Месяц: Сентябрь 2014

On the heels of a historic nomination in his first year of eligibility, poker professional Daniel Negreanu may not be winning many votes towards his election. In a blog post on Full Contact Poker, Negreanu is highly critical of some of the nominees for election this year, arguing that some players are being overlooked that are deserving of at the minimum nomination.

“So the WSOP recently released its ten nominees for induction into the Poker Hall of Fame,” Negreanu started his post. “The process for this appears to be a combination of a fan vote, with some additions where necessary.” With that said, Negreanu launches into his first criticism of the nomination process by reviewing one player in particular, original Texas Road Gambler Bob Hooks. “(Hooks’) name is on the list and I can’t imagine he was voted in by the fans…I’m embarrassed to say that, while I’ve heard the name before, I have no idea who he is or what his accomplishments are.”

Negreanu then goes on to deride other first time nominees (like himself) Bruno Fitoussi, Ted Forrest and Jack McClelland. “(There are) plenty of great and likely deserving players not on this list,” he writes. “Too many to mention, but a few highlights would include players like Gus Hansen, John Juanda and Carlos Mortensen. It is surprising to…not see these names on the ballot in 2014.”

It seems that Negreanu’s disagreement with some of the nominees is an age-based one. “Should someone who is 75 years old, no longer at their peak or even playing, trump the credentials of someone 45 years old who has been in the game for, say, 20 odd years?” Negreanu asks. He then compares Chris Bjorin (who has been nominated for three consecutive years) to Juanda and Negreanu gives the edge to Juanda. “(Juanda’s) tournament results are better, he’s played the highest stakes cash games in the world and has the respect of his peers…I want to be clear that (Bjorin) is a fantastic player that meets much of the criteria, but I think Juanda is even more qualified. Bjorin is 66, Juanda is just 43…should that matter? Personally, I think absolutely not,” Negreanu concludes.

First off, the nomination of Hooks was probably through one of the caveats of the Poker Hall of Fame voting procedures. Each living member of the Poker Hall of Fame (21) and a similar numbered group of industry professionals (usually poker journalists) has 10 votes to allocate. If a member of the Hall gives even one vote to someone who wasn’t on the nomination list, then that person automatically is nominated the next year. This is likely the method that Hooks was nominated.

Other Halls of Fame also have requirements for induction that set a time frame (Negreanu admits he doesn’t know these). For example, in baseball a player has to be retired for five years before he can be inducted; the same is true for basketball and pro football. That is a bit difficult to do in poker due to the longevity of careers, but the “Chip Reese Rule” that states a player has to be over 40 years old to be considered is a worthy one.

There is a problem that the Poker Hall of Fame faces in what qualifies as “high stakes.” In the past, cash games ruled the roost but, since the turn of the century, many in the poker community consider tournament poker to be the benchmark. Fans – who set the nominees for consideration with their vote – are more likely to look at those who are “hot” at the moment in tournament poker rather than the ambiguous cash game world. This might be the reason that Mortensen, who had a stirring run at the 2013 WSOP Championship Event before falling short of the final table and was nominated for the Hall following that, wasn’t on the 2014 nominations list after Forrest won a bracelet at this year’s WSOP.

While Negreanu may not be wooing voters through his criticism, the Poker Hall of Fame may need some revision to its processes. Two inductees a year is too few, perhaps four should be the limit. In addition, the living members of the Hall (and selected poker historians) could make up a “Veterans’ Committee” (something each Hall for sports has) that would pick one person from the game’s past to induct each year. This year’s actions for the Poker Hall of Fame may be almost completed, but there’s always room for improvement in the coming years.

Whether you are a professional or just a casual player, the start of a new year wipes the slate clean for everyone involved in poker. Everyone’s reset back to zero as to winnings, there’s a fresh array of tournaments and cash games waiting (online or live) and the zeal to play the game has been reborn. With this in mind, here are a few suggestions to get your 2014 poker year off to a great start.

Set Your Goals

As with any endeavor, it is always important to set goals to aspire to. Depending on your depth of involvement with poker, those goals can be different for the recreational player or the embedded table grinder. Do you want to play more tournaments? Do you want to make a certain amount each month playing the game? Do you want to learn a new discipline of poker? These are all things that have to be considered.

