Archive for the ‘strategy’ category

« Older Entries

Stud: Analysis, by Adam Roberts

December 18th, 2009

stud-thumb.jpgAs promised, in this, and upcoming blogs, I am going to delve into the analysis of specific hands.

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:

  • Is this a ring game?
  • Is the table shorthanded?
  • What type of player is doing the raising or re-raising with the higher door card? i.e., is he capable of raising or re-raising early with just three high cards, three suited cards, or an underpair with the Queen door card?
  • What position on the table is this player sitting in?
  • How is the player doing in the game at that point?
  • How are you doing in the game at that point?
  • Is this a cash game or a tournament?
  • If it is a tournament, what is your chip position in relation to the point in the event this hand comes up?
  • On that note, what is your opponent's chip position?

    • 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:

  • Split 9s with a buried card higher than the raiser's door card. Your real odds make you a 42% underdog, and a QPR rating of 87 vs. 115. But your potential hidden strength makes this situation profitable, as you may be able to get a check raise (an extra bet) in if you catch the hidden card on board during the hand. The hidden strength increases your potential payoff on your hand, and since it's "hidden" many players will not fold two pair against your bigger two pair.
  • Split 9s with a suited connector (i.e., 8 or 10 suited to one of your 9s) - you are a real odds 40% underdog, with a QPR rating of 71 vs. 141, but the suited straight card represents enough additional hidden potential to continue.
  • Of course, any buried overpair, which would make you the odds-on favorite against split Queens, as well as giving you potential to get an extra bet or check raise in at some point during the hand.
  • A flush draw - even with unconnected undercards.
  • A flush draw with one or (especially) two overcards. With two overcards, i.e., ([As] [Ks]) [9s], vs. ([5h] [Qd]) [Qc], although you are a 45-55% underdog in real odds, your QPR is actually 134/75 in your favor.
  • Any straight flush draw made up of undercards, i.e., 678, although you still are a 43-57% real odds underdog, your QPR is 118/85.
  • A straight draw, meaning unsuited connecting on both sides, i.e., 678.
  • 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!

    adam-roberts.jpg

    • Comments Off »

    Posted in strategy

    Finding mistakes using math, by Steve Paul-Ambrose

    June 20th, 2009

    wsop2009_thn.gifThe hand: Day two of the WSOP $1,500 NL and there are 270 left. We're in the money, average is around 45,000 and I have 11,100 after losing a flip on the bubble the night before.

    Dustin Dirksen opens under the gun to 3,000 at 600-1,200 (100), I'm the cut-off with A-10 offsuit. I shove. Now against a tight under-the-gun raiser this is an easy fold even with nine big blinds. But I felt like Dustin would raise a pretty wide range here so I put it in.

    spa2.jpg

    Steve Paul-Ambrose

    Results: He calls with J-J and I bust. Now it's easy to say one of two things: 1) He had J-J, bad shove, 2) He's probably raising a lot of hands worse than A-T, good shove. But there's more to it than that.

    The math: I'm putting in 11,100 to win 13,800 (11,100 from Dustin and 2,700 from blinds and antes) so I need to win almost 45% of the time ignoring the times someone behind me has a hand. I think we can safely assume Dustin is never folding pre-flop since he'll be getting 2:1 to call my shove.

    Using Pokerstove (a really handy program which is free to download) I get that he has to be raising at least any pair, most suited aces, A-T and up, suited broadways and some smaller suited connectors just for my shove to break even. And while it's possible he's opening that wide (or a little wider), I haven't even dealt with the three players still to act.

    Conclusion: Probably a small mistake to move in there, especially since I think I play a short stack better than most and there's some small value to surviving, despite my short stack.

    Most importantly, though, doing math like this away from the table will give you a much better understanding of short-stacked play and make you a better overall tournament player.

    Comments Off »

    Posted in 2009 World Series, Steve Paul-Ambrose, Team PokerStars Blogs, strategy

    How to adapt from online winner to live champion, by PokerStars’ Greg Raymer

    June 10th, 2009

    wsop2009_thn.gifMany of our PokerStars players coming over to Las Vegas for the WSOP will be playing live tournaments for the first time. While the rules of the game are the same, playing online and live are two very different animals.

