Al's return

Some people would be worried if they saw a tiny pair of goat's hooves begin to emerge from the USB port of their computers. I, however, had been there before so it didn't worry me too much.

“Oooph”, said Al, the Turing demon, “I'm going to have to lay off the brimstone for a while, that was a bit of a squeeze.”

“Shh! I'm trying to figure out how to stack this guy.” Unusually, I was playing some cash NLHE, rather than an MTT or SNG. I'd flopped bottom set in position against what I suspected was top two pair, and the turn had been a brick.

Al turned and looked at the screen. “Don't bother, he's going to hit his boat on the river.”

I paused to think. Certainly, Al was privy to the inner workings of the random number generators at all the world's poker sites. Indeed he'd claimed that there was some vast demonic conspiracy to inflict perfectly timed bad beats against most online poker players in order to drive us into the arms of the “big guy” as he euphemistically referred to his lord and master. But then again, he was a demon. As the time ticked down on the screen I decided, on the balance of probabilities, to take his word for it, and just checked. Sure enough, the river paired one of the overcards on the board, and I confidently folded to a pot sized bet. Since it looked like Al had something to say, I sat out. But then I began to reflect on the phrase “balance of probabilities”. What did that mean exactly in relationship to a being whose very raison d'être was to manipulate those same probabilities? This pleasant reverie was interrupted by a loud cough from Al.

“Look, all three of your readers know that you're an academic right? And we all know that, academics love to engage in prolonged and detailed introspection on the smallest of issues.” Then he began to shout, “But is there any reason to subject the rest of us to it? It's a given, ok, let's move on.”

“You've changed your look -- what was wrong with Elvis Costello?”

“Oh nothing really, just felt like a change. At first I thought I might try this, but I decided that was a bit too weird”, I shuddered in agreement, “So I decided to stick with a musician. Besides, this way I don't have to change the monogram on my briefs.”

“Good choice, but uh ..., you don't actually wear briefs. Anyhow, what's up?”

Al looked a bit embarrassed. “Well, it's the big guy's birthday, and I drew the short pitchfork, so I'm responsible for getting his gift. I thought you might be able to help.”

“Sure, but hang on, Halloween is the big guy's birthday?”

“Well, I guess that anthropomorphic embodiments of aspects of the collective unconscious, or whatever he says he is these days, don't actually have birthdays as such. But he likes presents as much as the next anthropomorphic etc. and Halloween seemed an appropriate day for it. So, what's your plan?”

“Oh, shouldn't be a problem. After all, GIMF!”

“GIMF?”

“Google Is My Friend!”

Suddenly, Al looked very uncomfortable, “Umm ..., you couldn't use MSN search, or Yahoo or something could you?”

“Why?”

“Well it's just, ...., oh never mind, but make it fast.” He still looked very awkward and ill at ease. I filed that away into the “things to be introspective about later” folder.

“Ok, what about something from here? It's just the kind of gear that he could wear for his next trip to the WSOP. He could pretend to be an online qualifier, if there were any.”

“That looks good -- I'll take care of the ordering. Thanks a lot -- here have this token.” He tossed me a small disc.

“A token? Brilliant, I'll be able to play in the big game this weekend.”

“It's not that kind of a token you idiot. It's a ‘call one card’ token. You can use it once, to ask for a specific card on the flop, turn, or river. But you need to use it up pretty soon -- they self destruct after about a week if you don't use them, and the smell is something awful.”

“Why do they do that?”

“Some accounting thing. We have to carry them on the books as a liability and the bean counters get worried if there are too many of them floating around. Anyway, thanks for your help, see you around.” He crawled back through the USB port into my laptop.

A ‘call one card’ token eh? That could be useful, very useful indeed. But first, some preparation would be required.

A few hands

Recently, I've played a few of the $4.40, 180 person SNG's on PokerStars. Despite my notable lack of success to this point, I quite like the format and the fields. I've always managed to outlast at least 3/4 of the field, generally with at least an average stack. Making it to the money has been more problematic, but I can't help but feel that the notional overlay provided by the number of poor players in the field has to make the exercise one of positive expectation. One kvetch is related purely to the fact that I'm rather challenged by the time zone situation -- so the wait for one of these to fill often exceeds my patience. I wonder if a format more like the "mini" tournaments at UltimateBet, which have a fixed starting time with a cap on the field size, might not also be worth considering. I know that Stars offers some of these too, but they're really quite infrequent (and the field size is usually larger).

Here are a few hands from my most recent effort. Comments and suggestions are, as always, very welcome.

(15/30) I (2400) have A♥K♣ in the cutoff. One limper (1800) in front, and I raise to 120. Amazingly, both blinds fold, and the limper calls. Flop is 3♣4♥8♥ and the erstwhile limper bets 180 at a 285 pot. I find these positions awkward, with fold, call and raise all plausible actions. This time I raise to 360. Limper calls. The turn is the 10♦, checked to me. I bet 600 into the pot (now 1000) and take it down. It feels a bit pushy to be committing 1/2 my stack on nothing but a one card draw to top pair top kicker, but I guess that's what position and a tight-aggressive image are for.


(15/30) I (2950) have Q♠J♠ UTG+2 and open limp (something I do very rarely indeed). The cutoff (1200) and button (2400) also limp, the SB (2700) raises to 90, BB folds, I call, cut off folds, button calls. Three of us see the flop of 4♦7♠Q♦ the SB checks, I bet 200 at the pot of 330, the button calls and the SB folds. Turn is a rather unpleasant 9♦. I check, button bets 90 at a 630 pot. I contemplate raising this, but just call. River is the 2♦ I check, button bets 240 into the 920 pot, I fold. He shows 8♥7♥ so I folded the best hand. Weak/tight? I think my one chance to take down this hand would have been a medium sized check-raise on the turn (say to 360). If that's called, I can just give it up.

(25/50) I (2500) have K♥J♦ in the big blind. Hijack (2600) and cutoff (1250) limp, SB folds, and I check. Flop is 5♥9♦J♥. I bet 125 at the 175 pot, hijack folds, and cutoff goes all in. I'll leave this one as a "you decide".

(100/200/25) I (4900) have 8♥7♥ in the hijack and open with a raise to 600. To my dismay, both blinds (2600, 7500) call. Flop is 2♦7♠A♣. Both blinds check (I probably would have folded to any bet). This seems to be my one chance to win this hand so I bet 1200 into a 2000 pot, and take it down. I'm left wondering what they called with.

Too bad

Unbelievable ...

Doug and the Slugs (authors of the first ever hammer sighting), that most underappreciated of 1980's(ish) Canadian bands, have their song Too bad as the theme on one of the filler bits on MLB's international World Series coverage. These are the bits they use because no one not living in N. America would put up with the number or length of commercials that they broadcast there.

