The police are at the door (RWC IV)

And they're asking questions about my failure to post concerning the All Blacks/Portugal game. Well, as expected it was pretty much a non event, the All Blacks 108-13 win representing roughly an expected score (some local optimists had been talking about 150 or 200 but realistically that was never going to happen). To their credit, Portugal put in a pretty good 15 to 20 minutes in each half, before exhaustion set in and the AB's scored at will.

Just watched Scotland beat Romania 42-0. A fairly workmanlike but not entirely convincing performance. Especially if, as expected, Scotland rest some of their top players against the AB's, their match this weekend may not have much to recommend it.

Ah, it's not the police after all, it's my taxi. I'm off to the North Island for 10 days of bridge. Probably no updates at this end over that period.

How not to play aces (3)

An exhibit from yours truly for a change.

I'm deal A♠A♥ in the big blind. UTG limps, and a poster checks. The SB folds. I always raise, generally pot, in this position. But, the UTG limper was a habitual limp-folder, and the poster was an incredibly tight player. So I elected to check.


When the flop came 4♦4♣J♦ I didn't want to bet because I was worried that both players would assume a big blind special with a four in my hand. So I checked again, and it was checked around.

Things didn't get much better on the turn, which was the 2♦. Finally, I decided I needed to bet, and bet the minimum $0.25 which UTG called.

The river brought the Q♣. I bet the minimum again, and now UTG put in a minimum raise. Knowing what I'd see, I called. Sure enough he showed Q♦T♦ for the flush.

I'm so embarrassed.

Swing low, sweet chariot (RWC III)

England's rugby chariot must be riding low indeed after an inept performance by the current world cup holders resulted in a 36-0 drubbing by South Africa. In fact, it wouldn't be surprising to see them miss the knock out phase of the competition as they are by no means a lock to beat Samoa.

Fundamental, schmundamental

Possibly the most over-hyped theoretical principle in poker is Sklansky's "Fundamental Theorem". All it really says is: "Poker is a zero sum game". What makes it worse is that it says it in a way that makes it easy to misinterpret. Now that's not directly Sklansky's fault (except inasmuch as he maintains the incredibly arrogant position that clear expression is less important than good ideas) but it does mean that it's not uncommon to run across howlers like the following from Barry Tanenbaum:

...if you raise with a hand what your opponents are correct to call, and they do call, you lose ...

from which he then infers that the raise was incorrect.

That's just so wrong. It can be correct both for you to raise, and for your opponent to call. Here's a simple example. There's a $10 bill on the table. We're going to draw one card from a shuffled deck. If it's an Ace through seven I win, if not, you win. Obviously I have a 7/13 chance to win. The catch is that I can raise the stakes, putting an extra $20 into the pot. You either have to match this or fold.

Am I correct to bet? Certainly. If I don't bet, my expectation is 70/13. If I do bet and you fold, I win $10 and am better off. If I do bet and you call, I still win that $10 seven times in 13, and I win our $20 sidebet seven times in 13 at even money.

Are you correct to call? Let's start you out with a $20 bill in your wallet. If you fold it's still there. If you call, then seven times in 13 your wallet is empty, and six times in 13 it contains $50. Since 300/13 > 20, you're better off calling (unless that $20 is very very important to you!)

Sure this is a simplified situation, as opposed to the one Barry is considering (what to do on the button preflop if one or both of the blinds never fold to a preflop raise). His conclusion, that it may be correct to limp with some hands, is certainly defensible (if nothing else, it lends authority to subsequent continuation bets on hands that begin with a raise), but it has nothing to do with the fundamental theorem of poker.

Where there's muck there's brass

Or, just for a change, how not to play KK.

Two limps to the small blind who holds KK. He completes. I check my powerhouse 96 offsuit in the big blind. The flop comes 992, two suited. He checks. I bet 1/2 pot ($0.50) which clears out the limpers, and he calls. My worry about the flush draw goes away on the turn, which is a 6. Again he checks. I bet a little more than 1/3 pot ($0.75). Now he min raises.

Not sure what I should do here, but I min-reraise, trying to represent a poor overpair (but of course we know I was unlikely to have checked preflop with T's or better.) He seems to be getting the message and just calls. The river is an 8. He returns to his checkered ways and checks, I bet a little less than 1/2 pot, and he calls.

Not bad for a hand I would have laid down preflop to even a min raise.