    So who better to ask for some sound advice on how to adapt from online play to taking a shot at mega bucks at the Rio than Greg Raymer, who won the Main Event in 2004 and has got $6.8million in live winnings to his name....

    by Team PokerStars Pro Greg Raymer

    So, you've been playing on PokerStars.com, and doing well, and now you want to take a shot at the live games. What should you do? Well, the good news is you've already accomplished the hardest part, so the rest will probably come relatively easily. Here's some advice to make it even easier yet.

    graymer1.jpg

    I've been playing poker seriously since 1992, so I started out as a live player, and only became an online player when it became available years later. Wherever you play poker, the hard part is learning how to play poker well. If you're winning online, then you've already done that. In 2004 when I won the Main Event, and prior to then, we used to make fun of the online players, and how bad they were. And for the most part, we were right. However, in today's poker world, it is the winning online players who have the most talent and knowledge, as compared to the live players. More importantly, the bad online players are nowhere near as bad as the bad live players.

    So, if you're winning online, you've already learned what ranges of hands to play in certain situations, and what are the best ways to play them. To become a winning live player, you only need to follow this knowledge, and not give away any tells to your opponents. Reading their tells will improve your results massively, but it is not actually necessary for you to become good at reading tells to be a winning live player. But it is key that you at least be able to hide your own tells.

    The easiest way to hide your own tells is to become a robot, a machine, to sit there and give away nothing. When you are not in a hand, feel free to be sociable and interactive, but once you're in a hand, you should pick a comfortable pose and sit in that position without moving. A good pose will be one you can stay in for up to five minutes (sometimes more) when your opponent goes into the tank and is trying to decide what to do. A good pose might also include covering your mouth with your hands, wearing sunglasses and a hat to cover your eyes and forehead, or maybe a hooded sweatshirt.

    If you give off nothing, your opponent is left guessing. However, there are generally only three options in poker (fold, call, or raise), and as such if your opponent is guessing they will guess right about 1/3 of the time. It is also possible to give off tons of tells but to do so in a manner that is not related to your hand. In fact, you can learn to give off "disinformation" tells, that are designed to get your opponent to do what you want. This way, you can actually steer your opponent away from the right decision, and towards the wrong decision.

    This can be massively powerful and profitable. But it is extremely hard to learn these skills and apply them effectively. And when you try to do this against another really good player, they will often see through your disinformation and actually make a more accurate guess than if you had given them nothing. So, I advise you to learn to give away nothing first, and then slowly start expanding your arsenal by giving off false tells. First, against very weak and easy to manipulate opponents, and only when you become very good at this should you try it against a strong opponent.

    graymer2.jpg

    How do you learn to give off nothing? One good technique is to practice while sitting in front of a mirror. Play online poker, and put a mirror next to your monitor. Treat your mouse as if it were a stack of chips in a live game. When the action is on you, be in your pose, break the pose just to reach out to the mouse and click your decision, then return to your pose until it is your turn to act again. Make sure that as you see the cards come out on the flop, turn, and river, or as your opponents make their decisions to fold, call, or raise, that you give off no reaction. Make sure that your movement to the mouse is always the same. I have seen online players in live events who have learned to sit still when waiting on you, but they still give off huge tells when they bet or call. You can tell by HOW they move their chips whether they are strong or weak. So also practice with physical chips, and make sure you always put them into the pot in the same manner.

    The final part of the equation is to learn how to read the tells of your live opponents. This is huge. This is the reason that you watch some of us live players on TV or in person, and wonder how we can win with some of the decisions we make. Sometimes when you see us do something stupid, it is simply that we are doing exactly that. But much of the time we are doing something that seems wrong in a strategical sense, but is actually right because of the tells we are picking up on our opponent. Using terminology of game theory, sometimes you should play in a non-optimal manner so that you can more fully exploit the non-optimal plays of your opponents. If you always play in a game-theory-optimal manner, you can never be exploited and you can never be a long-term loser, but doing so leaves you very short of maximizing your profit against the real mistakes being made by your opponents all the time.

