Quote of the Day

Pauly summed up my thoughts on poker, accidentally I think, in his essay comparing poker and spanking it. Check it out.

"nothing beats playing live poker and nothing
is better than having sex with someone else"
-Pauly

-KD

Random Tourney Thoughts

Why doesn't anyone offer winner take all single table tourneys? Or do they? I would think this would be a hit online - it also simplifies tourney theory, as chip EV becomes a much closer approximation to prize money EV (if you don't know what I mean, think about this: when you win all the chips in a normal tourney, you don't win all the money - which is why a decision may be positive EV in terms of tourney chips, but negative EV in terms of real prize money.) You probably wouldn't find a lot of takers for $1k buy in winner take all events, but I'd guess that there'd be good demand for lower buy in winner take all formats...

How many entrants will there be in the WSOP 2006 main event? Is there a limit to the scalability of live tourney play? I wasn't at the WSOP this year, but I'm guessing it's not as simple as saying they could handle 12,000 entrants if they just did twice as many starting flights.

Will we ever see an online tourney like the WSOP main event? A $10,000 buy-in event with thousands of entrants? The online platform has many advantages that cater to tourney play: almost limitless scalability, elimination of dealer errors and slowness in managing pots, and many more hands per hour (and thus, per tournament level.)

Perhaps we will one day see the day where the WSOP main event has so many entrants that the first day or two has to be played online? where you could easily whittle 20,000 players down to 2,000 who could then play live in Las Vegas...

just thinking out loud...
-KD

Attack of the Clones

If you play online poker, you have to read this article on poker 'bots.

I'm not trying to make an "I told you so" post - my thoughts on online poker have already been well versed here. However, as I've said previously, I think automated poker Bots are a fascinating subject that any serious player should be interested in. In essence, I believe that the best players should strive to play like a robot: optimize bluff frequency, optimize call/raise/fold frequency, optimize hand selection, and most importantly: remove emotion from the equation.

Maybe one day, once all the human players have been eliminated from the online realm, we can have a World Championship of Artificial Intelligence Poker - that would be tremendous - you could run massive numbers of hands - and see which Bot performs best... Someone like Bill Gates should sponsor a contest like this: it would do wonders for the advancement of AI technology.

In the meantime, keep an eye on the developments on the automated 'bot front: the poker sites are fighting them, but why? Why don't they bar their best players too - players who are frequently using statistical software to do exactly what the Bots are doing? I would be willing to bet that the players who play the most hands on PartyPoker are the most savvy, and are largely using outside software programs to enhance their play - and why wouldn't they? I am not blaming them or judging them, but it's worth a little thought.

Okay, Okay... I don't want to get into this debate again... Yet... Let me leave it with a simple statement: as long as poker sites allow the use of Pokertracker, or any other software which analyzes hand histories, they should allow automated Bots. I am told that many PartyPoker users received emails advising them that the use of software such as Pokeredge (which displays opponents' statistics during play) will result in them being banned from the site. I believe that they should extend this ban to ALL software - but I think this is more of a theoretical/philosophical argument, because I don't think it can be realistically enforced: the computer geeks will always figure out a way to avoid the detection of their software.

Discuss...

-KD

F'n Golf?

Big Show and Tubbo 'da King came into town this weekend to celebrate MO's bachelor party. We played golf on Saturday out on Long Island. This was the first time I have ever been on a golf course. I was counting on my Boston putt-putt mini-golf upbringing to carry me on the greens, but there were no holes with windmills or multi-level tunnels or ramps at Plandome Country Club. Taking advantage of the 9-max per hole scoring system I implemented, I carded a 133 I think. Actually, that was pretty conservative - I even managed to bogey one hole! Boo-yah!

I didn't play any poker after Friday's session, but after I get caught up at work (returning from a week off - man... so hard to get back into the swing!), I may throw down a few short sessions mid-week. I'm sure I'll have some thoughts on the 3 CardPlayer back issues I'm still working through, and the latest ESPN WSOP broadcasts as always.

Three day weekend pending: Labor Day!

-KD

Self Examination

Settle down now... I'm not checking for nut-cancer - I'm trying to deduce why my results have been so dismal over my past 75 hours or so of live play.

I had another brutal session today (5 hours of live 1-2 NL) - finished down $446, but that's not the point - nothing worked. I don't feel like my timing is terrible - I think I'm adapting to the various table compositions well - maybe I'm making more of it than I should be. I need to take my lumps and move on. The fact that I blew another 5 hours inside on my day off on another beautiful day is what's really eating me!

