The remaining four stops for the APPT’s second season will cover the Asia Pacific region from Seoul, South Korea, to Auckland, New Zealand, and will hit some of the most exotic locations and deluxe accommodations on any poker tour. The second event will be the $2,870 buy-in at the Paradise Walker-Hill Casino, in Seoul, South Korea, and will run from September 26–28, 2008 and host up to 250 players. The next event will be held at the Skycity Casino in Auckland, New Zealand. This $2,400 buy-in event will be held from October 9–12, 2008. The exact dates of the fourth event of the APPT have not yet been announced, but it is set for the the Hyatt Hotel and Casino, in Manila, Philippines, and is expected to be a $2,350 buy-in event for a maximum of 500 players. The final event of Season 2 will be held from December 2–7, 2008, at the Star City Casino, in Sydney, Australia, overlooking the iconic Sydney Harbor Bridge. This event will be a $5,960 buy-in with a guarantee first place of approximately $945,000.

As always, PokerStars will run a wide variety of satellites to give its players a chance to win their way into the events at their site, including some limited free-to-enter satellites at www.pokerstars.net. In addition, live satellites will be available at SkyCity Casino in Auckland for that event, at Star City Casino for the final event in Sydney, and at other locations TBA.

For full information on the first event in Macau and all the remaining stops of the tournament, visit the APPT website, www.appt.com.

pokernews.com

Sit’n goes are immensely popular online, so that is what a lot of this column and book will examine. They are also played at tournaments and in some cardrooms. The difference in the “normal” format of three being compared to winner-take-all formats is mentioned in one chapter, but is not central to this book. The satellite possibilities (also mentioned) are not talked about at length here, but as they are only mentioned as a counterpoint to the SNGs I don’t have any problem with this at all.

The things I like most about this book are: that the correct way to play in sit-and-goes is explained; that this is contrasted with other forms of no-limit hold’em; that mention of winner-take-all events is made; that computer modeling is used; that computer tracking is recommended; and that specific examples are given for almost every situation.

Now, what I don’t like, or openly disagree with, is almost the same list. (Let’s take specific examples off this list, because I think they are wonderful, as well as a big positive — it adds an interactive element!) What do I mean when I make this outrageous statement? Let’s be specific: My biggest disagreement comes with using computer modeling. The computer is a marvelous tool and a great aid to playing correctly. As Gurdjieff once said about the mind, “It’s a wonderful servant… and a miserable master!” That said, a computer simulation is only a mathematical centerline for correct play. In teaching one always has this problem, in how to present all the variables that helps one make the correct decision at the table, so that at that moment, you are playing your ‘A’ game. This is exactly why you have to put in hours at the poker table as well as read and study. Some players have an instinctual understanding, an ability to make the right move at the right time. Some seem to be “lucky” over some period of time. Here we are attempting to move beyond statistical fluctuations and cut to the chase.

Personalities, position, and stack sizes are given in most examples in this book and that is essential knowledge for a professional. Beyond that knowledge you have to have your rear in the chair and be paying some attention to what is going on — Player B may usually be TAG (Tight-AGgressive) but now he is mad at the world and drinking… suddenly he is going all in at every opportunity!

Every answer leads to more questions and this is no exception. Would you rather be multi-tabling online and playing 12 tables at once with an expected hourly wage of five dollars an hour from each, or playing six tables with an expected hourly wage of nine dollars each? Part of this is personality, for sure. Is the stress of playing more games worth the possible small increase in theoretical and expected hourly profit worth it? You’ll decide for yourself if you choose this path of play, but for sure when you play more tables your ability to follow the changes in others will be hampered.

This past week I was playing an online tournament where a player chose to move all-in from mid-position on hand number one for 3000 in chips with blinds of 10/20! That was bad enough but his actual hand was T-5o! It was passed to the big blind, who had a hand he couldn’t lay down — A-A! Perhaps the T-5 had somewhere to go, perhaps the wife was pulling him away — but in any case, no matter what excuse we make for him, why did he enter this tournament? I doubt that his purpose was just to prove how horrid his decisions were, or that money didn’t matter to him, but who knows.

