Sticks and stones

It hasn't happened for a while (which is nice), but I had a player lose it last night and berate me in chat for a good ten minutes. I have to admire him, he always kept it just on the right side of offensive so there was no temptation to report him or anything. I decided early on not to play along, and just kept my peace. Oh, the hand? Well it hardly matters but anyhow.

Large micro MTT (he added redundantly). We're into the (tiny) money. Blinds are 400/800/50.

On the button, I(6900) have A♣4♣. MP(14,000) limps, two folds, and I raise all in. The SB(6500) calls all in, BB and MP fold. He turns over Q♦Q♠. I had my flush by the turn, and none of his four outs for a boat hit on the river. And then it began ...

The most common theme was my equine ancestry, though there were also frequent references to my intellectual disabilities. Perhaps most amusing were his speculations concerning my motivation in making the push "thinks any ace is gold", "wanted a call" etc.

Should I bother defending myself even here? Oh, what the heck.

It's not a play I would make every time the situation in terms of my cards and chips arises, but I thought there were some positive indications. I'd been playing very tightly, and expected the raise to get respect, particularly over a limp. Obviously, I'm hoping for folds all around which would boost my stack by almost a third. The MP limp seemed likely to be a lowish pair, some sort of connectors, or random paint. It seemed likely that MP would fold, rather than committing almost half his stack to the pot. Obviously, if I got called by a blind I would probably be way behind (as in fact I was), but I was willing to take that risk. And there you have it.

I couldn't resist looking my opponent up on sharkscope and thepokerdb just now. Looks like he's a relatively successful micro MTT player, but without any big cashes. So, I suspect, a case of severe frustration at consistently getting into the money but not pushing on. Better luck next time sir.

Oh yes, I finished 21/2325, knocked out when I held A♠T♠ by K♣Q♥ (he, a frequent stealer, made a 3BB raise from the cutoff, and I, with about 13BB, pushed from the button).

Dutch treat?

It takes a long time for the albatrosses to carry the videotapes across the Pacific, so the ESPN coverage of the short handed WSOP final table featuring Joe Hachem and Dutch Boyd didn't appear here until last night.

Was it clear to everyone else the depth of Joe's contempt for everything DB is or represents? Or was I just imagining it?

Operation successful, patient dead.

Mysterious internet connectivity issues had just as mysteriously resolved themselves last night, so I was happy as a pig in mud playing poker and listening to the radio. This week's Fighting Talk was not a vintage edition, but still had its moments. To compensate, the latest podcast on Words at Large from the CBC had a very interesting interview with Margaret Atwood.

In poker, the main event of the evening was the 11pm $2.20 NLHE MTT on Stars. Am a bit annoyed with myself about this one as I finished near the bubble, and put myself into a bad spot where I had to make a move. The bubble is quite irrelevant, but I should have been able to get quite a lot deeper. The hand that really cost me proved what a donkey I still am.

With the blinds at 100/200, I(6700) was in MP with Q♦Q♣. All fold to me, and I bet 600. My left hand neighbour(4700) called and everyone else folded. The flop comes K♠T♣7♥. I bet 1000 at the 1500 pot, which was called. This was where things started to get ugly. On the 6♣ turn, I decided to fire one more bullet, 1800 at the 3500 pot. Again called. We checked down an innocuous river, and, unsurprisingly, my opponent had K♥Q♥. I think my turn bet was just pure eructation of chips -- what else except a king or a set can call my bet on the flop? Ok, AT, JJ, possibly even some smaller pairs, or QJ (if that calls in the first place), might take a gamble, but I should be happy to check those hands down to the river (the opponent was quite passive). So that hand basically cost me half my stack, and the poker gods made sure that I didn't miss the lesson by following up with a period of dead cards.

Which brings us to our final exhibit, which took place at a different table.

Blinds and antes were now 200/400/50, and I (3700) picked up A♦Q♦ UTG. For some reason (probably misplaced worries about the bubble) I didn't push but simply opened with a 1200 chip bet (which can look stronger than the push here). My immediate neighbour (17000) called, and we saw the flop heads up. I'd already decided to push any non-wildly threatening flop, and followed through when it was T♠9♣6♥. Unfortunately, my dearly beloved neighbour with Q♠J♠ had flopped an open ended straight, backdoor flush, draw and, getting better than 2:1, certainly had the odds to call. Stars didn't prolong my torment, delivering the 8♦ on the turn, leaving me just 3 outs to a split pot, which didn't arrive.

I actually don't have much of a problem with my play on the final hand. My chips went in with the best of it, and while I can't be happy with the outcome, I think that in the same situation I'd play it the same way again. The annoying part of course is that I shouldn't have been in that situation at all, and was there only owing to my own idiocy on the earlier hand. With a larger stack, there'd be no need for me to push on the flop. I'd probably continuation bet, but would then shut down with the 8 on the turn. It would have been a fairly significant flesh wound, but not the coup de grâce.

Breaking my duck

(Readers who find the headline more than usually obscure will find an explanation at the end of the post.)

It was an odd weekend. Some sort of bizarre connectivity problem with my ISP meant that, while I was able to play online poker, I did not have access to the international web. So, no blogging, nor reading of blogs. I was dreading the accumulation on my bloglines this morning, but it turned out not to be as bad as I'd feared, I guess the American set were too overstuffed with turkey to have the mental energy to blog. More charitably, perhaps they were spending time with family. Anyhow ...

I've written before about my frustration with the $4.40/180 seat SNG's on PokerStars. I'd found the level of play there to be truly abysmal, but this didn't seem to be of any actual practical significance, since I didn't seem to be able to cash either. I almost decided to give them up entirely, but with the new tournament schedule having many fewer micro buy in MTT's, and with my lack of web connection ruling out the normally highly profitable single table SNG's, I put my name down for one again.

You claim to have spotted a non sequitur there? What does my lack of web connection have to do with not playing single table SNG's? I thought you'd never ask. I don't like to multitable when I'm playing a non-turbo SNG. On the other hand, I need some distraction, and my habit (which I now realise has become a prerequisite) is to listen to Internet radio, usually "listen again" broadcasts from BBC Radio 4, 5, or 7. By the way, if you have any interest in UK sport, and any sense of humour whatsoever, Fighting Talk is not to be missed. Ergo, lack of web connection means no single table sit and go's.