Pull out a piece of paper (or a Word document) and put down five things that you would like to achieve over the next 12 months. Remember to not set the goals too low or too high; there is nothing that disappoints someone more than easily blasting through a list of achievements or, on the other hand, not reaching said goals. This is something that will take a great deal of honesty out of a person and they have to know their mindsets and playing expectations.

Myself, for example, I would like to play 12 tournaments this year. Doesn’t matter the buy-in, where it is or what game, just 12 events. I would like to also finish off a poker book that I am working on. I would like to show a profit for the year overall in both tournaments and cash games and…well, you get the point. Set these goals, put the document aside and look back at them on occasion through the year. If you knock off your list (or even knock off a couple of items), add in a new goal so that you always have five set goals to complete by December.

Erase the Slate

One of the most important things a poker player can do is have an accurate statistical Excel sheet (or a balance book) for their poker performance. This would encompass how much you’ve spent, what you’ve taken in and other “notes” that you make on your game throughout the year. Every poker player who is worth something has this system to track their performance and, if you haven’t already done so, it is important to set one up.

There are some programs online that will provide you with a method for tracking your monetary performance through the year, but it is easy to set one up yourself. Use an Excel spreadsheet and ACCURATELY track your buy-ins, cash outs and other statistics each time you play. The reason for the emphasis is that some players will even lie to themselves; they’ll put down their winning sessions but, disgusted by losing, those will be forgotten. Some players will say they are “winners” when, if they accurately put all of their performances on paper, they would see they are actually losing money at the game.

Do this throughout the year and you will see which side of the fence you are on.

Stimulate the Mind

Set up a way that, even if you aren’t playing poker, that you still are thinking about the game and improving yourself. Although the market has dwindled over the past few years, there are still some excellent poker books out there that might help you in this endeavor (we’ll be looking at some of those as January continues). You can also use poker computer games to challenge your skills.

This may sound a bit geeky, but I will sometimes just sit and deal out a nine-handed Texas Hold’em game by myself. I will look at each of the cards and determine what action the imaginary player would take in each position, then deal out the flop, turn and (sometimes) river as the hand plays out. If that’s a bit much, just deal out one or two sets of hole cards, throw up a flop and do the mental exercises (how many outs, chances of improving the hand, etc.) that you would do on the felt.

Have Something OTHER Than Poker

This is perhaps the biggest thing that poker players don’t do. When they are away from the tables, it is important to have something other than poker on your mind. Read a novel, go to a concert, interact with family and friends…these are all good suggestions for the “balanced” life that is necessary for success in any endeavor. While poker is great, there are other things in life that can be better and it is important to not forget those.

Using these thoughts, you might set yourself up to be well-rounded, rested and prepared for what the 2014 poker year throws at you and the success that it might bring! What would be some of your suggestions for starting off the “new” poker year correctly?

One of the things that I noticed at this year’s World Series of Poker was the amount of action that was going on pre-flop on some hands. Players were laying out three, four, even as much as seven-betting the action pre-flop. In one particular hand, a player with pocket nines used such a seven-bet and ran into (you guessed it) pocket Aces. On the other occasions, the predictable happened (pocket Aces against pocket Kings or Queens or an A-K) and, pretty much every time it happened, the Aces would prevail.

The reason for this is the proliferation of the minimum raise in tournament poker. The “min-raise” (with stakes at 1000/2000, for example, a raise to 4000), in its original usage, was to play a hand with the minimum risk employed. Poker pro Daniel Negreanu has always been a practitioner of such actions with his “small ball” approach, but it seems recently that players have gotten a bit carried away with the move; if a player takes it up to 4K, for example, a player uses the three-bet to make it 6K, another up to 8K, and so on.

The problem with the min-raise philosophy is that, once it gets beyond three bets, the plan of “keeping the pot small” has flown out the window. Instead of getting in with a minimal risk, if it comes back to you and you’re suddenly putting in what you would have for a normal three/four times pre-flop bet, then the “small ball” approach isn’t there anymore. Furthermore, if you continue the lunacy and min-raise again, it is more than likely that another player in the hand will still continue to push the action.

To put it simply, when there are three bets in the pot pre-flop, it is time to slow it down.