I find notes very useful, but I never place too much value on them. What I mean specifically is that even if someone plays one hand abominably that does not mean that they are an abominable player. It is one play in one session—it could have been a misclick, it could have been a blood-sugar imbalance, it could have been a maiden voyage on the computer — we don’t know everything we would wish to, that is for sure.

Back to the recommendations in the book Sit’n Go Strategy. The tie-in here is that we can track results and we can track players, but don’t let that be the most important factor in deciding how to play against those same players. It can be useful but it can also be misleading. When you’re in the game with someone you’ll be able to see what type of player they likely are within one round. Of course, if their personality is shifting, as yours should, as the sit-and-go progresses you’ll have a weaker read at first, but after a few sit-and-goes the mystery will be gone.

In regards to how to play sit-and-goes I disagree with a few examples and one phase of the book. But if I were teaching someone else how to play, and they weren’t very experienced, I would say to use this book as a guideline, and use the computer to back it up. If you are a sit-and-go player, or are interested in playing them, this is a great book for starting your quest. The examples, as given, are great food for thought.

Until next time, play good… and get lucky!

pokernews.com

It’s true that I can’t neatly summarize this book, as it’s hard to put this information and description of
played hands together in one package. It does have the description of some truly key hands, along with the comments and thoughts of some of the participants. What one does in the heat of the moment and how it is described are not always the same (for example, the Farha-Moneymaker hand from the 2003 WSOP), but any commentary is quite interesting. Thinking about both what is said and the greater situation will give anyone some hours of reflection.

I played multiple hours with Moneymaker down the stretch run of his winning the WSOP title and had some observations of him that are relevant. I didn’t feel that he always knew where he was in a hand, but he possessed strength of observation that is rarely surpassed. Furthermore, he had the willingness and courage to act on those insights. For example, at the final table with a big blind of 30,000 and five participants left in the 2003 WSOP championship Dan Harrington raised to 90,000 with a pair of fours and Moneymaker called with — a suspect call at best, as other players have yet to act and his hand is easily dominated. It is hard to find any hand that Dan might raise with where Moneymaker’s A-2 is the favorite!

This is an example of “not knowing”. Next, Tomar Benvenisti moved all-in from the little blind with for his last 520,000 — not an insignificant bet and clearly an excellent play. Harrington mucked but Chris stared him down and he squirmed like an amateur, and Moneymaker followed his observation by calling. Having to call only 20% of his stack helped, but most professional players would never be in that spot, and even if they were they wouldn’t be able to pull the trigger and call. In my own experience the guy might be squirming around and hold two tens that he is uncomfortable with — or, in this case, A-Q suited.

A lot of the excitement arrives in poker because someone is bluffing. We get paid to sit around the campfire and tell tall tales. Well, truth be known, it is too simple for mere words—the best liar often is the biggest winner. Rather shocking, eh? In what other game are you rewarded for lying? In fact in most tournaments if you talk about your hand you aren’t allowed to tell the truth. You can say anything else about it, but not the truth!

I argued with Genoa_St (an online player of note) about this book when it came out and I can’t agree with everything he said, but I will accept the fact that I missed the mark on this book. Its real value is in something that it does for any player, it makes one think ahead, to recognize situations that present themselves and to then take advantage of the opportunity that most can’t possibly recognize at the moment it arises, from lack of experience at “thinking on their feet”. Many opportunities to take the pot present themselves, and most go by quietly.

What I spent the most time arguing about was that Matt calls poker gambling, and thinks his viewpoint is cut and dried! Whereas any professional will tell you that with any turn of the cards anything can and does happen, they will also tell you that it would be surprising if the amateur is ahead of him at the end of the week. I have spent my quarters on this argument already so let your own experience give you the answers you seek.

Another criticism of Matt’s book is that it includes a lot of talk about limit games. I believe this to be true, but unimportant.

