing. You may show up at the WSOP vowing to only enter events if you win a satellite, but can you honestly resist and not play major events anyway?

On another level, you need to make decisions regarding how you want to play. What is your "game plan" with regards to overall hand strategy in a given event? (Are you intending to play a loose trapping game, or a tight-aggressive game, for example?)
Are you just "looking to cash," or is your focus solely on winning the event?

I think that these last few questions should not be over-analyzed. As I mentioned in previous blogs, I try not to change my overall strategy from cash games to tournaments, although I notice that some players do. For most people, the plan is to play your regular poker game, but adapt to the circumstances you face at each table, in each phase of the event.

With regards to looking to cash versus trying to actually win an event, again, I think that should not be a pre-determined issue. Personally, I always enter an event with anticipation and hope of winning, as should you. However, there have been events where I did change my hand strategy because I was close to "the bubble," and felt, given the circumstances (chips, players, etc.), it was more important for me to cash, even if it meant having a slightly lower chance of winning the event. On the flip side, there were also situations where I decided to "gamble" a bit more because I felt that I needed to get myself in a more favorable position to win, and was willing to risk finishing lower to hopefully reach that goal.

The same factors apply when you have the opportunity to consider making a deal with your remaining opponent(s). Factors like:

Another issue that you may want to take into consideration is how much you are willing to let your "ego" get involved. For me, the money is my main concern. That's more important to me than any accolades (or jewelry/trophies) that go along with getting first place in a given event.

There is no "right or wrong" in these decisions. They should be based on your personal priorities at the time. That said, though, I do not feel that your ego should get in the way of making a sound decision.

Although you will be in the "heat of battle", and very focused on your play, your opponents' play, and all the surrounding circumstances and factors, once you get down to either being close to or in the money, you will have time during breaks to think about these "meta" decisions. I feel that it is prudent to try and "step back" and honestly evaluate all factors involved, so you can make the best decisions possible for you and your family. In fact, if your family is there, you may want to include them (and maybe close friends as well) in these important decisions.

You should also give thought as to whether you want your family or friends to be watching you! Remember, this is gambling, and you will be making split-second decisions involving a lot of money. Will your ability to make correct decisions change if there are people watching who are close to you?

Personally, I like having my close friends (and backer, if applicable) watching me. It "pumps me up" and I like hearing their opinions during the breaks. But some people find that they "freeze" when they're being watched this way. As with most other topics we have covered here, these should be personal decisions for you.

Hopefully you'll be facing these decisions on the biggest poker stage - the World Series of Poker!

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!

PREVIOUS STUD POSTS

With the annual World Series of Poker (WSOP) just around the corner, I thought that I would continue discussing various aspects of tournaments.

This blog will concentrate more on aspects of "deal making" in tournaments, as opposed to actual hand strategy or deciding which events to enter. Making deals towards the end of a specific event is sometimes controversial, but it's nothing new. It has been going on for many years.

There is nothing dishonest, cowardly, or underhanded about it. Deals are usually sanctioned by the Tournament Director, and agreed to by all of the players involved.
What usually happens is when 2-4 players are left in a given event, and their chips are somewhat equal, they may begin discussing how to split the prize money that is left in a percentage other than it is scheduled for in the prize payouts.

For discussion's sake, let's say that in a certain tournament, first place is worth $100K, second place is worth $75K, third place is worth $50K, and fourth place is worth $25K.
In theory, if we're going to make a deal, the simplest thing would be for everyone to have the same size chip stack, and be equally skilled. In that case, everyone could lay equal claim to ¼ of the prize pool, or $62.5K. Such a deal would be fair to each player, by any reasonable standard.

This is almost never the case. There will always be a disparity between one or more remaining players with regards to their chip stacks. If that happens to be the case, rarely will one of those remaining players with the higher percentage of chips want to make an even deal. And they would be correct, since their expected value is higher, based on the chips and probable cash outs in higher positions.