Side note: I was listening to some of my "back issues" of the CBC radio Comedy Factory podcast (I've fallen behind on my radio listening, but the return of "Fighting Talk" reminded me to get going again) and they managed to slip into the dialog of a sketch:

"Oh Canada, you homely naive land."

Hmm ... perhaps you have to be a Canadian ...

Say it isn't so ...

I may actually be suffering from football overload. This weekend we have had:

• The opening of the rugby world cup (8 matches total)
  
• A significant round of matches in the domestic rugby union competition (7 matches)
  
• The first round of playoffs (four matches) in the National (that is Australian, with one NZ team) rugby league
• European qualification matches in "association football" (or just football, or soccer)
  
• The first round of playoffs (prior to the oxymoronically named "preliminary finals") in Garthmeister's favourite game, Aussie rules (two matches?)
• Oh yeah, there's that other game ... gridiron (I did actually watch some of the Colts/Saints)
  

And no, I haven't watched them all, but that's not entirely for lack of trying.

Too easy (RWC II)

All Blacks: 76
Italy: 14

I have a confession to make.

I watched this game on tape delay. There are a lot of things I'll do that start at 2345, well some things, well perhaps a few things. But, it turns out that watching a game which was always due to be a blow out in favour of the All Blacks isn't one of them.

The worrying thing is that Italy are the second or third best team in New Zealand's pool, so it looks like the All Blacks won't get any sort of a reasonable test until the quarter finals. However, that said, they put out a pretty well disciplined performance, only getting a bit care free and sloppy late in the second half.

Row, row, row

One of these boats comes from the perspective of the figurehead, the other one from the other head ...

UTG+1 I get 8♥8♣ and limp. A player in MP and the blinds come along for the ride. The flop is a lovely Q♥8♠2♥. The SB checks and the BB leads for $0.25 into the $1 pot. I raise to $1, which folds out the other two players, but the BB calls. The turn is the 2♣

"Oh please please please have a two" think I.

It seems that my prayer has been heard as he leads for just less than the pot. I call. The river is the A♥

"Oh please please please have A2" think I.

Another near pot sized bet comes out, and I reraise him all in. Sure enough, A♣2♠. Glad to have the gods smiling at me for a change.

In the other hand, I'm in the big blind with J♦2♠. I get to see a free flop with just one MP player and the BB. The flop of J♥J♠9♦ looks pretty good to me. To my surprise, the SB leads with a pot sized ($0.75) bet. I call, and the other player folds. I'm not sure I care a great deal for the turn which is the 10♠. However, the BB leads with a probish looking $0.50 so I raise to $2.00. He min-reraises to $3.50 which now worries me a bit (KQ?). However, I'm getting 5:1 on my call at this point and can hardly do less. My boat finally arrives on the river (how appropriate) which is the 2♦. He leads for $3 into the $9.25 pot, and though I'm well aware I could be losing to JT or J9 I reraise an additional $6 to put him all in (I have him well covered of course). He calls, and shows 9♥9♣.

Ruby World Cup I

Blogging from New Zealand as I do, I am actually under a legal obligation to cover the Rugby World Cup in detail, regardless of the notional subject of this blog. So, here we go:

The Rugby World Cup kicked off today (I should further mention at this point that part of the obligation requires me to use cliches/hackneyed phrases wherever possible) with the traditional cringe inducing opening ceremony. Fortunately, as this began at 0600 local time I only caught the last few minutes of it prior to the first game of the tournament.

That game pitted the hosts, France, against Argentina. Ever since Argentina scrapped their policy of not selecting players based overseas they have been improving steadily. The French have been picked by some as second favourites for the tournament, but are famously consistent only in their inconsistency.

It was the Mr Hyde version of the French team that turned up today, with an error ridden performance, lacking entirely in the offensive flair for which they are famous. To be fair, the Argentinians applied the pressure with constant high kicks, and determined defense. Final score: 17-12 to Argentina, in an entertaining match even if it wasn't of the highest quality.

That puts the pressure on my friends from Ireland who play in the same group. With only two from the group to qualify, France will certainly be determined not to lose another game. New Zealand kick off (can I use that again?) their campaign tonight (local time) against Italy in what should be a walk in the park.

For a more professional description, featuring yet more of your favourite sporting cliches, see the New Zealand Herald.

