Over the years, I have witnessed many things in poker that I could group into a single category.  Some of these things were strange, some were not strange at all, but they all had one thing in common: they needed a word to describe them (or, at least, they needed a better word to describe them).  I mean, why say “the the three cards in the flop all had different suits” when you can say “rainbow”?  So, in no particular order, here are a few new words for your poker vocabulary that I coined or witnessed my friends coin.  You can use them to minimize the energy you need to describe them.

• Bolts - We all know about holding the nuts.  If you have the nuts, you have the best possible poker hand.  The bolts is the opposite.  If you have the bolts, you have the worst possible poker hand.  For example, if the board is KK278 and you are holding 34, you have the bolts.  This is particularly bad if, between you and your opponent, you have the nuts and bolts.  (NOTE: It is not a coincidence that a bolt closely resembles a screw.)
• Turnip- We’ve all played donkeys, but is it really fair to call a new player who doesn’t have a clue a “donkey” or “fish”?  These players are turnips.  They haven’t had enough experience to be a donkey or fish.  They have just fallen off the turnip truck.  Hopefully, once their beginner’s luck is gone, they will graduate to donkeyness or fishdom.
• Suck-Resuck- This phenomenon is experienced by two players who have all of their money in the pot pre-flop.  It is best definied with an illustration.  Let’s say two players get all their money in pre-flop with AT vs. QQ.  For a suck-resuck to occur, it is essential that one player be favored over the other.  The phenomenon begins when the dealer starts to spread the flop and the first card becomes visible.  In the case of the illustration, the top card would have to be an ace, giving the player with AT that instant adrenaline rush; however, as the flop is spread, the ace slides over to reveal another Q, crushing the hopes of the AT player.  In other words, for the briefest of seconds, the AT sucked out on the QQ, but the QQ instantly resucked.
• Blinophobe- Any person who seems to be afraid to post a blind before being instructed to do so by the dealer.  This person is closely related to antephobes.  (NOTE: Blinophobia is often the misdiagnosis for a more frustrating problem - forgetfulness.)
• Antephobe- Any person who seems to be afraid to post an ante before being instructed to do so by the dealer.  This person is closely related to the blinophobe.
• Burbank- Incredibly bad acting by a person who is trying to disguise the strength (or lack of strength) of his/her hand.  This term is closely related to “Hollywood”, but when it’s bad acting, you have to name it after Hollywood’s ugly step-sister.
• Chip Pilot - Any person who has the ability to make his/her chips fly after taking a bad beat.
• Alkaline Syndrome- If you have seen too much of Phil Hellmuth, you have an unbalanced PH level.  The only known cure to balance your PH level is to discontinue watching ESPN for at least one week.
• Dathowdayduitontv - There is no definition for this word, but people whose learning experiences are limited to watching poker on TV often use the word.  On a side note, there has yet to be a documented case in which a person muttering this word has ever been correct.
• Pretessional Poker Player - A person who pretends to be a professional poker player and will tell everybody within ear shot that he/she has cashed in major tournaments, but doesn’t tell you that his/her cash rate is incredibly poor.

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Jack McClelland once again proved why he is one of the best tournament directors in the business by not only knowing the rules, but understanding them and being willing to adapt them to meet the needs of players.

According to an article posted on the CardPlayer Magazine website entitled Jack McClelland Changes Show One Card, Show Both Rule, Mr. McClelland recently took the advice of players and changed a controversial rule that served little purpose other than to upset players.

Before Day 3 of the WPT World Championship, the director of tournament operations at the Bellagio in Las Vegas gathered the remaining players in the field, stood on stage along with Daniel Negreanu (credited for instigating the change) and acknowledged that Negreanu’s complaints about the controversial rule may be valid.  McClelland then asked the players to vote on whether or not they should keep the rule that requires players who show one card after they win an uncontested pot should be required to show both cards.

Players overwhelming voted to get rid of the rule and with that, McClelland did as the players wished.  For that, I believe Jack McClelland should be given kudos for setting his ego aside, listening to the players, making a determination of the affect of the rule (or lack of the rule), and then making a sound judgment based on all the available information and desires.

Let’s hope that other tournament directors follow suit (no pun intended) and do away with the rule, too.  Regardless, it should be noted that Jack McClelland helped to set the trend on this rule.  Good work!!!

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

A friend of mine sent me an interesting series of questions the other day.  There was nothing particularly difficult about any of the questions, but the beauty of them was not so much in the difficulty one might have in answering the questions, but in the thought it provoked when considering no-limit play.

The premise for the first three questions is: Joe is playing in a re-buy tournament in which he will always re-buy if the option is available.  He moves all-in on two consecutive hands in which he is a 60/40 pre-flop favorite both times.