I'm guessing that this isn't part of the N. American coverage, though I'd love to hear otherwise, but actually the lyrics are quite appropriate for baseball (you'll have to imagine the video)

Too bad that you had to get caught,
That's not like you to lose face.
So sad that you're not as smart,
As you thought you were in the first place.

Save equus asinus

Much has been written lately of the endangered status of equusasinus ludus, subspecies pokerati in view of certain legislative activities in the USA. I'm happy to report that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of its imminent extinction are greatly exaggerated. In fact, last night I found an abundance of these cuddly animals in one of their traditional habitats, the micro limit SNG. You didn't think I'd given those games up did you? Well, I had, sort of, but I still can't resist signing in to one or two while watching sports highlights packages. A few examples are perhaps in order.

Top pair is gold At 15/30 blinds, After four limps , Alfalfa(1360) completes in the SB holding Q♣4♣. The flop is Q♥9♥2♣. Alfalfa bets 60 into the 150 pot. Not an unreasonable move, trying to take the pot down now with top pair no kicker, but perhaps a slightly larger bet was called for? The BB and three limpers fold but the remaining limper calls. The turn is the J♣. Alfalfa tosses another 60 chips into the pot with an air of gay abandon. Now the limper reraises to 660 (pot was 330). Alfalfa calls, and our tentative identification is confirmed. Further evidence is provided on the river, 7♠. Alfalfa checks, the limper goes all in, and Alfalfa calls again, losing to a six card straight (T♦8♣).

No, it's actually platinum At 15/30 blinds, Beauregard (J♠10♦) and Cassie (Q♠J♥) have limped into a pot with (of course) four others. Pot is 195 (the SB having failed, inexplicably, to complete). Flop is 3♠3♥J♦. Beauregard is all in for 230 more, which Cassie happily doubles. The button now goes all in for double the current bet again, and Cassie calls. Trip 3's anyone?

Diamonds even At 25/50 blinds, Dakota (A♣7♥) completes the small blind in a four way pot. On a flop of A♠4♠4♦ he (she?) bets 250 into a 200 pot. At this point identification is uncertain. Two of the limpers call. On the 3♠ turn, Dakota goes all in for another 900 chips. Identification confirmed.

I'd like to report that I killed these games, but being card dead is not a pleasant state when you know that every bet will be called. So, who's the donkey now?

Donkey names courtesy of 2,002 Donkey Names. Who knew?

A rush of blood...aka Iakaris said it first...aka shameless sucking up.

No poker yesterday as I recovered from the excitement of railbirding the Big Game, and no visits from amiable demons to report on either (but I have a feeling that we haven't seen the last of Al). So, what better to do than to review the two tournaments from Monday (Sunday for those of you living on the less fortunate side of the date line) in which I reached the final table?

About what you'd expect to find I suppose. I won more than my fair share of coinflips, and made one (but only one -- I'm proud of that) big suckout in each tournament. I seemed to cope better with the ebb and flow of my chips than has been my wont. In both tournaments I was below 10BB on at least three different occasions (and that's where the lucky coinflips came in handy). I was sucked out upon on a fair number of occasions myself, but that's to be expected when you're generally putting your chips in with the best of it.

The most spectacular one of that ilk was a hand where I called with K♥J♥ in position over a min raise from UTG and a call from MP. I flopped the broadway straight (and forgot for the moment about Dawn's rule 45), and UTG went all in for about half of the current pot. The caller called again, and I min raised trying to make it look like I was aiming for a cheap isolation move. The caller called, and on a jack on the turn, the caller, just for a change of pace, checked (though I guess that "check" is really "call" if there's no bet in front of you), I raised to put the caller all in, and the caller called. Now we have:

Board: A♥Q♣T♣J♠
UTG: A♠A♣
Caller: A♦10♥
Yours truly: K♥J♥

I make a small profit if I win the side pot but not the main pot, and a big profit if I win both. How can I lose both? A ten on the river, which duly arrived.

Now we come to the point of this post, an exemplar of the issue that Iakaris addressed in his illness of mind post, which struck a chord with so many of us. Let me repeat the critical words:

In order to make the leap I want to, the most important hurdle before me is not improving my mathematical analysis or reads. It is to look deep within myself for those impulses that are driven by ego and neutralize them.

We're six handed at the final table and have been for quite some time. Blinds are at 15K/30K and the approximate chip counts reading clockwise from me UTG(500K) are 100K, 200K, 250K, (SB)1,000K, (BB) 250K. I have K♦J♥. The first impulse strikes. I'm impatient about the time it's taking for the next elimination. I know I've never raised UTG at the final table, and rarely in the entire event. I throw down 90K chips (still the standard raise, though often it seems when the blinds get big the standard raise goes down to about 2BB). Folds to the BB who goes all in.

And now, the ego really takes control. I'm getting a shade better than 2:1 odds from the pot. I know I've got a lousy hand for my UTG raise, but I just can't see past the odds and "my" chips that are already in the middle. I call. BB has A♠K♥, neither of us improves, and I'm down to 250K myself. Not very many hands later, we are down to 5 handed. I'm in the BB with 210K, the SB min raises, and with A♣9♥ I go all in. Good read, good play as the SB calls with K♠10♠. But I don't win this 55:45 hand, and precisely because of the chips I spewed earlier, this is enough to knock me out. And just as a side thought, perhaps the SB wouldn't have called my reraise here had he not seen the KJ earlier.

What should I have been thinking? The UTG raise is loose, but not ridiculous. It's a mistake I think, but probably a small one. The big error is the call. Remember, when I made the raise I was trying to capitalise on a tight UTG (and fairly tight generally) table image. So, with what hands is the BB, who is one of the middle stacks going all in? The loosest reasonable range I can think of is pairs from 9 upwards, AJ or better, and KQ. What's my equity against this range? As usual PokerStove to the rescue -- it's 30:70. So that's below the pot odds, and though there's some extra value in the fact that a win will knock a player out the call is still dead wrong -- because I don't believe in this range.

Not the big game

I didn't play in the big game yesterday, though I did stop by the final table briefly to ensure that no chip stealing shenanigans á la WSOP were taking place. Katitude, Iakaris and others have written all about it. Katitude even manages to work in an Elvis Costello reference, which must be a good thing.

Why didn't I play? I guess the main reason was that my current bankroll at FullTilt stands at $0. Even with repeated assurances of the triviality of assembling the buy in through token peep sex I just never managed to summon up the energy to move some virtual dollars around. Besides, I had smaller fish to fry.

I've alluded in the past to a group of micro buy in tournaments at PokerStars, which I regularly play in. This group of four tournaments starts most days (except early in the week) at 21:47, 22:02, 22:07, and 22:17. For yesterday's group (for those concerned about my employment, it was a public holiday in NZ -- start time 14:47), the buy ins totalled $6.70. Return on investment? Oh, just a shade over 8100%. That's $552. So maybe now I'll replenish my FullTilt bankroll.