I have been thinking more about the flopped flush I wrote about yesterday - because although I lost the hand, I was happy to see that I had "made the right decision" and got my money in as a 70/30% favorite. Hold on - not so fast: let's look deeper at this hand...

My goal is ultimately to play perfectly according to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker (the FT). The FT states that if you play your cards differently than you would have if you could see your opponents cards, you made a mistake. Similarly, if your opponent plays his cards differently than he would have if he could see your cards, he has made a mistake.

Now, in the hand where I flopped a flush, if I had known that my opponent had A-K with the K of hearts (for the nut re-draw) - I am almost certain that I still could have gotten him to put all of his chips in on the turn if a blank came: which means I'd be a 4-1 favorite instead of a 2-1 favorite, and I'd also save myself my stack when a heart spiked on the turn (which it did.)

So, according to the FT, I did not play the hand optimally. How about my opponent? If he knew my cards, he actually made the correct call - as he was getting the odds to call with his draw on the flop. This hand is actually a wicked deep hand when looking at it from the perspective of the FT. I certainly do not expect my opponent to fold his exact hand in this spot - and my opponent certainly does not expect me to turn over a flopped flush. It wasn't until much later, though, that I realized that calling (which I gave very little though to at the table - it was raise or fold for me) - was the perfect play.

On a different note - am I really the only one who noticed than in ESPN's premier of the WSOP coverage this week, in the opening montage, they had a little focus shot of a guy wearing The Shocker t-shirt (not the exact one in the link though), making The Shocker sign. I mean seriously...

until next time,
KD

The Gal behind the Guy

Q: How does a married guy with a full time job find time to play poker?

A: It is essential to have a supportive, understanding wife - and Ms. Dynamite is 'da bomb.

Ms. Dynamite, although she really doesn't like poker, is always supportive of my exploits, and will always listen to the stories of my eventful hands... And I don't mean "listen" like she sits and stares at me and nods while she's thinking about something else - I mean "listen" like she'll cut me off and say "you flopped an open-ended draw! You have eight outs!" I mean seriously - how proud can I be?

Unfortunately, I can't seem to convince Ms. Dynamite to take up the game of poker, but she still proved her prowess by liquidating me twice in $5 NL Freezeouts - using her feminine powers to tell when I'm being dishonest and sniff out every bluff I make.

So ladies - support your poker playing man - and Ms. Dynamite, I thank you.

-KD

Taunting the Bull

In the first of ESPN's WSOP broadcasts, they have a talented final table including Scott Fishman and Dave "DevilFish" Ulliot. There is an interesting hand early on where an early position player raises, Fishman smooth calls on the button with 8-8, and DevilFish comes over the top all-in (a slightly more than pot-sized raise) with K-K. DevilFish works hard for the call too, putting off some interesting weak tells, and Fishman is certain that his eights are best, but he eventually mucks.

Now here's the interesting part: DevilFish, for some reason, WANTS Fishman to think that he just made a bad laydown - that DevilFish put a move on him. Although DevilFish briefly states later that he had a good hand, he says it in a way that I thought Fishman interpreted to be patronizing. Why am I mentioning this? Fishman is a tough, smart, aggressive player - I don't know why DevilFish would want to put him in a vengeful mood - why he'd want Fishman gunning for him.

Fishman is not the type of player who would crumble and go on tilt from making this laydown of pocket eights incorrectly (although it was indeed correct) - but I get the feeling that he is the type of player who will aggressively look for an opportunity to stick one to Devilfish. Fishman gets his chance very shortly thereafter when everyone folds to him in the SB. He limps with a rag hand - 9-5 offsuit or something, and Devilfish makes a pot sized raise with the same hand. Fishman comes back over the top with a pot-sized re-raise and takes it down, showing his hand after DevilFish concedes and shows his own cards. Watching at home, it seemed to me that Fishman was saying "Don't fuck with me - I'm no tourist."

until next time,

KD

At Least it Was an Interesting Hand

After several days enjoying the perfect weather and sun, it was good to completely waste my day off today sitting inside in a thoroughly mediocre 1-2NL game. I played the following interesting hand early on:

6 handed. 3 folds to me on the button. Both blinds are new to me, I've seen them play for about 90 minutes, and they appear to be very tight/passive players.

I have 9-6 of hearts ($550 stack), and raise to $7. SB folds, and Steve in the BB ($400 stack) calls.

flop: A-T-3 all hearts.

Steve checks to me. I bet $10. Steve check-raises to $30. I think for 15 seconds and re-raise to $90. Steve makes it $190 relatively quickly, and it's back on me. He has about $280 left, I have him covered.