If you have the Aces, then there’s no reason to not continue the action. Where the question comes in is why you didn’t make a standard raise out of the gate. Some players complain, “I never get any action when I make a normal raise,” but, when you have the Aces, you WANT players to come along with you; go ahead and put out the normal raise (three/four times the blind) and let the lemmings follow you to the proverbial cliff.

Making a min-raise when holding pocket Aces is just asking for disaster. First off, you allow players (especially the blinds) to see a flop for a minimal expenditure. Aces are great in a heads-up situation (against another pocket pair an 81/19 favorite), but they lose their value the more opponents they face (against four opponents, for example, the pocket Aces only will win 56% of the time). Thus, the normal procedures of a standard bet are best if you’re the one with the bullets.

When it comes to having pocket Kings or Queens, this is where you have to potentially slow it down. Although the likelihood of the opponent who is re-raising you having pocket Kings or Aces is small, there is that possibility. It could also be likely that your opponent might be pushing an A-K or A-Q, in which case it is off to the races. By continuing to multiple bet the pot pre-flop, you are just giving more pot odds for a player to make their stand.

As stated before, once the action reaches three-bet level, it is time to slow it down and take a look at a flop, unless you’re sitting on the pocket Aces, then all bets are off. There is no crime in playing a hand post-flop; if your pocket Kings or Queens see an Ace or King appear on the flop, you now have some more information to be able to determine just how to proceed. If this occurs, there’s no crime in letting the hand head to the muck and waiting for the next opportunity that comes.

One of the biggest problems in poker nowadays is that play doesn’t happen post-flop. Whether it is the machismo that is a part of the game or the blind aggression brought by the online generation, post-flop play has been sacrificed from Texas Hold’em. The madness that min-raising has brought to the tables is a part of the reluctance to actually have to think about playing post-flop that many have.

Poker is an ever-evolving game and the min-raises, multiple bets pre-flop and other tactics aren’t going to go away. To be successful on the tournament poker felt, it can arguably be stated that after three bets, just call it down and let the chips – and cards – fall where they may.

It is a question that has been debated since probably the dawn of the game of poker (whether you believe it was invented in Turkey, France, Louisiana or on the riverboats of the Mississippi River). What is the skill element of poker versus that of luck? Leave it to a top science magazine to wade into the waters and attempt to answer that age-old debate.

In an article on the Scientific American website, writer Jennifer Ouellette pens an intriguing look at the “skill versus luck” debate, featuring input from a few of poker’s more notable names. In an article entitled “Knowing When To Fold’em: The Science of Poker,” Ouellette begins her piece by discussing the latest ruling in federal court that overturned the conviction of a Staten Island man for running a “game of chance,” in essence saying poker was a game of skill. Ouellette also points out the contradictory stance from the U. S. government in its decision from December 2011 on the Wire Act of 1961 and its crackdown in April 2011 on the three biggest websites servicing American players.

Ouellette then brings up a fascinating study by German researchers that offers a different opinion than the federal court system. The German study rounded up 300 players, with half of the players self-described as “experts” and half as “average,” and set them on six handed tables to play 60 hands of Texas Hold’em. Through fixing the deck, the researchers could, in their opinion, accurately measure whether luck or skill was predominant and the results opened Pandora’s Box once again.

In that study, Ouellette reports that the researchers determined, “Luck, rather than skill, was key in determining final balance, with experts taking no more, on average, that novices. Experts did play differently, on various measures, and seemed better able to cope with bad luck, losing less. But they also won less when given good cards.” The German study does point out some flaws with its study – the limited number of hands and the self-determination by players of their skill levels, to name two – but it stated that poker is, contrary to other studies and court rulings, driven by luck.

In her article, Ouellette cites several other pieces written by her and academics on the issue. Poker professional Michael Binger – who has a degree in particle physics to fall back on in case the poker thing doesn’t work out – is one of the poker playing physicists she consults and he offers the opinion that, studying the game and its mathematics, that poker is a “beatable game.” Ouellette offers Binger’s opinion after dissecting his approach to blackjack, which Binger learned he “wasn’t going to get rich” by playing the game.

Binger also admits that he has an edge in his use of probabilities, equity calculations and statistical analysis, but that he also knows players who play “by feel.” Another poker playing physicist, Marcel Vonk, says to Ouellette, “There are many people who hate math but are great poker players, but there are hardly any players who lack the people reading abilities and still manage to be good poker players. Mathematical knowledge can to a large extent be replaced by intuition and experience. After a player has played a million hands of poker, even if he does not know the math at all, he will have a decent feeling about when it is profitable to draw to a flush and when it is not.”