Players may choose to split evenly despite the chip disparity, but this is to the mathematical disadvantage of the bigger stacks.

Making a deal will usually depend on other factors. The things to consider may include:

I'd like to discuss how some of these factors played out in a situation from my personal experience.

In 2001, I got lucky enough to make a final table of an event at the WSOP. When it got down to three players, we all had similar amounts of chips, but I had the least out of the three of us.

My two opponents proposed that we chop equally. I refused, even though mathematically it was a fair deal for me. I said no because I felt that I was a better player than my two opponents in that situation, and that my situation was "worth more" as a result. I asked them to give me a bigger percentage, even though my chip count alone did not warrant my request. I didn't expect them to accept, and they didn't. Fortunately, for me, I won the tournament, but it did not have to turn out that way. Despite my feeling that I was the best player of the three, there is much short term luck involved in these types of settings. Late in events, the limits you are playing are so disproportionate compared to the amount of chips you have. It becomes almost a "crapshoot", with luck being as great (or greater) a factor than how much better you play. Every hand can drastically change the results.
I actually have been in situations where I had a prohibitive chip lead and did not win the event. In those events (yes, there were a few), even though I had a big chip lead I actually would have considered making an appropriate deal if I had been asked, because of the reasons I just mentioned. In these events, the prize money was far less than what you will reap in the WSOP or other big time events (live or online).

In this year's WSOP, most of their events will be three days in length, which means that the limits will go up in smaller increments than before, and perhaps the rounds will be longer. This is different than online events. As I mentioned in a previous blog, I personally have no strong preference as to how a given event is structured, but it might affect my decision to make a deal, if I get the opportunity. If I think skill is still at a premium, and I think I have an edge in skill, I will be more likely to want to play on than to make a deal.

If you have already played for three days, even with getting good rest, you may prefer making a deal, as opposed to continuing to play on. You will need to make a judgment as to whether your stamina will affect your ability to play effectively. I hope that this will not need to be factored into your decision too much. You should try to be mentally and physically prepared in that situation to play your best, no matter how long the event may take. But if you're not at your best, you might be better off taking a deal. What if you didn't sleep well in anticipation of the final table, and find yourself not playing your best? Or you discover that your opponents are significantly better players than you? In those situations, or other similar ones, you could be better off taking an advantageous deal.

I can certainly understand if your decision might be affected by the amount of prize money at stake, most specifically if the difference between the first four or so places is very large. Personally, I try not to let that affect my decision. I have chopped small tournaments when I felt that it was the most prudent thing to do (for various reasons), and I have gambled in bigger payout events. In bigger tournaments, it can be disconcerting to play heads-up for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially for low- or medium-stakes players. If first place in an event is worth $100K more than second place, and guaranteeing yourself an additional $40K or $50K will have a significant effect on your life (like paying off a mortgage, or you child's college tuition) then you have a big incentive to lock up that extra money.

I have made deals three times at the WSOP, in 1994, 1997 and 2001. My decisions in those events were based on many of the aforementioned factors, but more specifically I agreed to those deals because of the disparity in prize money between 1st and 2nd place, the fact that the amount of remaining chips my opponent had compared to mine was very close, and the fact that the limits were already very high (and getting higher) compared to the chips we had. Taking into account those factors, I felt the percentage deal we agreed to was in my favor. Although I did make these deals, I did so despite feeling that I was better than my opponent, and I do not regret it.
We will continue on this topic 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 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!

I hope all of you had an enjoyable SCOOP tournament, and congratulations to those of you who made a profit in the events.

With the recent advent of so many tournament events both live and online, it seems that every day or week there is a different casino in another city and country (in the live scenario) where you can find major tournament events to buy into, or try and win your way into via satellites. There are players who "chase" these events, with hope of turning enough of a profit every year to earn a living.

