Posted on 6 Comments

A Lesson from Daniel Negreanu

Masterclass.com is a marvelous collection of world authorities talking about what they know best. I am very impressed with their teachers.  I had heard about a 2-for-1 sale they were offering in early April, so I signed up. Usually it’s $180 per year for full access to thousands of hours of instruction, but the recent sale allowed two people to sign up for the same $180. The combination of the sale and lots of extra time due to the stay-at-home rules was enough to seal the deal for me. I sent an email out to a number of people I thought might be interested in partnering with me on this, and several responded with interest. The ones I couldn’t use, I hooked up with each other.

My primary interests are writing, comedy, and games of skill — and they have several courses in each of those categories. I’ll eventually get to classes further down my list of interests, but the courses on cooking and interior decorating will probably never make the cut for me. 

Continue reading A Lesson from Daniel Negreanu
Posted on 10 Comments

Ignoring Kenny Rogers

I’ve listened to Kenny Rogers’ song The Gambler a zillion times. Since I’m not a live poker player, the advice he gives seemed to make sense. After all, how bad can “You’ve got to know when to hold ‘em and know when to fold ‘em” actually be?

Whether the preceding line of the song is correct or not, I noticed there’s one line of advice in that song that has to be very wrong for many poker players — but largely correct for video poker players. So, I said to myself, “Self, there’s a column there!” So here goes.

The offending line is, “You never count your money when you’re sitting at the table.”

Since I’m not a poker expert, you’re well advised to take everything I say here with a grain of salt. But if the standard is being more accurate than a Kenny Rogers song, I’m confident I can clear that bar.

In no-limit hold ’em, among others, a major goal is to stack your opponents. That means, however many chips he has, that’s how many you’re trying to get.

For any given stakes, say $2-$5, your decisions are made relative to the amount of money in the pot. If there’s $20 in the pot and everybody at the table has $200, you need to play your cards fairly straightforward. The stacks are only 10 times the amount in the pot.

But if everybody has $2,000 in front of them, you can play much more speculatively, because if the right cards come in, you can collect 100 times what’s in the pot rather than only the 10 times in the previous example.

So far, I’ve been talking about how much money your opponents have, but the amount of money you have matters too. If you have $20 in front of you and your opponents all have $2,000 — then from your point of view, all your opponents have is $20 each. They can have side pots amongst themselves, but that doesn’t affect you financially. For you to stack somebody, you need at least as many chips as he has. (Being short-stacked definitely affects your strategy — where you’re basically “fold or all in.” Consult poker experts for more complete advice on this.)

With this in mind, it’s clear that, at least approximately, you need to know how much you have and how much your opponents have. This is counter to Rogers’ “You never count your money when you’re sitting at the table” advice.

In video poker, however, Kenny Rogers’ advice is generally spot on. If you’re trying to decide whether to hold three, four, or five cards from AAA33, there is no line on the strategy card that says, “Check the amount of money in your wallet first!” Players who adjust their strategy based on their bankroll are giving up EV every time they do so.

It definitely is important to consider your bankroll before you sit down to play and choose the particular game and denomination you’re going to play. But once you’ve made that choice you should make the highest EV play at all points.

One exception to this would be if you’re playing Ultimate X and you’re running out of money. If you’re playing the Ten Play version, you should never play a 100-coin hand when you have less than 145 credits (or more money in your pocket or otherwise close at hand.)

Why 145? It starts with knowing that if you play five credits per line (50 credits total), you can play off any existing multipliers without creating any new ones.  

If you play 100 credits and don’t earn any credits (i.e., you drew no paying hands), you left no multipliers on the game.  So, you take your 45 remaining credits and go home. If you play 100 credits and earn at least five credits, you will have at least 50 credits to play off all the multipliers on the game, again leaving no multipliers on the game.

So long as you earn at least five credits, you will have earned multipliers for the next hand — and you want to play those off five-credits per line, meaning 50 coins, before you abandon the machine to others. There are “fleas” who go around checking if you’ve abandoned any multipliers and you don’t want to be the person to feed those fleas.