Wow. I'm thinking I'm just about a good enough player to lay this flush down - this guy hasn't played a hand yet in the time he's been here - I had better analyze the situation...

Steve's possible holdings:

A bigger flush? He's not the kind of guy who'd call with K-9 or even J-9 of hearts... I think K-Q, Q-J or K-J of hearts are his only possible bigger flush holdings - and even K-J may be unlikely...

Two pair: A-T is certainly possible - I think he'd probably play it this way...

A Set.: 3-3 or T-T are highly likely - he'd DEFINITELY play them this way... A-A is possible, but rather unlikely.

A bare heart: K-Q with the K of hearts? A-K with the K of hearts?

Now, the second part of the equation: what do I think that Steve thinks I have? I certainly do not think he puts me on a flopped flush. I've played thus far with confidence and aggression, and he may think I'm flexing my muscles by defending against his check-raise with my re-raise, but I certainly don't think he is on a pure bluff. He has to give me credit for some kind of hand - maybe a medium Ace, and he's telling me it's no good...

I think for a solid 4 minutes, and eventually come over the top all in. Steve calls for his last $280, and shows me A-K, with the K of hearts.

I was quite pleased that I'd made the right decision...Although I didn't really like the 4 of hearts on the turn which left me drawing dead.

net for the session: 5 hours, -$246

until next time,

KD

I Have Arrived!

well, the good news is that someone has noticed my blog... the bad news is that that "someone" is apparantly spammers, who are leaving fucked up spam links in my comments. So, please be careful before clicking on links in any of the comments.

-KD

A Little Light Reading

I just got back from 3 days of near perfect weather on The Cape. Suffice to say, I was the only one on the beach reading "Harrington On Hold'em Volume II." Go out and buy this book right away. I am at the point in my poker career where although I am far from an expert, I spend enough time thinking about the game and analyzing hands that I have very low expectations for any mass-market book that aims to teach me something new. Harrington, however, somehow manages to enlighten time and time again - this is probably the best poker book ever written (in my mind, far better than Volume I) - and I'm barely 1/2 way through! Well done Action Dan.

I was also pleased to come home to 3 back issues of Card Player - I had made the mistake of ignoring Card Player's renewal notice, and quickly found my subscription in arrears. After calling them, mentioning Kid Dynamite ("Do you know who the fuck I am?"), sweet talking the saleslady, and forking over $49,95 - I managed to get CardPlayer to send me the 3 issues I'd missed. (although they DID subtract those issues from the end of my new subscription... No freeroll)

Laughs abound on the first page of the "Scott Fishman" issue: Jeff Shulman has a piece on the growth of the Ladies Hold'Em event, and he identifies the winner, Jennifer Tilly, as an actress. Fine - that much we all know... but the movie he identifies her by? Get this... SEED OF CHUCKY! Wow... If your career is identified by "starring" in the Seed of Chucky, it's probably time to find a new career... Fortunately, it appears that Jennifer has serious potential as a professional poker player (note bitter sarcasm).

Also in the same issue, Roy Cooke wrote an article which is at least tangentially relevant to the piece I wrote about playing online. Roy isn't trying to make the same points, but there are some relevant observations in any case.

until next time,

KD

Philosophizing with Double-Double

Eric (aka E-dub, aka Double-Double) always has sound logic, and responded to my post on online play:

Here's my feedback:

overall pretty well written. I think you contradict yourself in a few places though. The most obvious example of this is when you make the following claims:

"I fear that online poker will eventually become an information war, where the best-armed shark will win - and skill becomes a secondary factor."

"Suppose I share my online account with a friend. That's the ultimate and most simple way to throw off the online poker information warlords... The statistics are rendered moot."

Which is it? If there's a simple way to throw off the data-miners, then the game should not turn into a purely mathematical exercise and players will be forced to watch the individual hands and figure out who they are playing.

I also disagree with some of the points you are making, although your arguments for them are well written. Fundamentally, this statement:

"THOUGHT and REASONING are being removed from the game and being replaced with pure data, math and statistics. Finesse is being replaced with force: data force."

You seem to argue that as players get more information, the game becomes purely a mathematical exercise, and this is bad. I would argue though that poker IS FUNDAMENTALLY a mathematical exercise, and that this trend online, far from being some kind of not-real-poker degenerate case, is simply revealing poker for what it truly is. As you get better at poker, you see it more and more as a solvable problem, just like blackjack, one where a good player must study game theory rather than starting hands.