Obviously, these enormous low buy in MTT's are the biggest of donkaments. I'm not going to reveal my great strategic insights for dealing with them -- because, as Samuel Johnson apparently never said or wrote:

It contains much that is good and original. Unfortunately, that which is good is not original, and that which is original is not good.

Besides, on the off chance that there was something of value in it, what would be the benefit to me of telling you? But I can't resist passing on one observation: there is always someone who doesn't believe that you have the nuts, even if your betting pattern suggests in no uncertain terms that you do.

What's a backdoor flush draw worth?

Back to a bit of math to recover from all the excitement of Al's visit.

Just how much is a backdoor flush draw worth? Let's assume that you're reasonably certain that if it comes in you're good (say you have the ace of the flush suit).

Postflop waiting for a backdoor flush, there are 10 cards of the relevant suit out. So the number of turn/river combinations that give you the flush is 10 × 9 = 90.

Let's compare that to a single out. If you have 1 out card, then you can get it on the turn or river in 2 × 46 = 92 ways (choose whether you get it first or second, then choose the other card). So that suggests that a backdoor flush draw is pretty much the same as a one outer. Let's try to confirm this with PokerStove.

For the flush computation, we'll give one hand A♦J♦ and the other A♣J♥ on a flop of 2♦8♥10♠. The first hand is obviously freerolling for the backdoor flush against a chopped pot here, so the difference in equity must equal the chance of a backdoor flush.

And ... drumroll please ... PokerSove says: 52.27% to 47.73%, so a 4.54% edge.

For the one outer, let's look at A♣A♥ against 6♣6♥ on a board of A♦6♦6♠. The aces here have 4.44% equity.

Hang on, our calculations suggested that the backdoor draw should be slightly less likely than a one outer. What's up?

Ahh, sneaky, in the one outer computation, we didn't assume that our opponent could not hold the out and nor in the backdoor computation did we assume that our opponent had no cards in the key suit. Making these assumptions still leaves us 90 turn/river combinations for the backdoor flush, but reduces the one outer to 88 combinations.

But the main moral is:

If you intend to see both the turn and the river (e.g. calling an all in bet, or calling a bet all in), count one extra out for a backdoor flush draw that you believe will be good.

Turing's demon (VII)

Al has assured me that we have reached the denouement of this little tale. Of course, trusting the word of a demon is a rather problematic issue. However, we shall see.

“Well you know, there's a certain appeal about having seven episodes here. Though some beings seem to need a rest by this point.”

Can we just get on with it?

Al sighed and continued, a shade reluctantly it seemed, “Right, so the short version of the story is you got your chips in with the best of it, and then lost. But, it's the side conditions that made this hand pretty much a perfect stormfor the scheme. You'd been in the tournament for long enough that you had a fair bit of emotional capital invested. Not actual capital of course -- you're such a cheapskate, but for our purposes emotional capital will do just as well, perhaps even better. Then to top it off, you made a whole sequence of good decisions, starting with the decision to complete from the small blind, and culminating in calling the all in bet. You were pretty proud of yourself weren't you?”

“I suppose so.”

“Well we all know what pride goeth before. Anyhow, the upshot is that I added a little packet to the upstream connection telling the Al (or rather one of them) on duty at UltimateBet to make sure that you came out on the wrong side of this one. The finishing touch was that you were left with a small but not ridiculously tiny stack of chips and had to sit there mulling over your ill fortune until they were gone too. One of my better efforts in your case.”

He continued, “The key to the whole scheme is 70:30 hands, or hands in that general range. They're common enough that we can influence a lot of hands without triggering too big a statistical anomaly. To be careful, we actually let you win a few extra, typically when the stakes aren't too big. And psychologically, you're conditioned to believe that you should be winning these -- you feel robbed when you don't. By contrast, losing to some stupid two outer provokes irritation for a moment but, precisely because it is such a ridiculous outcome, it doesn't really eat in to your soul the way repeatedly being knocked out of tournaments, or stacked in cash games does on the right side of 70:30 hands.”

“But couldn't these influences be picked up by suitable data mining?”

“Hey, we've got statisticians on staff too. They're not all incorruptible. We've arranged things so that to make a convincing argument you'd need access to a significant fraction of the database from one of the larger poker sites, and you'd need to ask exactly the right questions. The only people who have the access are employees. And, for obvious reasons, they have no incentive to be asking those questions.”

“So that's it? 70:30 hands?”

“Pretty much. Oh, there are a few other twists. You probably lose big coin flip hands a bit more often on the river than you should, and when you get aces in the big blind, everyone folds rather more frequently than you'd like. That sort of thing. Well, time for me to get back to work I suppose. Thanks for the Jameson's.”

With that, he walked over to the computer and began to stuff himself feet first through the USB port again. He paused and looked up “That's an odd placement -- I thought ... oh very clever. It'll help, but not as much as you think.”

I grabbed at his torso. “Not so fast -- why should I let you back in?”

“Would you rather I made your life a living hell from out here?” he replied, rather less amiably than before. “Good point.” I said and released him.

Just before his head disappeared he paused, looked thoughtful, and said “Say, remember we speculated about Joe Hachem being the big guy? Didn't Joe say after he won the WSOP that he'd spent a lot of time playing online poker to get used to bad beats? That's exactly the sort of reverse propaganda that the big guy likes to use. And what about all those horrible and terribly public bad beats he took at the WSOP in 2006? Just the big guy's sort of humour. I think maybe we gave up on that idea too quickly.” And with that he was gone.

And it seems that, at last, our narrative has come to an end.

Turing's demon (VI)

Apparently, on line bad beats are the devil’s work. Al may be about to explain.

“I can see how it would be feasible for you to manipulate bad beats online. After all it would just be a matter of tweaking the random number generators at critical moments. But it’s so obvious, the whole ‘online poker is rigged’ thing is very much the province of the tin foil hat brigade.”

“Hang on,” said Al, “I didn’t say that we laid down a bad beat on every hand did I? That would be much too obvious. The other side may be subtle, but the big guy is not too far behind. Funny you should mention tin foil hats though. They actually work, but not in the way that people think. It’s not signals going in that they block, but the ones coming out, which we can normally read. Of course, those of you who actually wear them are so predictable that we can do without the signals, so it’s a bit of a non event in any case. Look, rather than explaining the whole scheme directly, it would probably help if we went back over the hand that led to your summoning me here.”

“I guess that does make sense.”

“So why don’t you tell me all about it – just summarise the situation and the hand first time around. We’ll go into it in more detail when you’ve finished.” A look of consternation crossed Al’s features “I can’t believe that I’m actually asking someone to tell me a bad beat story. Anyhow, do it in narrative form – no hand histories.” He ducked his head furtively and continued sotto voce “Felicia doesn’t like it, and even the big guy’s a bit scared of her.”

