Party Poker Blog

>At least where I play, the "fun" level has less
>>to do with whether people
>>are winning or losing than with whether there are some interesting and
>>entertaining people at the table.


True story;

A few years ago I was in a game at the Taj Mahal. The table (Hold'em) was full, most of the seats were fulled by guys in business suits. It was a table where there were no laughs, and little if any talk (all serious.)

I am the kind of person that tries to get everyone in a good mood, but it failed at this table. I was about to change games when a new dealer stepped in (a young lady.) The first thing she said was "Hello everyone, hope your all having a great time."

I couldn't resist so I said. "Don't expect too many laughs here, this is a table full of undertakers."

Suddenly the suits all looked up at me kind of funny, It was then that they asked me how I knew what they did for a living. I didn't know it until they told me, that they were here for a convention, the Taj was hosting the "New Jersey State Funeral Directors Convention", in the Arena next to the poker room.

These guys "were" all undertakers. The game got much better after that and these "stiffs" turned out to be a lot of fun, (and have a lot of spare cash.)

So it just shows to go ya, that you can have fun and lose, even if you are an embalmer.

Subject: ESPN to cut back on 2006 WSOP Coverage

ESPN.com and Chicago Tribune poker columnist Steve Rosenbloom wrote in his ESPN.com poker column on January 13 that ESPN will cut back the number of hours of coverage devoted to the 2006 WSOP and WSOP Circuit, from 32 hours in 2005 to "20+" hours in 2006.

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to the televised poker business.

Average TV ratings in the US for the 2005 WSOP on ESPN fell 25% compared to 2004, from 1.5 million households to 1.1 million households. TV ratings for the final hour of the 2005 main event was also down about 25% compared to 2004, from 2.4 million households to 1.8 million households.

Rosenbloom's column is at:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker/columns/story?columnist=rosenbloom_steve&id
=2291101

--

Remote patrol: The $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event appears to be a good news/bad news situation for ESPN and its coverage of the World Series. Good, because big money attracts big names, and that's a sure-fire combination for attracting viewers. Bad, though, because it's a heavy limit poker tournament in a no-limit broadcast world.


"We haven't decided yet,'' ESPN spokeswoman Keri Potts said. "We'll likely have a crew to cover it, but that doesn't mean it will be an episode.''

ESPN's overall plans for showing the 2006 WSOP have not been determined yet. But one thing that apparently has been decided is that ESPN will show fewer poker episodes, even as the WSOP grows.

Last year, the cable channel ran 18 weeks' worth of telecasts, 32 episodes in all, from mid-July through Nov. 15, from WSOP Circuit events to the final hand of the $10,000 buy-in no-limit hold'em championship event. Of the 32 shows, 12 were from the main event, which was two episodes more than in 2004 and five more than 2003.

"The main event is really the crown jewel in the series, so it will likely mean less circuit and/or satellite coverage,'' Potts said. "We'll be closer to a 20-plus episode total. Honestly, with ratings, we feel through the whole ebb and flow of its phenomenon, poker is a really solid ratings performer for us. Thirty-two episodes was a long time and it ran into programming like Major League Baseball playoffs, giving some viewers a tough choice. Nothing unusual. We review and revise accordingly.''

This year, ESPN faces a main event that could attract 8,000-plus players.
Harrah's has scheduled four Day 1s -- one more than last year -- and two Day 2s, stretching the championship event to two full weeks.

"Episode allotment has not been determined yet,'' Potts said. "While we will likely have a more condensed poker presentation overall, we can't say how many will be from the main event. It also depends on what happens with play.''

Subject: Unbelievable poker story I heard last night

Playing 20/40 at Pechanga, my neighbor told me this story.

He was playing the 200 max buy-in game at Commerce, and one player had $1000, another had $1500, and the rest were right around the $200 mark or below. A hand comes up where a player moves all-in for $63, the player with $1500 moves all-in over the top, and the player with $1000 (last to act) shows AA and mucks, saying "It took me 5 hours to make this much, I don't want to lose it all in one hand." Wouldn't you be able to pick on this guy mercilessly all night now?

(note: it turns out the original raiser had AK and the first caller had JJ and a J fell on the river, so the AA folder would have lost.)

Obviously the guy should have called with AA, but it brings up an interesting question.......

How big a favorite would you need to be to risk your entire bankroll?
80/20 and I would risk it all in a second. 60/40 I wouldn't do it.

I say "entire bankroll" b/c lesser amounts would make it too easy to
risk at a slight advantage.

--------------------

Carson:


If you were rational it would depend on what the alternatives are.

If you had an option of betting everything one time at 80/20 advantage or betting 1% of your bankroll every minute for the rest of your life at a 51/49 advantage, would you still take the 80/20 bet?

It also depends on the size of the bankroll and options for replenishment.

Subject: Poker Stars raises guaranteed pool to $750K

Starting next month, the weekly pool has been raised to $750K guaranteed.
Unbelievable! Who said poker had jumped the shark?