Drip, drip, drip

That's the sound that has been coming from my bathroom faucet for some time, so today I thought the time had come to repair a leak. Unfortunately, I didn't get very far with it. In common with most Kiwi houses, there's only a single cut off valve for the water -- a tap in a hole in the sidewalk, where the main pipe comes in to the house. And evidently it hasn't been used for a while. In fact, I was quite unable to fully turn off the water. I could manage to restrict the flow so that if I ran the tap in the tub, then I didn't get water at the sink, but I wasn't very happy with that as an assurance if I started to take the hardware apart. So, no joy on that front.

But, when I sat down to play a bit of poker, I was happy to find out that apparently without any conscious intervention on my part, at least one leak had been plugged. In the past, in card dead sessions I had a habit of losing much more than I should have. On the rare occasion that I actually did get into a pot, I tended to be unwilling to fold. Today, despite cards that had my "voluntarily put in pot" percentage in the single figures at four different tables, I managed to avoid that.

And, just to make sure that I appreciated the lesson, the poker gods rewarded me with two hands that were enough to lock in a moderate win for the session. The first "a draw too far":

PokerStars Pot-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: HTML)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with Q♣, A♥.
UTG calls $0.25, Hero raises to $1, 2 folds, MP3 calls $1, 3 folds, BB calls $0.75, UTG folds.

Flop: ($3.35) Q♥, 8♣, 5♣ (3 players)

BB checks, Hero bets $2, MP3 folds, BB calls $2.

Turn: ($7.35) 6♠ (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $5, BB calls $5.

River: ($17.35) A♦(2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $5, BB calls $5.

Final Pot: $27.35

Villain had A♣9♣ so I guess the river made me some money. But if he thought he was getting any implied odds from me if another club hit, he would have been surprised.

And the second was a classic set under set cooler for my opponent. I'd limped from early position with pocket 8's. The flop came A♠8♠3♣. The blinds checked and I put in a half pot sized bet. The button called, as did one of the blinds. At this point, and based on some reads, I actually thought the button was on a decent ace and thought he had me outkicked (or, remembering back, a spade draw). The Q♣ on the turn looked good to me as I hoped for a two pair hand now. Still, I had to make the spade draw pay for the privilege of seeing the river (especially as the pot was still three handed). So, I led $1.50 into the $2.50 pot. A min raise from the button was good news, and cleaned out the blind. I reraised to $7 and he just called. The 9♥ on the river was a problem only if he had precisely T♠J♠ (no other JT was consistent with the previous action), so I led fairly confidently with $5 into the $16.50 pot.

Had I known about the set of three's, I might have tried a bit more. But, showing some discipline, he just called.

If only the other leak could have been so easily taken care of ...

I wasn't finished, 99

The hand from yesterday's sit and go that stuck in my mind was the 99 hand from the button, three handed. I had a few comments about it from Fuel, and I also posted a thread on 2+2 which (amazingly) generated some sensible replies. So, here it is again, together with some summaries and further thoughts.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t200 (3 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Hero (t3600)
SB (t4853)
BB (t6547)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9♦9♠.
Hero raises to t600, SB calls t500, 1 fold.

Flop: (t1400) K♣, 6♣, 5♠ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t800, SB raises to t1600, Hero ???

As played

This is a difficult decision -- a simple call is out of the question, so it's fold or all in. Fold leaves 2200 chips behind, and of course all in has me playing for my tournament life (I can assume that the SB won't fold getting better than 3:1 odds). For geeks like me, at this stage of a sit and go you need to think about more than just chip equity -- you need to use the independent chip model. Fortunately (after the fact) there are handy calculators for this, and, using one of them, I can work out that we'd need to be winning the pot about 35% of the time for a shove at this point to be a break even move. As all my estimates are going to be rough ones, I'll take that as a guideline, possibly padding it a bit on the high side since I feel I have a bit of a skill advantage over my opponents (always!) so there's a premium on staying in the game.

If I'm already behind at this point (to a king, a pair tens or higher, or a set of 6's or 5's) I'm basically drawing to 2 outs and have 8% equity in the pot. If I'm ahead, my opponent likely has at least six outs (two overcards or underpair plus overcard), and possibly many more (flush draws, combo draws etc.) So my equity, if ahead, is something between 50% and 75%. Call it 70% for optimism.

Basically that suggests that I need to believe that I'm ahead a little less than 1/2 the time (if my estimates are correct and I'm ahead 1/2 the time then I have a 39% chance of winning).

As we know, at the time I folded, and I'm relatively happy with that. I don't think that my opponent's raise in this game, and under these circumstances, is a bluff or semi-bluff (or underpair) half the time.