Well, the result was ... not so bad.

I had a feeling that it might be my day, when on the very first hand, I limped from MP with J♣8♣ (non standard for me later, but partly for image building reasons early), amazingly playing the hand only against the blinds. The flop of A♣Q♣9♣ was a thing of beauty, and when the SB completed his two pair with a 3♦ turn, I came out of the hand up 500 chips. If I'd known he had two pair, I would have bet more -- as it was I raised his river bet of 100 to only 300, which he called.

Then, in the same position in the second orbit, I picked up J♠8♠. Now, whether you believe in such things or not, it can't possibly be a good idea to spit an omen in the face, so I limped again, this time over two limpers in front, and again the blinds came along. Now the flop came 7♦9♥T♦. A limper in front of me bet 240, I raised to 600, and both blinds went all in. The limper dropped out, and I called expecting to see a set and a diamond draw, or perhaps pair plus open ended straight draw, but in fact found two diamond draws, A♦8♦ and Q♦T♦. No more diamonds or jacks arrived and I had essentially tripled up. I just checked this on PokerStove and am amazed that my equity was actually as high as 62% on the flop.

At the 50/100 level I think I played an AA hand too fast. UTG went all in for 500, which the cutoff(4500) called. I(4500) was on the button and pushed, losing the cutoff. It's a hand with some similarities to the one of Iakaris's that I discussed in "could do better". In retrospect I think that a smooth call, or min raise was in order, probably the latter for, while I'm happy to have the cutoff tag along, I don't really want the blinds to get the idea of making a relatively cheap call into a biggish pot.

All was not beer and skittles though, as I found myself short stacked twice in the "middle game" (from five tables, down to the paying two tables). In each case I wound up sucking out when my all in was called by a dominating hand. I didn't feel too badly about it, both because that kind of thing just has to happen, and also because the reason that I found myself short stacked in each case was due to similar hands going the other way. When the money bubble burst I was about 15th of 18 remaining. From there I had a pretty nice run of cards, flops hitting not so great cards, and (he modestly added) I think I outplayed my opponents.

The tournament ended after only a few hands of heads up play (three handed went on for ages). Blinds were at 2K/4K, and I was very slightly ahead in chips. In the BB I was dealt A♥K♠. My opponent min raised, and I simply called. The flop came A♠7♠4♠. I checked and my opponent bet the 16K pot. I read this as an ace, so unless he had two pair, I was ahead, and had the flush draw to fall back on. So I called. Turn was 3♣, I checked, and my opponent bet 40K. At this point I went all in, and he called with A6. No disaster on the river, and my duck was well and truly broken.

Breaking ones duck In cricket, if a batsman is out without having scored any runs he is said to have "made a duck" (or "scored a duck"), which is actually a contraction of "duck's egg" -- and hence if he gets out on the very first ball it's called a "golden duck". This is a rather embarrassing thing to have happen to a recognised batsman, as a decent batsman will average at least 30 runs per innings. Anyhow, as a result, when a batsman first scores any runs he is said to have "broken his duck". By extension, the expression now refers to obtaining some positive return for the first time from an endeavour, particularly if preceded by a period of frustration.

Pair under pair

Fuel55 recently pointed out an article by Phil Gordon, which gives a formula for the chance of a pocket pair being dominated by a higher pair in a hand still to act. Specifically:

The Gordon Pair Principle
Let C = percent chance someone left to act has a bigger pocket pair, N = number of players left to act, R = number of higher ranks than your pocket pair. Then, C = (N × R) / 2.

Please read the original article for examples, explanation and motivation.
I'm about to criticise this principle, so let me say at the outset that Phil makes it clear that this is only an approximation, a useful rule of thumb. It is an excellent rule of thumb for short handed situations acting UTG. However, as we depart from these situations, it can become a rather poor approximation. The good news is, that it consistently overestimates the chances of being dominated by a higher pair, and if you keep this in mind, it may still be a useful tool in decision making.

Let's begin with an understanding of how we might arrive at Phil's rule. Consider the next player following you. In each of the R ranks dominating your pair, there are 6 pairs he can hold of that rank (the six different combinations of two suits). So there are 6×R dominating pairs altogether. Since you already have two cards, there are only (50)×(49)/2 hands he might hold, and so the percentage chance that he has a higher pair than you is

(100×6×R×2)/(50 × 49) = 1200 × R/ 2450 ≈ R/2.

Phil's formula is a straightforward extrapolation from this -- if this is the chance that a single player might hold a pocket pair higher than yours, then multiply it by N to get an approximation that at least one of N players will. What's wrong with that?

Quite a lot actually. The main problem is that when the player next to you does not hold a higher pocket pair, his cards will generally interfere with the pairs that any further players might hold. This is most marked when your pair is low, say for example 22. If the next player does not have a higher pocket pair, then he will usually have two overcards and the following player usually has only 66 possible dominating pairs instead of 72. Obviously this effect is less marked when your pair is higher, for example 99, since then quite often the next player will have only one, or no higher cards.

You want the data? You can't handle the data!

Sorry, seemed to be channeling Jack Nicholson there. Ok, I'll give you data. Suppose that you are UTG (I'll explain this restriction later), with a pocket pair, and N players remaining to act. Then the chance that your pair is dominated is shown below:

                        Players Remaining
Pair(R)    1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9 
22 (12)    5.9  11.4  16.6  21.5  26.1  30.4  34.5  38.3  41.9 
33 (11)    5.4  10.5  15.3  19.9  24.2  28.3  32.1  35.8  39.2 
44 (10)    4.9   9.6  14.0  18.2  22.2  26.0  29.7  33.1  36.4 
55 (9)     4.4   8.6  12.6  16.5  20.2  23.7  27.1  30.3  33.4 
66 (8)     3.9   7.7  11.3  14.8  18.1  21.4  24.5  27.4  30.3 
77 (7)     3.4   6.7   9.9  13.0  16.0  18.9  21.7  24.5  27.1 
88 (6)     2.9   5.8   8.6  11.3  13.9  16.5  18.9  21.4  23.7 
99 (5)     2.4   4.8   7.2   9.5  11.7  13.9  16.0  18.1  20.2 
TT (4)     2.0   3.9   5.8   7.6   9.5  11.3  13.0  14.8  16.5 
JJ (3)     1.5   2.9   4.4   5.8   7.2   8.6   9.9  11.3  12.6 
QQ (2)     1.0   2.0   2.9   3.9   4.8   5.8   6.7   7.7   8.6 
KK (1)     0.5   1.0   1.5   2.0   2.4   2.9   3.4   3.9   4.4 

This table is a result of simulation (ten million independent trials for each possible starting pair) as exact computations of these numbers past the first column or two would be truly messy indeed. Note that in the lower left half of the table (i.e. below the diagonal from upper left to lower right), it agrees quite closely with Phil's numbers. But six handed with 44, Phil's approximation would give you a 30% chance of being beaten, whereas you're actually beaten only 26% of the time, and at a full table with 22 Phil's formula makes you a favourite to be dominated by a higher pair, while the actual chance is only 42%.

