Stupid call du jour

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 40/80 - No Limit Hold'em - 0:14:57 ET - 2007/10/14
Seat 1: (1,285)
Seat 3: (1,975)
Seat 4: (2,540)
Seat 5: villain (1,220)
Seat 6: (2,040)
Seat 7: (675)
Seat 8: hero (2,535)
Seat 9: (1,230)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 40
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 80
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5h 5c]
Seat 4 folds
villain raises to 220
Seat 6 folds
Seat 7 folds
hero calls 220
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 folds
Seat 3 calls 140
*** FLOP *** [7h Kh 7s]
kcher checks
villain checks
nsayer bets 1,000
Seat 3 folds
villain calls 1,000, and is all in
hero shows [5h 5c]
villain shows [Qh Qc]

And that, dear readers, is the stupidest call I've seen all week. There's no way I had a king? I'll admit that having a 7 would have likely made me slow-play, but how could he not put me on a king?

*** TURN *** [7h Kh 7s] [6s]
*** RIVER *** [7h Kh 7s 6s] [Ts]
hero shows two pair, Sevens and Fives
villain shows two pair, Queens and Sevens
villain wins the pot (2,700) with two pair, Queens and Sevens
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,700 | Rake 0
Board: [7h Kh 7s 6s Ts]
Seat 1: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: villain showed [Qh Qc] and won (2,700) with two pair, Queens and Sevens
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: hero showed [5h 5c] and lost with two pair, Sevens and Fives
Seat 9: (button) didn't bet (folded)

Intelligent comments on meat and adrenaline

I have a couple videos on YouTube. One of them is rather popular. One of the downsides of that is that it is a target for comment spam. Comment spam sucks. Whether it sucks more than other kinds of spam, I'll leave for some other debate, but one thing you can definitely say about comment spam is that the subject matter is far, far less varied. Virtually all of the comment spam is one of these exact topics:

• heaven


• naked chicks


• read this comment and you will die in an hour unless you spam 19 other videos


• hit F5 for the name of your next gay lover


• go sign this petition to tell the Japanese to stop slaughtering dolphins

That's it. The Nigerians are at least more creative.

The last one on the list is the topic for today. The spam decries the Japanese for engaging in a dolphin or whale slaughter or whatever and makes particular mention that the hunters involved attempt to inflict in their victims a maximum amount of fear and pain because the adrenaline released makes the meat taste better.

Now, the spam is bad enough, but the claim that frightened animals taste better than others always seemed like something rife for either confirmation or rebuttal. Well, after googling relentlessly for a minute or so, I've found the best argument on the proposition I think I could envision.

Get in touch with your inner Gus

Of course, by Gus, I mean Gus Hansen.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 23:11:08 ET - 2007/10/07
Seat 1: (1,485)
Seat 2: (1,455)
Seat 3: hero (1,425)
Seat 4: (4,515)
Seat 5: (1,500)
Seat 8: (1,500)
Seat 9: (1,620)
Seat 4 posts the small blind of 15
Seat 5 posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to nsayer [?? ??]

Let's just play this one in the dark for now.

Seat 8 folds
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 folds
Seat 2 folds
hero raises to 105
Seat 4 calls 90
Seat 5 folds
*** FLOP *** [Jd Ac 7h]
Seat 4 checks
hero bets 240
Seat 4 calls 240
*** TURN *** [Jd Ac 7h] [4d]
Seat 4 checks
hero bets 530
Seat 4 calls 530
*** RIVER *** [Jd Ac 7h 4d] [5s]
Seat 4 checks
hero bets 550, and is all in

Ok. I'll let you all in on it. My hand? Qc 9c.

This isn't about what I have, it's about what I can make him think I have. I'd like to think that he's thinking hard about A4o, or at least AKo. Maybe even pocket 4s.

Of course, the danger is that I'd be up against a donkey who likes his 3rd pair despite the evidence in front of him.... and makes the spectacular suicide call.

Not this time, however.

Seat 4 folds

I always wonder what I got my opponents to fold in spots like this. I'm thinking perhaps it was a small ace. Nothing else makes much sense. Why would he hang in there with anything less? For that matter, why would he keep up with me worrying about his kicker?

Uncalled bet of 550 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (1,780)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,780 | Rake 0
Board: [Jd Ac 7h 4d 5s]
Seat 1: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: hero (button) collected (1,780), mucked
Seat 4: (small blind) folded on the River
Seat 5: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: didn't bet (folded)

MST3K lovers rejoice: RiffTrax!

Those of you more connected to MST3K than I am will deride me for being so out of touch, of course, but better late than never.

Since the MST3K crew reunited as The Film Crew, I've come to realize how much I missed MST3K. I also managed to connect to a bit of my own personal history having found some clips of Disasterpiece Theatre, which was an MST3K like show that aired on XETV in San Diego when I was 12. I used to stay up way late to watch Sal U. Lloyd and The Other Guy skewer bad 50s B movies. They mostly used chroma keying and Chyron rather than voiceovers, but it was still funny stuff.

Anyway, by chance I managed to learn that Mike Nelson came up with a compromise allowing him and his co-riffers to skewer movies without having to actually obtain rights to them. How? By writing and performing commentary tracks that you play along with the movie. Of course, you need to synchronize the two streams, but they have a pretty ingenious method for doing so - a disembodied computer-like voice periodically chimes in during the commentary with lines from the movie that should synchronize precisely with an actor in the movie delivering the same line. If the movie line is late, you pause the commentary for a little bit. If the movie is early, pause the movie. It even works with Netflix's instant watching feature (I tried The Matrix).

Keeping them in sync isn't as hard (or as critical) as it sounds, and the riffing is just as good as it ever was on MST3K or The Film Crew. And to top it all off, the RiffTrax are for movies you've actually heard of!

Go check it out. Most of them are either $2.99 or $3.99 and they're DRM-free MP3 files.

FTP tiered satellites

I think I've found something fun.

FTP, for a while now, has had $26 and $75 satellite tokens you can win in some tournaments. They're good for any tournament of any kind with the given buy-in amount. I haven't been too hot on them in the past, since they're usually available in tournaments with fairly low percentage payouts - usually you have to win the thing outright.

Well, I've discovered a pair of satellites in the structure that are much, much better. They are 18 handed, but pay out the top 6 players (though 6th place gets cash). That's 30% - certainly doable. In fact, I won a $26 token last night. Tonight I will try and parley that to a $75 token. Once there, there is a $69+$6 satellite into the $200+$16 $750,000 guarantee tournament on Sunday. At the moment, that tournament will pay over $130,000 to first place. For a total cash investment of $8.70!

The one thing that's odd about satellite tournaments at FTP is that once you get to the point in the prize structure where everybody gets the same thing, they should just end the tournament, because any further play is moot. They don't, though. I guess they figure people are going to want to play it out for pride. The trouble with that idea is that a large fraction of the table all simply goes all-in with any two cards just to get it over with. I did and lost 3 hands in a row, coming in, officially, in 4th place. But who cares? 5th through 1st were all the same. So if you want to stick around to collect first for pride, it's meaningless since you're going to play it against people who have nothing to lose or gain. Like play-money tournaments. Why waste your time?

Justice is served!

This was quite nearly another lament about a bad beat dished out by a donkey making a horrendous call. But then, shit changed.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: Tier One $8+$0.70 (_), Table 2 - 30/60 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:53:12 ET - 2007/10/04
Seat 1: hero (3,830)
Seat 2: (3,155)
Seat 3: (725)
Seat 5: villain (1,100)
Seat 6: (1,720)
Seat 7: (2,085)
Seat 8: (3,005)
villain posts the small blind of 30
Seat 6 posts the big blind of 60
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7d 7s]
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
hero raises to 180
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
villain calls 150
Seat 6 folds
*** FLOP *** [2d 3d 3s]
villain checks
hero bets 920
villain calls 920, and is all in
hero shows [7d 7s]
villain shows [3c 5c]

35?! I haven't played a hand the whole tournament so far and you call my raise with 35? What, because they were sooooted?!

*** TURN *** [2d 3d 3s] [Qd]
*** RIVER *** [2d 3d 3s Qd] [8d]

Serves him right!

hero shows a flush, Queen high
villain shows three of a kind, Threes
hero wins the pot (2,260) with a flush, Queen high
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,260 | Rake 0
Board: [2d 3d 3s Qd 8d]
Seat 1: hero showed [7d 7s] and won (2,260) with a flush, Queen high
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: villain (small blind) showed [3c 5c] and lost with three of a kind, Threes
Seat 6: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)

Go Cats, 2007 AFL premiers!

Just finishing up watching the AFL Grand Final for 2007 between the Geelong Cats and the Port Adelaide Power. Geelong thoroughly pwn3d. The final score was an incredible 24.19 163 to 6.8 44. I've never even heard of a margin even half that wide, much less in a Grand Final. Wow.

Alas, that means that there's no more footy until next year. Sigh.

Watch me play!

I've decided to join the latest poker blogging phenomenon - I bought some screen recording software and a USB mic and have recorded myself playing a SnG at Full Tilt!

I was fortunate enough to actually win the tournament on my first attempt to record one - I would have posted it regardless, though.

Check it out:

Idea for Apple

We have a mac Mini hooked up to our HDTV in the living room. Originally, the thought was we'd use it as a media player (DVD, Netflix Watch Now via VMware, games, etc), but over time it's become the machine I spend a large fraction of my time using. It's just very comfy to sit in the recliner and... well, whatever.