Most of these events are Hold'em, especially No Limit. But, as we discussed in a previous blog, there still are events offered in other types of games, at many different buy-ins.
To play so many different tournaments throughout the year, especially in live casinos, it would be very hard to have any type of conventional job as your main income source. This is because you would have to travel constantly.

However playing in online tournaments, regardless where you live, gives you more of an opportunity to work a regular job and play poker tournaments or cash games) as an additional income source. This is one of the reasons the "Weekend Majors", PokerStars' $215 weekend tournaments in various games, are so popular.

If you do want to play in only a select few live casino tournaments throughout the year, as well as keeping your regular job near where you live, you should plan ahead as best as possible for these trips. Schedules are posted online and are advertised well in advance in poker magazines. You can plan your vacations accordingly, and you can plan for the necessary costs that you will incur, which are not only for tournament buy-ins and satellites. You will have to book airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars, etc. It may cost you more to eat out while travelling than it does to eat at home. These items should be figured into your tournament bankroll.

One of the more difficult aspects of travelling for tournaments is that many of the basic expenses you face are twice as big as for someone who stays home. For example, you are not only paying rent or a mortgage for your home, you are also paying for hotels at the same time. For those of you looking to play poker for a living, you may want to consider not having a regular residence or owning a car (both which would save you money), since you will have the opportunity to travel consistently throughout the year, staying in hotels and renting cars if necessary.

Again, not only will you have to have a sufficient bankroll to make the appropriate buy-ins for actual events and corresponding satellites (if you choose to go that route), but you will also need to figure what the other costs will be. I've mentioned a few of those potential additional expenses, but you will have to keep track of what other expenses you will have.

As tournaments around the world (both live and online) have gotten more popular, we see poker players who are now trying to be strictly tournament pros, and virtually never play in cash games.

They prefer to use their poker abilities solely to compete in the tournament events which have the most value for them, i.e., using buy-in, amount of entrants, and game type (and possibly other factors) to enable them to decide which ones to play.

If you are going to attempt to "follow the tournament trail", I would strongly recommend deciding not only which events throughout the year you are going to compete in, but to also decide whether or not you are going to also play in cash games at these locations. This may or may not be feasible, because, as we have already discussed, tournament play is very grueling, and you really have to be prepared for it mentally, physically, emotionally and financially.

If you are playing in a lot of tournaments, it may be too much for you to also compete in cash games, even if playing in those cash games will not occur on the same days as the tournament you want to play in. This should be a personal decision that's made with care, remembering you will have to take your bankroll into consideration, as well as your rest and recuperation time needed between events that you will be playing.

Online, your approach may be a bit different, since you have the option to concurrently play in both cash games and tournaments, if you feel comfortable enough.

People have asked me if it is possible to make a living playing in tournaments year after year. I cannot definitively answer that question. My personal preference is to grind out a yearly income in cash games and hope to get lucky enough to turn an additional profit in the tournament events I play live and online.

I am only competing in Stud, Stud Hi/Lo, Razz and HORSE events. Those games are not offered as often in tournaments as Hold'em is, nor do they usually have as much prize money. So, unless you are playing in enough Hold'em (specifically No Limit ) events with enough prize money, it may be hard for you to make enough money in all the other games combined to make a living solely playing tournaments, especially once you figure in the other costs involved.

One nice thing about playing online (at least at PokerStars) is that it may also allow you to accumulate enough FPPs to enter various tournaments throughout the year. This may even be looked at as a "freeroll" to these events, since you are not going "out of pocket" to enter them using your already earned FPPs.

Managing your bankroll is critical to poker success, but managing your other associated expenses is very important too.

In the next few weeks, I will continue covering various tournament issues, among them, getting staked or sponsored, tax liability, and when and how to make deals at the final table.

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!

Much like in cash games, the talent and ability of the players in higher buy-in tournament events increases. Therefore, there will be more better players, hence less "dead money," as they say.