Why did I specify that these numbers assume that you are UTG? What's the difference between being UTG at a six handed table, and fourth to act at a nine handed table after three folds? Well, the latter situation (particularly if blinds are high relative to stack sizes) indicates that the three hands which folded were unlikely to contain pairs. Again, if you have a lowish pair, this reduces considerably the number of higher pairs that are probably available to the following players.

Just one example here, you have 33 in the small blind at a four handed table. All stacks are relatively short compared to the blinds, and there are two folds to you. The table above would assume that the next player can hold 66 pairs dominating yours. But, up to 12 of these 66 may have been eliminated as we may assume that neither player who folded held a pair.

Edit Preliminary simulations suggest that the latter effect is not significant. That is, the table above can be used without assuming that you are UTG, only that there is no action in front of you and there are N players still remaining to act.

Mistaken identity

Waffles recently had a post concerning good vs. bad calls. The comments got a bit heated, prompting a follow up but I found the general topic intriguing.

So, I'll add further fuel to the anecdotal fire with a couple of hands from last night.

Exhibit A

A single table, non-turbo, sit and go. There were three bustouts very early but since then just general circulation of chips. Al has 2200 chips and the remaining stack sizes (in thousands) are approximately: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4.3. Blinds are 50/100. Al is UTG+1 and is dealt A2o. He chooses to limp (we won't discuss that decision at this time). The button, one of the short stacks, who has been playing tight, pushes and the blinds fold. Call or fold?

Exhibit B

A freeroll for entry chips to another freeroll. About 150 of 7000 entrants remain, and 27 will be rewarded. Bert, on the button, has a slightly above average stack of 25BB. A MP player min-raises, and Bert, holding AQs raises to 6BB. All fold back to the MP position who, having Bert covered, pushes. Call or fold?

Discussion

Al's decision. How desperate is the button? How good is Al's hand against his range? Call is 900 into a 1250 pot so from a pure chip equity standpoint Al should want to be winning a little more than 40% of the time. But, other factors are also important. If Al loses then he's a short stack with the blinds approaching. If Al wins, he's only a big medium stack, and the game is still not on the bubble. A genuinely tough spot. I think that discretion is the better part of valour here -- the pot is small enough that folding doesn't improve the button's position all that much, and Al's loss is a mere slap on the wrist for a questionable limp.

Bert's decision In the abstract, a clear cut fold. MP's betting screams of AA, KK, maybe AK or QQ, double maybe JJ. Against almost all of this range Bert is crushed. But, knowing all this he calls, happily. Why? The English premier league highlight show has just started. Bert has little interest in continuing the freeroll with a less than average stack, but is prepared to split his attention if he doubles up. As expected MP shows KK, no ace appears, and Bert can watch the highlight show in peace.

Names notwithstanding, Al was someone else (I was button, and won the hand with 67s hitting a straight and a pair -- the pair would have been good enough). I was, of course, Bert.

Four ball

Rugby All Blacks beat France again, 23-11 this time. The French had a much better game, the AB's were a bit sloppy in places, and the referee had a truly horrible game, but the outcome was never in doubt. The AB's at the moment are one of those "dynasty" teams who simply can't lose unless they beat themselves. The toughest task ahead will be to maintain discipline and a competitive edge in the run up to next year's World Cup.

Criminality I'm a bit late on this one, but as we all know a huge gambling bust with a peripheral poker connection took place last week. The main break through seems to have been getting a copy of the hard drive on which all the records were stored. Which, to my mind, demands the questions: a) why wasn't the hard drive encrypted? (with decryption software on a memory stick, kept in the alleged perpetrator's possession at all times, even when attending a wedding); b) why was the data on the hard drive in the first place? (data could also be on said memory stick)

PokerStars new schedule Has eliminated my beloved cluster of micro MTT's. So sad. Wound up playing a limit Hold'em tournament the other day by accident (small cash). Since I was already in an unfamiliar game, I decided to have some fun and played in an Omaha and a Razz tournament simultaneously. A somewhat mind-warping experience, but enjoyable, in an odd sort of way.

$4.40/180's Are very frustrating. The play is sooooooo bad, but I just can't seem to cash. Sigh.

Cut off that button!

I'm waiting for the second All Blacks v. France test to begin in about half an hour's time. It had been my plan to go for a run first thing in the morning today, before the match, but it's raining and windy, and the forecast promises some improvement later in the day, so I've put that off. Well of course, a bit of early Sunday morning poker was called for, obviously, particularly as bloglines seems to be having some problems. So I fired up a couple of two table turbo S+G's on PokerStars.

Busted relatively early in one, when an attempt, with TT, to pick up about 250 in "dead money" in the form of limps and the BB with an all in from the SB backfired as one of the limpers had KK. The other, I eventually took second, hitting a massive run of cards at the first table including a triple up on the very first hand when I was able to limp K7s from late position and hit top and bottom pair on the flop, and various people decided to chase flush draws, more or less coasting to the money through some card deadness, and then picking up a few hands and making a few moves at the right time.

One situation arose at the first table which reminded me a bit of the hand I posted yesterday from Iak's great run.

Blinds are 50/100. I'm(7500) in the cutoff, folded to me with AA. I bet 300 (I'm one of those "always make the same raise" guys, except when I'm not). The button(600) calls(!), as does the SB(3500), who is the only other player at the table whose play I respect at this point (he went on to win). The BB folds.