Further, I would argue that this more mathematical and studied game takes more skill to beat, not less. The next level of skills are of a different kind than you may be used to in low limit B&M play, and perhaps you don't find them fun. Then again, what would you say if one of the fish in your game said to you "you know, in MY home game, everybody plays everything. I don't like this trend toward TIGHT play where guys are folding A5 UTG and stuff. It makes the game more mechanical. In MY game, we play everything, and that gets in more interesting spots. The PS 10/20 is not true poker." You'd laugh him out of the room.

The more information you have, the closer the game becomes to poker at
it's finest.

I replied:

I disagree, because:

the game you describe can be easily beaten by a computer... In fact, I still think it would be an AWESOME exercise if we coded it - nevermind the lack of interface-ability, I think you get my point. I do NOT think that is poker.. THAT is math... If a script could look up the proper mathematical play based on the statistics and hand histories, I don't see how you can claim that's TRUE POKER, or POKER AT ITS FINEST. Still, one of the most interesting things about the way YOU analyze hands is that you try to analyze them like a computer - which I'm trying to figure out how to relate to my claims... I guess the point is that you are doing exactly what I claim the data miners do: trying to make the mathematically pareto-efficient decision based on everything you know about your opponent's playing habits. I feel that when you are doing this live, with your OWN BRAIN, THAT is real poker... When you're doing it with Pokeredge, Pokertracker, or a spreadsheet, that's crap... I guess that's the essence of my point.

As for my point about sharing accounts contradicting myself, you are right - I guess it does - I was kinda using it to illustrate another potential pitfall - and I do NOT think that people are watching the play to try to figure out "who is playing" - the point is that its another form of cheating which skews data.

Why is Phil Ivey so good? He says flat out he's not a math guy... He's a people person... you are one of the first people I've ever heard try to claim that poker at its finest is pure math... Almost everyone says the opposite I think: the cards don't matter... It's a people game... I'd guess you'd counter this argument by saying "if you're playing against me your cards BETTER matter, because I, the Human Learning Computer, will take emotion and fear out of the equation." but people can't do that.. And THAT is the essence of poker.

until next time,

KD

To Be or Not To Be (Online)

It took me a long time to take the plunge into online poker. I wasn't one of the early adopters who lost a piece of a bankroll in a fly-by-night site that folded. I wasn't really worried about collusion, or getting paid if I won: I realized how much money these poker sites are making, and it's easy to conclude that they have nothing to gain by upsetting players.

I suppose the main reason I took so long to get online is that I was worried I'd become addicted - and I had access to live "brick & mortar" games which I enjoyed here in NYC.

Well, when I finally took the Party Poker Plunge about, oh, a year ago, it was all fun and games at first. I was playing 10-20 limit hold'em, and cleaned up my first several sessions. I went into work the next day wide eyed - raving about Party Poker - and thinking about nothing else other than getting home to play some more.

However, the honeymoon ended just as quickly. Maybe I was just lucky at first, or maybe the fish swam off to other ponds - but I rapidly found that the Party 10-20 game was neither easy nor fun. I armed myself with Pokertracker - but only as a tool to analyze my own play - not to track, or "data-mine" the habits of my opponents. Still, the novelty of online poker wore off quickly for me, and my account has been mostly dormant since.

When Party opened NoLimit tables, I jumped into the fray briefly, but again had little success - my problem was simple: I had absolutely no feel at all for the game. I was just clicking buttons - throwing little digital piles of chips around - but had no sense for where I stood in a hand, or what my opponents were thinking.

Now, I'll be the first to say that when I play live, I do NOT claim to have the ability to read my opponents' hands like some sort of x-ray vision possessing superhuman juggernaut. I cannot tell the cards my opponents have by the look in their eye, or the way they bet their chips. I do not always know if that shaking arm means a strong hand, or a bluff.... If their neck pulse is beating because of excitement - or fear.

What I DO get from playing live - from being able to actually LOOK at my opponent - is a feel, very quickly, for their abilities. The ability to quickly pre-judge my opponents - by their composure, betting habits, mannerisms, dress, chip handling - is a vital piece of my game. I do not propose to be able to deduce an opponent's skill and style by looking at him - far from it - but I find it much easier to associate a face - a voice - a body I've played with several times with his own playing style than I do associating a SCREEN NAME with a given playing style (and screen names can be changed).

Also, I simply enjoy the social aspect of poker. That's not to say I play for fun - I play to win, but I enjoy myself while I do it. I relish the patter at the table, and there's simply no substitute for raking in a pot... No substitute for "stacks and towers of checks I can't even see over"... No substitute for non-chalantly reaching over and toppling Vortex's pile of chips he has carefully stacked up high after cracking my aces. The Party Poker "Congratulations" balloons are wicked awesome - don't get me wrong - I keep them turned on - but they aren't the same.