There are a number of areas where video poker and live poker are played differently. In my just-completed video poker semester, there were several poker players who attended regularly. Comparing a draw to an unsuited KQJT with QJT9, I would explain the first had eight cards to complete the straight and nine cards to give you a high pair. The second hand also had eight cards to complete the straight but only six cards to give you a high pair.

“Aha!” one poker player would translate into a language she understood, “17 outs versus 14.” Sort of, but not really. In poker, an “out” is a card that will beat another player. In video poker, a card to give you a straight (paying 20 coins) is four times as valuable as a card that gives you a pair of queens (paying 5 coins.) All outs are not created equal.

I still enjoy hearing The Gambler occasionally whether it gives good advice or not. Bonnie and I dance the Texas Two Step and this song has a good beat for that. I never look to popular music of any decade to teach me to play games — professionally anyway. There are a number of songs through the years that have provided “words to live by.” But not “words to gamble by.”

Posted on 29 Comments

You’re Not a Poker Player

In early June, Bonnie and I were at a square dancing workshop and there was this guy, Scott from Alabama, who showed up. He had played a few days before at the Colossus event in the World Series of Poker, did well enough to get his money back plus $500, and was killing time before his flight back home. He had arranged his stay through the last day of the Colossus in case he made it that far. He hadn’t, but that was why he was still in town. Square dancing events are publicized if you know where to look, so he found us and danced. He was very welcome.

The Colossus is a $565 buy-in tournament with starting flights over several days. Re-entries are allowed. He was very proud of the fact that he cashed in his first WSOP event, which gave him the confidence to come back next year. He had to tell me, of course, about the hand he blew out on and that he was ahead until his opponent paired on the river.

I asked him if he had considered re-entering and he said, “No.  If I’m not a good enough player to win on my first try, I’m not going to throw good money after bad.”

I told him that I didn’t know anything about his personal bankroll, but that didn’t make any sense to me. He probably had $500 in expenses to get to and stay in Vegas for five days. That made his first entry cost $1,065. His re-entry would cost “only” $565, or basically half price since he was already in Vegas. If the first one was a good deal for him to enter, re-entry must be a great deal. Why come back next year and pay another $1,065 and not get the same equity right now for only $565?

In any tournament with several thousand entries (there were 18,000+ entries in this year’s Colossus), there is a considerable amount of luck insofar as how long each player lasts. The hand where he blew out (in 400th place or so) could have easily happened much earlier and he would have gotten nothing at all. No less skill on his part. Just the luck of the draw.

You can’t conclude, I argued, that just because you cashed this time that you are a good player or just because you didn’t cash any particular time that you’re a bad player. No player cashes every event. Your record over a whole lot of tournaments says a lot about your skill. Your result in a single tournament says very little.

He asked if I was a poker player. I told him no, that I was a video poker player, but that I’ve been a successful gambler for several decades and believe I have some knowledge and experience about how it all works.

He informed me that since I wasn’t a poker player, I really didn’t know what I was talking about and he didn’t want to discuss it anymore. Okay. A square dancing event is mostly a social activity and if he didn’t want to “talk shop,” that was fine with me. I went over and spoke to someone else. Whether or not I could get him to agree with me was not something I cared about very much. He had never heard of me and self-professed video poker experts are not people he considers worth listening to.

But you, my reader, I do care whether you agree with me or not. I assume you accept that I am generally knowledgeable about these things or you wouldn’t be reading this blog.

This is another case of paying undue attention to short term results. This example looks a bit different in live poker than it does in video poker, but the principle is the same. Perhaps this example is easier to understand than in the ways I have expressed it previously.

Posted on 16 Comments

Legal Musings: “Making a Bet After the Outcome is Known”

With all the casino cheating going on these days (see my previous two-part post), casinos have stepped up their game. Not only do they cheat you by not paying when you win, but they strengthen the move by enlisting the local district attorney to extort you. The way it works is that the casino doesn’t pay. Simultaneously, they get the DA to intimidate the players by filing charges relating to the game, or threatening to file charges. A law-abiding AP is terrified by criminal charges, so it’s a no-brainer to accept the implicit deal — virtually always available — to have the DA drop the charges, and let the casino keep the money. Continue reading Legal Musings: “Making a Bet After the Outcome is Known”

Posted on 7 Comments

When Experts Say Opposite Things

When I was in graduate school 45 years ago, plus or minus, I heard about an incident many years prior to that at the University of Chicago. It appears that there was an elevator for a campus building with a “Students Only” sign on it. One professor entered and was challenged, presumably in a friendly way, because he wasn’t a student. The professor answered, “We are all students. I study much more today than when I was your age.”