Flop is JJ4 rainbow, and the SB checks. The pot is exactly 1000 at this point, and the question is how to size my bet. I decide to bet 1000. Predictably the button calls for his last 300, and then the SB goes all in. It would cost me 2200 to call, giving me about 2:1 odds. Following my plan, I folded at this point. Button had TT and SB had KJo (loose call initially -- perhaps my respect was not so well placed). An Ace came on the turn (of course) but I was happy with my play.

The issue is the sizing of the bet on the flop -- I wanted to bet enough that it would be a tempting target to the SB if he had a Jack, engendering an all in, but little enough, that I could fold to it with some confidence. Could I have saved a few hundred chips with a smaller bet? Perhaps. Interesting to think about all the possible options.

Even a check is not out of the question -- anticipating an all in from the button for her last 300 chips, and then trying to read the SB's response to that. Betting exactly enough to put the button all in looks like an attempt to set up a cooperation play, and I was worried that might lead to a raise from the SB with, for example, an underpair as an attempt to put some dead money in the pot.

Ten minutes to kickoff. Time to refill the coffee cup and put this one to bed.

Could do better

With tributes from fellow bloggers already pouring in, and more no doubt to come, I'm confident that the majority of the Western world knows of Iakaris's brilliant run through to fourth place in the FTOPS event last night. Fuel55 has given a great final table summary, and no doubt the man himself will tell us more when time permits. So, I'm going to pick nits.

"How dare you sully this great achievement with your carping cavils!" I can hear the cry already. "What right do you, who has never placed so highly in such an event, have to draw breath and utter criticism?". Hey, let's call a spade a spade, I've never even entered an event of this level. But then, I've spent the last two decades criticising the work of people who, within a year or so of graduation, will, by the standard of annual income if nothing else, be my superiors, so I'm hardly likely to let that stop me am I? Besides, the unexamined life is not worth living, right? "Aha", you say "Socrates was talking about self-examination." Well, who's picking nits now?

Ok, with that ponderous introduction out of the way, let me describe the hand of which I speak. The money bubble had already burst, but the final table was a long way away. The blinds were at 2000/4000 and our hero was in the small blind with AA. UTG, who had been crippled a few hands earlier, went all in for 2700, and all folded to our hero. His stack covered the BB slightly, and was (details a bit fuzzy here), about 30K at this point. Our hero made a pot sized bet (14.7K), the BB folded, and the AA held up against the random Qx held by UTG.

So, my issue is that, once our hero calls, all extra money is going into a 2 way side pot (which starts at 2600), and not a 3 way pot. The usual worries about getting heads up with aces don't apply to any great extent, as any money in the side pot is heads up, and the goal of the game should be to get BB to put as much extra money into the pot as possible. The pot sized bet for almost half our hero's stack, particularly given his tight image at the table, shows a willingness to take this hand to the felt, and will fold all but the most premium of hands from the BB. I think that a smaller bet is called for, and for me the choice is close between a straight call and a min raise.

The straight call is risky in that the BB might check and get three immediate free cards. Not so good. Taking AA into a pot against two random hands as opposed to one sacrifices about 12% equity -- the main pot is 8100 here, so let's say that a straight call represents a "charge" of 1K to attempt to reap greater rewards. On the other hand, the BB might take a straight call as a show of, at best, moderate strength, and realise that if he can push our hero out of the hand, then BB gets to play the pot against UTG for free (winning the 2600 side pot, and then playing the main pot of 8100 of which he has contributed 1/3). So, a call might induce a bet, in which case our hero would be delighted to raise.

The min raise might look like a donkey-steal, and get called or raised. Or BB might, correctly, fold. If BB could see our cards, no call is correct, regardless of his cards, except with AA (d'uh), the odds simply aren't good enough.

Finally, let's reconsider the pot sized bet. I think there's a place for it too -- if our hero had been showing lots of preflop aggression (whether because of a run of cards, or simply because of aggression) then a pot sized bet might be just the thing to induce a "no more pushing me around" call. However, I don't think that this particular dynamic applied.

Aside from all the witty repartee in the chat box, another aspect of the game last night that I found amusing was Eric Molinas (edawg....), our hero's ATM, constantly reminding the table how near the money bubble they were. Think that was an attempt to make people tighten up, so that some blinds could be stolen? Cynic!

Now all we need is the Titanic

Bertie is proving recalcitrant in continuing his story of Jeeves playing poker, so just a little filler here.

Locals are very excited by a couple of icebergs drifting slowly northwards past Dunedin for the first time in seventy years. The international press are rather more restrained, but also more informative. Allegedly visible with the naked eye from land, and I thought I might have seen one on the way in to work this morning, but the cloud ceiling was pretty low and the light was not great. Will report back if conditions change. I guess that having grown up somewhere where most of the countryside was scenically equivalent to an iceberg for several months of the year, it's a bit tougher for me to summon up the excitement that the locals seem to be feeling.

Does anyone else remember the Bloom County series on the "massacre of the local news reporters"? Hope I haven't put myself in danger here.

Edit Bother, the ODT has some clever boots system that prevents direct links through to stories. Anyhow, the "local press" link above will now take you to their homepage, and it's pretty easy to find the story from there.

RIP Guinness and Poker

I've just returned, sides aching, from the funeral service. As one of the ones to whom Kat refers when she says:

All those future poker bloggers who will miss out on that first *squeeee* and feeling of validation when their blog gets pimped by the Blogfather himself. Poor things. I feel for 'em, I really do.

I can only ask: if you're so worried about my perilous emotional state, what are you going to do about it?

In much less important news, I played for the first time in a HORSE tournament yesterday, and quite enjoyed it, despite finishing well out of the money (but in the top half of the field). I have no idea what starting hands to play in Stud-8 though. Help?

Might have been better placed had a slightly shorter stack not hit his one outer on seventh street at stud (I had 8's full of A's, he had 9's up, and one of the 9's had been folded ...) but that's poker.

Also played my most card dead ever NLHE MTT (this is an objectively verified fact via PokerTracker). Not so bad as I was trying to concentrate on the HORSE, so the mind numbing routine of "fold, fold, fold, check/fold, complete/fold, limp/fold, fold, fold ..." did not distress me as it might of otherwise.