Question 1: How often will Joe win both hands?

Question 2: How often will Joe win one of the two hands?

Question 3: How often will Joe lose both hands?

The math for these questions is fairly simple.  Joe will win both hands 36% of the time (60% times 60%).  Joe will lose both hand 16% of the time (40% times 40%).  Therefore, almost half the time, 48% of the time, Joe will win one hand and lose one hand.

This is not something most people think about very often.  We always hear, “The best you can do is get your money in as a favorite,” but is that true?  If you get your money all-in as a 60% favorite twice, you are going to be out of a freezeout tournament almost two-thirds of the time (64%).

So, what does this mean?  Does this mean you can’t play aggressively?  Does it mean that you need to avoid all-in situations?  Of course, not.  You have to play aggressively to win a tournament.  Passivity is never the key to victory and you couldn’t avoid getting all-in even if you tried.  However, there is a lesson to be learned here.

Maybe you need to pick and choose who you are willing to play against in an aggressive fashion.  Who is more likely to take a chance and gamble with you?  Maybe you want to avoid them in marginal situations.

Part of the value of an all-in move is fold equity.  If possible, pick passive players when feel you need to make a stand - these are the players who are more likely to avoid gambling and will allow you to take down pots with minimal risk.

Of course, all of this is much easier said than done, but it is still food for thought.  The next time you move in a couple times and end up getting knocked out as a favorite, think about it.  Were you really unlucky since you got your money all-in as the favorite and that is the best you can do?  Or, were you taking too many risks with a marginal edge?

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Editor’s Note: Most people reading this article are probably familiar with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.  If not, please visit the CardPlayer Magazine website and read about it.

Recently, I sent an email to Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia regarding the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).  While I was happy to see a return response to my email, his response was less than satisfactory in my opinion.  If his opinion is typical of the people who represent our interests in the nation’s capitol, I must seriously question if Congress understands what it is doing when making laws for our country.

The email I sent was part of the Poker Players Alliance’s (PPA) campaign to contact our representatives and let them know how hard-working American poker players feel about the laws they have passed and future laws that will affect poker (and specifically in this case, online poker).  To summarize the email I sent, it describes my desire to see the UIGEA repealed and also asks for his support in passing HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act (which would exempt poker from the UIGEA) and HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (which would place regulations on online poker).

Here is the response I received from Senator Chambliss:

Thank you for contacting me regarding internet poker and the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act (UIGA). I appreciate hearing from you.

The UIGA was included in the final passage of H.R. 4954, the “Port Security Improvement Act of 2006,” and was signed into law (P.L. 109-347) by President Bush on October 13, 2006.

I support placing a ban on Internet gambling, and I supported the final passage of this bill. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission documented, and Senate and House hearings confirmed, that Internet gambling was growing at an explosive rate. Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger existed that access to Internet gambling would be abused by underage children. In most instances, a would-be gambler merely needed to fill out a registration form in order to play. Most sites relied on the registrant to disclose his or her correct age and the sites made little or not attempt to verify the accuracy of the information. Underage gamblers could easily use their parents’ credit cards or even their own credit and debit cards to register and set up accounts.

While I believe P.L 109-347 is a good law intended to protect children and reduce crime, I do understand the concerns of many internet poker players who will be affected by this new law. Should legislation regarding a poker “skill game exemption” come before the Senate for debate, I will give your views consideration.

Is he serious with that logic?  If so, I’m very scared!!!  While I most certainly understand the need to protect our children from underage gambling, is this the right way to do it - by making it unavailable to almost everybody?

By the same logic, I would have to assume that Senator Chambliss would also be in favor of any law that prohibited the production or sell of alcohol.  After all, underage drinking is a large problem in this country and teenagers can unlawfully obtain alcohol in a myriad of ways.  Therefore, alcohol should be taken away from everybody to protect the children, right?

Lawmakers tried to take alcohol away from everybody almost 100 years ago and we all know how well that worked.  Prohibition was an obvious disaster.  So is the UIGEA.  Until our representatives learn from their past mistakes, we are doomed to make the same mistakes.  This is another one.  Hopefully, the same results will ultimately occur and the UIGEA will be repealed much like prohibition.

Until next time,

KC 

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

I recently started reading the best book on poker I have read since I read the Harrington on Hold’em Series written by “Action” Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie.  That book is, you guessed it, Harrington on Cash Games, Volume I written by “Action” Dan Harrington and Bill Robertie.