These days, with even more technology, I view online poker as a science, not an art. Now, I don't want that to sound all retarded and cheesy, but my point is this: all you know about your opponent is their past betting patterns. You can, with the advent of various software packages, know this information very well. I fear that online poker will eventually become an information war, where the best-armed shark will win - and skill becomes a secondary factor. All you need to know is your opponents' stats.. Their VP$IP... Their preflop aggression... blah blah blah... The rest is math based on their given range of hands and the play becomes rote. There is absolutely no reason why a robot could not easily replace the human behind the keyboard. I'm not getting into conspiracy theories about Poker Bots - in fact, I find the topic amazingly interesting - I'd actually love the chance to help someone develop one - not to cheat the online games, but to prove a point, and to explore the boundaries of Artificial Intelligence as it applies to poker. I guess what I'm saying is that the THOUGHT and REASONING are being removed from the game and being replaced with pure data, math and statistics. Finesse is being replaced with force: data force.

In a live game, I also know only my opponents' betting history - but I have to REMEMBER it. I can't bring a journal or a spreadsheet to look at while I'm at the table. I REMEMBER that 6 months ago I check-called a pot-sized flop bet then check-raised a pot-sized turn bet and STILL got called when I value bet the river against this guy. I REMEMBER that this other guy got me to call a big river bet on a scary board - and I have to figure out what the same bet means this time - because I know that he knows that I remember.

Will I remember that what's-his-name checked the river to me last night with a monster hand on a board I couldn't possibly value bet last night? Well, I forgot his name already, but I made a note in Party's "player notes" window - the problem is, I may never see him again in the vast see of online players!

I guess it comes down to the simplicity of this: I want to know my opponent. I find it very hard to know my opponent online. A final philosophical point I've debated ad nauseum with several friends: I believe the One Player to a Hand Rule is universal to poker, be it online or otherwise. Others believe that it's ok for people to get advice on how to play a hand online, simply because there is no way to stop it. My objection to this line of thinking is that it violates what I feel is my RIGHT to know my opponent. How? Here's a simple example: Suppose I share my online account with a friend. That's the ultimate and most simple way to throw off the online poker information warlords: my friend and I may have different playing styles, thus our opponents can never know the style of StiffBonah - or whatever our team screen name is. The statistics are rendered moot. Throw a few more friends on the account to further randomize the play, and you've got a philosophically and ethically tricky problem for anyone willing to think through it.

There are certainly benefits to online poker: you get to play more hands, pay less rake, and play from the comfort of your own home. You have a vast selection of games to choose from, and you can easily switch tables if you don't like the one you land at. I do not doubt that there is still money to be made in online poker, but the style of the game is not for me. I don't want to have to be the player armed with the most data - I'll never have an edge there - there's always another guy more skilled at integrating modern technology into his online play... I want to be the player who can make the best decisions based on what I know - that's how I can have an edge, and that's the game I enjoy playing.

until next time,

KD

Going Global

I just had to give a shout out to Joshua Polenberg who has the distinction of being the first to link TO this blog. Joshua is a skilled actor and genuine nice guy who frequents my home game. Kudos to Joshua for having good taste and being able to recognize greatness when he sees it.

-KD

My Ali-like return to the Online Ring

First off, there are no bad beat stories here. I post these hands to illustrate, well, there's a point, just read on...

I hate online poker... i'll write about that in another post... Suffice it to say that i haven't played in so long that Party Poker failed when it tried to do the auto-update because my software was out of date... i had to re-download from scratch... that should have been a sign.

anyway, i sat in a $400 (2-4 blinds) NL table. I ground my stack up to over $550, playing as disciplined as i possibly could. I even mucked KQ (aka: THE NUTS!) preflop for a $15 raise. I know.. I'm insane (don't worry - they weren't suited).

The table was very tight. Preflop raises FREQUENTLY went uncontested... I began to wonder if i'd go on tilt if i got Aces, raised to $12, and everyone folded... I guess that would have been better than this:

UTG folds.

Dr_Incredibl calls

reesecal calls

KD is next with red Aces. I raise to $22.

folded around through Dr_Incredibl, but reesecal calls $18 more.

ok good! action!

Flop ** : [ Js, 8h, 4h ]

reesecal checks. KidDynamite4 bets (51) reesecal calls (51). hmmm... 95% of the time on Party i think this means i'm up against a flush draw.

Turn ** : [ Qc ] reesecal checks. KidDynamite4 bets (153) reesecal calls (153). Yep . flush draw for sure. Weak call with a flush draw, but hey - that's Party right?