Missed one opportunity with blinds at 50/100 when I picked up 88 in MP. The cards I was getting, that looked like AA. I raised to 300, got an all in from LP, which I intended to call, then another all in from one of the blinds. Both players had me covered, and I decided discretion was etc. Got to see their hands of course: AJo, 77. To add insult to injury, an 8 hit on the flop, and neither of the other two ever improved. Almost made it to the bubble, before needing to push (8BB) from LP with QJ, running into AK in the small blind.

Jeeves plays poker (I)

It was a bright morning in London. My man, Jeeves, had just brought in my tea and the papers when I bearded him, as I believe the expression has it, on a topic, which had been troubling me for some days. "I say Jeeves, what do you know of this international poker business?"

"International poker sir? Are you sure that was the expression?"

"Perhaps it was internecine, or internal, or intermittent. A chap can't be expected to keep these details straight."

"Might it have been 'internet poker' sir?"

"That's it, got it in one, well done. Only Freddie Bullivant down at the Drones was on at me about it the other day: 'Bertie', he said, 'you must get signed up with this internet poker wheeze. It's a license to print money, and in just a few more weeks I fully expect to have put together the necessary capital so that I can pop the question to Elizabeth.' You know that Freddie's been a bit on his uppers recently, and the course of true love does never run smoothly etc. when that's the case"

"So I have been told sir. Are you sure that you wish to take up his suggestion? Your experiences in the world of wagering have not been the most happy ones as I recall."

"Pish, posh" I retorted with asperity. Doesn't do to let Jeeves, even with his enormous brain, get above his station. "If Freddie can gather in the readies doing it, then anyone can. Besides, he says it's not gambling at all -- it's a game of skill. So how does it work? He talked some rubbish about them passing you cards down a series of tubes -- I can't see how they could carry that off, they'd get quite creased and it would take ages."

"No indeed sir, the process is entirely electronic. You must first 'sign on' to your computer and 'connect' to the internet."

"That's the box in the corner, which I see you banging away at occasionally isn't it? I thought it was just some sort of convenient method for placing orders at Fortnum and Mason's"

"It can be used for that purpose as well sir. But in this case, it allows you to connect with group of like minded individuals who also wish to engage in the pursuit of that quintessentially American pastime of poker. It might be best if I demonstrated."

"What? You mean to say that you take part?"

"I dabble sir, but only, of course, when my services are not required."

"I should hope so. Well, let's have a flutter then."

47-3

That was the score this morning (local time) when the All Blacks (a.k.a. NZ) played Les Bleus (France). If you've had any contact with Kiwis, then you know that rugby is essentially a state religion in NZ, so it was quite appropriate that the game should be on a Sunday morning here. They won with an absolutely suffocating defensive display (the French had by far the majority of possession and territory) combined with some superb opportunistic attacks. If some cable channel in your area is showing the game in the next week or so (or next weekend's game, again against France), I recommend it highly.

At one time or another I've followed virtually all of the round or oval ball sports with some degree of seriousness, even including that peculiar Aussie one with four goal posts. Rugby (union) has become my favourite, and not only because I've been subject to almost a decade now of unrelenting propaganda. As well as being as physically demanding as any of them, rugby requires the players, and the players alone, to be able to deal with the on the field situation, in a fluid game with very few stoppages.

Anyhow, at the moment, the All Blacks seem to have two teams that are capable of beating anyone else in the world. This has caused some consternation locally as the tradition of "the jersey" has been that there should be a set line up, and pretenders need to wait for their seniors and betters to retire or realise that they are no longer up to it, before getting their chance. With the World Cup coming up next year, Graham Henry, the coach, has decided on a new plan of ensuring that regardless of injury or loss of form, he'll have a full extended squad of experienced players to try and reclaim what most Kiwis regard as their birthright (despite not having been able to win it since 1987).

A big win against France is doubly sweet as they are the hosts of the World Cup next year, and currently ranked number two in the world. Of course, it's in the Kiwi spirit to now be speculating about whether the team has peaked too soon!

Bits and pieces

It's not going to be 100 things you may not know about me. Much less ambitious than that. But, if I'm not to be guilty of welshing on various $1 debts, I can't write about poker, so just some random musings. Though, I did win a token on my first attempt at the Full Tilt two table $8.70 token satellites. All that has been written about these seems to be true -- if only tokens could be exchanged for cash!


I started running again early this year, after about a 15 year lay off (except for a couple of abortive restarts). I'm generally happy with how it's been going, I'm now up to about 7km (4.5 miles for the unenlightened), four times a week. I'd like to be running more, but have had to come to terms with the fact that a 40+ year old body simply needs more time for rest and recuperation. One of the great things about running in Dunedin, is the opportunity to run along the beach from St. Clair to Lawyer's Head. The beach is just over 3 km long, and on a sunny, calm day, with the right tide (a conjunction of circumstances that occurs all too rarely) there's nothing quite like it. And yes, it really is as empty as the photo suggests despite being right in town.

The Otago Peninsula continues north of that beach, and there are some wonderful trails and hikes there as well.

Besides watching far too much sports on television, my principal other non-poker leisure pursuit is reading. At the moment, I'm in that delightful state of enjoying a book so much that I am reading it in short sessions, because I don't want to finish it. The book is The Fourth Bear: A Nursery Crimeby Jasper Fforde. If you're a fan of Douglas Adams, or Terry Pratchett there's no doubt you'll enjoy Fforde. If you're not, but only because you find them a bit juvenile at times, you'll still enjoy Fforde. The Fourth Bear is perhaps not the book to start with -- The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crimeintroduces the characters, and the Thursday Next series, beginning with The Eyre Affairdefines (using that word in the loosest possible sense) the world in which all these stories happen. I found the second and third volumes of the Thursday Next series a bit weaker than the first and the fourth, but the whole series is well worth reading, and I wait with bated breath for further installments.


Photo Credits
St Clair Beach: Original photo by Nicholas Thompson.
Otago Peninsula: Photograph courtesy of Jeremy Ginsberg.

Holy pot odds!

Or ... don't fold so fast, Batman!

In my last post, I mentioned my exit hand from a micro MTT near the (irrelevant) bubble:

Blinds at 100/200/25, I(4300) picked up KK, UTG+1. UTG(5200) opened with a min-raise to 400. I reraised to 1600, folded to BB(3600) who went all in. UTG raised all in.