To a certain extent, the authors make an assumption that a majority of their readers are tournament players or players who have a knowledge of tournament play.  In case the reader does not have this knowledge, it includes an introductory chapter to introduce the basics of poker play, but for most readers, its probably not a necessary chapter.  I mention this because the authors are very meticulous about illustrating the differences between cash games and tournaments and go into great detail to explain the differences and fallacies that tournament players have about cash games.  For me, this was extremely valuable information.

As a matter of fact, the first 15 pages of the book clearly demonstrates the great value this book can provide cash game players who can understand and apply principles.  Within the first 15 pages, the authors discuss a hand played by Daniel Negreanu, Mike Matusow, and Dan Harmetz during Season 3 of High Stakes Poker on GSN.  Not only does the discussion delve deeply into how each player might have played the hand better, but it discusses the mindset of each player and what they were probably thinking at each betting stage.

For beginners, the actual nuts and boats of the discussion may be at a higher level than they can understand, but it definitely illustrates the type of thinking a player must have to be successful.  For intermediate players, the discussion is simply fascinating and informative.  For advanced players, it will provide a nice refresher and possibly identify holes in their games.

Later in the book, the authors provide illustrations on how a “tournament” player may play specific hands and why players with deep stakes my take advantage of their “tournament” mindset.  It also discusses the differences between short-stack play, medium stack play, and big stack poker.  All of these concepts are valuable.

I can hardly wait to continue my new education and I will update you all on other valuable information you may get from this book if I have not already convinced you to buy it as fast as you can.

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Recently, I received a comment to my article Lesley S. Thornburg - Moron Disqualified (Commentary) from somebody claiming to be B. J. Thornburg, the brother of Lesley Thornburg, the person who was disqualified from a recent World Series of Poker (WSOP) circuit event at Caesar’s Atlantic City for obnoxious behavior.  I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the originator of the comment is Lesley Thornburg’s brother, but assuming it is, I’d like to respond to the comment.  The comment is reproduced below, exactly as it was written:

Lots of “rocks” being thrown at Lesley Thornburg. Interesting that he was never given a penalty. Other word on the net is that “rent a cop” with designated authority was jealous and simply didn’t like Thornburg; especially didn’t like Thornburg taking everyones chips in such a flamboyant manner. Thornburg made more friends than enemies that day. The loosers didn’t like him but others cheered him on. He was obtaining cheers and reward for outrageous play and never given a single penalty. Punishment went straight to disqualification after it was evident that Thornburg became a favorite to win first place with a tremendous majority of chips lead. I can appreciate Thornburg’s hesitation in complying with request to leave the table and disqualification. Reminds me of a football player running free to carry the ball across the goal line to win in the last seconds of the game when he makes an obscene gesture to the crowd and gets disqualified for it. I wasn’t there but I don’t agree that the punishment received fits the crime? Imagine if you were getting rewarded for flamboyant play and never penalized and then at final table were disqualified instead of getting a penalty. I’m just trying to say something positive in response to all of the negativity going around about the events that took place. I have a feeling that there may be more to come on this subject. I do know that his brother (William Thornburg, Jr.) was not in Atlantic City during the episode but he did head up to Atlantic City after hearing of what happened. William reached spot number 29 in event number 7. It was $500 buy in with 382 entries. It would have been real interesting to have seen him reach the final table as well. He was knocked out with A-6 “all in” from the small blind vs. A-7 in the big blind after flop came A-4-5. He had a substantial chip stack and went for it thinking that the big blind missed the flop. A win there should have carried him to the final table if not very close to it. I am certain that Les Thornburg will see all of this as a learning lesson. He is an incredible poker player and a very good hearted person. He puts on his “poker style” when playing but he is quick to shake hands and give hugs after getting knocked out of tournament play or loosing/winning a hand in a home game. I am witness to it. I am the brother.
Keep up the good work. Your site is appreciated. Give me your email address and I will be glad to send you a picture.
BJ Thornburg

I’d like to address a few points in this comment:

1. “Interesting that he was never given a penalty.”  How is this interesting?  He was given multiple warnings about his behavior and it was widely known that the WSOP planned to crack down on the types of antics Lesley Thornburg displayed.  The only thing I find interesting about this is that he wasn’t removed from the tournament earlier.  He’s probably lucky they allowed him to finish 5th.
2. “Other word on the net is that (a)‘rent a cop’ with designated authority was jealous and simply didn’t like Thornburg; especially didn’t like Thornburg taking everyones (sic) chips in such a flamboyant manner.”  I have been unable to find any posts or comments anywhere to support this statement.  Regardless of whether or not it is true, shouldn’t the fact that he was “taking everyones (sic) chips in such a flamboyant manner” be a clue that people weren’t necessarily jealous, just tired of the antics?
3. “The loosers (sic) didn’t like him but others cheered him on.  He was obtaining cheers and reward for outrageous play …“  Where were his priorities?  Was he trying to win a poker tournament or receive the adoration of rowdy fans?  The cheer of the fans is not a reward, it’s a by-product.  The reward is supposed to be in winning, sportsmanship, and playing with honor.  I hope Lesley Thornburg learned that lesson and will move on now.
4. “Reminds me of a football player running free to carry the ball across the goal line to win in the last seconds of the game when he makes an obscene gesture to the crowd and gets disqualified for it.”  Reminds me more of a football player running free to carry the ball across the goal line to win in the last seconds of the game but not realizing that he kicked four players between the legs to get there and wondering why the touchdown doesn’t count.