Dealing River ** : [ 3c ] reesecal checks. KidDynamite4 checks.

$459 pot

now. I put Reesecal on a flush draw... or maybe a hand like A-J, K-J, hopefully not QJ... maybe JT.

in any case, i'm not betting this river.

What pisses me off is he has pocket 4's (4c 4s).

Hey: Reesecal: DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FUCK I AM? Seriously - do i LOOK fucking retarded? please don't insult me by checking that hand to me on the river you douchebag - if you'd bet, i, moron that i am, would have put you on a busted flush draw and called a significant wager.

Justice would have been if a heart had come on the turn, and he'd checked it to me. I would have slowed down, and checked behind him... Then, another miracle heart would have appeared on the rio to make me the runner-runner nuts.

muthafucka checking that hand to me on the river! how DARE you!

i played one other interesting hand:

fold fold fold fold, then Douchebag1 ($118 stack) raises to $9. one more fold, and I call on the button with Ac2c ($350 stack), starting to lose patience a bit perhaps. SB folds, BB (Douchebag2 $87 stack) calls

Flop ** : [ 3c, 5s, 5c ]

Douchebag1 bets $15. I smooth call the $15 with my overcard, nut flush draw, and gutshot draw. Douchebag2 moves all in for $78. Douchebag1 moves all in for $110 total. I call.

Turn ** : [ Kh ]

River ** : [ 2h ]

Douchebag1 had Qc Qd

Douchebag2 had 6d 4s and took down the main pot with a ridiculous river straight.

what's interesting here is that i'm a favorite on the flop:

from the twodimes.net analyzer:

QcQd: 37.7% EV

Ac2c: 44.4% EV

6c4s: 18.4% EV

until next time,

KD

Shana's WPT Replacement - Courtney Friel

I'm feeling good about my investment in WPT stock (WPTE). Apparently, this is the new hostess, trying to fill the void left by Shana Hyatt's desire to go breed, or whatever she's doing...

Courtney Friel!

way to go Vince!

-KD

non-event

I played an hour of live 1-2 NL today... I got to the club and it was just me, the Vortex, Gabe, and a dead clone of Adam Sandler.

Hammered a bunch of flops hard (two pair twice, trips twice), and after Sandler took off, I left up $260 after an hour.

At least it was good to get the P/L back in the PLUS column. I've been having a tough run over my last few sessions.

-KD

Conspiracy Theories

thanks to Greg for bringing the following to my attention:

Paul "DotCom" Phillips has written previously about ESPN embellishing televised hands to make them more dramatic. In his LiveJournal, he casts some serious doubts as to whether Lisandro actuallly had TT in the big laydown vs. Ivey i described below.

from Paul Phillips' site:

If you saw the ESPN circuit event from lake tahoe, on the first hand they show jeff lisandro raise with TT and ivey call with 99. The flop comes 444, lisandro bets and is called. The turn is a 5, lisandro bets, ivey goes all-in, and lisandro folds.

There is not one chance in a million lisandro held TT on that hand.

1) When lisandro looks at his hand only one card is visible, the ten of spades. When calling the action norman chad actually says "I had trouble seeing those. Did you see those?" Then they make some lame joke about laser surgery. It's almost like they're winking at the audience about the fabrication.

2) Lisandro was chip leader and had ivey covered by over 100K, and had already put a ton of money in the pot after the turn bet. Ivey didn't re-raise him preflop. Some guys might figure to have a bigger pair than TT given the action to that point but lisandro knows perfectly well that ivey is not that guy.

3) On a later hand lisandro seriously considers OVERCALLING in an unraised 3-way pot with J7 on a JT4 board, in a spot where he would have gone broke if he lost. On the flop pham checked, ivey bet, lisandro called, pham check-raised all-in, and ivey called! They give him quite a lot of camera time to agonize over the fold. The idea that he would fold TT on a 4445 board heads-up with phil ivey when he's the chip leader but then consider an overcall with top pair no kicker in a 3-way pot where it's win or go broke is about as likely as that he commutes to work in a yugo but would refuse a gift ferrari because he doesn't like the body styling.The way it played AT is the most likely holding, but it could have been T-anything where X is neither 4 nor T.

-KD

the NEW greatest hand ever

Last night, live 1-2NL in the City. I only had an hour to play, as it was the eve of Ms. Dynamite's birthday.

here's the situation:

I muck Q-4 offsuit UTG. two mucks behind me, then Larry ($500 stack) opens for $16. Billy ($1100), who's next, makes it $50 to go. 3 folds to the button (sitting on a monster stack: $2500), who cold calls $50. The SB, who has raised 80% of the pots since i sat down, calls $49 more!

flop: K-Q-T rainbow.