Ouellette also acknowledges the work done in the field by former World Champion Chris Ferguson, who hasn’t been seen on a poker table in some time (and we know why). He explains the logistics behind the game, his work in game theory on the subject and is cited in the bibliography that concludes the article.

So what does Ouellette conclude from her look at the subject? You’ll have to determine that for yourself by taking in her entire piece at Scientific American (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2012/08/27/knowing-when-to-fold-em-the-science-of-poker/).

As online gaming and poker regulation remains an issue without resolution in the United States (save for a few states), two countries are currently looking at updating their laws regarding the issue. Those two countries, however, are taking entirely different approaches as to how their respective countries will handle online gaming and poker.

In a story from AsiaOne.com, writer Lim Yan Liang reports that Singapore is considering a bill that would criminalize online gaming and poker not only for companies offering such fare but also for players on said sites. The law eerily reflects the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) and “Black Friday” situations in that online sites would be blocked from operation in the country or seized outright. In addition to those moves, transactions identified as online gaming transfers to offshore sites would be blocked.

Going a step further, the bill (called the “Remote Gaming Bill”) would criminalize players who partake of the action from offshore sites. Liang reports that players face the potential penalty of six months in jail or a fine of up to $5000. If a person is inviting underage players (under 21) to gamble online, those penalties increase to a fine between $20,000 and $300,000 and the violator would also face up to six years in prison. Liang also states that “agents” (presumably affiliates who direct players to online sites) would face strict penalties.

The move appears to be one in which Singapore is looking to nationalize their online gaming operations. Online gaming and poker would still be offered in the country, but only through sites that are based in Singapore and are “non-profit” operations. Statistics state that Singapore’s online gaming market is worth about $416 million (U. S. dollar) and that 95% of that total is wagered on offshore sites.

While the proposed regulations in Singapore might not have an effect on U. S. players, another country’s moves could be much more significant. In Mexico, the Parliament is looking to update their regulations on gaming overall and, in particular, online gaming and poker. Mexico has laws on the books that date back to 1947, but the head of the Association of Licensees, Operators and Suppliers of Gaming and Entertainment in Mexico (AIEJA) believes it is time for an upgrade to cover online gaming and poker.

The bill would look to clear up several issues in Mexico. A minimum gaming age of 21 would be established and offer licensees 10-year licenses. Several new organizations would be established to oversee the new regulations (including an advisory committee composed of the secretaries of several government agencies), and regulation of online gaming and poker would be enacted.

That final point is where some U. S. players may have an issue. It is believed that the new online regulations would (like Singapore) nationalize operations and make offshore operations (and playing on them) illegal. Mexico has been a popular destination for U. S. players that have been affected by the shutdown of the major online poker sites and, if those sites are put under watch in Mexico, could prevent them from being able to play “south of the border.”

Miguel Angel Ochoa Sanchez, the president of AIEJA, believes that the bill will overwhelmingly pass through the Mexican Parliament by September 20 at the latest. After passage of the bill, Ochoa Sanchez is looking to have it implemented before Mexican general elections take place in 2015.

The two proposals by Singapore and Mexico continue a trend that has been rampant since the mid-2000s in online gaming and poker. Many countries in Europe (Germany, France, Spain and Italy, most notably) have nationalized their online gaming operations (believed to be a violation of many European Union trade laws) and Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Sweden) have followed suit. The success of these nationalization efforts has been mixed, with France especially reporting that revenues from online gaming and poker have fallen precipitously because of the lack of action from a French-centric gaming operation.

After a grueling 15 hour day, the six men have been determined for the 2014 World Poker Tour Borgata Poker Open final table. Heading to today’s action, Kane Kalas – who has already earned his best ever cash in a poker tournament regardless of where he finishes today – will hold a sizeable lead over a challenging table.