“I remember it like it was only yesterday.”. “Wait a minute,” said Al, “it was only about an hour ago – I know we’ve been messing around with the timeline in this narrative, but do try to concentrate or else we’re not going to get anywhere. Now, carry on.”

“We were down to about 90 players from something around 250 starters. Blinds were 50/100 and my stack was at about 2600 chips. I was in the small blind with 5♦3♦. Fairly normally for the table there were three limpers and I decided to complete in the small blind. The big blind checked, and the flop was T♦5♠3♠. With bottom two pair I bet the pot (500). The big blind, whom I covered by about 500 chips went all in and the limpers folded. I called, he had K♦T♠ and hit runner runner spades to cripple me.”

“Very nicely summarised and obviously you’ve had a chance to calm down a bit about it. Let’s start at the beginning of the hand: what was your position in the tournament and what were you thinking about?”

“Well, obviously I only had about half the average stack. I still had more than 20 big blinds so there was room to play poker, but I knew that I needed to build some chips soon. I’ve been trying to loosen up a bit with speculative hands, which can hit the flop hard, so getting 9:1 odds and with little fear of a raise from the big blind (the table had been quite passive), decided to take a punt with 5♦3♦.”

“Excellent, excellent. Now what about post flop?”

“Of course I was delighted to have hit bottom two pair. But the two spades on the board were a bit of a worry. Besides, bottom two pair isn’t as great a hand as people think. I decided to lead out big to kill the odds for anyone on a flush draw. Also, I’ve seen people take a big bet from one of the blinds on a relatively dry flop as a bluff, and make moves over it with some weak hands. I would have been happy to collect the chips on the table which represented almost 20% of my original stack.”

“Good, good. And when the big blind moved all in?”

“I thought for a while about what he might have. I didn’t fancy a set of tens, or fives or threes for that matter, since most people at this level would slow play those.”

“Yes, tardiludus is a very common affliction in the games you play. Can be a very painful condition when there are flush draws about.”

“Two pair seemed possible, but unlikely – very few card combinations left. I suspected that he probably had a good ten, either with a flush or a backdoor flush draw, though I’m not sure he would have worried about that. The call seemed pretty clear cut.”

“And when you saw his cards?”

“Well obviously, I was delighted. He did have the big ten, and only a backdoor draw to the flush.”

“And what were your odds at that point? I’m sure you know, or have worked them out.”

“About 70:30. Though it feels like only 5 outs for my opponent (kings and tens), the runner runner flush, or runner runner pair possibilities make more of a difference than people realise.”

“By all that's unholy, do you actually think about those things? Never mind, now we’ll get into my side of this whole affair.”

Not so fast, time for another break.

Turing's demon (V)

Al, the Turing demon, has told us that demonic influences were largely responsible for the rapid progression of comptuting. He has also indicated that Beelzebub himself is a frequent participant at the WSOP.

“Anyhow,” Al continued, “the big guy came back from the 2003 WSOP in quite an excited state, even for him. I think Chris Moneymaker’s win convinced him that the online poker boom was here to stay. He called together a convocation of demons and addressed us thusly:”

At this, Al’s form changed into a pretty good (if miniature) version of the classical Satanic image. His voice acquired rather disturbing harmonics in several octaves.

Gather ye round oh my minions and hear the great news that your master brings you. My devious and complex plans for the automatic computing devices used by puny mortals have finally come to fruition and now is the time for us to strike our greatest blows against the forces of light that have been seen in many years.

I sniffed, and noted a faint smell of sulfur in the air. “Hey, no smoking remember!”

Al returned to his customary form. “Sorry about that. Say, do you mind if I just paraphrase? The big guy can be a bit turgid in full Supreme Evil Beingmode and doing the voice plays hell with my vocal cords.” With a blush, he added “Though I did win the Beelzy three millennia running for my impressions of him.” He paused and looked up “Glad to see the product placements are back. That one’s a bit obscure though isn’t it? You’d have to have read the book already to spot the reference.”

Well, think of it as a compliment, I’ve been enthralled. What do you think of the new hoverlinks? Cooleh?

“Yes, yes, very nice. ‘Cool’? What decadewere you born in? Though, to be fair, as pop culture expressions go, it’s had remarkable longevity. I think the current spelling though is ‘kewl’ and even that may be a bit passé. Now, where was I?”

“Paraphrasing the big guy’s speech.”

“So anyway, ‘The love of money is the root of all evil’ and there’s nothing that gets more in the way of love for you humans than fickleness. And gambling, is the quintessence of that fickleness – money comes and money goes. It’s anything but faithful, and ever so frustrating. When gambling took place in casinos, or back rooms, or on the street, and things went poorly, you always had a convenient scapegoat. And certainly, there were enough people dealing seconds, or colluding, that we had a hard time exerting effective influence. But online, that’s a whole different cauldron of newts’ eyes.”

“You don’t mean?” I gasped dramatically.

“That’s right, go ahead, say it.”

“Bad beats are the devil’s work?” I was stunned, and then overcome with doubt “But …”

“Sorry mate, it’ll have to wait. I see the narrator looking meaningfully at his watch again. Probably wants his breakfast or something.”

To be continued.

Turing's demon (IV)

We return to Al the Turing demon’s narrative. It seems like he might just about be ready to tell us what any of this has to do with online poker.

“Hey narrator, don’t get snarky – who’s telling this story? Me? Or you?”

Both of us actually.

“Exactly! And without me, you’re reduced to anecdotes about hitting one outers on the river, and calculations of the odds of there being three sets and three different straights on a single flop. So you’re going to let me tell this my way right?”

I suppose so.

“Darn tootin’. Or rather ‘Damn straight.’ Forgot for a moment there that we’re not allowed to use euphemisms – the big guy doesn’t approve of his name, or related concepts, not being taken in vain.” Al settled down into his seat again and looked pointedly at his glass which returned to its normal size, empty. As I went to get another Jameson’s he asked “No chance of a smoke is there? No, sorry forget I asked, don’t know what I was thinking. About as likely as flopping quad aces holding 2♣3♣.”

The glass did its shrinking thing again and Al took a sip “Nectar of the devils” he sighed contentedly. “Right, I was going to tell you what all this has to do with online poker. You’ll have to be patient, there’s still a bit more background to fill in.”

“Why am I not surprised?”

“Look, you’re even less necessary than the narrator – in fact if it weren’t for all your interruptions we’d have reached this point an episode or two ago. So just try to be quiet ok?”

“Ok, but you try to stick to some sort of reasonably linear narrative.”

“Fine, care to sign a contract to that effect? Never mind, never mind, just kidding. Right then, as I’m sure you know, the big guy has always had a special fondness for gamblers. So every year he takes a working vacation at the WSOP. After all, six of the traditional seven deadly sins are practically requirements for poker professionals or wannabe’s, and seven of the ten commandments are routinely broken at any poker tournament. He gets to unwind, nudge a few people down the wrong path here and there, and it’s all tax deductible.”