SB checks. Larry checks. Billy thinks for 90 seconds, and settles on a $300 bet into the $200 pot. Billy is a pretty tight, solid player. He's an eccentric old-school New Yorker who never fails to entertain me.

now, the button smooth calls the $300! SB folds, and Larry check-raises all-in for $495 total.

Billy quickly calls the additional $195, and the Button now tries to re-raise all-in. Billy instantly informs him that he cannot do so, as the house rule requires the previous action (Larry's raise) to be a FULL raise in order to re-open action.

The dealer and the players begin to debate what the rule actually is, when suddenly, Larry, who has since stood up, looks down and shouts "WHERE'S MY HAND?"

The Dealer, Brian, in the excitement, has MUCKED Larry's hand.

Larry is about to flip. Now, everyone knows that as soon as your hand hits the muck, it's dead - but Larry is a respected member of the club, and no one wants to see anyone get fucked like that, so, this being a club not a casino, they try to reach an acceptable resolution.

Brian says "Tell Ivan what your cards were," and Larry whispers "J-9" in Ivan's ear. Brian pulls the top two cards out of the muck, and slides them to Ivan, who peeks at them, and, with a look of dismay, shakes his head.

Now, at this point, i burst out laughing - it's absolutely absurd - like Ivan was somehow instantly appointed the Judge, and yet the cards Brian fished out are STILL not Larry's. PREPOSTEROUS!

Now, Eric, the floor manager comes over to try to solve the problem. In the meantime, neither Billy nor the Button seem the SLIGHTEST big concerned that Larry's hand may be fished out of the muck, and it quickly becomes apparant that Larry does not have the best hand!

Larry walks over to The Vortex and me, standing to the side now, and Vortex says "you just saved yourself $500". "No way - Larry's money is in the pot already - regardless of what happens to his hand," i tell him, and Larry knows this is the case. Vortex was not at the table, and didn't realize the action sequence. Larry, by now, also realizes that his hand is likely no good, and is taking the situation pretty well.

Eric rules that the hand, beyond the shadow of a doubt is dead. BUT, since this is a club where they strive for fairness (especially in a huge pot like this) - the players in the hand, Billy and the Button, say that they will take Larry's word, and allow Eric to search the muck for his hand - even though Larry couldn't name his suits!!!! They search the muck, and fish out a J-9 !(without telling the players in the hand what the cards were, although i think they probably heard amongst all the discussion.

but wait... it gets better.

they deal the turn: JACK, putting K-Q-T-J on the board, and making two spades.

Billy checks, and the Button quickly pushes all-in. Billy says "That's just great.. you have A-J. I call" and calls for $500 more.

Before the dealer can deal the river, Billy shouts "HOLD THE DECK!" and asks the button if he'd like to do business: run the river 3 times to reduce volatility, as this is a $2700 pot.

The button responds, "I don't see what could beat me," he has A-J of course, and is oblivious to the fact that Billy clearly has a set.

Billy, annoyed out of his mind that he knows he's losing this pot, and that the Button doesn't get it, makes some snide remark, but still doesn't turn his cards faceup.

The Button says "Oh, you could make a flush," !!!!! yeah! that's it! he had a backdoor flush draw! "Let's just run it once."

so Brian knocks the table, throws down a burn card and deals the river....

QUEEN! pairing the board!

Standing behind the table, i shout "BOO YAH!" as Billy slams his K-K face-up on the table, and spends 20 mintues raking in this $2700 pot.

Overall - a completely ridiculous sequence of events: from Larry flopping a straight but drawing dead to a chop, and having his hand mucked, THEN fished OUT of the muck...Ivan somehow being appointed arbiter... Billy realizing he was crushed, but getting odds to call anyway, and then the Button refusing to do business on the river and still having no clue what Billy's hand was... And then the dramatic ending: Billy being rescued by the paired board!

nice hand sir.

-KD

the former Greatest Hand Ever

From May 21st, 2005, live 1-2NL game in NYC.

BB: Jonathan: tight agressive guy who has rebounded from the felt to a $1500 stack, and, with the other big guns at the table gone (KD being the exception of course) - he's playing a more agressive game.