Just like in higher limit cash games, there will also be some players that are less skilled who still enter bigger buy-in tournaments for the same reason they play in higher limit cash games, even though they are outmatched. That usually comes from wanting to say that they competed against the best players, or just want "the gamble," or seek the excitement of such a highly charged setting.

Although these types of players are underdogs in the higher buy-in events, I want to reiterate that on any given day, any one person can cash in or win any particular event, regardless of its buy-in amount or the caliber of the competition.

There is much debate on which type of games "play more real" in tournaments, meaning that there's less of the short-term "luck factor" the better poker players try to avoid.

Since I have only competed in events such as Stud, Stud Hi/Lo, Razz, and HORSE, I cannot accurately assess whether those type of events are "better bets" when it comes to the luck factor, as opposed to Hold'em and Omaha (of all types).

Before the No Limit Hold'em boom, I remember a lot of the pros saying that Hold'em gave them the best value because at that time so few people knew how play the game correctly, whether it was in cash games or tournaments. In fact, as recently as 2001 (the last year I competed regularly in casino cash games), I only remember one casino throughout Las Vegas or Los Angeles spreading any No Limit Hold'em games, and that was with $5/$10 blinds.

These days, poker rooms are filled with a plethora of No Limit Hold'em games with many different blind structures. Therefore, it only makes sense that their corresponding tournaments would eventually get tougher to win or even cash in, and that is just what has happened.

I would be surprised if the same pros who evaluated those No Limit Hold'em tournament events as having the most value less than a decade ago would still make that assessment today.

What I am getting at is that the more popular the game gets, it follows that the more events there will be, the more different buy-ins will be offered, the more players will enter each event , and the more prize money will be awarded . When there is more money to be won, more people will make a serious effort to learn that particular game. No Limit Hold'em has usurped all other games in every way, so tournaments have become tougher to win.

On the flip side, for the players who have been adept at other games, (Stud, Lowball, etc.), there have been less events offered, mostly because of the higher profitability for casinos to offer No Limit Hold'em events (and to a smaller extent, Limit Hold'em).

Nonetheless, because of the overall popularity of poker, there are still a great many options with regards to choosing tournament events that aren't Hold'em-related.

Now, the "tables have turned." Where in past people would enter Hold'em events almost as an afterthought, they now enter the other games the same way. Usually, that equates to more "dead money" in those other games, which is what the better players in those games are looking for, to get the most value for their buy-in. That's another reason to master more games.

On another note, many players have asked me which is better - playing against a small or a big field. I wish I had some "pearls of wisdom" to tell these people.

Personally, in conventional events (i.e., no re-buys, non-shootout, no added money) I prefer going against a bigger field. My reasoning is that if I am one of the betters players regardless of how many entrants there are, and if I am going to "get lucky" that day, it will not matter how many people I have to get though, and the payout for the win will be bigger. I also prefer a more top-heavy payout structure, as well as less places getting cash outs, for the same reason. These are just personal preferences, however. Some players prefer the opposite, and I don't feel that there is any "right or wrong" in either choice, mathematically or otherwise.

Another issue of contention among players is how often and at what increments the limits increase in tournaments. There is a bit more mathematics to this question, because it does stand to reason that the longer each structure lasts, and the less it goes up incrementally, the higher the edge will be for the better players.

I agree, but I also understand that we are talking about a very short period of time in the grand scheme of things, and the luck/skill ratio will only shift slightly with longer rounds. Is that extra small short-term edge worth the extra time it takes to play the event with longer rounds?

Personally, I have no strong preference. As we've discussed in a previous blog, you have to be both mentally and physically prepared to win every tournament event you enter, regardless of the type of game, buy-in, structure, potential length, etc. As long as you're ready to play your best game, every hand, those other factors are secondary.

One of the great things about online poker is that you can play a wide variety of tournaments of many kinds, every day. I hope you'll try all different games. This is especially exciting during an event like SCOOP, going on right now.

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!

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!

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!

I would like to discuss the best ways to hone your game, to become a better poker player. But first, this week I'd like to fill you in a little on my own history, to give the discussion some context.