So when we upgraded from the old full sized plastic bluetooth keyboard to the new aluminum one, I was quite pleased.

But there is still one thing that isn't quite nirvana.

The mighty mouse is nice, but it needs to sit on a flat surface to be conveniently used. We have a mouse pad sitting on a fold-down faux table built-in to our sofa, but that's not very convenient for right handed users sitting on the right side. It's ok, since I usually set on the left, but I've got a better idea: A bluetooth trackpad. Such a device could be designed to attach to either side of the new aluminum BT keyboard, or Apple could come out with a new BT keyboard and trackpad combo. In fact, the trackpad could be designed to work with both the USB and BT keyboard. It could use some sort of mechanical attachment system combined with a (proprietary or USB) electrical connection that could be provided by both versions of the keyboard.

So let's get cracking, Steve!

There's always a better time

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $5 + $0.50 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 20:24:17 ET - 2007/09/28
Seat 1: (1,400)
Seat 2: villain (1,415)
Seat 3: (2,095)
Seat 4: (900)
Seat 5: (1,455)
Seat 6: (1,250)
Seat 7: (1,320)
Seat 8: (1,200)
Seat 9: hero (2,465)
villain posts the small blind of 20
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [As 4s]
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds

And ace in the cut-off, folded around? Let's steal.

hero raises to 140
Seat 1 folds
villain calls 120
Seat 3 calls 100
*** FLOP *** [Ks Ac Jh]
villain bets 210
Seat 3 folds

Maybe he has me out-kicked, maybe he doesn't. If he does have an ace, maybe I can make him think hard about QT. I need to raise here anyway so as to not give out a "free" card, but a raise here is enough of a fraction of his stack that he'll be committed, so let's just commit him now.

hero raises to 2,325, and is all in

At this point the villain calls me a bully in the chat window. He then thinks for a very long time, and then...

villain calls 1,065, and is all in
hero shows [As 4s]
villain shows [Ts Kd]

?!

We've not gotten very deep into this tournament. Would I really, really throw down for half my chips with a hand that could be beaten by kings in this spot? I mean, maybe if he was really short, but if he was short, then he'd be pot committed, which would make him unbluffable.

If he knew his king was no good, was the 4 outer inside straight draw really worth his entire tournament life?

Uncalled bet of 1,050 returned to hero
*** TURN *** [Ks Ac Jh] [Ah]
*** RIVER *** [Ks Ac Jh Ah] [7h]
hero shows three of a kind, Aces
villain shows two pair, Aces and Kings
hero wins the pot (2,970) with three of a kind, Aces
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,970 | Rake 0
Board: [Ks Ac Jh Ah 7h]
Seat 1: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: villain (small blind) showed [Ts Kd] and lost with two pair, Aces and Kings
Seat 3: (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: hero showed [As 4s] and won (2,970) with three of a kind, Aces

Desecration of a classic

They could light up a small town with the energy created by Keith Moon spinning in his grave tonight. The only reason we can't all live a carbon-free existence is that the same cannot be said about Roger Daltry and Pete Townsend.

What am I talking about?

The theme song to CSI:NY has, since its inception, been a slightly edited (for time) version of Baba O'Riley, by The Who.

This year, for whatever reason, they have decided to totally ruin it.

Though the Roger Daltry vocal track is still there, the music bears little resemblance to the original. It's a bizarre mishmash of synth instruments and way, way, way too much drum solo. While they were at it, they totally redid the actual opening credit video as well. That didn't offend me so much. But farming out the audio to some low-rent MIDI programmer? I call that a bargain. The worst I've ever had.

Full Tilt lowers the cash-out bar

I used to complain about FTP's cash-out policies. Requiring $300 to get a check was just too hard a level to reach. But I've actually been getting close to $300 lately and I've come to discover that they've lowered their cash-out level down to just $100. Not only that, but they'll do an electronic bank transfer. We'll see very soon how well that works, but I'd expect the recent legislation to make it harder to get money in rather than out. But if you don't trust the electronic method, they'll mail you a check for a $100 minimum.

So now you just have to double-up. Sweet!

All in all, I have to say that $100 is a reasonable minimum. PokerStars has a $75 minimum, which is even more generous, but they also have a minimum deposit of only $10 instead of FTP's $50.

That was a tough one

I only played one tournament tonight. It was a $10+$1 STT SnG at Full Tilt. Big deal, right?

This one was tough. It took an hour and 20 minutes, and 115 hands. The blinds got all the way up to 250/500 before it was done. And with a total of 13,500 chips, once we were heads-up, it came down almost to nothing more than a game of showdown.

We spent forever in bubble purgatory - everybody playing super tight, and the blinds going up and up and up. But since everybody was being so patient, you had to respect their raises.

It was tough, but I was patient and wound up taking it down. Yay!

Nice call, Eeyore.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 50/100 - No Limit Hold'em - 2:41:17 ET - 2007/09/17
Seat 3: (2,132)
Seat 4: villain (4,208)
Seat 6: hero (2,660)
hero posts the small blind of 50
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 100
The button is in seat #4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [?? ??]

Let's keep my hand a secret for now. In fact, let's play it from the other perspective: The villain has [4h 4s]


villain raises to 200
hero raises to 700
Seat 3 folds
villain calls 500
*** FLOP *** [8d Jh Th]
hero bets 1,960, and is all in

Now. Hands up if you think that his pocket 4s are good.

My range of hands at this point include such hits as AT, AJ, perhaps even A8, not to mention every pocket pair north of tens. 79 and Q9 are perhaps a stretch, but we are 3 handed at this point. Maybe I have 8x of hearts. Maybe I just have a flush draw, but if I hit it, the villain is down to about a thousand chips or so, so it may not bust him, but it puts him in a pretty bad place.

Still like those 4s?

villain calls 1,960
hero shows [Ah Kc]
villain shows [4h 4s]
*** TURN *** [8d Jh Th] [3c]
*** RIVER *** [8d Jh Th 3c] [3s]
hero shows a pair of Threes
villain shows two pair, Fours and Threes
villain wins the pot (5,420) with two pair, Fours and Threes
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5,420 | Rake 0
Board: [8d Jh Th 3c 3s]
Seat 3: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: villain (button) showed [4h 4s] and won (5,420) with two pair, Fours and Threes
Seat 6: hero (small blind) showed [Ah Kc] and lost with a pair of Threes

iPhone store credit

I got my Apple store credit for being an early iPhone purchaser. The procedure was painless. You need the serial number, which you can get from iTunes with the phone docked, the phone's phone number, and a number that Apple sends to you via an SMS message. When you're done, they give you a PDF to print out. You can use the numbers at the online store, or the barcode at the physical stores.

Thanks, Steve.

Another great one

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:01:41 ET - 2007/09/13
Seat 1: (1,395)
Seat 2: (1,275)
Seat 3: (1,415), is sitting out
Seat 4: (1,020)
Seat 5: (1,440)
Seat 6: (1,815)
Seat 7: hero (1,385)
Seat 8: (1,980)
Seat 9: villain (1,775)
Seat 3 posts the small blind of 20
Seat 4 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5s 5c]
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
hero calls 40
Seat 8 folds
villain raises to 130
Seat 1 folds
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
Seat 4 calls 90
hero calls 90

What do we always say about small pocket pairs? Get in cheap and try for a set (that means limp-call). Get out if you miss.

*** FLOP *** [5h Kd 5d]

YOWZA!!!!

Someone please, please have a king!

Seat 4 checks
hero checks
villain bets 300

:)

Seat 4 folds
hero calls 300
*** TURN *** [5h Kd 5d] [4h]
hero checks
villain bets 750

And there it is. He's pot committed now - that is, my all-in re-raise is too small for him to fold.

hero raises to 955, and is all in
villain calls 205
hero shows [5s 5c]
villain shows [Ac Ad]

Ouch!

Flops that have a pair generally miss everybody, so it's easy to see how that flop would have made him feel good. He was only losing to a 5 - which would be a hand unlikely to call a raise out of position, or pocket kings - which you'd expect someone to re-raise. Just about the only hand he could reasonably have put me on that he was losing to was pocket 5s. And you just can't do anything about that.

*** RIVER *** [5h Kd 5d 4h] [Th]
hero shows four of a kind, Fives
villain shows two pair, Aces and Fives
hero wins the pot (2,920) with four of a kind, Fives
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,920 | Rake 0
Board: [5h Kd 5d 4h Th]
Seat 1: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: hero showed [5s 5c] and won (2,920) with four of a kind, Fives
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: villain showed [Ac Ad] and lost with two pair, Aces and Fives

More crushing cold decks

Once again, I get my money in with better than 4:1 odds and get ass-raped.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:42:47 ET - 2007/09/11
Seat 2: villain (6,280)
Seat 5: hero (1,915)
Seat 6: (805)
Seat 6 posts the small blind of 25
villain posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7h 7d]
hero raises to 175
Seat 6 folds
villain calls 125
*** FLOP *** [9d 9c 8d]
villain checks
hero bets 375
villain calls 375
*** TURN *** [9d 9c 8d] [4s]
villain checks
hero bets 1,365, and is all in
villain calls 1,365
hero shows [7h 7d]
villain shows [Jd Ah]

Nice call, Eeyore.