I’m that way too. I study gambling as much or more today as I ever did. One “advantage” of hosting a radio show about gambling is that I am “forced” to read gambling books that I wouldn’t otherwise pick up. I read the book in order to try to ask interesting questions of our guests. This gives me a much broader grasp of gambling than most players have.

I have many gurus — in the sense that I listen to what they have to say and try to apply it to my own situation. Two (of many) are Ed Miller and Richard Munchkin. Recently I realized that they said virtually the opposite thing about a subject — although ironically they both respect each other and would probably agree with the point of view of the other guy.

Sounds strange, right? Let me continue.

Ed Miller writes a lot about No Limit Hold’Em cash games with an emphasis on low stakes games. His recent book, The Course: Serious Hold’Em Strategy for Smart Players, is an excellent treatise on how to make money in $1-$2 and $2-$5 games. We’ve spoken about the book on the air, but we barely scratched the surface of what the book holds.

Near the end of the book is a section entitled “The Pitfalls of Running Good.” Miller says, “Running good out of the gate is one of the worst things that can happen to players. If they rack up big wins early on, a couple of bad things can happen. First, they develop unrealistic expectations. . . . Second, these early wins reinforce bad habits.”

I’m not going to quote his entire argument, but I found it persuasive. You need to guard against the dangers of running good. And Miller discusses several ways to do that.

Richard Munchkin, of course, is my co-host on the Gambling with an Edge radio show. However much I’ve prepared to listen to what our guest has to say on the air, I’m always eager to hear what Richard has to say as well. Although I often prepare a script beforehand and Richard knows where I’m going to go in the discussion, I never know beforehand what he’s going to say and I find that interesting and educational.

On more than one occasion, Munchkin has opined that a disproportionate number of successful gamblers ran good at the beginning. Why? Because a disproportionate number of the players who ran bad quit gambling! Somebody who always seems to lose has a tendency to give up and conclude that gambling is not for him.

So Ed Miller says running good at the beginning is one of the worst things to happen to you and Richard Munchkin says it happened to most successful gamblers. Not exactly contradicting each other — but close.

After mulling this over for a while, I decided they’re both right!

Running good does create some unreasonable expectations and bad habits, but gamblers who end up successful eventually learn to deal with these things. (If they don’t, they’re not successful gamblers. Nobody runs good forever.)

However bad running good is in terms of learning to play the game the right way, I’ll take it every day! While I understand Miller’s argument, I’d rather be $10,000 ahead than $10,000 behind. And so would you.

As to whether Munchkin was right about today’s successful players running good at the start, I started to examine whether it was true for me in particular. A case could be made that it was — but it also doesn’t matter. Anecdotal evidence about any one player (including me) doesn’t come close to proving or disproving any statement starting with “Most players . . .”

But I found Richard’s argument persuasive as well. The early loser tends to quit. The early winners tend to keep going. He’s looking at tendencies — not something that is correct 100% of the time.

I like it better when my gurus disagree with each other. It forces me to think about the arguments and come to my own conclusions. That’s how I improve my craft. And the fact that these two gurus are addressing games other than video poker means I always have to see if what they said applies to my game as well. Again, that’s how I improve my craft.

Posted on 5 Comments

Lessons from Chip Reese

I was reading Mike Sexton’s new book, Life’s a Gamble, in preparation for interviewing Sexton on the radio. The Sexton interview will be taped before you read this and will be posted here (that link is to the filtered podcast archives) on Thursday, July 28. The book is autobiographical, with lots of anecdotes about Sexton himself and various other players. I already knew many of the stories (I read a LOT about gambling and have interviewed many players over the years), but many more were new to me. All in all, it’s a good read and of interest to any gambler, not just poker players. Continue reading Lessons from Chip Reese