He is also criticized for not placing enough value on semi-bluffing. I have to wonder if reviewers read this book through to even say such a thing! There are many examples of semi-bluffing, in both limit and in no-limit. Now, I might think semi-bluffing has more value in limited games, but it is not missing from the examples of no-limit hold’em action given, either. The fact that he didn’t use the term means little to me, beyond the curiosity of not pointing it out — perhaps he didn’t want his readers distracted by hoping to make real hands? After all made hands don’t lead to, and aren’t, bluffs.

Lessinger starts with basic bluffing situations but he proceeds to more complex examples as the book moves along. Having this book on your shelf will never be a disgrace, and it covers an important part of poker. Think through the situations and add considerable value to your result! It doesn’t matter that he begins with situations that you might already understand and have a plan for. What does matter is to understand the psychology that stands behind the actions of the bluffs Lessinger recounts.

Until next time…play good and get lucky.

pokernews.com

This is one person’s opinion of course, but a head-scratcher for me. My list would currently look like this:

1. WSOP Main Event
2. WPT Main Event
3. WSOP HORSE Event
4. EPT Grand Final Event
5. APPT Championship Event
6. WSOP-Europe Main Event

I’m not fond of loading this list up with no-limit hold’em events but that is the nature of what is prestigious at this time. Also I am not a fan of any limited-access events making the list, as Tom’s picks 5-7 seem to be. That said, this is all based on opinion, and the PGA sets another (and contrary) example. My list is much more universal, I believe, and gives weight to two other parts of the world being able to shine with recognition — Tom’s list has only one event outside of the Las Vegas city limits.

I also want to mention that I am a fan of what Mike Sexton has accomplished for poker in his career. His accomplishments are many, but his most important one was the presentation called the Tournament of Champions, which was his springboard to further accomplishments. A tip of this writer’s hat to all that followed — television and Internet exposure included. Mike deserves all poker players’ thanks, along with all the rewards he has subsequently received. It is easy, now, to see his viewpoint as goal-oriented, but at the time it took sacrifice and a visionary outlook. It amazes me how much adoration is poured upon others that pioneered the sport — somehow it is swept under the rug that many were just competing to get the money, whereas Mike was giving something back. He couldn’t have foreseen, by any stretch of the imagination, what was going to happen. It is a happy case of being in the right place at the right time, but more importantly being rewarded for doing the right thing while in the right spot.

While I am handing out opinions and awards, I further want to thank Casey Kastle for his no-smoking reform, the one that rescued poker from a clique of players and made it universally attractive. How important was this? Well it didn’t just save the careers of some players but literally many lives. One game I played regularly in circa 1980 had about 30 regular players and was a (heavy) smoking game. 28 of those players are dead today. I have to wonder when I hear an unhealthy person gasp about the ‘good old days’. Ohhhhhkay…. Somehow, having a lifespan of less than 55 years isn’t very appealing, even if it helps to have a brain under 40 to play well.

Now, where would we be without poker hands? Reminded by readers to put some in, that is for certain! Okay, okay, I will….

In a recent tournament, Player A raised to 600 (over a big blind of 200 with antes of 25) under-the-gun. The three hole re-raised to 1600 and it was passed around to the button, who moved all-in after about five seconds of hesitation with and 5,300 in chips, with both players in the pot having more chips than him. Is this correct? A better question is this one; ‘Is this ever correct?’ Unless the re-raiser is a stone-cold oblivious maniac and the original raiser is from another planet, how can it be right? I am reminded of what Doyle Brunson said in a WPT interview on television about how the modern player pays no attention to position — and he said this while making his astonishment clear. How can it ever be right?