I think my poker career started out like many others, as a teenager getting together with other guys my age with a few pennies in our pockets and some time to kill. Growing up in Brooklyn didn't hurt -- my geographic area featured two great cultural pastimes, athletics and gambling. (Sometimes they were combined, LOL...)

At that age, I really had nowhere to turn for proper guidance. My parents neither played poker nor condoned my playing it, so I kind of had to "fly by the seat of my pants."

In those days, I was also an athlete and musician. Those were both time-consuming passions, which combined with academic responsibilities and trying to have a social life really left me with no time to have a regular job, like most of my other friends. Plus, my parents were poor and frugal.

So, early on I was relying on my gambling earnings to give me some spending money. In those days I did not only play poker. I hustled gin rummy and basketball, as well as betting small on sports and horses. In fact, I was not a very good poker player during that time.

As many of you can relate to, our poker games consisted of every type of game we could dream up, typical Friday night home game stuff with wild cards, spits, buys, etc. Even if I wanted to put in the time and effort to learn these games correctly, there was no information available to me on the strategy of "non-casino" games, and I don't think there is now, either. Most of those types of games have a much higher luck factor than standard casino games, making it even harder to figure them out mathematically.

What actually helped me most was that many of the players who I played against, who also were close to my age, were very smart guys, and to this day I feel that many of them could have become professional poker players had they chosen to. Instead, they all ended up other types of professionals, like doctors, lawyers, law enforcers, businessmen.

Back then, there were lots of discussions of how to correctly play hands, or at least what we thought was correct. This happened because of ego, even at our young ages. We all were looking to earn money, but our egos usurped that by making us try to prove to each other what strategy was correct.

Being that all these games were "board games", this didn't do much for me once I began playing in casino-sanctioned games, which were mostly Stud games at that time. But it was a good education in poker concepts.

By my mid-twenties, I still was not a good poker player, but I then began playing in a home game where many of the players were older and dealt "real poker," i.e., Stud, Stud Hi/Lo, Hold'em, Omaha, etc. It was at that point I realized that I had an innate feel for Stud and all its variants, but not the flop games.

Mind you, I still did not have any qualified teachers or mentors at this point. I just "knew" that stud poker was "my game," based on how much I liked its concepts, as well as feeling that I already understood the game fairly well as a beginner. And, I was winning.
I then got invited to the Rounders game in Manhattan. That was a $10/$20 limit Stud High game in which two tables got underway at 11 AM, six days per week, and usually lasted until midnight. At that point in my career, I was a small winning player.

But, it was that Rounders game which changed my life. As I mentioned in my last blog, some of the regulars at that game were not only good low- and mid-limit Stud players, but were also excellent teachers who saw my ability and felt that I had the potential to be "the next one" of a long line of excellent Stud players to come from New York City. I did not seek these men out. They voluntarily took me under their wings.

Four of their names stick out. Rudy Drautz (deceased), Abie "Wheels" Lichtenstein (deceased), Mike Green and Neil Enfield. Each of them used to ride with me to and from our apartments in Brooklyn and educate me. They also used to take me in the back room to discuss hand strategy during a session. With their tutoring, my earn went up drastically. This went on for one year.

I was grinding out a weekly earn at this limit, but knew that something was still missing. I wasn't sure what that "something" was though. I soon found out what that was, when I took my first trip to Las Vegas and Los Angeles to play poker in the casinos in those cities. I found that those games were played much "faster", and with more verve and panache, than what I was used to back in Manhattan. This actually better suited my innate style and feel for the game, but I also realized that the basics that my Rounders mentors had taught me applied in all limits and styles of play.

I just had to now figure out how to incorporate my own personality, along with these concepts, to become successful in this new (more volatile and exciting) style of play. We will continue this discussion 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 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!

In today's blog, I will cover how to gather as much quality information as possible to enable you to become the best poker player you can be.