Middle position: Connie: old guy who has previously COLD CALLED a $65 raise wtih K-6 suited.... i'vewritten about him before.

to Connie's Left: Dewey Tomko Lookalike: this guy OWNS The Vortex - but he's thoroughly retarded (Vortex - i de-stacked him earlier when i check-called him all-in after spiking a set of 6's on the turn!)

then Kid Dynamite: sitting on a powerful $1450 stack

Cutoff: big irish looking dock worker type

Button: Elliot - also massively retarded, but also OWNS The Vortex. Elliot has so many fucking tells, I don't even know what to make of them or how to read him.

anyway, here's the legendary action: limp limp limp i find QJ offsuit and come along, Cutoff Limps, and Elliot makes it $10 to go (the game is 1-2 NL). Jon calls, Connie calls, Dewey Tomko calls, i call, Cutoff calls.

flop: T-T-T oooh... ahhh... checked around.

turn: TEN! wow... more oohs and ahhs..

Jon bets out $35 from the small blind. Without hesitation, Connie makes it $200 to go. He has about $500 left. Dewey and i fold, and the Cutoff shrugs and moves all-in for $200. Now it's on Elliot. HE GOES INTO THE TANK! huh? after 3 seconds, Jon says "Either you do or you don't" and calls the clock. i mean seriously - this is probably the EASIEST decision you could ever be faced with in a large pot... play if you have an ace, else: muck. Elliot thinks for 45 seconds and mucks.

Now, since action is complete, as the Cutoff is all-in, the Cutoff tables his AK faceup. THE NUTS...Pure, Unadulterated, un-counterfeitable Nuts. Guess he'll be chopping with Connie..but no - Connie, TRIUMPHANTLY tables his POCKETFIVES, and says "FULL HOUSE"!!!!!! the only way this hand could get better is if he yelled "PRESTO!!!!"Connie is informed that he has 4 tens with a 5 kicker, and is somewhat disappointed.but we are far from done..

Elliot SLAMS the table, outraged, saying "I HAD AN ACE!" and, to make matters worse, the dealer boxes the deck in with the muck BEFORE dealing the river! what? what if the rio is an ace! she fishes the deck out and deals off a blank...Elliot is furious... Connie is confused, and the Cutoff is wondering if he's dreaming. I almost threw up in my hat - and stubbornly refused to leave the game, as Connie built his stack back up,and i was reluctant to leave while he still had chips, although i was exhausted at 1am at the tail end of an 8 hr session...

I left up $858 eventually, but not before Dewey Tomko made this entertaining move: he opens for $15 in MP and gets 3 callers, includingthe SB, who has about $150 behind.

flop is K-Q-8. SB checks, Dewey bets $50. fold fold to SB, who thinks for 10 seconds, and then comes overthe top all in. Dewewy calls.

turn: NINE! SB stands up, excstatic, shouts "THAT'swhat i'm talking about! and slams his T-J on thetable.

River is an Eight, and Dewey Tomko is squinting at theboard, genuinely taken aback...

he says "what's that?"

SB triumphantly declares "STRAIGHT!"

Dewey tables pocket Q's, for Q's full of 8's, and says"What's this?"

the table goes NUTS... the SB, to his credit, smiled, feeling like a complete and utter d-bag - but he handled it very well... Dewey wasn't really trying to slow-roll him, he was just confused that he was pretty sure he had a good fucking hand,and yet this kid was jumping up and down... brilliant.

until next time,

KD

Stuey "the Kid" Ungar

The Big Show came to visit this past weekend.

After a hard Saturday night of drinking and VIP service at the hands of JoeC, we were recuperating on Sunday, and I suggested we watch High Roller: The Stu Ungar Story, which i'd previously purchased on DVD, but had not yet seen. I had high hopes for this film, as i'd just finished reading the Stu Ungar biography One of a Kind. Big Show says "Sure - let's watch the movie," - saying he'd seen it already, but he'd watch it again.

Well, the Big Show apparantly wanted me to waste two hours of my life on Sunday, because this movie blows. There is one redeeming scene where Michael Imperioli (Christopher, from The Sopranos) thrashes Mr. Myagi in a game of gin, but apart from that, the movie is a complete bust. Total shame too, as Imperioli could have been the perfect Stuey, if only he had a decent screenplay.

I do suggest you read the book - One of a Kind, by Nolan Dalla and Peter Alson. From the tales recounted in the book, it's hard to imagine anyone being as good at anything as Stuey was at gin. He completely dominated anyone and everyone - but lacked the skill or desire to HUSTLE his opponents - he simply wanted to break them.

I gained a measure of time-wasting revenge on the Big Show by retailiating with another Amazon.com personalized recommendation i had purchased: California Split - a 70's movie about a variety of gambling themes... We couldn't even make it 1/2-way through. Uggh. I need to stop purchasing crappy movies i haven't seen.

Overall, a brutal disappointment from two films which had held high hopes.

-KD