Reflection

The main difficulty in the decision is caused by the fact that the bet sizing to this point left me in an all in or fold situation. There are two ways around this: bet more (i.e. everything) preflop; or bet less.

Shoving certainly merits consideration. If I assume a relatively tight calling range (true at the table I believe) of something like TT+, AJ+, KQ then I'll only get called about 1 time in 14 by either blind individually, so 1 time in 7 collectively. When I'm called my equity against that range is 33%. So, 18 times in 21 I'll gain 300 chips, 1 time in 21 gain a bit more than 3600, and 2 times in 21 lose 3600. The gains certainly outnumber the losses but ICM might have a bit to say about this (in fact it seems to suggest that pushing is about the same as folding preflop). But, the wider we make the opponents' calling range the happier we are.

What about the other approach? Limp and give up on all but the best of flops (containing a 9 or three low cards)? That seems a bit peculiar but perhaps worth considering if only to vary our play.

Finally, I think the winner is a smaller preflop raise. For the sake of argument let's look at a raise to 400 i.e. 2BB and suppose the hand plays out similarly to the original example. The SB calls, then checks. I bet 500 into a 900 pot and he raises to 1000. The pot is now 2400, and I still have 2700 behind. A push at this point actually leaves me in effectively the same position we discussed originally but probably has some fairly significant fold equity -- including folding a number of hands that beat us at present (e.g. TT, JJ, KQ, possibly KJ). Furthermore, some drawing hands that would have been able to call correctly originally are now not getting the correct odds.

Conclusion

In short handed games with an intermediate stack (15-20 BB) and a decent, but not premium hand on the button, consider a smaller than normal preflop raise.

It's been a while

Since I played any sit and go's, and of course a bit longer since I won one. But tonight, the $25 tables all looked extremely rocky (last night of a holiday weekend in N. America -- I guess everyone had had enough, or gone to bed early for work tomorrow). So, with the Antique Roadshow in the background, I fired up a couple of the one table $3.40 turbos on Stars.

Exited in a coinflip in 7th place on one (my tens against AK). But, the other went relatively well...

Did my usual lurk between 1000 and 1300 chips as the first few players busted out, and then as the blinds went up entered pushbot mode. At 100/200 with four players remaining I was down to 800 chips in the BB with Q8s, and the SB just completed. I thought about pushing, but chose to see a flop -- AKQ rainbow, with one card in my suit. The SB led for 200 into the pot and I decided that an ace would certainly have raised preflop, and a king might have. Besides, a king would have a hard time calling a push here. On top of all that was the quite reasonable possibility that his bet was a simple bluff. So I pushed, and collected a bit of breathing room when he folded. I actually think that this was the critical hand for me

Next hand I had KQo in the SB, folded to me. I pushed (7BB) of course and picked up another 200 bringing me to 1600. And then, the very next hand, with perfect timing, I got AA on the button. I pushed again, and sure enough one of the blinds decided that I'd really lost it and called -- to be fair, he was the big stack and had KQo so not such a ridiculous call.

We burst the bubble when someone else tried to play AA -- SB completed, the BB with AA raised to 3BB, SB called. On a 762 flop the SB pushed, and the BB called. Well ahead of 87o, he unfortunately lost to the runner runner straight.

Next button I had 99. But, with 18BB to my name now, too much to push. I put in a standard raise, called by the SB. The flop was a two tone K65. He checked, I bet 800 into the 1400 pot and he min-raised. I folded. I'm not sure about this bet -- perhaps I should just try to get out of the hand cheaply. Down to 11BB, and definitely the smallest of the three stacks.

I got lucky when one big stack took his two paired 63o up against a slow played set of aces belonging to the other big stack. He tilt pushed on the next hand with K5 offsuit (actually with 8BB on the button, not at all a ridiculous push), and I found 99 in the BB and cleaned him up.

So, I entered heads up play at a 7:2 chip disadvantage. After 35 hands the positions were reversed. After 40 they were back to the original. Fought back to even, then back down again at 48 hands. On this hand my opponent raised (as he had been doing very aggressively) from the SB for about half my stack. With K6 offsuit, I felt I had a marginal overpush and did. He called with 87 suited, hit a 7 on the flop, but I was rescued by a king on the river. From there I hit a few flop and pushed up to a 4:1 chip advantage.

After 56 hands, an eternity in a turbo sit and go, it was all over, as I took the final hand in a coinflip with 55 vs Q7.