“Tax deductible?”

“Nothing is certain except death and taxes right? Well, one out of two anyhow. So, the big guy goes to the WSOP. Apparently he even plays some of the events – usually the lower buy in ones, he’s a bit publicity shy in a funny way. Though when Joe Hachem won, we all speculated a bit – he looked very familiar. But we decided the big guy would never be an Australian – something not quite right there. Jamie Gold on the other hand …”

Sorry, but we’re going to have to wrap it up again. I’ve got a $1.10 buy in turbo MTT starting in a few minutes.

“What? Oh all right, but next time give me a bit more warning,”

To be continued (of course).

Homage to Fuel55

A short break from our interminable discussion with Al, in order to pay homage to Fuel55:

Low buy in MTT (I know, that part's not very believable). In the money but nowhere near the final table yet.

Blinds are 600/1200 with a 75 ante.

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Three folds to HighlandKuh(28000) with [Td Th].
HighlandKuh raises 2800 to 4000.
Folds to Victim(13000) in the BB who calls 2800.

*** FLOP *** [Ts Jc 2c]
Victim checks.
HighlandKuh checks. (Normally I'd bet to make the flush draw pay, but I decide to take a chance that he's not on a flush draw, which he might have bet out with in any case, and get a bet on the turn. I'm willing to accept some risk to try and build a really big pot here.)

*** TURN *** [Ts Jc 2c] [Kc]
Victim: bets 9000 and is all-in
mchllbrt: calls 9000 (Bingo!)

Cards are shown:
Victim has [Js Jh]
HighlandKuh has [Td Th]
HighlandKuh said "Oops".

*** RIVER *** [Ts Jc 2c Kc] [Tc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Victim: shows [Js Jh] (a full house, Jacks full of Tens)
HighlandKuh: shows [Td Th] (four of a kind, Tens)

NPC said, "wow"
HighlandKuh collected lots from pot
HighlandKuh said, "Oh"

Turing's demon (III)

Previously, we were introduced to Al, a Turing demon who talked lots of rubbish about thermodynamics. It seems he might actually be ready to begin his story properly. Oh yes, we’re back to quotation marks.

Al didn’t look very pleased about the formatting changes, but once he saw that I’d settled down attentively, he resumed his narrative.

“So the big guy was paying pretty close attention to the world in the 1940’s, and when he spotted the developments that would lead to stored program computers it made him pretty excited. He figured out that this might be the way for us to move from the, literal, sweatshops of engine cylinders to the comfy chairs in the boardroom.”

“I don’t understand.” I interjected lamely to create a paragraph break.

“Look, there are two major influences that tend to pull you lot over to our side: power and frustration. What aspect of modern life provides more of both than any other?” Al continued Socratically.

“Well, the computer of course. Now power I understand, ‘power tends to corrupt …’ and all that, but frustration?”

“Think about the trials of Job. It’s a powerful story – and precisely because your usual reaction to frustration, pain and suffering, is to lose faith in the other side. The big guy made sure that no impediments were placed in the way of computer development. In fact, some of us helped out a bit: just the right amount of contamination in the semiconductors; random snatches of conversation, which led to insights, the usual sort of thing.”

I was still puzzled, “I can see the power part being a fairly inevitable consequence of the computing revolution, but what about the frustration? I know computers are frustrating, but what did you have to do with that?”

“I expected more of you. Do you think those annoying user interfaces just happened? And bugs – do you really think that they’re just signs of careless programming? And what about all those files, which you know you saved, couldn’t find, had to recreate, and then found months later in some obscure folder? It’s all work for us my friend, but at least it’s in a pleasantly warm environment, often with a fan blowing.”

“But that file stuff, which used to be a real pain I grant, is now pretty much a thing of the past with utilities like Google desktop.”

“Well you can’t expect the other side never to fight back can you?”

“Fine, but that still doesn’t go very far to explaining why a fit of pique on my part in response to a moderately bad beat at online poker should have summoned you. Or why you should have a PokerStars account for that matter. What’s with that?”

“Ah, well that’s where the story starts to get a bit strange, even to me. The big guy claims it was all part of a long term plan, but we know that he’s not called the father of lies for nothing.”

And there we must, once again, pause.

Turing's demon (II)

In the previous episode, a demon who looks like Elvis Costello (to allow for gratuitous product placements) was summoned out of Michael's laptop. It's time for him to begin explaining himself.

“Glad to see we have a narrator” said the demon, “adds a certain tone to the proceedings. Elvis Costello eh? I was expecting David Byrne,or perhaps Peter Gabriel,but I guess that's your choice. Now, I was going to tell you about myself.”

“Before you begin,” I interrupted “this doesn't require me to sign any contracts in blood, or sell my soul or anything like that does it? And what do you mean ‘my choice’?”

The demon looked offended “That is so medieval. We haven't been purchasing souls much since WWII, indeed since the Industrial Revolution. The big guy decided that there were better ways to manage business. We make the occasional exception of course, as I'm sure you're aware. No, I'm just bored and in the mood to tell a story. Anyhow, your psychic field establishes my appearance, which I could change of course.” and as he said this his face and body flowed through a number of different and mostly terrifying shapes, before settling back into the rather geeky look, which he had begun with. “My name is alan23612-7654 and I'm a Turing demon. Most people just call me Al.”

“A Turing demon? And what's with all the numbers in your name?”

“Well it's my PokerStars name as well you see. Now look, I know you're an academic, and you're going to keep interrupting -- so all these quotation marks are going to get pretty tiresome. How be I talk like this, and you talk in italics?”

Sounds good to me. What about the narrator?

He can sort out his own formatting. Besides, in a well written narrative we won't be hearing much from him. So you've heard of Maxwell's demon right?

Sure, a thought experiment, which gives an apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics. He sits between two containers of gas at equal temperature and allows low energy molecules to escape from one to the other, and high energy molecules to travel in the other direction. So, the temperatures become unequal, thus violating the second law. But they've worked out that it's not really a problem -- something about the increase in entropy required to clear his memory or something.

A simple yes would have sufficed, but go to the head of the class. As for not existing, try and tell that to my father. Now the creature you've described is properly called Maxwell's angel -- he's a helpful bugger. Maxwell's demon, or rather demons, choose to work the other way -- they accelerate the increase in entropy. We've had them on duty since the invention of the steam engine, and more recently in the internal combustion engine. They make sure that things never run as efficiently as they should. Now it's a horrible hot job, and though it can't hurt our cause to make the big oil companies richer, and help you lot out with destroying the environment, it's never been much fun. So the big guy started looking for alternatives.

But hang on, aren't the conditions in an engine cylinder comparable to those in, you know, Hell? Isn't it kind of like home? And why do you actually have to be there -- I mean, aren't your powers limitless?