*** RIVER *** [9d 9c 8d 4s] [8h]

Oh fucking hell!!

hero shows two pair, Nines and Eights
villain shows two pair, Nines and Eights
villain wins the pot (3,855) with two pair, Nines and Eights
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,855 | Rake 0
Board: [9d 9c 8d 4s 8h]
Seat 2: villain (big blind) showed [Jd Ah] and won (3,855) with two pair, Nines and Eights
Seat 5: hero (button) showed [7h 7d] and lost with two pair, Nines and Eights
Seat 6: (small blind) folded before the Flop

New kitchen sink

If you've been paying attention, you'll know that we've been doing some home improvement work from time to time. We were impressed when we moved in with how new and modern everything was. Well, in the time we've owned the house, we've more or less discovered or realized now that all of the work the previous owners did was all done with the cheapest, crappiest Home Depot junk money could buy. Now, we don't really have many complaints. We're not saying we were ripped off or anything. It's just that every time we've decided to redo something, we've been astounded at how much better it was after we were done. Case in point was our kitchen sink. We didn't like it because the bowls were rather small, weren't flat on the bottom, and because we had a dishwasher, we didn't really need a two bowl sink. Our garbage disposal was also very loud, and the reverse osmosis system would gurgle loudly too.

So we decided to buy a new sink. If you're going to bother buying a new sink, you might as well replace the garbage disposal while you're at it. We decided to go with an asymmetric two bowl design. The smaller bowl has the disposer in it, which sort of makes it the equivalent of a wet trash can, sort of.

This time we had a plumber come in and do the work. Not that I couldn't have done it, but it was a trade-off of time and money I was willing to make. While they were at it, we had them re-plumb the washing machine drain. It used to drain out on the lawn. Not kidding. I didn't think such an arrangement was even legal, much less good for the grass. They even added a clean-out just in case something ever clogs. We also added a proper air gap for the dishwasher.

We've had the whole set up for a few days now. There's only been one mishap. I ran some corn cobs down the disposer a little too quickly and one of them managed to get stuck in a way that blocked the dishwasher inflow. Oops. The disposer can actually take corn cobs. It's just that it's so quiet I wasn't able to distinguish between it being done or having one stuck. The disposer is actually a "compact" model, which means that it was easy to clear. One downside of it being so small is that you need to cut things like corn cobs in half before you send them down or else their top halves will spin around above the rubber drain cover and fling water all over.

So what's next?

Honestly, we're running out of easy stuff, but there are a couple left. We have some folding doors on the office closet that need to be replaced with sliding doors - or just simply removed. We could replace the master bath shower door, I suppose. We could replace the HVAC system, but I'm not sure there's enough gains to be made now that we've insulated. We could remodel the kitchen, but unless we make it larger it's probably not worth it. Then there's the "small" remodel idea (wall in the raised part of the patio as a kitchen extension), and then the "large" remodel (2nd story master suite and office).

iPhone ringtones

Come on, Steve. Here was your big chance to do the right thing.

You could have simply allowed people to assign any song on the iPhone as either a general ringtone or the ringtone for a particular contact. Instead...

1. You have to buy the song from the iTMS (though if you have bought it before you don't need to buy it again).

2. They only let you make ringtones from a smaller subset of available songs.

3. You have to pay extra to make it a ringtone.

There are shareware apps out there that will let you simply copy any audio file into the ringtone folder on the phone, but at the moment they clash with iTunes 7.4. And who knows how hard Apple will work to protect this revenue stream. Personally, I suspect that AT&T insisted on this functionality, and I suspect they're getting the lion's share of the 99¢ ringtone fee.

I have only one song I want to turn into my ringtone, so I'll still probably go about it the "official" way - simply because it's cheaper than the shareware options and less trouble in the long run. But Apple, being the imperfect institution it is, sometimes is capable of disappointing in a big way.

The Price is Right - mastering the wheel

Scarlet and I want to see if we can't go see The Prices Is Right (TPIR) at some point. The overwhelming factor as to whether you get to actually play a game or not - the opinion of the audience interviewers - is largely out of your control. The fight to escape Contestant's Row depends - like poker - largely on position. The individual pricing games vary pretty wildly, but there is one aspect of the experience that potentially could be mastered - the Showcase Showdown wheel.

The wheel is, more or less, just like a Wheel of Fortune turned on its end. There are 20 sectors on the wheel numbered in multiples of 5 cents up to a dollar. Your goal is, in one spin or two, to get closest to a dollar without going over. Get a dollar exactly and you win $1000.

While this may seem random, the important difference between this wheel of fortune and the ones in Nevada is that you get to spin it, rather than a croupier. That means that the velocity of the wheel is under your direct control. And the velocity of the wheel and its decay function are the only things that control where it is going to land.

First question's first: Where do you want it to land? Obviously you'd like to land it on the dollar on your first spin and be done with it, but the reality of the situation is that perfect control is going to be almost impossible. If you actually graph the wheel's positions, you'll see that they were not chaotically arranged.



You can see that they alternate high and low numbers to some extent, but there's an even more important pattern. It emerges somewhat better if you graph the average of each spot's value with its two neighbors:





That's pretty evil. Assuming you don't win the dollar on your first spin, you want to either spin a very high number or a very low number. The "death zone" is in the 40-60 or so range. On the low end, you're forced to spin again where you have almost an even money chance of going over, and on the high end you're forced to stand with an excellent chance that your following opponents will beat you. But you can see from both curves that the sweet spots are separated into two pieces near the beginning and end of the wheel. The "back" of the wheel is particularly dangerous territory for the first spin, as it has a high average, which is dangerous for a potential second spin.

So the ideal strategy is to aim for the front half of the wheel for your first spin, as you'll have a shot at the dollar spot, but more importantly you'll be more likely to land on something big or small. Then if you hit low on the first spin, aim for the back half of the wheel where there are only a couple of potentially dangerous numbers and lots of medium sized numbers that will boost your total to a safe range.

Well, that begs the question - If you know exactly how many sectors you must move the wheel from its current spot, how hard do you spin it so that it lands where you want? For that, we need to work out the decay function of the wheel and do a little math and figuring. The first half of that assignment will require a bit of time with a few TiVo'd episodes and some audio capture software. I'll get back to you...

It's not all tournaments

Since attending the WPT Ca$h camp, my interest in straight cash games has increased, as has my interest in GSM's "High Stakes Poker." One reason I didn't like it much in the past was that GSN is too stupid to label the episodes correctly, so TiVo never reliably tapes only the first-run episodes. Which means I have to tape all of them, which means I get a lot of re-runs.

Anyhow, HSP does have its moments. Like last season when Jamie Gold said, "I guess I need to become a better player," and Gabe Kaplan (who was playing rather than commentating) replied, "maybe you should try tournaments" (this is funny because just a couple weeks prior Gold had won the biggest poker tournament of all time at the WSOP, picking up more than $12 million).

The first episode of the season started off with a bang with the players agreeing to pay $500 each to any player who wins a pot holding 72. Not a minute later, Phil Helmuth Jr bluffed Mike Matusow with 72o getting Mike to lay down pocket kings.

Anyway, what prompted me to make this blog post was a hand between Elie Elezra and Jennifer Harman. Elezra had 83h and Harman had KhJd. The hand started out as a family pot, but when the flop came AK5 of diamonds and Elezra bet out at it, only Harman called. The turn was the 7d. Elezra bluffed at it and Harman just called, which was curious. Harman in this spot would really want to know whether or not her jack-flush was good or if Elezra might have the Queen. The river was a blank (Jc) and Elezra shut down, but Harman thought it might be a check-raise, so she just checked. Elezra then announced, "I'm playing the board," which got a laugh from the whole table (in fact, his 8 was higher than the 5 on the board, so his hand is really AKJ87) and Harman's jack-flush was the winner.

In actual fact, though, having had time to think about it, I can't fault Harman too much. If she raised she might not have been able to easily differentiate between being beat or not if Elezra just called. If he had the Qd, he'd probably just call, and if he had, say, the 9d, he'd also probably just call. The only other likely outcome would have been Elezra folding anything but a flush, in which case she wouldn't have won any more than she actually did.

Meanwhile, while all this was going on, I spent 12 minutes playing 10¢/25¢ No-Limit and made $5. That's 20 big blinds in, oh, call it a quarter hour (to make the math easier), which is 5 BB/hr, so I feel good. :)

P.s. Paul Wasicka just limped under the gun with pocket aces, got seven callers, then folded them on the flop after the big blind led out! The flop gave one player a set and another a flush draw (which made it). Had he stayed in, he'd have had the 3rd best hand and likely gotten crushed. He was hoping to limp/re-raise before the flop, but when it didn't work out, he knew he was a huge dog in the hand (pocket pairs typically only have two outs to improve, which means they're trouble if they're behind).

It never ends

We here at Nick's Blog celebrate bad beats. Because we know that venting makes us feel better and entertains at least 3 or 4 of my 15 readers. This is particularly sick because it knocked me out on the bubble.

Why would I even play a hand on the bubble? The villain here had been getting way, way out of line.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $2 + $0.25 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 80/160 - No Limit Hold'em - 11:35:49 ET - 2007/09/03
Seat 2: villain (4,740)
Seat 3: (3,890)
Seat 7: hero (3,250)
Seat 9: (1,620)
hero posts the small blind of 80
Seat 9 posts the big blind of 160
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qd Ac]
villain raises to 4,740, and is all in

Don't worry. That doesn't mean a thing at this point.

Seat 3 folds
hero calls 3,170, and is all in
Seat 9 folds
villain shows [Jd 6s]

Yeah. That's not a surprise.

hero shows [Qd Ac]
Uncalled bet of 1,490 returned to villain
*** FLOP *** [7h Ad 6d]
*** TURN *** [7h Ad 6d] [8d]

Now he's worse than an 8:1 dog. He only has 5 outs - 2 sixes and 3 jacks.