From my own experience I can tell you that even when the first player has and the second player has (which is about as good as it gets), and you have , that you have no reason to be involved — by computer calculations you have a 36.8% chance of winning if both players call you. A bigger problem looms in that one of the two players could have K-K, crippling your chances further, A-K where you hope to get a split, or even A-A which rates as terminal for your chances. All of this when you have nothing at risk and yet your whole tournament can be put on the line. Let me ask again, ‘Is it ever correct?’ my answer is short, simple, and sweet… only if you know what is coming. I think of this as carryover from limit hold’em experience where playing all A-K’s is usually correct. I say usually because I have seen such players as Freddy Deeb lay down A-K before the flop in a limit hold’em cash game on the button when it came to him for three bets.

Back to the hand that actually happened. The button is all-in for 5,300 and the UTG player passed, with the other player calling. The three hole showed and beat the when the layout read . This is a typical outcome for such a situation and something to think about. You can’t play A-K with a knee-jerk plan; you must think about how and when to play it.

Hans ‘Tuna’ Lund confided in me at the Diamond Jim tournament that he can’t even make a case for the small raises so many aggressive players put into the pot, hand after hand — but this almost a different subject. Mini-raises, bane or weapon? Let’s leave that topic for a future column. The reason that I brought it up here is that when one ignores the situation one is in, and applies an action regardless of circumstance, the shoals are soon to be found.

Until next time, play good… and be lucky!

pokernews.com

The chapters by David Grey and Keith Sexton on seven-card stud, regarding tournament play, are full of valuable information. I concur with most of what is said and imagine that they can only make the fields tougher if anyone reads them. For selfish reasons, I
hope they don’t. For practical advice, just read the Sexton chapter. If you want to think about tourney situations that arise, then read the Grey chapter. I remember David saying many memorable things to me on Day Four of the WSOP Main Event, and I will share one here: “I would love to play with more [tournament] champions but most of them can’t afford the ante of the regular game I play in.” David is not only verbally glib but freely gives out statements that are challenging for the thinking player.

The chapter on Omaha pot-limit, high-only, is full of good advice but is written by Chris Ferguson, whose background as a tournament player is well-documented. Still, perhaps someone who plays that game for money on a more frequent basis could have written about it… perhaps Phil Ivey or Gus Hansen or Erick Lindgren, to just throw a few names out there, limiting our selection to Full Tilt biggies.

While we are at it, why not have Steve Zolotov write about pure gambling? He is one of the best there is at all-around gaming ability. Not to impugn Rafe Furst here, but Steve has at least 30 years of experience in countless games on which to draw, and he is also an official ‘friend’ of Full Tilt. In the late seventies we all feared Steve at the Mayfair Club in New York whenever some obscure game came up. One popular game at the time was liar’s poker, played with the serial numbers of dollar bills, where you added the numbers of your bill to the other guy’s to decide to outbid or challenge any claim. Steve was the uncrowned king of this game. This was a famous bridge club, and was stocked with famous brains; it later produced many well-known players, including Eric Seidel and Howard Lederer.

I feel that the chapter written by Howard Lederer on limit hold’em is great and has very important information to consider within it. In the future, limit hold’em will make a comeback and no-limit hold’em will return to be the king of tournaments. That statement might shock some of the readers but it is based on experience. No-limit hold’em for cash is a trapping game and random players are turned off by the acting that goes with it. Eventually all the weak money is taken and players return to the more affordable games. Limit hold’em means that one can play for set periods of time. It is as simple as this: you get a lot more bang for your buck when you play this game! Limit hold’em is a game that is wonderful for beginners, too, as when you are wrong it will usually only cost you a relatively small part of your stack. This is always true, of course, if you understand risks and fluctuations and plan accordingly.

Chapter 13 is about Omaha eight-or-better by Mike ‘The Mouth’ Matusow and it’s very good. Do as he says and not as he does! He knows how to play, even while talking; the rest of us might not do as well in multi-tasking. I am reminded of playing no-limit hold’em in one of the WPT events at the Bellagio where a player kept talking to Dewey Tomko. He was obviously an old friend who hadn’t seen much of Dewey in recent years. Finally Dewey took one of his earplugs out and, scowling, leaned over to reply, “I’m trying to concentrate on my play, and I suggest you do the same!” Talk about a re-direct!