I called, found I was up against AA and AK, and lost.

At the time I thought that the call was a mistake for two reasons: I made it too quickly (it was a ‘what the hell, let's gamboool’ call), and it was wrong. The first reason is the more galling one and still applies. But, I'm beginning to reconsider the second. In this kind of position, unless I'm keen to practice my short stack play, I'd be willing to take slightly the worst of it with a call, since the winning outcome (a near triple up) leaves me with a very comfortable stack to try and work through to the final table. That factor favours a marginal call, if indeed it is marginal.

Time to think about some ranges. The absolute tightest ranges I can imagine assigning to the BB and UTG are KK, AA, and AK. I don't read anything into UTG's raise, rather than call. He had struck me as a somewhat knowledgeable player, and since a call would obviously pot commit me, he might as well get the money in immediately with the slight added vigorish that I just might fold to a raise, but not to a call -- in fact I never would, but some might. The combinations are easy enough to work out by hand, but giving it to PokerStove is even easier. My equity in the pot against those two ranges is 25.9%. If I call, with my remaining stack of 2,700, it will create a main pot of 10,900 and a side pot of 1,400.

My call is less than a quarter of the main pot.
My pot equity is more than a quarter.
Therefore, call is correct.

A call would even be correct if I took the extra 700 chips that are about to go into the side pot, and threw them to UTG.

If we loosen up BB's range (as I suspect we should), say adding QQ and JJ, equity jumps to 34.9%. If we add only QQ and AQ, it jumps to 41.4% and, apparently paradoxically, actually puts us ahead of UTG -- because with more one ace hands for BB, there are, relatively, fewer two ace ones for UTG. Even if we tighten UTG's range to KK+, and AK suited (to allow either for the fact that with AK and caught in the middle, he might make a very poor fold, or that the initial min raise favours AA over AK), against the looser BB ranges, call is still correct.

Zowie! Ka-ping!

Chickenfeed

I happened to see this story on Reuters today. Excerpting the main information to save you chasing the link (but feel free!)

KARACHI (Reuters) - Pakistani authorities found chickens, not children, when they went to inspect a state-run primary school after a tip-off the establishment was being used to produce poultry.
...
"Chickens, television sets, video recorders, playing cards and breeding cages were found in what were supposed to be classrooms but no students," Kanwar Naved, the mayor of the city of Hyderabad told Reuters Wednesday.

The emphasis is mine and is there because it seems to me there must be more to the story. Obviously the plan was to use the playing cards to teach the chickens to play poker. A bit of training at rudimentary hunt and peck keyboarding skills and then they'd be released en masse onto the penny tables at your favourite online poker sites. At first the returns would be, well, chickenfeed, but the more successful chickens would be allowed to breed, and soon a race of poker playing super chickens would be dominating the 5/10 LHE tables.

It may seem a far fetched idea, but as some rather more clever people than I almost said about a similar plan: consider the enormous commercial possibilities if they succeed.

In other news, Fuel55 and Iakaris were no doubt active bidders at this auction.

Finally, in another tale of chicken feed, my beloved set of micro MTT's went reasonably well tonight. I finished third in one, knocked out as second stack with the chips all in on the turn where I had two pair, but big stack hit his flush (which he had no business drawing to, given my turn bet) on the river. So sad. But the story I promised myself to tell (as a penance) was of my exit near the bubble in another.

Blinds at 100/200/25, I(4300) picked up KK, UTG+1. UTG(5200) opened with a min-raise to 400. I reraised to 1600, folded to BB(3600) who went all in. UTG raised all in. If I can ever fold KK preflop it must be here. But I couldn't and found myself up against AA UTG and AK in the BB (killing one of my outs!). No miracle straight (and both my K's were dominated for flush purposes), and no K, so IGHN. Bad boy!

Obligatory election content

Actually, I'm not at all sure why I would consider it obligatory since ‘I am not, nor have I ever been’ an American (though I did hold a green card for a while). One of the bloggers yesterday (I forgot to link the reference, sorry) wrote that the general political position of poker bloggers was off the left hand side of the road and in the ditch. Well, if you look across the fields next to that ditch, towards the horizon you might see my car on a road over there somewhere. After all, I'm a centrist (ex-)Canadian.

A few random observations.

On pronunciation If the locals call it Missourah, then it's Missourah (ref: Brisbn, Oregn, Melbn, Tranna -- Paris is a tricky case, if only because Paree sounds so affected). The town in Pennsylvania is called Versails, and the palace in France is called Versigh, no problem there. But the locals do not call it I-wrack, so why do 99% of politicians and political commentators? (Exception: Nancy Pelosi, and a couple of others).

On time zones New Zealand is the best place in the world to watch American elections (well, it would be if we could get anything other than CNN coverage, neither Sky News, nor BBC World seemed to think it merited any more than passing comment). Polls closed on the east coast at 2 p.m., and even after waiting until it was abundantly clear that the Senate was going to remain undecided, I could still get to bed at a reasonable hour. The only comparable event was the premature millennium party on December 31, 1999/January 1, 2000. We had our champagne at midnight, got a good night's sleep, and then got to spend the whole day drinking more champagne and watching the rest of the world celebrate.

On ties Was it entirely necessary for every male pundit or politician to wear colour-coded neckwear? Were there guidelines? Did they have to sign a contract? It was quite a joke on CNN really -- extending even to the neutrals who wore mixed red/blue ties, or, daringly, ties of a completely different colour.

One card

No new poker here as we had a get together last night at Filadelfio's a local, slightly upscale, neighbourhood bar and grill, which actually does a pretty good job of emulating the real thing (just to choose an example I happen to be familiar with). One item on the pizza menu there, is a ‘Canadian’ pizza. Now what toppings do you suppose that has? I almost don't want to spoil the suspense, and force you to follow the link instead, but I'll give in: salmon, sour cream, gherkins (that is, dill pickles, for the linguistically challenged). As many poker players have so eloquently put it in the chat boxes of a myriad of poker sites: WTF????? I have a peculiar fascination with this pizza, rather like Steinbeck's character Doc in Cannery Row who was obsessed with the idea of a beer milkshake. Some day, I suspect, I'll just have to break down and have one.