*** RIVER *** [7h Ad 6d 8d] [Jc]

Oh of course.

villain shows two pair, Jacks and Sixes
hero shows a pair of Aces
villain wins the pot (6,660) with two pair, Jacks and Sixes
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 6,660 | Rake 0
Board: [7h Ad 6d 8d Jc]
Seat 2: villain showed [Jd 6s] and won (6,660) with two pair, Jacks and Sixes
Seat 3: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: hero (small blind) showed [Qd Ac] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 9: (big blind) folded before the Flop

You know, I don't ask for much. I don't get disappointed when the odds aren't in my favor and I don't suck out. I don't even get bothered when I don't win a coin flip (except when I lose, like, 15 of them in a row). But what drives me insane is getting all my money in in situations where I have my opponent well and truly dominated... and then getting screwed. I had him at 2:1 before the flop, 4:1 on the flop and 8:1 on the turn.

Woo hoo!

No commentary for this one.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $20 + $2 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 17:34:33 ET - 2007/09/02
Seat 1: (1,485)
Seat 2: hero (1,470)
Seat 3: (1,545)
Seat 4: (1,500)
Seat 5: (1,500)
Seat 6: (1,500)
hero posts the small blind of 15
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [8s Jh]
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
Seat 1 folds
hero calls 15
Seat 3 raises to 60
hero calls 30
*** FLOP *** [8h Th Qh]
hero checks
Seat 3 bets 30
hero raises to 90
Seat 3 calls 60
*** TURN *** [8h Th Qh] [As]
hero bets 200
Seat 3 calls 200
*** RIVER *** [8h Th Qh As] [9h]
hero bets 1,120, and is all in
Seat 3 has 15 seconds left to act
Seat 3 calls 1,120
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [8s Jh] a straight flush, Queen high
Seat 3 mucks
hero wins the pot (2,940) with a straight flush, Queen high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,940 | Rake 0
Board: [8h Th Qh As 9h]
Seat 1: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [8s Jh] and won (2,940) with a straight flush, Queen high
Seat 3: (big blind) mucked [Ah Ts] - a flush, Ace high
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)

Gap theory

David Sklansky first described the theory in his seminal tome on tournament poker.

"It requires a much better hand to call a bet or raise with than to make a raise with."

In tournament poker, the two governing facts are that when you run out of chips, you lose, and that when you're opponents run out of chips, they lose.

Here's an example of the gap theory at work:

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 100/200 - No Limit Hold'em - 11:54:17 ET - 2007/09/02
Seat 1: villain AO (1,765)
Seat 4: hero (4,890)
Seat 6: (2,980)
Seat 9: (3,865)
villain posts the small blind of 100
hero posts the big blind of 200
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jc Tc]
Seat 6 folds
Seat 9 folds
villain raises to 400
hero calls 200

Suited connector in position. Let's see a flop.

*** FLOP *** [9s Qc 3s]

Nice. There's the straight draw.

villain bets 600

That's a continuation bet. He could have any two cards. It would have been more convincing if he had done a stop-n-go (that is, bet all-in on any flop). That would have been a very hard call with just an outside straight draw and backdoor flush draw. I probably would have had to lay it down. Instead...

hero raises to 1,365

There's the gap at work. I have an outside straight draw. By straight pot odds, that's not a correct play. But tournament dynamics are different. I am betting his life (not mine) at 2:1 odds. Though he looks pot committed, the kicker here is that if he loses, he is out on the bubble (if he wins, everybody at the table will have about the same sized stack, so really all I am risking here is my chip lead). That gives him extra real money fold equity. And yet...

villain calls 765, and is all in
hero shows [Jc Tc]
villain shows [Jh As]

Yes, his ace-high is the best hand at this point, but unless he was totally convinced that his ace was good (I'd been playing the back half of this tournament fairly aggressively, so it's not entirely out of the question that he might have thought it), it was an amazingly foolish call. I did call a pre-flop raise. There's no way I had, oh say, AQ? maybe QK? Heck, even AK has him beat (though AK in that spot would probably have folded to the post-flop bet).

*** TURN *** [9s Qc 3s] [6h]
*** RIVER *** [9s Qc 3s 6h] [8d]
hero shows a straight, Queen high
villain shows Ace Queen high
hero wins the pot (3,530) with a straight, Queen high
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,530 | Rake 0
Board: [9s Qc 3s 6h 8d]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [Jh As] and lost with Ace Queen high
Seat 4: hero (big blind) showed [Jc Tc] and won (3,530) with a straight, Queen high
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: (button) didn't bet (folded)

Now at this point, our villain starts berating me in the chat window. That, more than anything, is what earned him a blog post. But still, it's worth bringing it up.

Asked and answered

Every action you take at the table should either result in you winning the hand, or obtaining information that will help you make the correct decision going forward.

The best example of the value of this rule I've seen this year came from the WPT Legends of Poker tournament.

Frankie O'Dell and Joe Pelton are playing heads-up for the title. They start out with reasonably close chip stacks - Frankie having perhaps a 5:3 advantage. Blinds are 40K and 80K, antes are 10K - meaning that they are playing with stacks well in excess of 30 times the big blind. Frankie is delt J4h, Joe has Q8o. Frankie calls from the button and Joe checks.

The flop comes QQ4 with one heart and two diamonds. Joe leads out with a 100K bet into a 180K pot.

Now Joe has been doing that sort of thing a lot, whether he hits or not. So that bet doesn't really help Frankie any. Frankie, of course, has two pair on a paired board - he overcame 20:1 odds to get that far. The odds of his opponent having hit trips with unpaired cards is about 73:1. So what does Frankie do? He raises, of course. Why? Because if he just calls, what will he do if his opponent makes a big bet on the turn, which will likely be an overcard to the 4? If he raises here, he can either drive away a bluff hand like, say, JT or A9, or perhaps even drive away a pocket overpair. But if Joe calls a raise or goes over the top, he can know that his fours are probably no good. Frankie makes it 350K to go.

This can only tell Joe he's got it. The only hand that has him beat right now that could have and make that raise with is a Q4 - and if he has that, well, that's just amazingly bad luck. If Frankie had a big queen, you'd think that he might have raised before the flop, and if he had a queen and a 9 or ten you'd think he'd just call. So if I'm in Joe's shoes, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get all the money in at this point. The question is, how? Just call here and bet again on the turn or raise? If it were me, I would just call and try and make a big bet on the turn hoping that Frankie might hit two pair or something. My guess is that Joe was afraid of the flush draw. He decided to raise it, making it 750K to go.

So if you're in Frankie's shoes, what might your opponent have that would allow him to respond so aggressively? Either a queen or maybe a bigger pocket pair than 4s. If he had either of those, don't you think he'd be sure to throw down in this spot? Wouldn't you know that your fours are no good?

Instead, Frankie went all-in, Joe instantly called and Frankie did not get the runner-runner flush or quads.

Joe took a 3:1 chip-lead with that hand. Joe just took that lead and ran over Frankie to win it. And you just have to look back at that pivotal hand to see exactly why.

Battle of the bluffs

PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $5.00+$0.50 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2007/09/01 - 13:57:03 (ET)
Table '59946281 1' 9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 2: villain (3060 in chips)
Seat 3: (6995 in chips)
Seat 5: hero (3445 in chips)
villain: posts small blind 50
Seat 3: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Js Qs]
hero: raises 200 to 300
villain: calls 250
Seat 3: folds
*** FLOP *** [5c Tc 9d]
villain: checks
hero: bets 500
villain: calls 500

So, what could he have here? We're 3 handed, so I can imagine him calling a pre-flop raise with AT. I could even imagine him calling with a flush draw.

*** TURN *** [5c Tc 9d] [2s]
villain: checks
hero: bets 1400
villain: raises 860 to 2260 and is all-in
hero: calls 860

I don't know why PokerStars hand histories don't show the cards at this point.

He had KQo. So it is clear he was trying to bluff. Trouble was, the only possible hand that 2s might have helped was pocket deuces, and I can't see him calling the continuation bet with those. I was bluffing too, but at least I had been telling a consistent story all along - AT, T9s, 55... I could have had any of those. I knew he was bluffing, which means he could have had any two cards - perhaps 78c, which would have given him a much better draw, but would have actually put me ahead in the hand. In actual fact, I was in not-so-great shape at this point. I needed either a king (though he had one of them) or an 8 for a straight. A jack would give him his straight and a queen would give him a pair with a better kicker. 7 outs on the river - about 8:1.

*** RIVER *** [5c Tc 9d 2s] [2h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
villain: shows [Qd Kc] (a pair of Deuces)
hero: shows [Js Qs] (a pair of Deuces - lower kicker)
villain collected 6220 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 6220 | Rake 0
Board [5c Tc 9d 2s 2h]
Seat 2: villain (small blind) showed [Qd Kc] and won (6220) with a pair of Deuces
Seat 3: (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: hero (button) showed [Js Qs] and lost with a pair of Deuces

The futility continues

I placed 60th out of about 114. The hand I went out, it was folded around to me in the small blind and I raised with ATo. The big blind re-raised and I went all-in. Yes, it was a bluff, but I had been showing nothing but quality for the entire morning. The two of us started the hand with virtually identical stacks. He called with AJo, which has to be about the dumbest thing I've seen anyone do at Bay 101 all year long. Seriously. If you're in his seat, do you really, really think your AJo is good enough to risk your entire tournament life on?