Ted Forrest presents stud eight-or-better in Chapter 17 and presents valuable information that can make even bad players okay. It would take years of experience or an excellent mentor to give you such clear advice on what and how to play in this game. I think talk of how to alter your play in different positions makes this chapter really important, even if stud eight-or-better is not your game of interest. Ted details both playing situations and the decisions that spring from those situations, very important for the player that lacks experience. This is the most important material in the entire book. I’m rather stunned that Ted went into the possibilities so deeply. He even defines ‘short-stacked’ for everyone. Furthermore, he gives some very important advice on how to play heads-up. This advice applies to all games, in my opinion, not just stud eight-or-better. Don’t just get there and then try to think on your feet; have a plan and stick to it. As H.O.R.S.E. tournaments become popular, razz and stud eight-or-better remain mysterious areas for some competitors.

Lastly, Ted and Huckleberry Seed discuss correct actions in razz in the final chapter and again give a lot of terrific advice. Sadly, they will make a lot of hopeless players into competitors if they read this book. Razz is a game that is often played very poorly for multiple reasons. Now those readers can understand imaginative and advanced plays, and get the reasons for those plays from the mouths and thoughts of great and acknowledged players. The talk about variance alone makes this chapter worthwhile.

The review of this book was much more complex than I originally thought. There are more than 400 pages here, with many thoughts on how to play and many games that are featured. Bottom line: If you are a tournament player this book is well worth buying.

Until next time… play good and get lucky!

pokernews.com

One only needs to speak to Lauren, hearing the enthusiasm in her voice, to know she’s excited and driven in her push to bring more women into live poker. Lauren took her passion for poker and launched the ladies-only High Heels tour in June of 2007, including a website at highheelspokertour.com. The club’s annual fee of $30 makes one a member and brings notices of upcoming events, hotel discounts, giveaways, eligibility for free seat drawings, specials, and perks of the High Heels tour, such as private receptions and hospitality rooms.

Based in Florida and
spreading across the Gulf and East Coasts, HHPT is moving into the big time with several upcoming events. Tunica, Mississippi’s Gold Strike Casino will host its first HHPT event on January 6, 2008 as part of the WSOP Circuit stop. A second event on February 24, 2008 at Harrah’s Horseshoe in Council Bluffs, Iowa is also on the upcoming schedule, with more to surely follow with other Harrah’s properties. The Harrah’s staff has made some changes at Lauren’s urging to make the event more enticing to the lady players. This year the starting stack will be 10,000 chips with 40-minute rounds.

A new affiliation with the WSOP Academy offered HHPT members the opportunity to win their way to the ‘Ladies Only’ poker camp January 25-26 at Caesars Palace. All one had to do was join the HHPT to become eligible for the drawing. The winner was drawn New Year’s Day and is being announced here: Congratulations to Paula Ettline of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. If you didn’t win, here’s an added bonus: all members will receive a $150 discount on their entry to the event, from the original cost of $1,699.

Another great way to win a seat in the WSOP 2008 is getting underway. Several poker rooms are beginning to host ‘step tournaments’ or qualifiers to advance to a main event taking place in March. The main event will be hosted at the Seminole Casino in Hollywood Florida on March 1st with a direct buy-in of $450, with $125 satellites available at seeral Florida locations: Seminole Casino Hollywood, Seminole Casino Brighton, The Isle Casino and Racing at Pompano Park, Miami Jai-Alai, Flagler Magic City Poker Room, Club 52 Melbourne Greyhound Dog Track, Naples Fort Myers Greyhound Dog Track, and Daytona Greyhound Dog Track. Total attendance and prize pools will determine the number of World Series seats to be given away.

Given Lauren’s enthusiasm and dedication, this new ladies tour just might have staying power. Certainly, HHPT will have its growing pains, but it joins a group of organizations catering to the growing women’s market. Nor is this all from the HHPT, as several new announcements and affiliations are planned for the coming months.

pokernews.com