High Stakes Poker...

An interesting episode. Most of the poker was lost in the chatter of Antonio Esfandiari and Phil Laak trying to drum up prop bets. Though Esfandiari who is known for his pushups bets probably hurt "business" by doing more than the minimum. He made it pretty obvious he could do at least 50 pushups. He did 47 and stopped. So next time he's offering odds anybody that's seen the show will have a hard time biting at anything less then 50.

Director Nick Cassavetes was on the hook for $1,000. He bet that Antonio couldn't do a mere 35 pushups. Seemed like Antonio might have had a couple of other fishes on the line but they just couldn't seem to bite quick enough for the other players to take their timeout from the poker.

Partik Antonius was the primary internet poker player on the show and he didn't get too involved in too many hands.

The ones he did, in this episode at least he lost. Against, Daniel Negreanu he called DN's preflop raise with A10 off suit. Daniel had led out with his favorite type of hand 5s6s. Flop came 438 with one spade. DN led again with his open ended draw and Patrik called with his overcards.

An Ace of Spades hit, and now Daniel was open-ended with a flush draw, but it was Patrik with the best hand. Daniel bet out again. Patrick called. River was a 4 of spades. Daniel made his flush, but checked maybe wary of a boat (or with his luck on High Stakes four of kind). Patrik bet his top pair and Daniel flatted for the win.

Later they clashed again with Daniel holding KJ and Patrik 77. The flop came J2J. DN checked raised Patrik and Patrik called. Turn brough an A and DN checked called Patrik's second bullet. The river went check-check.

What's maybe more interesting in the play is how Daniel, I've noticed, doesn't go to his bag of tricks against the other pros as much. Sure, his reading skills are less useful against those guys, but he's at his best chatting during a hand. In High Stakes, he checks his big hand like he's got a big hand. It's almost like these guys get so wrapped up in the meta head games they've don't monitor the information they are giving out and their opponents are too.

Patrik is mister stoic, so perhaps experience has taught Daniel he can't get much a read on him... but I think his game suffers when he doesn't try. Sure he won both pots but maybe he could have won more.

Latest High Stakes

Team Poker

I heard that Chip Reese was an investor away from creating a poker league. Many of his ideas were very similar to the format rolled out by Dream Team Poker. The dream team, is your team, so I hope you got big time friends. The concept of team poker is good one. Big time pros got behind the idea as they didn't turn their nose up at the small buy-in for the event and a ton of them graced Caeser's in Las Vegas with their presence.

The results from the event where teams featuring Justin Bononomo and Jaime Gold have won the last two show skill is still important even in a team format. The fact that those two players have shady clouds hanging over their pasts maybe shouldn't be ignored either.

Dream Team poker works likes this, there are a ton of three man teams competing against one another in a poker tournament. Also, at stake are individual prizes as well as the team prizes. So, if somebody snaps you off and you are left cuddling felt, and as a team player you still got a chance to win some money.

The concept is a good one. Not only because it's a nice tweak on poker but it also shows a side of poker that's not in full view. In fact, it takes something from the shadows and puts the spotlight on it. Everyday non-team poker events have a lot of team poker characteristics. A ton of players trade percentages of one another in every tournament they play. Yet, nobody knows who has a chunk of who. Wouldn't it be nice if they just wore jerseys? Well, here they do. Course that wouldn't stop teams from teaming up with another. Though you can only divvy a pie so many ways.

Dream Team Poker gives the poker player that grew up in a team sport childhood a chance to not be the solitary card player and actual participate in a team atomosphere. That's great because even though many people have a shoulder to cry on over a bad beat they don't have any team-mates. It'd be nice to see the online sites experiment with this thought a little bit as they'd be able to manage a team tournament with ease and could even expand on it.

Why stop at three teammates. Why not five or seven or ten. Course, some online players might later regret informing the site, the network of ip addresses that form their team if those addresses every collude. But exposing cheating is always good for the game. Hopefully some internet poker site will make this available for all to play.

Online Legal Update

A while ago, Anurag Dikshit, former founder and executive at PartyGaming made a deal with the US government so he could set foot in the country again. I believe he paid a few hundred million. He paid a price that was a bit too steep. As PartyGaming just settled, settled exactly what is a good question, for considerably less than that. What was the purpose as PartyGaming is off in another hemisphere making bank with the rest of the world as runners.

Apparently, they are paying the government for that small window that the UIEGA was passed and they were still operating in the U.S. They aren't paying to come back. At least right now. The thinking seems to be, they are playing for a longterm foothold and paying the U.S. essentially to do it. As opposed to the sites that are busy soliciting U.S. business, PartyGaming is cozying up with the U.S. and when the doors are opened they are going to blast through. Perhaps, you could call it currying favor.