Rooder left a comment on yesterday's post (thanks for that!) which leads me to suspect that I didn't make the point I was trying to make as effectively as I might have (alas, it was ever so). I was trying to fight my training and not present a simplified example (as in the mathematician of joke number 6) but, in light of the comment, and a failure of any other sort of inspiration, here we go.

Dad puts $1 on the table, and also gives $1 each to his twin sons Billy and Bobby. He then shuffles the 13 hearts from a standard deck of cards, and deals one card to each boy. The game is ‘One card hold'em’. Billy can bet $1, whereupon Bobby can fold or call; or Billy can check, whereupon Bobby can bet or check, and if he bets, Billy can choose to fold or call. In the event of a show down, higher card wins (ace is high).

Billy, who must act first, receives the J♥. He must decide to bet or check. Since Bobby is his twin brother, Billy knows how Bobby will respond to each action. If Billy bets, Bobby will fold any card 8 or under, and call with 9 or better. If Billy checks, Bobby will bet any card 8 or better, and also with a 2, as a bluff. No claim is being made that these strategies are in any way optimal, just that they are what they are.

Under these conditions it is clearly correct (do the math yourselves!) for Billy to play passively. The short reason is that Bobby is betting with more hands than he's calling with, and the extra hands that he bets with are ones that Billy beats.

The real hold'em situation was meant to mirror this. The key ingredients are: heads up play; a good hand, which is a decent favourite against your opponent's range; a very dry board that gives your opponent few outs if he's behind; and an aggressive opponent who is likely to bet more hands than he would call.

One purpose of aggressive play out of position at hold'em is to buy information. If the information given by a call is something you would rather not have paid for, it might be time to consider playing passively instead.

Edit: Oh yes, in the real hand, I was the TAG player in MP and held AK. I might have chosen to check the turn, since I guessed that I was well behind to a pair of jacks, but there are a lot of players out there who routinely call apparent continuation bets with air, but fold to a second bullet. Further, I thought that there was some chance I might actually fold a jack worried about an overpair, or more reasonably a middle or bottom pair hand (people do call raises from the BB with Ax sometimes). BB's call on the river shows that he wasn't thinking along the lines I've been describing, but it occurred to me as I went over the hand (as I tend to do when I've put nearly half my stack in behind) that up to that point, there was little to criticise in his play.

Schrödinger's hole cards

I described the following hand in my previous post. Despite the underwhelming response, I'd like to share some thoughts about it. The short version is:

Against an aggressive opponent, it may well be correct to play top pair, top kicker type hands from out of position quite passively.

The underlying reasons for this remind me of the superposition of states that arises in quantum mechanics, most generally illustrated by means of the example of Schrödinger's cat (which, oddly enough, was introduced as a thought experiment to show the ridiculousness of the macroscopic interpretation of superposition of states.)

In the example hand, the BB could, at several points make an ‘observation’, which would collapse or partially collapse the ‘wave function’, consisting of MP's unknown cards. For good reasons, or otherwise, he does not do so -- for to do so would leave him in a less advantageous position than playing against the mixed state.

Cash game, NLHE, both start with about 100BB.The big blind, holds A♦J♦. A tight aggressive player in MP opens with a standard 3.5BB pot sized raise. BB calls, and the two players take the flop heads up.

Hard to argue with this decision. Even consigning the small blind to the rake, BB is getting 9:5 on the call. Flops with an ace could be tricky, but flops with diamonds or a jack should be good.

Flop is J♥4♠2♣. BB has not seen MP play a huge number of hands, but MP has always taken action on the flop playing heads up after being the preflop aggressor. BB checks.

The alternative is, of course, is for BB to bet out. BB is currently a significant favourite against MP's range (about 60:40 against a conservative TT+, AJ+). The difficulty with betting out is that it allows MP to ditch most of his dominated hands, but to call or raise with JJ+ and enough semibluffs to make future life difficult. BB does not want to reduce the hand range that MP might be playing here, as MP folds will always be right, and MP calls/raises will or should be judged well enough to put BB in a pickle. I don't think that check can be said to be ‘wrong’ here, it's a defensible option.

MP bets 5BB, about 2/3 of the pot, which has been his standard bet in this position, sometimes as a continuation bet, sometimes with strength. BB calls.

According to the previous comments, MP's action does not limit his range in any way. Against that range BB is a favourite, so a call (at least) is called for. What about a raise? Some of the previous comments still apply. At a guess, MP will take the raise to show AJ (maybe some other good jacks), JJ+, 44 or 22. Suppose that a raise will knock out everything except JJ+ and AK. BB is actually an underdog against that range -- so that anytime the raise is called, it will be called correctly (allowing for the fact that from BB's position, the call only indicates a range of hands), and more or less every time the hand is folded, it will be folded correctly. It can be, indeed frequently is, the case that both one player's raise or bet, and another's call are correct, but here the continuing difficulty for BB of playing the hand out of position tends to argue against it.

The key here is that BB could have adopted the following strategy immediately after the flop: “So long as MP's actions don't significantly affect his range, and so long as low cards continue to hit, I will always call.” Based on his assessment of what MP's range is, that strategy had positive expected value, and the more MP bets, the greater the value becomes.

Turn is 6♠. BB checks. MP bets 10BB at the 17BB pot. BB calls.

The above comments still apply. It would be silly to believe that this bet doesn't narrow MP's range somewhat, but unless BB believes that MP is making this bet with JJ+, AJ and less than half of his AK's, pot odds still dictate a call.

River is the K♠. BB checks, and MP, overbetting the pot slightly goes all in. BB calls.

I think this is the only identifiable mistake. Of MP's made hands, BB has a chopped pot against AJ and nothing else. To give BB credit for running a three street move (possibly including a bluff raise preflop) on either complete air, or an underpair is just too much risk against the odds being offered. At limit poker, where the final bet might be 10% of the pot it would be a different story of course. At this point, the wave function has collapsed sufficiently for us to observe that, unfortunately, the cat is dead.

You be the judge.

Which is the title of a rather amusing, but sometimes cruel, feature in The Bridge World where the goal is to assign responsibility for some monumental cock up at the bridge table.

Not quite so monumental here, but the questions are: at which points, and how, would you have played this hand differently; if mistakes were made, which was the biggest one? Points at which ‘you’ made a decision are shown in italics.