No, no, omnipotent is the other guy. We're just honest toilers. Well, toilers anyway. As to the conditions, the old home fires have never been that popular either. The big guy has a theory that they're actually some sort of psycho-temporal reflection of the environment that most of us have been working in for the past 200 years. Apparently, some of your authorshave come up with some similar ideas. But we're getting sidetracked, and not, I suspect, for the last time. Look can I have a drink? Jameson's if you've got it -- just pour it in a normal glass.

Sure. I went to the kitchen and poured out two Jameson's with a bit of water. When I placed the glass beside him, it quickly shrank to an appropriate size. I noticed that he appeared a bit perplexed. What's wrong?

Seems like our author, or narrator, or whatever missed a chance for a product placement there. Probably has views -- it's ok to drink, but not to advertise it. All right, are you sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.

And there we must, once again, leave our tale. We definitely have views about the appropriate length for a blog entry. Join us again tomorrow, or thereabouts, for further riveting revelations.

Turing's demon

Midway through a multi table tournament, my opponent had just hit runner runner flush to take out my bottom two pair, having put the money all in post flop with top pair and an overcard.

#$^&*((#!!!

A thumb high demon materialised beside my laptop, looked around briefly, and then started trying to squeeze his way through the USB port into the computer. It wasn’t a pretty sight, and it actually looked like he might succeed. I inverted a handy glass over top of him and went back to trying to build my now miniscule stack of chips into something useful.

Three minutes or so later, I had plenty of free time. I briefly contemplated playing a Sit and Go or three, but decided that I should make some effort to figure out just what was going on. I certainly suspected that my anti virus software was probably not up to dealing with demons.


Aside from his size, there were certain other non-demonic aspects to his appearance. In fact, he looked rather like a young Elvis Costello (from the My Aim Is True or This Year's Model covers) -- which is to say, thick glasses, and an air of general geekiness, but with a certain sparkle to the eyes. Goat's hooves and horns provided a few of the traditional demonic elements.

He seemed to be trying to talk to me, but of course I couldn't hear anything. I made a little pen out of some handy books, and lifted the glass.

"So, what are you doing here?" I asked.

"You're the one who performed the summoning ritual." he replied resentfully.

"What?"

"#$^&*((#!!! -- that's the magical incantation. We've had problems with it before. If you don't want to be bothered by demons every time you're in a cursing mood, just change a syllable or two, or we can put you on our 'no summoning' register."

"Ok, but why were you trying to get into my computer?"

"I saw that the summons was a mistake and was just trying to go home."

"You live in my computer? What's with that?"

His reply was traditional: "It's a long story. Can you get me something to sit on?"

(to be continued)

A gentle warning

Perhaps those players who feel obligated to pass comment after hitting runner runner should read:

Internet user admits 'web-rage'

Relevant excerpts below:

An internet user has been found guilty of what police said was Britain's first "web-rage" attack.

Paul Gibbons, 47, tracked down John Jones using details obtained online after the pair exchanged insults in an internet chatroom, a court heard.

He travelled 70 miles to Mr Jones' home in Clacton, Essex, and beat him up with a pickaxe handle in December 2005.

Is loose the new lose?

Did I miss a pronouncement from the English language equivalent of the Académie Française or something?

Random sightings:
    moving all in with this hand will on average loose you …;
    its still a loosing play…

I've sent a name off to the apostrophe police on the second one as well.

No doubt there's some in joke here that has passed me by (or should that be pased me by?)

Freeroll Foolery

UltimateBet runs some early morning (Eastern Time) freerolls, which drop nicely into mid evening playing time for me. Don't know why I bothered with that link -- just to show I can do it legally I guess.

I often sign up just to fool around, while watching television (Premier League and ICC Champions Trophy highlights last night -- not often I can feel sorry for Chelsea, but losing two keepers in one match is just horrible!) and over the past few months I've gradually refined a strategy for playing them. And of course, I will now share it with you:

Michael's Freeroll Rules

• You may complete the small blind.
• You may limp from the button or cutoff if there are at least two limpers ahead of you.
• You may fold or check.
• You may bet pot or all in whichever is smaller.

Note in particular that (except for completing the small blind, and late position limps) you may not simply call a bet, unless it will put you all in.

Obviously, it's not, and is not intended to be, an optimal strategy (there's no way to slow play for example, except via a pot sized or all in check raise). It is easy to play (especially on UB where there's a button for pot sized bet -- which is what spawned the strategy).

Its main virtue though is as an exercise in discipline. You are forced to be definite about how you will play a hand -- you can't be lured into pots by a series of bets, which are small enough to call.

Last night, in a fairly typical display, I went out in 60th place having decided to take a stand with pocket 8's. I must say, my opponent was pretty gutsy -- as one of the chip leaders, he put half his stack at risk on TT after a flop of Q44 and a turn of 2 against a completed small blind (QJ, Q9, A4 etc. were certainly all possibilities). I could easily have gotten away from it (checking the turn rather than re-potting) but it was nearing bedtime, and I'm enjoying John le Carre's Absolute Friends.

Give it a try -- you have nothing to lose but your entry fee.

Gosh

Just moved to a new table in an MTT and observed the following:

Blinds at 50/100. Three limpers and the blinds are in preflop which comes out T98 rainbow. Suddenly, the big blind bets pot, two of the limpers go all in, and so does the big blind. All three had significantly better than average stacks. What on earth is going on?

Set over set over set.

First time I can remember seeing that one.

Lows in Omaha 8

Fuel55 posted recently about studying some odds in preparing for an Omaha 8 tournament. One of the numbers posted was that the odds of a low draw appearing on the board is 62%. This was computed as follows:

The chance of an Omaha 8 board even making a low is only 62%. The math behind this is fairly simple. Only 32 of 52 cards contribute to a low hand (4 x 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). The probability of any one card being low-worthy is 32/52. The second low card can't pair first (28/51) and the third low card can't pair the first or the second low card (24/50). The 3 low cards can come in positions 123 on the board or 124 or 125 or 134 or 135 or 145 or 234 or 235 or 245 or 345 (10 combinations). So the net chance of the board making a low is 32/52 * 28/51 * 24/50 * 10 = 62 %.

That's pretty close to a correct answer, but there's a slight error in the computation. The reason is that boards with more than one low combination are counted once for each low combination they contain. In other words, 62% is actually an overestimate.

It's a bit involved, and almost certainly tedious to compute the actual probability, but since I'm in the middle of the most ridiculous piece of card deadness I have ever had the misfortune to experience in my MTT's at the moment, I thought I might as well put the long pauses between folds to some use.

Breaking news No sooner do I type that then I get a free look at the flop with the hammer from the BB. I flop bottom two pair with about a million limpers in the pot. Check, and by the time it comes back to me there's a nice amount of cash in the pot. I push and it all holds. Up to over 3000 chips from 800.

Back to our story.