Going pro

Ok really I don't care if some of you who are successful yell at me about this, but to all those college kids who are thinking about "going pro" I say don't do it. I'm not some old man telling you this, I'm twenty four years old, college graduate who dropped out of Grad school to eventually "go pro". One of the dumbest things I ever did. First of all, the advice on living expenses of six months in advance is a wise one I didn't follow, and when you take a couple of bad beats, keep playing when you shouldn't, and go on tilt, well that electric bill is in a great deal of jeapordy for
being paid.

Now when I talking about going pro I'm talking about online, I have little experience in live play, although I'm sure some of my advice applies.

Here are the main problems with "going pro"

1. Trying to grind a hundred or two dollars a day by playing cards on a computer gets very boring, I've had lots of regular jobs and most of them were far more fun than this.

2. Its not that easy to play your top game at several tables at once for eight hours a day. For me I'm only at top efficiency for about two hours straight. (Btw, for those of you who will ignore the advice and try it anyway, this should be one of your main signs on whether you have a chance at success, your ability to play at a top level hour after hour.)

3. You're not the only one trying this! Based on play at Gaming Club aka prima I can tell you most players aren't as bad as people on forums like to tell. About half of your players at an average ring game think themselves good enough to bring a little extra bread in doing their hobby.

The players that you raise preflop with AK call you with K8 and call you to the river for all their chips are few and far between.

People whine so much about suckout artists, in my view there aren't enough of them in poker. I almost invariably find that when I hold something good like top pair top kicker and get raised my hand really is no good.

Yes, there are the fish everyone loves to talk about, but the problem is there aren't enough of them, and they don't tend to be the players you see at the same tables night after night as they soon go broke.

Between the rake, other pros, and good recreational players, the fish or two's money at the table gets spread pretty thin.

4. Read Supersystem and try this strategy online. I guarantee you will soon be broke. Bluffing and aggression, which earned great players like Doyle a living are not effective online, because of too much calling. So basically, you are confined to playing good cards and playing tight online. And for all the times you get big wins with say Ak vs K8 about a third of those times the guy makes two pair on you and your the one who gets broken.

Now I know what your saying to yourself, well this guy probably isn't too good at poker and I know a lot more than him, and that's what I used to think reading a post like this. But the fact of the matter is being a pro has relatively little to do with your skill level, and much more to do with your patience, ability to handle long sessions and multiple tables, ability to avoid tilt, and money management.

Of course there are other issues which are more often addressed in posts like this, but to restate them they are for one the fact that even if you could make a couple G's a week playing online, there are potential bills in Congress waiting to come to the floor for a vote to ban it.

There are no benefits playing poker, no health insurance, no pension plan...so when you get old and soft in the head you still gotta grind out your rent money.

Lastly, I'd like to take issue with those in the past who have said if your thinking about going pro see if you can consistantly earn a profit playing in your spare time after work or school and on weekends.

I completely disagree with this. The only way to know if you can make it going pro is to actually try it and have the emotional strain of having to depend on that money for your livelihood, and play day after day all day for weeks and months.

I know the prima site pretty well and I know there are quite a number of people who attempt to make a living on it. From the best I can tell, probably about five make one worth writing home about. The rest either grind it out or eventually go broke and find a better way to earn an income.

So yes, it is possibly to succeed. However, you are not going to know if that is possible without putting your life on hold and actually trying, but I can tell you right now the odds are far worse than drawing to a backdoor flush, which I am sure most of you are smart enough not to do.

Hopes this helps somebody.

Subject: Re: The 'online is rigged' posters should've been there

I have video of me playing at Stars and predicting the outcome of numerous hands hands in the same tournaments. I have e-mail from some prominent players who agree that hands are predictable.

IN MY OPINION, the reason that they mute chat when a players is allin is not strictly for the purpose of players telling what they have and effecting the game's outcome.

The main reason, IN MY OPINION, was that so many players were accurately calling out the turn and river cards when someone was allin. This didn't look good.

Why do you think that the software can't be written so that all of the 'allin chat' isn't added to the chat buffer after the hand in bold, colored, or italic text so that we see everyones chat? They don't want the players that predict the outcome to be heard.

Yeah, a lot of the prominent players are quite stupid. And apparently, so are you.

If you want to do that tournament prediciting cards thing for fun and profit we can set up even money bets at $1k a pop (or pretty much any lower if you prefer) as long as we can post the money with someone we both trust and you do it live. That offer is open to any of you btw, come and get the free money. For once the power of the rig can work in your favor.

Subject: Greg "Fossilman" Raymer joins WPT boycott

2004 World Champion Greg "Fossilman" Raymer, who recently moved from Connecticut to Raleigh, North Carolina, disclosed on the 2+2 Forum this past Sunday that he is boycotting WPT events over the same image rights release issue cited by Chris "JESUS" Ferguson and Andy Bloch:

Professional Players boycotting WPT events

Too unlucky for poker?

Is it possible a person can be just too unlucky for poker, no matter their skills? I've read and re-read all the major poker books. I've practiced hours on Poker Pro Academy. I feel I have the necessary understanding of the game and the skills to be a winner at the low levels. But I always lose. I don't lose with marginal hands.