Cash game, NLHE, you and your opponent both start with about 100BB.In the big blind, you hold A♦J♦. A tight aggressive player in MP opens with a standard 3.5BB pot sized raise.

You call, and the two of you take the flop heads up.

Flop is J♥4♠2♣. You have not seen your opponent play a huge number of hands, but he has always taken action on the flop playing heads up after being the preflop aggressor.

You check. Your opponent bets 5BB, about 2/3 of the pot, which has been his standard bet in this position, sometimes as a continuation bet, sometimes with strength.

You call. Turn is 6♠. You check, and your opponent bets 10BB at the 17BB pot. You call.

River is the K♠. You check, and your opponent, overbetting the pot slightly goes all in. You call.

Final question: which of the two players in this hand made the bigger mistake(s)?

Al's token

When Al, the Turing demon, had last visited he gave me a token, which would allow me to call for one precise card at a time of my choosing when playing online. Unfortunately, the token had to be used fairly quickly or it would dissolve into a mess of sulfurous goo. I spent a few days consolidating my bankroll on a single poker site. I considered breaking my ‘no new deposits’ rule under these exceptionally favourable circumstances, but in the end maintained my bankroll discipline.

My plan was to sit down with my entire bankroll at a no limit table, and wait for an opportunity to ensure a double up using the token, and then to rathole it without compunction. It didn't take long to find a table where I could buy in short, but not ridiculously so -- 0.05/0.10 NLHE. No, just kidding, it was 3/6.

I posted blinds for a few orbits, limped with suited connectors occasionally, and stole the blinds once or twice when I actually got some decent cards. Of course if I had managed to generate any action on those hands that might have been my opportunity for the double up I was craving. But I was willing to wait. Meanwhile, I was hoping that my play was presenting a fairly weak/tight image that some aggressive player might try to take advantage of. I was losing a little bit of ground, but still had very nearly my entire starting stack to work with.

The critical moment came after about 60 hands at the table, when a player, Hut8, whom I'd tentatively identified as a LAG, in turn raised to $24 from the cutoff, on my big blind. In front of me on my screen sat Q♦Q♥. The small blind folded, I called, and we saw the flop heads up.

When the flop came K♠Q♣J♥ my pulse quickened. I might normally bet out at this, but with my token in reserve decided that a simple check was in order, hoping to convince Hut8 to make a play. That would depend on him having some paint, since I doubted I'd get any action from a small pair or low suited connectors, but if he didn't I'd simply save my token and accept the small pot. Hut8 bet $24, and I simply called.

The turn was the J♠ giving me a boat. I checked again, and this time Hut8 bet $32 at the $96 dollar pot (I'd already mentally consigned the $3 small blind to the rake). I decided it was time to move at this pot. If I could take it down now without the token so much the better. If not, I still had time to think about it. So I check-raised the pot, $192. Hut8 took some time to consider this, and then raised enough to put me all in.

Now it was time for me to think. Was this the moment to use the token, or was I already ahead? It was certainly possible that I was behind KK or JJ. The time had come. I called, grasped the token in my left hand and, as Al had instructed me to do, screamed loudly queen! (He'd mentioned that counterfeit versions of some of these tokens were fairly common, which goes some way to explaining some of the antics we see on poker shows at live tournaments).

The Q♠ duly arrived on the river. “DQB!” I might have shouted, had there been anyone there to hear it. Time slowed to a crawl ...

And Hut8 turned over A♠T♠.

My hard drive began to make odd noises, which, when I leaned over to listen to them more closely, sounded an awful lot like snickering. See you all in the freerolls and on the play money tables.

Exit lines

Owing to the miracle of time zones, a system in which I'm proud to note both my adopted country and my native country had some part (the latter, more importantly via Sandford Fleming), but whose benefits have heretofore been limited to parents and colleagues saying, after I answer the phone somewhat groggily, “Oh, it is 4 a.m. there isn't it?” and the end of daylight saving time in North America, I can actually now occasionally play my beloved cluster of four micro limit MTT's at the end of a normal work day (for, as we mathematicians like to say, ‘a suitable value of normal’).

How's that for a run on sentence? Anyhow, I shouldn't have bothered.

Three way all in, AKo, K4o, 65s. Flop, KK4. By the way, I was very surprised at the preflop equities for these three hands reported by PokerStove. The K4 is heavily dominated of course, but AK has 46.1%, and the 65s a whopping 43%.

Thought, correctly, that I was getting 99 all in for a race, only to hit two more calls behind (KQs, which I don't mind, and JJ, which I do!).

Latish in the turbo (I cashed, whee, 50% ROI -- unfortunately I = $0.10), pushed UTG+1 with KT, called by AJ and AQ (fair enough)

And finally, with QQ I manage to do a nice spot of pot building, keeping some no hopers around through the turn on a 2445 board. Unfortunately, there was also one other player around, who called my pot sized all in with 33 and (of course) hit one of his 10 outs. A real Al special that one.

I owe you all $1. Thanks for staking me with that $1 in one of the tournaments mentioned above.

Sets, trips and shocks

Which is kind of a back handed reference to “Eats, shoots and leaves”. I originally learned that joke in a rather ruder version concerning either a quokka or a kiwi (depending on whether it was being told by an Australian, or a ... um ... kiwi) to which the punchline was “Eats, roots, shoots and leaves.” And you can do your own web searches to sort that one out!

But on to today's main topic. I feel perhaps that I'm being an academic pedant here -- no, I know that I'm being an academic pedant here, but I think that thedistinction between sets and trips is both sensible and useful. The latest, otherwise exemplary blogger, who has offended in this regard is none other than the Hammer Player himself.

So what is this supposed distinction?

• Set: Three cards of the same rank, two hidden in hand, and one on the board.


• Trips: Three cards of the same rank, one hidden in hand, and two exposed on the board.

And why is it useful? Well mainly because the two situations often play very differently. A set is more hidden and less vulnerable since the board need not be paired, and if the board does pair it gives you a boat or DQB. But sometimes, especially with big sets like aces, it's actually harder to make money from them -- people are scared of a board with one ace, being worried about top pair, but somehow less scared of one with two. There's some justification for this in probability of course, at least without further information.

However, as Dorothy Hayden Truscott is reported to have said (about bridge, and before the advent of online play) “One twitch of an opponent's eyebrows is worth two degrees in mathematics.”