So I came home and have been playing online some more and being repeatedly screwed. Shit like this:

PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $12+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/08/29 - 17:25:44 (ET)
Table '59681430 1' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: villain (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: (1500 in chips)
Seat 4: (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: hero (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: posts small blind 10
Seat 3: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kd Ac]
Seat 4: calls 20
hero: raises 60 to 80
Seat 6: folds
villain: calls 80
Seat 2: folds
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Ts Kc Kh]
Seat 4: checks
hero: checks
villain: checks
*** TURN *** [Ts Kc Kh] [2d]
Seat 4 has timed out
Seat 4: folds
Seat 4 is sitting out
hero: checks
villain: bets 100
hero: calls 100

Got him right where I want him.

*** RIVER *** [Ts Kc Kh 2d] [6s]
hero: bets 200
villain: raises 200 to 400
hero: raises 920 to 1320 and is all-in
villain: calls 920 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero: shows [Kd Ac] (three of a kind, Kings)
villain: shows [6d 6c] (a full house, Sixes full of Kings)

Fucked again.

Seat 1 collected 3110 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3110 | Rake 0
Board [Ts Kc Kh 2d 6s]
Seat 1: villain (button) showed [6d 6c] and won (3110) with a full house, Sixes full of Kings
Seat 2: (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: folded on the Turn
Seat 5: hero showed [Kd Ac] and lost with three of a kind, Kings
Seat 6: folded before Flop (didn't bet)

I just don't know what I have to do to win anymore. It's really, really, depressing.

Bay 101 Open short-handed tournament

Well, I'm here at the one Bay 101 Open event I'm willing to miss work for. This event will be 20 tables of 6. Very unusual for a B&M site to play that way. The entire poker floor looks like it's shut down just for us.

I've had a really rotten week at FTP. Let's hope things have chosen this exact moment to turn around.

Tournament strategy

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:19:19 ET - 2007/08/24
Seat 1: (100)
Seat 2: hero (1,515)
Seat 3: (1,455)
Seat 4: (1,960)
Seat 5: (1,440)
Seat 6: (2,530)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jc 4d]
Seat 3 calls 40
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
Seat 1 raises to 100, and is all in
hero calls 60

What?! Calling a pre-flop raise out of position with jack-crap offsuit?!

Yes. Because he was extremely short and because I was partially invested. The goal of a tournament is to get rid of everybody else at the table. The more people who call a short stack all-in the more likely he will be beaten. The same reasoning leads to the other cardinal rule of tournament poker: Never, ever, ever bluff into a dry side pot. By bluffing into a dry side pot you could chase away a hand that has the all-in player beat. You can't bluff the all-in player. All you can do is lose to him. If you're going to lose the pot anyway, better to lose it to a big stack than chip up a small stack.

Seat 3 calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8s 3c Ac]
hero checks
Seat 3 checks
*** TURN *** [8s 3c Ac] [Kc]
hero checks
Seat 3 checks
*** RIVER *** [8s 3c Ac Kc] [Tc]

Nice. I've caught my flush, and it's the 2nd-to-nut flush. I said the rule was to never bluff into a dry side pot. Not never to bet into one.

hero bets 300

I suppose making it a pot-sized bet was potentially a mistake. Better to try and bet for value, but I really wanted to know if my neighbor in the side pot had the queen of clubs. Besides, it's clear that the goal here is to get rid of the short stack. Better to send the message that I'm not bluffing.

Seat 3 folds
Uncalled bet of 300 returned to hero
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [Jc 4d] a flush, Ace high
Seat 1 mucks
hero wins the pot (300) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 1 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 300 | Rake 0
Board: [8s 3c Ac Kc Tc]
Seat 1: (small blind) mucked [Ks 6h] - a pair of Kings

See? What would have happened if, say, Seat 1 had bluffed at the pot post-flop with, say, Qd 4h. He would have chased me away and lost the pot to the short stack. He'd have still lost his pre-flop call, so for him the outcome would not have changed, but we'd still have 6 players at the table instead of 5.

Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [Jc 4d] and won (300) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 3: folded on the River
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: (button) didn't bet (folded)

Syndrome of a down

Serj, the lead singer of System of a Down has a solo album that's starting to get air-play on SquiZZ. I have a message for Serj:

Gilbert & Sullivan called. They said you should stop biting their style.

Why me?

I really don't understand why this sort of thing keeps happening. I really don't.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $5 + $0.50 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 30/60 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:42:42 ET - 2007/08/21
Seat 2: (1,465)
Seat 3: hero (3,845)
Seat 5: villain (3,690)
Seat 2 posts the small blind of 30
nsayer posts the big blind of 60
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jd Ts]
villain raises to 210

This guy has been getting out of line all tourney long. His pre-flop raises no longer have any value.

Seat 2 folds
hero calls 150
*** FLOP *** [7c Td 9h]

If he has an over-pair, then so be it. But I just don't think he does.

hero checks
villain bets 450
hero raises to 1,800
villain raises to 3,150
hero raises to 3,635, and is all in
villain calls 330, and is all in
hero shows [Jd Ts]
villain shows [9c 8d]

Uh huh. Outside straight draw. He's a 2:1 underdog at this point. He can't get the 8 for two pair, since that'll give me the better straight.

Uncalled bet of 155 returned to nsayer
*** TURN *** [7c Td 9h] [6d]

Naturally.

*** RIVER *** [7c Td 9h 6d] [4s]
hero shows a pair of Tens
villain shows a straight, Ten high
villain wins the pot (7,410) with a straight, Ten high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 7,410 | Rake 0
Board: [7c Td 9h 6d 4s]
Seat 2: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: hero (big blind) showed [Jd Ts] and lost with a pair of Tens
Seat 5: villain (button) showed [9c 8d] and won (7,410) with a straight, Ten high

One of these things is not like the other

I went to the Apple store at Valley Fair today to pick up a new monitor and have some lunch (Genghis Khan's mongolian BBQ in the food court. Almost as good as our normal mongo on El Camino, but they're open for lunch on Sunday). While I was there, I stumbled upon the Dell kiosk. Since I had my iPhone, I decided to snap a picture:



Now, the Apple store is actually under construction right now. They have a temporary store open in a little sliver of space next door to the real store. The temporary store isn't nearly as large or nice as the real store used to be. I can only hope that the new store will be an improvement. Anyway, with all that as a prologue, here's what the Apple store looked like at about the same time as the picture above of the Dell kiosk:



Uh huh. I don't think anyone needs to wonder if it's really true that Apple is gaining market share.

Turned the corner at P*!

I've done it: I have become profitable lifetime at PokerStars. I now am +$20 lifetime with a +2% ROI. I've also once again repeated my cycle of cashing in for $25, tripling up to exceed the $75 check limit and cashing out. I am a happy man today.

The original plan was to stop playing at P*, since I like the FTP mac software better than having to run P* in VMWare. I still may do that, but it is tempting to stick with what works, I have to say.

Tired of bullshit suck-outs

Played in the Bay 101 midnight points qualifier this evening. This is a re-buy tournament. I hate re-buy tournaments. But I came out of the re-buy period relatively unscathed. I re-bought once before we started (everybody did), and I did the add-on (everybody did), but didn't re-buy anymore than that with about the third highest stack at the table. About the 4th hand after the first break I'm in the small blind and get ATo. It's folded around, so I raise. The big blind calls. The flop comes KK4. I decide to represent the king by check-raising, so I check but then the big blind goes all-in. Now, if the flop had one king, I could fold. But would he really push if he flopped top set? Wouldn't he want to get value? So I went with my read that my AT was good and called. He turns over 56o. The table was suitably awed with my read. But then he rivers a 5 and I am out. Let's see: a 6 outer on the river is, what, a 7:1 dog?

Last night in the last midnight tournament for this group I got fucked just as badly. I had AQ suited and was short, so I went all-in and got two callers. The flop missed everybody, so both of them went all-in. One had 7s, the other had 8s. I got my ace on the river, which made me a 9:1 favorite. And the river came a 7.

So, I say to the poker Gods... whatever it is that I've done, I'M SORRY!

Just how pot committed are you?

For those who don't know, being pot committed means that either your opponent has gone all-in for such a small amount that the pot odds demand a call or that your stack is so short that the same thing applies.

When you're in the latter situation, I think pot odds become a less than deciding factor - after all, your tournament life is on the line, and that's worth whatever the tournament buy-in was in real dollars.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $30 + $3 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 6:23:40 ET - 2007/08/13
Seat 1: villain (420)
Seat 2: (1,405)
Seat 3: (4,358)
Seat 5: (1,237)
Seat 7: (160)
Seat 8: (3,150)
Seat 9: hero (2,770)
Seat 2 posts the small blind of 25
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4h Ad]
Seat 5 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
hero raises to 150

An ace in the cut-off folded around? Sure.

villain calls 150
Seat 2 calls 125
Seat 3 calls 100
*** FLOP *** [9h 4d As]

Nice!

Seat 2 checks
Seat 3 checks
hero bets 600
villain calls 270, and is all in
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
hero shows [4h Ad]
villain shows [6d 5c]

Say what?

If he was going to call the pre-flop raise short stacked, why didn't he just move in? I probably would have folded my crappy ace. What was he really hoping to get with his 6-high post-flop? The back-door 78? Even if he thought I was just making a continuation bet, say, with KQo, I still had him down to 6 outs. Yes, there was 1200 in the pot and it cost him 270 to make the call, but it was his last 270, and against the pre-flop raiser. There's no chance at all I had an ace?