    How do you learn to read tells? It comes naturally to a few, but most of us have to work hard at getting good at this. I have been working on this part of my game, more so than any other, for the last 10 years. I strongly recommend the book "Read 'Em and Reap" by Joe Navarro. Joe is a former FBI agent who used to teach other agents how to use body language during interrogations in order to determine if the interviewee was being truthful. Over the last several years, Joe has turned his attention to using all that he learned in fighting crime to the world of poker, and how to read your opponents at the table. You can also find Joe at almost every venue of the World Series of Poker Academy, where he and I are both instructors. I only teach at a few of these each year, but Joe teaches at almost all of them, always doing an excellent job.

    When you do make the move to the world of live poker, make sure that you start out playing smaller than you do online, at least until you are fully confident in your live game. Once you do so, you will find that you are probably one of the best players at any table you sit at, so enjoy this new source of poker profit.

    Good luck in Las Vegas!

    * There's still time for you to qualify for the WSOP $10,000 Main Event, visit the PokerStars WSOP page for more information.

    All photos © Joe Giron, IMPDI

    Comments Off »

    Posted in 2009 World Series, Greg Raymer, Team PokerStars Blogs, strategy

    World Champion Peter Eastgate’s guide to winning the WSOP

    May 13th, 2009

    wsop2009_thn.gifWith 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.

    peterews.jpg

    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!

    Comments Off »

    Posted in Peter Eastgate, Team PokerStars Blogs, Team PokerStars Pro, World Series satellites, strategy

    ElkY guides you up the Steps

    April 30th, 2009

    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:

  • 1st and 2nd place move up (Step 3)
  • 3rd and 4th place stay a the same level (Step 2)
  • 5th and 6th place move down (Step 1)

    • elky-steps.jpg

    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!

    Comments Off »

    Posted in ElkY, PokerStars Steps strategy, Team PokerStars Blogs, strategy

    Stud: Game choice and popularity

    April 24th, 2009

    stud-thumbnail-v1.jpgby Adam "STUDstood" Roberts

    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!

    Comments Off »

    Posted in Stud, strategy

    Stud: More on tournament bankroll

    March 27th, 2009

    stud-thumb.jpgby Adam "STUDstood" Roberts

    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:

  • winning a satellite (I recommend trying 1-3 satellites for a given event)
  • buying into shootout-structured events
  • buying into rebuy events and not rebuying
  • playing when enough prize money is added by the casino that you are getting a significant overlay on your money.

    • 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

  • Adds prize money to their tournament pool in many events
  • Allows you to use your FPPs to buy-in to some events.
  • Offers a wide array of types of events (different games, limits) and types of tournaments (Sit & Go, multi-tables, satellites, etc.)

    • 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!

    Comments Off »

    Posted in Stud, strategy

    Stud: Maximizing tournament value

    March 12th, 2009

    by Adam "STUDstood" Roberts

    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:

  • Tournaments which offer multiple rebuys. We find these types of events offered from time to time, online and off, as well as events which offer only a limited number of rebuys. This will likely be a controversial opinion, but I think that the way you will get the proper odds on your money in these types of events is to NOT rebuy. That is strictly because everyone else IS rebuying, and that means that the payouts in this event will be greater than in a regular event.

    For instance, let's say that there is an event for $500 and 200 people enter. That would give you a $100,000 prize pool, without rebuys, and if first was 30% of the pool, a big prize of $30,000. But if you are playing in a rebuy event with 200 entrants, there will undoubtedly be a much larger prize pool. In fact, it will be substantially bigger.

    You might see your opponents rebuy as much as an average of three times each; this would push the prize pool up to $400,000, and first prize to $120,000. A win would be worth significantly more!

    However, the only way this becomes mathematically beneficial for you is if you do not rebuy. In that regular event, your $500 buy-in could win you as much as $30,000 (60x), but in the rebuy event, your same $500 investment could return $120,000 (240x).

    Although I have had good success in my tournament career, I just feel that there is far too much short term luck in any given event to warrant rebuying. This applies to all types of games, i.e., Hold'em , Stud, Omaha, etc. This also applies regardless how well you play these games and/or tournaments, as well as how much money you have in your poker bankroll.

    The person who rebuys the most might give himself a slightly better chance to win, but if he invests 10x more than I do, his Return On Investment (ROI) will be much lower. If someone rebuys ten times in a $500 event, that's $5,000 in entries, and if first prize is $120,000, his ROI will be 24x if he wins it all.