Let's use lower case letters to denote small cards (different letters meaning non pairs), and a capital X to mean any big card (we don't care if they pair). The following codes represent the types of board we're interested in: abcde, abcdd, abbcc, abccc, abcdX, abccX, abcXX. Now we'll count the number of boards of each type. It turns out to be a lot easier to do this if you don't worry about the order in which the cards appear (trust me, I'm a mathematician -- the calculations below may look bad but if you throw in order as well it gets worse). One piece of notation that I can't do without: is C(n,k), which indicates the number of way to choose k distinct elements from among n. For instance C(8,5) is the number of ways to choose 5 different small ranks, and of course the total number of possible boards is C(52, 5) = 2598960.

Long break here, I hit some hands and I'm too old and the wrong sex to multitask effectively. But now I'm back (99th of 672, a real kiss your sibling result). Did you miss me?

It's time to count the number of boards for each of the codes we defined above.

abcde We need to choose 5 ranks, and then choose one of four cards from each. That gives: C(8,5) × 4^5 = 57344.

abcdd Choose a rank for the pair (8), and two suits (6), choose the other three ranks C(7,3) and suits for those (4^3). That gives: 8 × 6 × C(7,3) × 4^3 = 107,520.

Those computations get old real fast, so let's just give the formulas and numbers for the rest. As we say in the math biz, leaving the details to the reader.

abbcc: C(8,2) × 6^2 × C(6,1) × 4 = 24,192
abccc: C(8,1) × 4 × C(7,2) × 4^2 = 10,752
abcdX: C(8,4) × 4^4 × 20 = 358,400
abccX: C(8,1) × 6 × C(7,2) × 4^2 = 322,560
abcXX: C(8,3) × 4^3 × C(20,2) = 680,960

All we need to do is to add these numbers up, and divide by the total number of boards. That gives:

1,561,728/2,598,960 = 0.6009

or as near 60% as who gives a.

Gosh, all that work to weed out that extra 2%. Ah well, at least 60% is easier to remember!

Warning from the mathematician general It is quite likely indeed that there is at least one minor error in the computations above.

Scenes from a Sit and Go

No, this is not a post about events in the smallest room. That's not my thing, and if it's yours, may I ask you to leave this blog now please. Anyhow, though this is not a post about events in the smallest room, that's where my game has seemed to be lately particularly in multi table turbo SNG's. So I decided to return to my roots, the single table non turbo variety. It isn't very exciting, but it has certainly been profitable. So without further ado, here are the promised scenes:

Note Parenthesized numbers after a player identification are stack counts. Sharp eyed readers will note that these don't always add up correctly -- I've rounded when it's immaterial (i.e. always.)

Our first casualty (BB = 30)
EP(1350) who hasn't made a raise in the first three orbits does so now (to 3BB). The BB(1300) with 9♣9♥ is the only caller. Fair enough. Flop is J♣7♦6♥. BB continuation bets 90 into the 195 pot. EP raises to 240. At this point I'd be folding in the BB -- but no, a raise to 600 follows. Smooth called by EP. Turn is the 8♥ and BB pushes his remaining chips into the pot, called by A♣A♥ (are we surprised? I think not.) None of BB's 10 outs materialize on the river and we're down to eight.

EP's only worry can be a flopped set -- but if he plans to call the push after the turn, then he should be getting all the money in on the flop. Or maybe he thought the BB would fold after committing 600 chips to the pot?

Shit happens (BB = 30)
I'm(1450) in the SB with A♥6♥. Two limpers in front so I complete. The flop is a glorious Q♥5♥4♥. Now I never slowplay, but decided that this just might, just maybe, be the right time for it. The first limper bets 150 into a 120 pot! The next limper, who covers me by 90 chips raises to 390! I smooth call. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, we lose the first limper. Turn is the K♣. I continue the slowplay, and the remaining player who has me covered by 90 chips pushes. I call of course. He has K♥7♥. Poor guy. Anyhow, he proves to be the best of my opponents and lasts to finish third (courtesy of only one slightly lucky triple up a few hands later). The early double up places me in very good position for the remainder of the SNG.

A lucky escape (BB = 50)
I'm(3100) in early position, and put in a slightly frisky (for me) raise to 3BB with 6♦6♥. My immediate neighbour(2100), whom I've already marked as a bit of a lunatic, calls, as does a LP player. BB the unlucky fellow from the last hand, pushes to 300. I call of course, and now my lunatic neighbour over pushes. The other caller folds. I suspect that I'm ahead, but since even lunatics get hands occasionally, I fold. BB has K♣Q♣. Lunatic has 8♠7♠(?) I'm cursing when the flop comes 8♥6♣2♣. Had lunatic just called I would have been in a position to extract some chips here. My curses turn to grins on a final board of: 8♥6♣2♣9♣10♠. At least the lunatic didn't win any chips even with his runner runner straight.

Two for the price of one (BB = 100)
Seven handed, in the BB(3400) I get 9♦9♠. EP(250) limps, and SB(1100) raises to 400. Since EP is already pot committed, that feels to me like an attempt to isolate with possibly a marginal hand. I raise to 1500, enough to put both opponents all in if they call. My hope is that EP will call, but SB will fold. That then gives me an essentially free play against EP's hand. However, EP with A♥Q♦ calls as does SB with K♣Q♥. I must not be playing tightly enough! Turns out I have 46% equity in the three way pot (having contributed less than a third of it, since I'm in the BB) and with one of SB's outs dead 55% equity in the side pot. All becomes more or less academic when the flop is three small including a nine. I can only lose to SB's runner runner flush, but that doesn't happen.

And then there were three (BB = 150)
Five handed, I'm UTG(4900) with 6♠2♠. Sorry, I fold. My lunatic neighbour(850) bets 450. I guess there's some rule that says the only allowed raises are 3BB. Button(3750) raises to 750. SB(2800) and BB(1150) both call. I like my decision not to get involved in this pot. Now the lunatic pushes for his remaining 80 chips over the raise, and everyone calls of course. Flop is A♣J♣8♠, SB pushes his remaining 1950 into the dry side pot, BB gets out with 400 chips left, and the button calls. SB has the royal flush draw (K♣Q♣), lunatic has the powerful A♠3♠ (to be fair, in his position I'd have raised -- or rather pushed preflop anyhow), and button has A♥Q♥. Turn and river are small red cards and we're all in the money. Of course, I've lost my chip lead!

Nothing more to see here
I take out the unlucky fellow from earlier, when in the BB I can call his all in raise for less than one full bet. My Q♠6♠ beats his A♦K♣. Two handed goes on a long time, but my opponent is far too passive and the routine is roughly: I build a 3-1 chip lead by taking small pots with aggression, call an all in with pot odds, lose. Repeat. Eventually, he got frustrated with all my apparent stealing and took a stand with J♣10♥ on a 7♠7♥5&clubs flop over a continuation bet from me. Poor timing -- I held 7♦5♥.