My losses are always big. For instance, yesterday I just started my session when I was dealt AK suited. I flopped top two pairs and I played it aggressively. How else can you play it? But the other player had a set of kings, so I lost $100 as soon as I got started. This type of situation is so common for me now, that it no longer affects me emotionally or mentally. But, of course, it severely affects my bankroll. How do you know when to just give up?

I've put so much time and effort into learning poker that I don't want to quit. I truly believe I am a good player. But luck is my enemy and right now I simply can't seem to overcome it. Time after time, I've had a great, winning session and then all
of a sudden I'll get a monster hand and lose all my profit to a bigger monster. I don't know what to do.

--------


Assuming that you aren't simply fooling yourself, the answer to your question is yes and it is no. That is, there probably are people who will never win because they will simply never reach the elusive "long run" where the luck is supposed to even out. They eventually go broke or give up the game or both, even though their play is better than average. There just about HAVE to be some few people like that.

On the other hand, luck is not predictive. Unlike skill and attitude, the luck from today and this week will not be with you tomorrow or next week. If you continue to make good decisions, you will always be more LIKELY to win. If you make good decisions and your opponents do not, you are very likely to win. If "this type of situation" really does NOT affect you emotionally or mentally, you already have a big edge.

Of course, the assumption that you aren't fooling yourself has to be examined and you are the only one who can do that. Take your game apart, including the non-obvious things like game selection, table selection, seat selection and the amount of hours you put into a session. See what needs to be improved. If the answer is nothing, you
are probably fooling yourself. If the answer is "a few things here and there," as it is for most of us, work on those things. If it turns out you have a great deal wrong with your game, admit it to yourself and re-work your thinking or give up the game.

Will in New Haven

Subject: Playing a rush:

I've posted here in the past about the differences between my poker ideology and my father's. I suppose that, since he's my father, the lectures will never end.

However, when it comes to poker, I'm becoming more and more convinced every day that I'm right. I'm not saying I'm a better poker player than he is, as he has 50 years of experience to back him up, and I know at least the last 20 of those years, he has
been a winning player.

This hand came up last weekend, and my dad was a spectator. My play here resulted in a lecture, but the lecture was all about how important it is to know one is on a rush, or when one is cold, and to adapt accordingly.

I don't believe in that kind of thinking. The way I look at it, there is a fine line between playing conservatively because I'm cold and being cold because I"m playing conservatively. Furthermore, the way I look at it, the most common way to prolong a cold streak or to end a hot streak is to alter one's play because of the streak. I may alter my play based on others' perception of my streak, but I prefer to play
optimally at all stages of the game.

Anyway, to the hand in question.

$5-$10 LHE game on an extremely loose and extremely passive table.

I had Ad 7d from cutoff, and was able to limp. The button folded. The flop was Kh, 10d, 4d. Six players saw it.

The first to act was the small blind, and he was on a rush. In the 20 or so hands I had played, I had seen him increase his $200 chip stack to about $500. He was catching unbelievable cards, was the big winner at the table, and everyone knew it. He opened for a bet. Everyone called to me, and I raised. The player on a rush reraised (which I hadn't anticipated). The entire table called again, so I capped. All six players called to see the turn.

The turn caught my flush (2d). The small blind opened with a bet again. Two players called, and I raised. The small blind reraised, which prompted everyone else to fold, and I capped.

The river card paired the board (Kd) with another diamond. Now, with four to a flush on the board, my opponent opened with a bet. His play was consistant with a flopped set, so I just called him. Sure enough, he had rivered quads. I mucked my flush without showing it (I didn't want anyone to know how I play a draw like that).

My dad later asked me what I had, and I told him that I had the nut flush. Of course, his next question was in what the hell I was doing ramming and jamming on the flop with nothing but a flush draw. He said I was foolish to do that against a player who was on a rush. He also said that I deserved to lose the hand.

I explained myself in this manner:

I was getting 5 to 1 on my chips on a 3 to 1 draw. I wanted as much in the pot as possible, and I was sure the entire table would call me since they had all called once already. I had misunderestimated my opponent's hand, though, as I wasn't expecting a raise. That immediately told me that he had outs to beat my flush, if I was to hit it, but when the entire table called again, I had to cap because of the
odds. When I hit the flush on the turn, capping the bet was a no-brainer. When the board paired on the river with a fourth diamond and my opponent led off with a bet, it was obvious to me that I was beat. I called only because of the size of the pot.

This seems like such a no-brainer to me, but I'm an analytical guy who doesn't believe in mystical powers that determine whether or not someone is on a rush or not. I've played rushes before, and they invariably end. If I'm still playing a rush or a cold streak after it ends, I'm costing myself a lot of chips.

My dad says that the greatest poker players in the world are great because they recognize when they are on a rush. I say that the biggest mistake a poker player can make is to alter his play based on what has happened in the recent past.

I don't believe I've ever seen this topic posted here before.

Thoughts?