    And no matter how many times you rebuy, you're still not a favorite to win any particular poker tournament. Believe me, even if you are the best player in any given event, you will have a hard time reaching a final table, much less winning it, whether it is a rebuy event or not.

    Although there certainly are people who have a winning track record in their tournament careers, especially the ones who have had one or more "big cashes," I assure you that many players, including some of the "name" ones who are both advertised and lionized as big winners, are not. This has to do with a number of things, among them -

    a) They do rebuy too much in those events.

    b) They play in too many events which do not have enough equity.

    c) With the advent of so many books, videos, and other learning tools, as well as the overall boom in poker globally (especially tournaments) the "younger generation" are really putting in the time and effort to learn all types of poker strategy correctly. The general quality of play has improved, making it harder to win. Although this mostly applies to Hold'em right now, if and when other games either catch on or make a resurgence, the same thing will undoubtedly happen.

    d) The larger fields these days make it even harder to win, increasing variance and "risk of ruin".

  • Another prudent way to maximize your tournament buy-ins is to only enter main events after winning a satellite. Before I got staked, that is the only way I did it.

    I recommend playing in 1-3 single or multi-table satellites to try to gain an entry to its corresponding event. For example, let's say you are considering entering a $1040 buy in event. It will cost you approximately $130 to enter each single table satellite. Multi-table satellites will be even cheaper, but tougher to win because there are more entrants.

    If you win the first satellite which you enter, you now have succeeded in getting into a $1040 event for $130. That's true value. Even if it takes you three satellites to win one, you still have invested only $390 for a $1040 buy in. Decreasing your investment increases your ROI in the events you win.

    Of course there will be many times when you will not win a satellite to your desired event. When that happens, just do not buy into that specific event. There will be other of the same or similar events which you will be able to enter after getting the proper equity by winning a satellite. Mathematically, you only need to win 1 out of every 8 satellites to attain the same value as those who are buying in directly. If you play satellites well, and win more often, you will be getting an overlay in the main events you do play.

    If you are entering these events purely for recreation, this concept may not apply to you. But, if you are playing tournaments to either try and earn extra money or to make a living, I recommend considering these concepts.

  • Although I rarely see them anymore, you can sometimes find shootout events which are generally structured as follows.

    Assuming there are 500 entrants for a given event, there would be 56 tables. All you have to do is win your initial table to advance - tables are not broken in this format of event. Once you have done that, you will usually have made the money. Then the 56 remaining players will be placed on 7 new tables. If you win your next table, you are now down to the final 7 entrants and go to the final table, to see who ultimately wins.

    In many of these events, which you can find on PokerStars and elsewhere, all you may have to do is win your initial table to cash out. If you can find this type of structured event, especially if it is in the poker game you prefer, I recommend buying into it outright.

  • Some casinos, both live and online (PokerStars is among them), offer guaranteed or added prize money in some of their events. Usually, these casinos estimate the dollar amount of the guarantee based on their speculation of how many entrants there will be to that event. Offering a guarantee helps build interest in an event, and most guaranteed events exceed their guarantees. But there will be times where you can get a substantial monetary overlay in these types of events, even on PokerStars. Usually, entering these events will have to be a "game time" decision, since there really is no way of accurately predicting exactly how many entrants there will be for an event. But, if you see this type of overlay, I do recommend buying in.

    • 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!

    Comments Off »

    Posted in Adam Roberts, Stud, poker strategy, strategy

    Stud: More tournament action

    March 6th, 2009

    by Adam "STUDstood" Roberts

    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!

    Comments Off »

    Posted in Adam Roberts, Stud, poker strategy, strategy

    Learn to play PokerStars’ new games

    March 4th, 2009

    Client-News-Thumbnail-dottv.jpgBored of hold'em yet? Well, of course, you aren't. But how about some variety?

    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.


    Watch Badugi on PokerStars.tv

    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.


    Watch Deuce to 7 on PokerStars.tv

    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.


    Watch 8 Game Mix on PokerStars.tv

    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.

    Comments Off »

    Posted in badugi, mixed game, poker strategy, strategy