What benefits they'd get over Doyle's Room, Pokerstars, or FullTilt is anybody's guess. If the doors are opened and things are overturned, or never turned over in the first place, why would the government stop or hinder the other businesses and what possible preferential treament could PartyGaming get.

Speaking of FullTilt, despite the rumor that the Cyclona Gowen vs Full Tilt Poker Lawsuit was dismissed it's still going full... tilt. Gowen who sued Full Tilt and just about anybody who's ever wore a Full Tilt lid is trying to move the case to the next stage. They want to further the discovery process and get some depositions. Full Tilt meanwhile has been a little more even keeled about things. They have a motion to dismiss the case and are looking forward to the hearing on April 27th to discuss just that.

Course U.S. online poker isn't the only online poker and party poker isn't the only non-U.S. game in town. There are plenty of sites with a whole lot to offer.

Hedge to Win

I checked out one of my favorite poker and sports blogs today, here, and the hedge concept was discussed. This one applied less to hedging in poker and more about sports betting hedging. The author has been gambling on the NCAAAs by filling out a ton of brackets. Apparently he picked the Tar Heels to win and did well enough in his other brackets to have a chance to win some cash.

The only problem is, the way the rankings work. If UNC loses, he wins nothing. Yet, if he hedges he can guarantee a win regardless of whether or not UNC wins. Let's break down the math.

Hypothetically the author to win $1,100 if UNC wins the game. We'll call that outcome A. If they lose he wins nothing. We call that outcome B. Let’s assume he’s risked say $100 to have this opportunity. So technically, if they lose he actually loses his $100 and his profit if they win is only $1000.

Thus: A = $1000. B = -$100.

Can he hedge to make this better for him?

Yes, if he bets michigan state for anything over $100 he guarantees he'll win. Let's say he bets Michigan State to win outright and wagers $101. Now outcome A is lessened but outcome B is increased.

Thus: A = $899. B= $1.

You can see why it might make sense to guarantee himself at least a free roll, although reducing his profit margin if UNC does win.

On top of that North Carolina is big favorite in the game--which actually makes his hedge potentially even more lucrative. Why hedge if you team is a big favorite? The point spread is 7.5 which is a big line for college basketball and that creates a large win zone for the player.
Now there are three outcomes if he bets Michigan State, because he can still win if they don't win outright.

Let's say he bets $250 because he wants to win a little more money. In outcome A, UNC wins and covers the 7.5 points. Thus, he wins $750 (and cost himself $250 by hedging). However, if Michigan State wins outright the player now wins $250 for a profit of $150 for outcome B. However, if UNC wins but MSU covers and loses by a margin of 1 to 7 points there is an even more profit margin with the player winning $1000 for UNC winning and $250 for UNC covering.

Thus: A = $750, B = $150, and C = $1250.

Now there is even more reason for the player to hedge.

The hedge is a good play. Incidentally, as the blogger points out online gamblers should consider betting on the Heels for no other reason than the fact they too are gamblers. Read Sports Illustrated’s article here.

To understand how this applies to poker read bet and win's take. Hedging scenarios are difficult to spot in poker, but for the reasons they are profitable in sports gambling above they can be really proftiable in poker too. Look for them, and exploit them.

Strike Fear in the Heart of Your Opponent!

My friend the PokerBat suscribes to one theory about poker. It's simple. The BETTOR BUSINESS BUREAU of Poker as he calls it. The BBB. Or... more simply: Bet, Bet, Bet.

Agression is king in poker. And the best business in poker is being the aggressor.

The only thing scarier than being bet into time and again is being called down time and again when you are bluffing. Don't worry, you'll learn to see the determined glean in the eye of your opponent who has had enough and know when to check the next time.

You want to strike fear into the heart of your opponent let your chips be your weapon. You want to be the most feared guy on the table, three bet your (preferably) tight opponent three times in a row. He ain't entering the pot unless he's got a hand, and you got control.

All agression in poker should be calculated and carefully rendered but like in a prize fight it should be delivered time after time. Your bets should be a jab, jab, jab until you've set him up for the knock out punch.

It's easy to simply call or to throw out one raise but not a second. However, you have to be willing to die to be able to live as Amir Vaheidi once said. It's the truth. Over time the most successful poker players are some of the most aggressive. Even the tight players are aggressive. They got a hand they bet, bet, bet.

It's good business, the BBB.

Stu Unger was a Vegas legend because of his unmitigated agression. Tom Dwan is seeking to become one because of it. Put either of those two guys on a hand at your own peril.

Being unpredictable and thought of as a player who is just gambling is a great way to play this game. You'll get called by weak hands. Strong hands will push back too much and you can get away from a losing holding.

Don't forget though to be unrelenting. Wear down you opponent and think of your bets as punches winding him ever so slightly but long run you will break him.