Apologies

I've been fiddling around with blogger a bit, trying to get a banner in place. Do you like it? I still don't have the width properly under control.

Anyhow ...

In the process I switched to blogger beta, which seems to have had the effect of reloading all my previous posts through the atom.xml feed. How do I know this? Well of course I subscribe to my own blog's feed! Is that narcissistic or what?

So apologies to anyone whose bloglines suddenly got the complete contents of this blog.

Good call/bad call?

Let's start with a question.

Multi table online (UB) low buy in tournament.
Blinds at 20/40.

You have a stack of 2550 and are in the big blind with A♣K♦. I'm going to force the early action up to a certain point.

Two limpers, the small blind (initial stack: 1650) raises to 90. You bet 300 more, the limpers fold, and the small blind bets pot (a little over 1000). The pot sized bet as opposed to an all in is probably just UltimateBet laziness, hitting a button rather than using a slider.

Do you call?

At the time I did - in fact I saved time by reraising all in, which was called of course, and then I duly lost to aces.

I thought I'd made a bad push, but had I really? Effectively there was 2070 in the pot when I reraised (I did not give myself any fold equity -- so SB's 1650, my 340, and the two limps of 40 each). My push is 1310. In percentage terms, using pure chip equity here which at this early stage of the tournament is probably appropriate, I need

1310/(1310 + 2070) = 38.7%

equity in the pot to break even.

The most conservative range I put my opponent on is AK, KK or AA and it turns out that even against this range I have 37% equity -- so a marginally bad call. But I don't really believe in that range in a low buy in online MTT. As well as the chance of a pure bluff, I think that pairs possibly as low as TT (but certainly QQ) are in the mix, as well as possibly AQ. Introducing AQ makes me a favourite (even if pairs are still just KK or AA) and even just adding QQ pushes me over the threshhold.

Sure I could, and perhaps should, save a bit of money by simply calling and folding if I whiff on the flop (but that gives up on AQ).

So perhaps not such a bad call.

On the other hand, the opponent who later called my all in with 53s (facing TT as it happened). Now that was a bad call. Of course we all know who went home ...

A brag post

We haven't had one of these for a while so it must be time. I played my usual little cluster of four micro buy in tourneys on Stars yesterday. I exited early in three of them owing to a combination of bad beats and rank stupidity, well ok, owing to rank stupidity (Memo to self: After making a continuation bet in position with middle pair on a king high board, do not call the all in check raise). The fourth though (which was actually the second one to start but anyhow) was another story.

Two incredible hands put me in position to place well. With the blinds at 300/600, I had 12,800 chips and picked up K♦K♣ UTG+2. UTG folded, but my right hand neigbour bet 2,450. I raised to 4,850, whereupon my left hand neighbour went all in for 16,000. The BB who was practically all in on the blinds anyhow came along, and so did my right hand neighbour who had me slightly outchipped.

Now it seemed to me that I actually did have a decision to make. If either of the big stacks had AA then obviously I should fold. But I decided to go along for the ride. Lefty had A♥K♥, righty had A♣Q♥ and the poor old BB had A♠6♥. I felt certain that the case ace was going to appear at some point, but for once all was well (though lefty had an OESD on the river -- at least I had two of those outs, and righty had one). So that took me up over 40,000 chips.

Just a few hands later I picked up A♠A♥ in the small blind. There were three limpers in front of me, so I raised to 3000. The BB (lefty from the KK hand) was already all in on the blinds, but all three limpers called. On a J♣9♦2♣ flop I bet 8000 into the pot of roughly 13000. That disposed of two of the limpers, but I got a min raise from the third (who'd begun with about 25K chips so now had only about 6K behind). At the time I figured this for some combination straight/flush draw, and I could in principle be behind. Regardless, I pushed, and was happy to find that he only had K♦J♦. Again my hand held up.

That put me over 70K chips and in a position to more or less cruise to the final table. These two hands though also highlight an aspect of this type of tournament which I've had trouble dealing with -- particularly in the latter stages with the blinds escalating, people raise far too rarely, but call far too frequently. This makes traditional big stack blind stealing difficult, as it's hard to carry out a steal. Some will fold to the second bet, but often they'll just stick around. So it seems that a far tighter approach is required, waiting for the opportunities to get the money in while way ahead.

I finished sixth -- an enormous luckbox at the final table who'd arrived with a monster stack and demonstrated that he was willing to call an all in with pretty much any two cards, decided (with some money already in the pot) to call my all in (for about a quarter of his stack) on 77. I had 88, but a 7 on the flop sent me home.

A limerick instead

Now who would think port security
Had something to do with our purity?
But when William Harrison Frist
Said, to online players, "desist"
A link 'tween the two was a surety.

A topical clerihew

Senator William Harrison Frist
With online poker was pissed
In order to protect our purity
He linked its ban to port security

And remember folks, according to an authoritative source:

The unbalanced and unpolished poetic meter and line length are parodic of the limerick

What goes around ...

Or, in honor of my bilingual secondary school, plus ça change .... John Brunner's powerful dystopian novel The sheep look up (1972) dealt largely with environmental degradation in a not too distant future. One side story in the book concerned a large company distributing what would today be called organic food. At some point, one of the characters works out that their sales are vastly greater than the amount of food that they could be growing under the healthy conditions they advertise. So today I see an article in the Guardian:

Supermarkets accused over organic foods

that documents an attempt by supermarkets to have organic standards lowered, so that the market can continue to grow.

You have to laugh

Because it certainly wouldn't help to do anything else. Playing my usual 0200EDT $5.50 tournament on UB, I've actually managed to amass some chips (2280) in the first half hour.

Blinds are still 15/30 and on the button I get the chance to limp with 10♦ 9♠.

The flop is a not entirely unpleasant 10♠ 9♥ 4♣.

And then it gets better! The SB who started with only 410, bets 180. A MP player who started with 1345, raises to 360. I bet pot, trying to look like I'm making an isolate/steal move (and not being unaverse to isolating anyway). SB, as expected, calls all in, and so does the MP player.

SB: 8♠ 7♥
MP: Q♥ 9♣ (??)

The turn? 6♣
There goes the main pot (1320).

The river? Q♣
And the side pot (1870) too.

For those who care about such things, when the money went in, my equity in the main pot was 58% and in the side pot 85% (a nice little symmetry there!)

Oh well, as I write I'm still hanging in but down to 515 - nope just doubled up with AQ v K4, despite the 4 (and no A or Q) on the flop.

Postscript Still at 1030 chips just after the first break, the blinds have moved to 50/100 and I find JJ in the big blind. An EP player (1805) limps, folded to a big stack in the SB who raises to 400. That feels like a steal, and I think I have to push anyway. The EP player calls all and, after some thought, the SB folds.

Obviously I'm worried about a limped KK or AA but EP turns over Q♥ J♥!
But there's a Q in the flop (and no J there, nor later.) IGHN.