Uncalled bet of 330 returned to hero
*** TURN *** [9h 4d As] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [9h 4d As 3d] [8s]
hero shows two pair, Aces and Fours
villain shows Ace Nine high
hero wins the pot (1,140) with two pair, Aces and Fours
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,140 | Rake 0
Board: [9h 4d As 3d 8s]
Seat 1: villain (button) showed [6d 5c] and lost with Ace Nine high
Seat 2: (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 3: (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: hero showed [4h Ad] and won (1,140) with two pair, Aces and Fours

King Kong says, "It's loose!"

It's been a bad poker morning. Every coin flip has come up tails, everybody has sucked out. It's just been stupid chilly.

Here's a hand where the lessons of position were drilled in once again.

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 16:52:29 ET - 2007/08/12
Seat 1: (890)
Seat 2: (2,310)
Seat 3: hero (1,515)
Seat 4: (1,410)
Seat 5: (1,240)
Seat 6: (1,635)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 20
Seat 2 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kc Jc]
hero raises to 120

A loose raise under the gun, I admit. But I had been very tight and thought it was good enough to try for a steal.

Seat 4 calls 120
Seat 5 calls 120
Seat 6 raises to 480
Seat 1 raises to 890, and is all in
Seat 2 folds

And, of course, that's pretty much the worst case scenario. The one nice thing about raising with a less-than-fantastic hand is that it's easy to get away from it.

hero folds
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 calls 770
Seat 6 raises to 1,635, and is all in
Seat 5 calls 350, and is all in
Seat 6 shows [Ad As]
Seat 1 shows [Th Qd]
Seat 5 shows [7s 9s]

Obviously, the rockets I can understand, but 79s? He called a raise, then called a re-raise and all-in? And QTo went all-in after a re-raise?

Ironically, I had them all beat apart from the aces.

Uncalled bet of 395 returned to Seat 6
*** FLOP *** [6s 5c 5h]
*** TURN *** [6s 5c 5h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [6s 5c 5h 2h] [6h]
Seat 6 shows two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 5 shows two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6 wins the side pot (700) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 1 shows two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6 wins the main pot (2,950) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 1 stands up
Seat 5 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,650 Main pot 2,950. Side pot 700. | Rake 0
Board: [6s 5c 5h 2h 6h]
Seat 1: (small blind) showed [Th Qd] and lost with two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 2: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: hero folded before the Flop
Seat 4: folded before the Flop
Seat 5: showed [7s 9s] and lost with two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6: (button) showed [Ad As] and won (3,650) with two pair, Aces and Sixes

Bread machine bread recipe

A slight variation on Alton Brown's bread recipe from Good Eats episode Dr. Strangeloaf:

1 pound bread flour
10 ounces water
2 tsp sugar
2 tsp salt
1 tsp instant yeast

Measuring the flour by weight is the key.

Add to bread machine pan in the right order (water flour, sugar, salt, yeast).

Use 1½ pound white cycle.

The future of Microsoft

With the release of iWork '08, Apple now has a competitive answer that lines up perfectly against Microsoft's two main monopolistic pillars: Windows and Office.

If Apple continues to gain installed-base share, it won't be too long before the automatic nature of the purchasing policies of business stop being quite so automatic. When that happens, the curve will get a nice knee in it and Apple will at the very least achieve a duopoly.

At that point, what does Microsoft do?

It took them 6 years to release Windows XP.2, aka Vista. And the world has not stopped yawning. Will Vista be the last monopoly Windows product?

I think everyone can agree that without the monopoly propping it up, Windows has nothing to recommend it. And it's interesting to note that the only competition left are Unix clones of one sort or another (in fact, MacOS X recently passed the Open Group's Unix certification, so it's safe to say that MacOS X is not just a Unix clone anymore - it IS Unix).

The Windows NT architecture is dead. It hasn't seen any significant development since Windows 2000. Microsoft's development cycles are doubling in length for each minor release (though if that trend continues, Vista's successor won't appear until 2019, so it's unlikely that it will). Microsoft has, in the past, stated that .Net was the way forward, but most apps for Windows still use the WIn32 api. In that sense, the applications barrier to entry is now working against Microsoft in exactly the same way it has worked against Java and all of the rest of its competitors.

No, it's clear that Microsoft's only alternative to move forward is to do what Apple did when it was in the same spot 10 years ago. Microsoft needs to throw away the underlying architecture and start over. And as it does so, it can provide a backwards compatibility layer for legacy Win32 applications.

So what should they choose?

Linux.

Shocking? Not so much. I didn't say GNU/Linux. I don't suggest that Microsoft should adopt the Gnu LIBC implementation. Microsoft would likely make a clean-room reimplementation of the basic Unix library set. Why would they do that? Because they'll be falling back on their old bag of tricks: embrace, enhance, destroy. By making subtle, incompatible changes to the API, they can re-achieve platform lock-in. Doing this in the kernel will be virtually impossible because of the GPL. But the kernel is irrelevant. Make the libraries proprietary and Microsoft will realize the revenue stream anyway. See also: Mach and MacOS X.

What would Microsoft gain from this strategy? Well, assuming they didn't do it in an asinine way, they'd gain a lot of security improvements. They'd gain incalculable political points - they'd be able to claim that they were based on an "open" system, even though the most important bits would be closed. They'd pass off development and maintenance of their kernel to someone else, effectively, which would dramatically reduce their costs. And to top it all off, this is the exact same play that Apple made when they brought out OS X, so it's not a completely unprecedented move.

It would take some imagination for someone in the upper echelons to grasp this concept. It's not something I think Steve would be able to figure out without help. But maybe Bill still has enough imagination left.

Casino Royale

So a while ago, before I created this blog, I saw Casino Royale and, since they played a lot of poker, I'd been asked by a couple of friends for my opinions on the depiction of poker in the film.

The very first scene, where Bond was at a ring game and the dealer insisted on table stakes was my first "Yes!" moment. So often in the movies they make a big deal about one player or another trying to either add a marker to a bet or what not, where the reality of modern poker games is that table stakes is all you ever see. I don't think the casino would have (or should have) allowed the car as a bet, since there was no way to quickly establish the value of it so that Bond could correctly match the bet, but whatever.

That takes us to the tournament. Which had some issues.

1. They splash the pot a lot when making bets, particularly all-ins. If you are a monster chip-lead at the table and you go all-in, the usual move is to put out a small token stack of chips as you say "all-in," not to take your hands and mush a big pile of chips forward. After the hand, if you win, you don't have such a mess to clean up if you do it the right way. If you lose, the dealer will count your opponent's stack and tell you exactly how much to count out to double him up.

2. This was a tournament. That being the case, the apparent relationship between the buy-in amounts and the tournament chip denominations is fiction. The players were regularly making "million dollar" bets and raises, but it would be far more likely for them to start with T$10000. And if this was Montenegro, wouldn't it all have been in Euros?

3. Vesper should not have had any qualms about giving Bond the re-buy. His entire explanation should have been, "Bad beat (shrug)." Her response, "That's poker. Go try again." If he was bluffing with 72o, it would have been a different story, but he had LeChiff beat until the river.

4. The last hand had some issues. When the two short-stacks moved all-in, there was $30M in the pot. LeChiff's raise of $6M was way, way, way too small. Given his hand, he should have pushed all-in at that moment. The showdown was also wrong. Bond was the last player not all-in to take aggressive action, so he would have been first to show his hand. He would have shown the straight-flush and everybody else would have mucked. Not nearly as dramatic, of course. But if LeChiff had raised the correct amount, then he would have had to show first and Bond would have shown second - the side pots always come before the main. Another way that play could have gone would have been for LeChiff and Bond to just check the hand down. Their real interests were in getting rid of the short stacks and going heads-up for the tournament. It's hard to make a case for that play with a boat and a straight flush, but it would have been a reasonable alternative. The saying is, "Never bluff into a dry side-pot." Finally, What was Bond doing anywhere NEAR that last hand with 57s? That's a donkey play. It would have been defensible if he was the big blind and was allowed to check, but from what I could tell, he was on the button. Maybe he raised on the button to steal, but then I'd be surprised that he got 3 callers. It would have been far more plausible for him to have shown A8 for a better boat than LeChiff's Aces-over-6s (he would have had top two pair on the flop, too, though at that point the two short stacks had a set of 8s and a flush and were both beating him). In the film, until the turn, all he had was the 7-flush with an outside straight-flush draw. Yes, it's a flush, but it's vulnerable to an over-flush (which in this case the short stack actually had). Last, but not least, if there was $20M in the pot before the flop, why weren't the short stacks already all-in? ESPECIALLY the guy with 8s? What, exactly, were they saving the extra $5M and $6M for? He could have easily pushed Bond out pre-flop, and probably LeChiff as well. The two blinds would have battled it out and the flush would have been sent packing and the 8-boat would have doubled up. The three-handed chip-stacks would have been not entirely unreasonable, with LeChiff and Bond both about even with about 40% chips each and the short stack with 20%.

5. At the end, Bond tipped the dealer with what would have been a tournament chip with no actual monetary value. Asshole. You know that's the case because of all of the real money shenanigans with the passwords and the telephoning into swiss bank accounts and on and on that followed. If the chips were money, then he wouldn't have bothered with any of that. He simply would have cashed them out.

