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.
One of the “heroes” of the book is the late David “Chip” Reese. Reese, the late Danny Robison, and Sexton were about the same age and came from the same part of Ohio. Reese and Robison came to Vegas before Sexton and taught him a number of things. As I read about Reese, I learned a number of lessons that are applicable to video poker.
A. Don’t Steam — One day, Sexton asked Reese about some other good players and how Chip usually ended up on top. Reese replied, “Yes they are good Mike. When they are playing their A game, they are every bit as good as me. Except they also have C and D games whereas I don’t. They become weak gamblers when they steam and almost all of them do. My edge is that I don’t steam.”
Steaming can be defined as betting bigger and wilder when behind. Here’s what it looks like in video poker. On a hand like A♠ K♠ Q♠ K♦ 3♦, in most games without wild cards the best play is to hold the kings. A guy who is steaming just might chuck the diamonds and go for the royal.
On a hand like 3♦ 5♠ 6♥ 7♣ 9♦, in most video poker games it’s correct to go for either of the 4-card inside straights. Now there are bad players who never go for inside straights, steaming or not, but steaming players typically hold four cards when they’re ahead and throw them all away when they are stuck. Not a smart move
Steaming players frequently double up to catch up. If they are playing for quarters and running bad, they’ll switch to dollars hoping to catch up. And then to five dollars. Often they do end up even or slightly ahead, but other times they really get buried. And the size of getting buried more than makes up for the small wins along the way.
On a personal basis, I play the same games and make the same plays if I’m ahead $10,000 or behind that much. If it was a good game to play $10,000 ago, it’s still a good game to play. I don’t think of that as a particular “secret of success,” but I suppose it is one.
B. Keep Your Eye on the Big Picture — One day Mike Sexton asked Chip Reese if he thought Stu Ungar was the best No Limit Hold’em player of all time. (For those who don’t know Stuey’s story, he won the WSOP main even three times and could probably have one at least once more except for a cocaine overdose. He died in his mid-40s.) Reese’s response was, “Maybe. But it doesn’t matter. He never understood the object of the game.”
Sexton went on to explain. “To Chip, the object of the game was to continually grow your wealth, continually improve your lifestyle, and take care of your family. All Stuey wanted to do was to gamble every day as high as he could and go on drug binges.”
The comparison to video poker is obvious. No matter how much you win, take care of your health and avoid the serious vices of drugs, excessive alcohol, overeating, etc. Relationships are important. Gambling can be a way to make money, but it should never be the entire reason for your existence.
C. Your Day Will Come — Once Chip Reese and Mike Sexton were hanging out at the Bellagio poker room. A tourist approached Chip and asked to play $1,000 – $2,000 heads up limit stud. Chip agreed. The tourist got very lucky and after a half hour or so was up $30,000. The tourist then “remembered” an appointment and excused himself. “Go keep your appointment,” Chip told him graciously, “and don’t worry about me.” When the tourist left, Reese turned to Sexton and said, “That’s why I’ve got all the money. That guy was treated with respect and he’ll be back and want to play me again.”
Chip, of course, was one of the best stud players in the world and was a big favorite. It didn’t turn out particularly well over that half hour, but by being pleasant, there was a good chance that eventually the tourist would send a lot of money in Chip’s direction. And Chip would be pleasant then too.
We’ve all seen some very good players be very “bad losers” and sometimes even “bad winners.” There’s no call for that. If your game is good enough, you’re going to end up being a winner. In video poker, I’ve seen unpleasant players have the effect of ruining promotions. The casino was giving away something good but saw what unpleasantness it brought, so they stopped the promotion. Had the players been more pleasant about it, the promotion would have lasted a lot longer.
The final thing I want to address in the book is directly from Mike Sexton, not Chip Reese. Sexton, it turns out, used to be a ballroom dance teacher. As a country-western dance teacher for many years, that gives Mike and me something in common. Mike writes, “There’s one thing that I’ll always believe — those who dance enjoy life more than those who don’t.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
[As an aside, by chance the popular Question of the Day feature at our parent site, LasVegasAdvisor.com, is currently profiling some of the past winners of the World Series of Poker main event whose poker skills were undermined by lifestyle issues and/or personality traits, among them (in today’s answer), the late great Stu Ungar, and complements what you just read here.]
There are a couple of things I want to mention as feedback on the 7/26 article on Chip Reese.
1. I was surprised to see several typos in the article (which is not usually the case), as well as a few things that were not written totally clearly. It doesn’t look like your normal editor proofread the text. (If he/she did, then either they had an “off” day, or else you need to get a new editor.) 🙁
2. The statement, that in most video poker games it’s correct to go for 4-card inside straights, is questionable, and misleading. For all non-wild games in which a straight only pays 4 or less, and also in many wild games, that strategy is wrong. That applies to all Jacks games and all Bonus Poker games. These two types of games, plus other kinds in which we don’t go for the inside straight, might well constitute the majority. But the problem is that too many people will not use a computer or a strategy card to verify whether a certain VP game they like to play follows that idea or not. They will just think “Since Bob Dancer said we should go for inside straights most of the time, that applies to me and my games.” It would’ve been better to pick some other hand to use as an example, something that’s true an overwhelming percent of the time.
I also want to mention something inconvenient about the Web site that I encountered when reading the article. After I clicked “Read More” to see the whole article, a wide garish purple band appeared at the top of screen, taking up about 15% of the screen vertically, and it was totally unnecessary. It was a big distraction, and noticeably reduced the amount of article text that could appear on the screen. All of the items in that wide band could’ve been contained in a narrow single-line strip at the top of the screen, taking up only 3%-4% of the screen vertically. You should have your Web designer make that change.
Reply
We’re still in beta mode here and fixing problems, so these types of comments are very helpful. I think the “purple band” issue has been corrected. Please let us know if not. Regarding editing/typos, blogs are distinctly less formal than other formats. And as we get this one going, it’s most efficient to let the writers post their own without editing in most cases. If you’ve done much writing, you know it’s brutal to post without an editor, as gremlins of all sorts inevitably slip in. So I hope all can cut the bloggers a bit of slack, at least in the near term, while we get things more regimented over time.
Reply
Regarding Maverick’s point number 2 re holding inside straights: In non-wild card games, the value of two pair is a better discriminator between holding and not holding inside straights than the value of the straight. Two pair occurs frequently enough when you throw away five mismatched cards that if it pays 2 for 1, it makes throwing away the inside straight more valuable than holding it. If two pair only pays 1 for 1, that reduces the value of throwing away all five cards enough to make the inside straight the better play. For example, we throw away the inside straight playing 9/6 Jacks or Better, which pays 4 for the straight and 2 for two pair, but we hold the inside straight playing 9/6 Double Double Bonus, which pays 4 for the straight and 1 for two pair.
Reply
The statement about holding inside straights with no high cards in most video poker games is absolutely correct. Sorry if it confused you.
It is true that in Jacks or Better and Bonus Poker (the only two major games where two pair returns double money rather than single money) and well as a few other games (Deuces Bonus, among them) you do not hold inside straights with no high cards.
But in most games you do. In non-wild-card games where two pair pays single money (Double Bonus, Double Double Bonus, White Hot Aces, Bonus Aces, Triple Double Bonus, etc. etc.) you do hold the inside straight with no high cards.
The two most popular games, in order, are Double Double Bonus and Deuces Wild — both of which you hold these inside straights.
I certainly could have amplified more on the original statement, but I assumed most of my regular readers know these things. The statement itself was correct.
Reply
Adolf Hitler supposedly said. “Real men do not dance.”
Reply