Note that I specifically said "quality information," as opposed to the quantity of information.

As poker has grown, there have been more and more books, videos, and seminars, as well as group and individual lessons, made available. Although it is nice to have so many options, this could be counterproductive to your needs. That's because not all of this information is of equal value, and at some point you will have to pick and choose which concepts work, and work best for you, in what game. It will be your job to sift through all of this information and weed out the irrelevant or useless material.

Although most of the media these days is mainly focused on Hold'em and all its variations (limit, pot limit, no limit, tournaments), there is still lots of information out there if you prefer learning other games.

I have been giving Stud poker lessons for many years, teaching beginners and advanced professionals. Many of my students have told me that the advanced play techniques that I've taught them were never discussed in any book, video or teaching course which they had taken. When I mathematically proved these plays, they were flabbergasted, and could not wait to incorporate them into their arsenals. I am not too sure if these "advanced concepts" are covered by anyone, anywhere. These are generally the concepts that may be able to "put you over the top," information which very few players know about, and even if they do, may not incorporate them properly.

Knowledge of a poker concept is not enough - you also need to know how to apply it, how to recognize the right time to apply it, and have the heart to "pull the trigger." Although this applies to any concept in poker, even the basics, I have found that the more advanced ones have a lot more probability for error and failure.

When you play a basic strategy situation "by the book," like playing Aces against Kings, when you lose it does not look like you are a sucker - you just took a bad beat. But many times with sophisticated plays, you will look foolish if it does not work. That is because most players, even the better ones, do not understand many of these plays. You have to be able to accept the incorrect "judgment" of your peers, when this happens. Not everyone can handle this; part of the reason they play is to earn the respect of their peers.

A few years ago, one of my students wanted to pay me to write a book on many of my stud poker concepts. Before deciding on whether to accept this offer, I spoke with some of my peers in the industry, who offered to pay me more NOT to write that book. They did that because the concepts I would have written about would have educated too many players in strategy that is just not available today.

How can you gain this knowledge? It won't be easy. You may be able to find a mentor or teacher to help you, but most likely you will have to do research on your own to pick and choose what concepts to incorporate, and piece it all together yourself. In this business, no one is giving out all of their "secrets." Poker tends to be a rather "cutthroat" business, so you will mostly have to find your way on your own.

How can you do that?

First, you have to learn the basics. Although some books and other media may be helpful and useful, I have found many of them to be inaccurate and even mathematically incorrect. (This can actually work to your advantage, since the players who are reading these books are actually learning the games incorrectly.) That doesn't mean that you shouldn't read, but you will then need to figure out which of the concepts you learn works, and will work well for you.

I got very lucky when I was a budding professional. I had some great teachers and mentors who asked nothing of me except to listen to them. For the most part, these were guys from the "Rounders" game, which was accurately depicted in the movie from 1998.

They were "old timers" who really understood the right way to play low- and mid-limit poker. They saw I had ability and affinity for the game, and that I was a "stand up" guy. They took me under their wings and taught me everything they knew, despite having to compete against me every day in that game, which was $10/$20 and $15/$30 limit Stud. Their theories were impeccable, as were their teaching techniques.

Unfortunately for them, they neither had the heart or bankroll to allow them to beat any game higher than $30/$60. But because of their giving me so much of their knowledge, plus my own innate ability, I was able to usurp them as the best players in this Rounders game rather quickly, within six months.

Since I did have "heart" and did not have some of their bad spending habits or general responsibilities (like supporting a family - I was a college student), I was able to move up to the $30/$60 limit rather quickly.

But as I moved up, I noticed that while the bad players were just as bad, the better players were much more skilled as the limits increased. The "style" of the game changed too; for starters, the aggressiveness was much higher, which was somewhat based on the higher ante ratio, as well as ego of the players.

I soon realized that every winner at the higher limit knew everything that I knew and much more. I knew that I needed new information, and had to find a way to get it.

We will cover that in my next blog.

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!

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