Out in one hand

When you see someone lose a tournament in one hand, it either means that one of the players in the hand is a complete donkey or one of them got ridiculously unlucky. And there aren't many situations that match that description. Pocket Aces vs. pocket Kings is certainly a qualifier. Just about the only other one that comes to mind where all the money went in and nobody is to blame is set over set.

Guess what.

I played at tonight's midnight tournament. I started on the button (lucky me). The blinds start at $25/$25 with a spread of $25-$1000 with stacks of $3000. I was dealt pocket 5s. 2nd to act raises by one chip, but he didn't actually say it. I suspect he was trying to limp and thought the blinds were $25/$50. The hijack (one to the right of the cut-off, which is to the right of the button) then raises to $150.

So what do we do with small pocket pairs in position? We get in as cheaply as possible and try to flop a set. Was I worried about being re-raised by the initial "raiser?" No, because I interpreted it as a limp, and he probably did too. Would I have called with 5s if it had been raised to $75, then re-raised to $225? Probably not, because I would have worried about a re-raise.

I call, the blinds fold and the limper/raiser guy calls. The flop comes 562 with two diamonds (I have the 5d). The first guy checks, then the hijack bets $400. I raise to $1400. The limper guy folds. The hijack raises to $2400, I go all-in, he calls. And turns up pocket 6s. The turn is a diamond, so that makes him sweat a little, but the river is a spade. And I'm out in one hand.

This is, of course, the very first hand, so none of us have any information about the other players.

So, gentle readers... what do you think? I think folding 2nd set in that spot is definitely -EV. Statistically the next time it'll be against pocket aces and I'll be the happy one.

Sharkscope check-up

I still haven't quite turned the corner at P* yet, but I am closing in on it - just under $40 to go. But 6 months ago I went to the WPT boot camp, and that changed my game quite a bit. At first, the change was negative, but after I had some tutoring from Crispin, I've seen a definite change. I can validate this by doing an advanced search limiting the results to the last 6 months.

Doing that, on P* I've actually made $109 with a 12% ROI. But that's only with 95 games. I don't play much on P*, since it's so much more convenient to play on FTP.

FTP has not been quite so successful. I'm down $293 with an average loss per game of 50¢ (-10% ROI). But if you look at the graph, there's a huge $600 slide included in that time period that I'm still digging out from. That's across 564 games.

Never give up

Last night was not a great poker night for me. I played in about 7 tournaments of different types (6 way, heads-up) and various stakes and ended up ahead by $1.50. I feel good about all the decisions I made last night, but wound up repeatedly losing to 2- and 3-out draws. But that's beside the point. The tournaments I won were not trouble-free either. In one heads-up match, I was down to $400 and came back to win it, and in one of the 6-ways, I was down to just $50 (pocket kings lost to ATo that made top pair - whereupon all the money went in - and then rivered a set) when we were 6 handed and came back to win.

Parallels Desktop v. VMware Fusion

Those of you who haven't been paying attention might have missed the fact that Macs now have Intel processors in them. This means that they can run Windows without ugly, slow CPU emulation. Instead, you can use Boot Camp to boot the machine directly into a separate Windows partition, or you now have a choice of two competing commercial virtualization offerings: Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion.

I've been using Parallels for some time now. They certainly have gotten more right than wrong, but although Fusion is late to the party (and it isn't even released yet), I have to say, their initial offering is a very, very strong competitor with the more mature Parallels product.

Suspending and resuming virtual machines in Parallels has always been a sore spot for me. Though the screen will pop up quite quickly, the entire machine - both the host and guest - seem to be mired in a tar pit for a very long time while the virtual machine pages itself in. During this time, you really have no indication of what is happening or how long it might take. Perhaps this has more to do with the fact that I use Mac Minis that have slow disks, but even so, it's an annoyance.

The only other real difference of any consequence I have found so far is when using the Netflix Watch Now movie player. Under parallels, rapid motion and panning camera shots often show ugly visible "tearing" artifacts. This is likely caused by a lack of synchronization between the vertical refresh interval of the monitor and the virtual graphics card in the guest. Fusion doesn't have this problem. The netflix player in full screen looks and acts, to my eye, exactly like it would running under Boot Camp.

The other sore spot is converting from one to the other. Although you'd really only likely ever have to do this once, so far as I am aware, in both directions it is a byzantine arrangement involving installing a special Windows program in the opposite software's guest and having it write out the disk contents to a network share. Ugh. Even then, there are a couple of added annoyances. VMWare's virtual machine supports ACPI. The Parallels one does not. There is no way to switch Windows XP from standard to ACPI, so you wind up with no MP support and other quirks until/unless you reinstall Windows. Plus, the Parallels tools won't de-install unless you run the deinstall from within Parallels. There's no real harm in leaving the tools there, but you can't get rid of them.

I took VMware up on their pre-release pricing offer and bought a license. At the time, I figured I was just donating money to a lost cause. Parallels had such a lead, it was hard to imagine VMware being able to catch up. Boy, was I wrong. Now we've got a horse race. And the real winners are mac users who are surely going to benefit one way or the other.

A complete heads-up SnG

Just for a change of pace, let's go through an entire heads-up SnG with me giving the commentary... on my own play. Schizophrenic? Maybe. Let's not analyze that, though. We've got 15 hands to get through. Let's shuffle up and deal!

Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:09:03 ET - 2007/07/31
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Ad Ah]

Nice way to start the day.

hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [5d 9h Kc]

There just is nothing at all better in this world than having rockets and seeing an uncoordinated board with a king on it.

villain checks
hero bets 140

Standard continuation bet.

villain raises to 440
hero raises to 1,410, and is all in

Why mash here? Well, any 3x raise is going to be virtually all-in anyway, so my choice is call or raise. Why raise? Because if he folds, he won't know what I'm holding. I want to protect my continuation bets. He'll think better of trying to raise them, perhaps. Besides, there's an outside chance he could hit two pair or a set. While you can't worry about monsters under the bed, it is still better to win a small pot than lose a big one.

villain folds
Uncalled bet of 970 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (1,060)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,060 | Rake 0
Board: [5d 9h Kc]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (1,060), mucked



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:09:37 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (970)
Seat 2: hero (2,030)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Js Ad]
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
*** FLOP *** [4s 4c 5h]
hero checks

Here I probably might have continuation bet, but it would have looked pretty obvious. If I raised before the flop, did I really have a 4 or a 5 in my hand? That would have invited a check-raise. Could I have called a check-raise with ace high?

villain checks
*** TURN *** [4s 4c 5h] [Qd]
hero checks
villain checks

He's either slow-playing or the ace-high is good. It's not worth trying to steal, so let's see what happens.

*** RIVER *** [4s 4c 5h Qd] [Kc]
hero checks
villain checks

Same again - if my ace is good, then I won't get paid off if I bet, and if it isn't, I'm giving away money.

*** SHOW DOWN ***
villain shows [6h Ah] a pair of Fours
hero shows [Js Ad] a pair of Fours
hero ties for the pot (90) with a pair of Fours
villain ties for the pot (90) with a pair of Fours
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [4s 4c 5h Qd Kc]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [6h Ah] and won (90) with a pair of Fours
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [Js Ad] and won (90) with a pair of Fours



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:05 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (970)
Seat 2: hero (2,030)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qd 8s]
hero calls 15

Hand values go way up heads-up. Q8o is the "computer hand" because it has half the starting hands beat. Certainly worth completing here and then playing in position on my opponent post-flop.

villain checks
*** FLOP *** [Jd Qs 6h]

Nice.

villain checks
hero bets 40
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 40 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (60)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 60 | Rake 0
Board: [Jd Qs 6h]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (60), mucked



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:21 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (940)
Seat 2: hero (2,060)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2s Ks]
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60

This was a bit of a mistake, perhaps. If he has an ace or a king, this hand is probably crushed, and since he is raising, the chances of that are far higher. At this moment, the plan was to get a flush or get out.

*** FLOP *** [Kd 7c 7d]
hero checks

No flush.

villain checks
*** TURN *** [Kd 7c 7d] [9c]

He's either trapping or has nothing. Let's find out.

hero bets 140
villain raises to 850, and is all in
hero calls 710

Oh! Nick, that was a dumb call. What could you beat there? A9? A7? Jacks? Would he have really pressed with those?

villain shows [Kh Qs]

Of course.

hero shows [2s Ks]
*** RIVER *** [Kd 7c 7d 9c] [3c]
villain shows two pair, Kings and Sevens
hero shows two pair, Kings and Sevens
villain wins the pot (1,880) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,880 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 7c 7d 9c 3c]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [Kh Qs] and won (1,880) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [2s Ks] and lost with two pair, Kings and Sevens



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:52 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,880)
Seat 2: hero (1,120)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [As Kh]
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Ts 7d 9d]
villain checks
hero bets 140
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 140 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (180)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [Ts 7d 9d]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (180), mucked

That hand is one of the big patterns in no-limit hold 'em. Raise, call, flop, continuation bet, fold. Happens repeatedly in any tournament.



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:12 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,790)
Seat 2: hero (1,210)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4d 6d]
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 15 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (30)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 30 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (30), mucked

Always nice to get a walk when you're holding crap.



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:19 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,775)
Seat 2: hero (1,225)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qs Kc]
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8d 5c Kh]
villain checks
hero has 15 seconds left to act
hero bets 140
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 140 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (180)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [8d 5c Kh]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (180), mucked

There's that pattern again.


Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:45 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,685)
Seat 2: hero (1,315)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2c Ad]
villain calls 15
hero checks
*** FLOP *** [9d 2d Qh]
hero bets 40
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 40 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (60)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 60 | Rake 0
Board: [9d 2d Qh]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (60), mucked

You don't see the limp-continuation that often except for heads-up. Why? Because when you limp, it generally encourages further limping (by making the pot bigger, thus offering better odds to players acting behind). There's about a 1 in 3 chance that if you have different ranking cards in your hand that you will connect on the flop. The same holds for your opponent. That means that there's a 1 in 9 chance that you both will. So if you hit the flop at all, even with bottom pair, you have to feel good about it. That will come up later.


Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:01 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,655)
Seat 2: hero (1,345)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7c Qd]
hero calls 15
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Kh 5d 6s]
villain bets 120
hero folds
Uncalled bet of 120 returned to villain
villain mucks
villain wins the pot (180)
The blinds are now 20/40
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [Kh 5d 6s]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) collected (180), mucked
Seat 2: hero (small blind) folded on the Flop

Here, we saw the raise, call, flop, bet, fold pattern run the other direction. Could I have folded the Q7 pre-flop instead? Eh. I suppose. But big cards are valuable heads-up, and as we just discussed, the chances of your opponent connecting are low. Could I have raised him on the flop? What if this was one of those one-in-3 that he HAD connected? Not worth the risk. There's always a better spot.


Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:25 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,745)
Seat 2: hero (1,255)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qc 8h]
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 20 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (40)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 40 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (40), mucked

Walk.


Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:31 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,725)
Seat 2: hero (1,275)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kc 8c]
hero raises to 120
villain calls 80
*** FLOP *** [Kd 6c 9h]
villain checks
hero bets 180
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 180 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (240)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 240 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 6c 9h]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (240), mucked

There's that pattern again.


Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:55 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,605)
Seat 2: hero (1,395)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2s Qc]
villain calls 20
hero checks
*** FLOP *** [Td 6h Ah]
hero checks
villain checks
*** TURN *** [Td 6h Ah] [3d]
hero checks
villain checks
*** RIVER *** [Td 6h Ah 3d] [4c]
hero checks
villain checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [2s Qc] Ace Queen high
villain mucks
hero wins the pot (80) with Ace Queen high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 80 | Rake 0
Board: [Td 6h Ah 3d 4c]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) mucked [7c 8d] - Ace Ten high
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [2s Qc] and won (80) with Ace Queen high

Here, again, we got into that mode where my queen high was quite possibly good, but it wouldn't have been worth trying to steal for fear of being played back at.



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:18 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,565)
Seat 2: hero (1,435)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5h Ah]
hero raises to 120
villain calls 80
*** FLOP *** [7h Js Kh]
villain checks
hero bets 180

Standard continuation bet...

villain raises to 1,445, and is all in

Wha...?

We have an overcard and the nut flush draw. What could he have?

If he has a set, two pair, aces, or if he has an ace and a king, jack or 7, our flush draw is a 2:1 dog. If he has an ace and bigger kicker than a 5, we have 9 flush outs and 3 5s to beat him. If he has a pair, then we have 9 flush outs and 3 aces to beat him. If he has nothing, we're actually in the lead.

So which situation is it? At this point, I actually think he might have KQ or K9, in which case, I'm in one of those 12 outs spots. With 12 outs, we're only a 2:3 dog, and that's only if I'm right about my read. Let's gamble.

(edit: When I wrote this, I was off by a little bit. The pot odds offered by his all-in were even money because we started with a shorter stack, so the call was not justified on pot-odds by the flush draw alone. But throw in the possibility of the 3 ace outs being good and suddenly it's a coin flip. So on pot odds the call was correct, but when you're going all-in in a tournament, it's no longer about pot odds. It's about life or death. That's why it was a gamble)

hero calls 1,135, and is all in
villain shows [Qc 2c]

Wow.

Let's look at the hand from his point of view. Our opponent raises from the button - so we're going to be playing out of position, and we have a suited queen. It's worth trying for a queen or a flush draw, so we call. The flop has an overcard and not a single club. We check, our opponent leads out and.... we bluff at it? Why would we do that? Our opponent showed pre-flop strength. So there's NO way he has a king or a jack? That's dangerous to the point of being foolhardy. Yes, you're putting your opponent to the test for his entire tournament life.... but look at the relative stacks at the start. You lose this hand and you are going to be completely crippled, so his life isn't the only one really on the line here. I like this bluff play if your opponent has shown aggression and is down to, say, $500 or so (so even if he wins it, you've still got the lead). I don't like it when the consequences of having it backfire are so great.

hero shows [5h Ah]
Uncalled bet of 130 returned to villain
*** TURN *** [7h Js Kh] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [7h Js Kh 3d] [Kc]
villain shows a pair of Kings
hero shows a pair of Kings
hero wins the pot (2,870) with a pair of Kings
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,870 | Rake 0
Board: [7h Js Kh 3d Kc]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) showed [Qc 2c] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [5h Ah] and won (2,870) with a pair of Kings



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:50 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (130)
Seat 2: hero (2,870)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7h 6d]
villain raises to 130, and is all in
hero folds
Uncalled bet of 90 returned to villain
villain mucks
villain wins the pot (80)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 80 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) collected (80), mucked
Seat 2: hero (big blind) folded before the Flop

He's so short now that every decision should be all-in or fold.



Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:59 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (170)
Seat 2: hero (2,830)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5s Qs]
hero calls 20
villain raises to 80

He raised half his stack, so it's clear he's pot committed, but he's letting me see the flop cheaply. If he pressed here, I probably would have folded and waited for a better hand. Instead...

hero calls 40
*** FLOP *** [5h Ac 4s]
villain bets 90, and is all in

There is no way in hell he wouldn't have pressed pre-flop holding an ace. Much more likely that this is a stop-n-go play. But the stop-n-go only makes sense if you have sufficient fold equity. Our opponent here had four big blinds at the start of this hand.

2nd pair here is almost certainly good.

hero calls 90
villain shows [2c Kh]

et voila.

hero shows [5s Qs]
*** TURN *** [5h Ac 4s] [Jd]
*** RIVER *** [5h Ac 4s Jd] [7d]
villain shows Ace King high
hero shows a pair of Fives
hero wins the pot (340) with a pair of Fives
villain stands up
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 340 | Rake 0
Board: [5h Ac 4s Jd 7d]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) showed [2c Kh] and lost with Ace King high
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [5s Qs] and won (340) with a pair of Fives

Profitable July!

According to Sharkscope, I made $250 in SnGs on Full Tilt during July, with a 25% ROI. Alas, PokerStars was not so hot. I lost $90. I think that's just because I hit a bad patch last night. My goal is to build up to break-even lifetime at P*, then cash out one last time and switch over to FTP exclusively. The statistics on sharkscope will be cleaner that way... I just don't want to leave P* without turning the corner, that's all.

WPT Boot Camp, Ca$h edition

I was at the Commerce Casino last weekend for the WPT Boot Camp's Ca$h edition. Like the tournament camp, it's a two day intensive series of lectures and live-play labs taught by a group of poker professionals. In addition to Jules and Crispin Leyser, our camp was taught by Mark Seif, Nick Brancato and Rick Fuller. Mark Seif is a well known poker player, with two WPT final table appearances to his credit and is also a commentator for the PPT. I had personally never heard of Nick Brancato, but in his short, 3 year career playing online poker he has probably seen as many hands as Doyle Brunson has played in his lifetime. Internet poker has made that possible by allowing him to not only see more hands per hour, but to be seated at multiple tables simultaneously.

In addition to the lectures and labs, there was a special component to the Ca$h camp: The ca$h challenge. I didn't really know how this was going to work until it was explained that day. They sat each of us, in turn, in front of a computer. The computer would present all of us the same sequence of 30 hands in a row. After every hand, our bankroll would be either reduced or replenished to $1000. In this way, everyone had the same experience. The sum total of money you made playing was your score. The top 6 played a 2nd challenge the next day. About half the class lost money. I made about $660. 6th place made just a bit less than twice that. I made exactly one decision that probably kept me out of the running - it cost me about $400 instead of allowing me to make about $200, a swing of $600. Still, if I was playing $5/$10 and made $600 in 30 hands, I'd be ecstatic.

I'm not sure I am going to go down the cash poker road or not. It's a different thing than tournaments, that's for sure. Cash poker is all about results over the long term. I liken it to being a day trader - but with fewer unknowns. There's no doubt at all that it can be a profitable experience. But I'm not sure it would be for me. Tournaments have an advantage in that your risk in any one tournament is limited, and each has an end. Cash poker is about statistics gathering and management. The disadvantage of tournament poker is that it's like being a major league hitter: Even the very best fail 2/3 of the time. Sometimes they knock one out of the park, but certainly not every time.

I might still decide to give it a try. I am undecided. At the moment, all my focus is on getting midnight tournament points for the upcoming Bay 101 open. As of the 24th, I'm in 7th place, and there are two shots left.

Aussie Rules Football on KCSM!

I remember watching AFL (back then it was actually VFL) games on ESPN back when I was in college. I missed them when they went off the air. Well, they are available on the Setanta satellite TV channel, but fortunately for me, they're also showing a match of the week on KCSM! We're picking up their digital over-the-air signal, and I believe it's on the -2 stream, but I'm not sure. Through the magic of TiVo, I don't actually know when it gets aired. I have a season pass, so I don't actually worry about such things.