31 players returned to the felt on Thursday with Jean ‘Prince’ Gaspard holding more than a 2.5 million chip lead over second place Blake Bohn. There were plenty of other challenges facing these two men that included Zo Karim, Darren Elias, Ray Quartomy and WPT champions Cornell Cimpan and Bobby Oboodi, who was looking to make WPT history by winning the same event twice (Oboodi captured the title in this event back in 2011). On the shorter end of the stick, players such as Barry Shulman, Erik Cajelais and Matt Glantz looked for their opportunity to strike.

Glantz would be the first of the notables to take the long walk from the Borgata, his A-2 failing to find anything on a J-10-10-2-10 board against Scott Matte’s pocket fives. After a level up, Oboodi got into the action in eliminating Eugene Todd from the tournament in 28th place with a big pocket Aces versus pocket Kings cooler. Down to three tables, another clash would result in a change atop the leaderboard.

After Gaspard made an opening raise, Shulman three bet from the button and Elias popped a four bet into the pot out of the small blind. Gaspard didn’t back down, moving all in with his leading stack and Shulman got out of the way. Elias stuck around, putting his tournament life on the line, and showed a powerful pocket pair of Kings. Gaspard had that beat with his pocket Aces, but the winds of fortune weren’t with him. A King on the flop put Elias into the lead and, once the turn and river blanked out, he rocketed up to 4.85 million in chips. Gaspard, after suffering his first setback, was still good with slightly more than 2 million in chips.

All of this action occurred within just two hours of the start of play, but the carnage wasn’t done yet. Cimpan’s run at a third WPT title was ended by Aaron Overton in 22nd place, while Iaron Lightbourne first savagely crippled Shulman before mercifully ending his tournament in 17th place. Cajelais would see his day ended in 16th place at the hands of Gaspard and Lightbourne, despite his beating of Shulman, would go in 15th place at the hands of Karim.

As the dinner bell rang, Gaspard had revived his stack to almost 7 million in chips, but that was still behind Elias’ 7.14 million stack. The two men, on the same patch of felt with two tables left, were far and above the field as Bohn was the closest competitor with just over 4 million chips and everyone else muddled around the 2-3 million level. Although they didn’t know it at the time, there was still a great deal of poker left to be played.

Gaspard chopped into Elias’ lead in making a nut flush following dinner as those back in the pack tried to maneuver up the leaderboard. Kalas began his run at the final table by knocking off Matte in 11th place to bring the 10 remaining men to the unofficial final table, then bumped off Karim in 10th place to take over the chip lead. Bohn attempted to keep pace with Kalas, eliminating Ory Hen in 9th place to creep close to Kalas as the clock approached midnight.

Even after the elimination of Nicholas Gerrity in 8th place, it still took almost 100 hands before the television “bubble boy” was determined. Although Gaspard had kept his name in the mix for much of the day’s action, seven-handed play saw his stack dwindle. After doubling up Quartomy, Gaspard was still sitting on a 2 million chip stack but it would disappear in what started out as a three way hand against the two big stacks on the table.

Kalas raised from under the gun and Gaspard decided to make his stand, moving all-in. Undaunted by the action in front of him, Elias called Gaspard’s bet and, after some thought, Kalas came along also. Elias and Kalas checked the 10-7-6 flop and, on a Jack turn, Kalas fired a bet that Elias called. On the river four, both players checked the action and, after Kalas turned up pocket Queens, Elias mucked to give Kalas the side pot. Gaspard, looking to best Kalas’ hand, could only muster an A-10 that couldn’t best him to slide to the rail in 7th place and set today’s final table.

Kane Kalas, 14.025 million

Darren Elias, 8 million

Blake Bohn, 7.705 million

Aaron Overton, 3.245 million

Jose Serratos, 2.05 million

Ray Quartomy, 1.795 million

It looks as though the fight will be between the top three stacks, but Quartomy – even on the short stack – can’t be overlooked. The 10-year tournament poker veteran has been able to rack up over $1.7 million in career earnings, with most of that coming from a fourth place finish in the 2013 Seminole Hard Rock Poker Open. Bohn also bears watching as he has been hovering around the upper reaches of the leaderboard since the start of the tournament.

The final table will kick off at 4PM (Eastern Time) this afternoon and will be taped for broadcast as a part of the WPT Season XIII schedule. For those that can’t wait until it comes on television, a “live” stream (half-hour delay) will also be presented beginning at 4:30PM. By the end of the night, someone will walk away with the latest championship on the WPT and a massive $843,744 payday.