I appreciate B. J. Thornburg (or somebody claiming to be B. J. Thornburg) taking the time to post a comment on The Grand Slam Poker Source.  I hope he will continue to read and participate.  I’m sure his judgment is clouded by his love for his brother, but I believe his point-of-view on this particular case is very clouded.  I hope I have done something to help clear it up a bit.

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

In January, the World Poker Tour (WPT) announced the inception of the WPT-Ladies (WPTL).  Since then, it has been the subject of a lot of controversy.  Many, but certainly not all, women are happy about this and believe it is better for poker.  On the other hand, many men and some women believe having a woman’s only league is not only discriminatory, but it sends a bad message - that women can’t play with men.  So, I thought I’d weigh in with my two cents:

1. Some women can play with men and don’t need a “Ladies Only” event for that purpose.  (I’ve also seen many men who shouldn’t be playing with the men they do - it’s not a gender thing.)
2. Some women are simply not comfortable playing with other men.  So, what’s the big deal.  Are they hurting anything?

I look at it this way: Are “Ladies Only” tournaments hurting men?  I don’t see how - other than maybe they are getting an additional opportunity to hone their skills and beat the socks off of men in the future, but with the vast array of tournaments available for everybody, I don’t think finding a game for men is a problem.

I also don’t see how it is discrimination, even though the State of California disagrees with me.  To illustrate, last September, lawyers for the Commerce Casino in Los Angeles, CA advised their client that they should let former Major League Baseball player Jose Canseco and five other men participate in the California State Poker Championship LADIES No Limit Hold’em poker tournament, despite it having the “Ladies Only” designation.  California law strictly prohibits gender discrimination, and according to the Commerce lawyers, the way the law is written, the Commerce Casino would have been violating the law if they did not allow Mr. Canseco, and other men who wished to play, entry into the tournament.  I simply think this is wrong.

To me, discrimination would be to allow a “Ladies Only” tournament, but not allow a “Men Only”.  That would be gender discrimination.  To the best of my knowledge, nobody has stated that a casino cannot throw a “Men Only” tournament.  Everybody assumes it would be challenged and found to be discriminatory, but nobody has tested it.  As long as their is the opportunity to have a league for men, a league for women, and a league for everybody, I don’t have a problem with it.

Let the ladies have their league.  They aren’t hurting anybody.  Ladies are still free to participate or not participate in the league and participate with men.  Men are still free to have their own league if they so wish (until somebody says otherwise).

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

On Wednesday, March 5, a reader sent me the following email (edited):

I’m trying to make sure my seat changing procedure is correct.  I had two tables of eight, Tables A and B.  The player in the big blind busts out of the tournament at Table B, leaving Table B with six players and Table A with eight players.  The Tournament Director stopped the clock while Table A finished the current hand.  He then moved the big blind at Table A into the small blind at Table B.  I’m 99% sure this is correct except for the clock stoppage, but since Table B was told to stop play until the change occurred, my feeling is that burning valuable blind time is not in the best interest of the game.  Should the clock be stopped?

Dear Reader:

To answer you question: No, the clock should not be stopped; however, there are more factors at work here that may better explain why the clock should not be stopped.

First, the right player did not move to Table B.  The person who was next in line to be the Big Blind should have moved tables, not the person currently in the Big Blind.  When that person moves tables, he does not necessarily take the seat of the last person eliminated, but takes the empty seat that will be the Big Blind the soonest.  In your example, he would have probably taken the seat of the first person to be eliminated, not the second person to be eliminated.

Second, the players at Table B should not have been instructed to stop playing.  They can continue play while they are waiting for the tables to be evened.  If the player to be moved is on his/her way to the table, there is nothing wrong with slightly delaying the hand, but if he/she is still in a hand, continue playing.

I hope this helps.  Good luck on the felt.

Until next time,

KC 

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

As many of you have probably already read, the final table of the first event of the World Series of Poker (WSOP) Circuit series at Caesars Atlantic City was highlighted by the disqualification of Lesley S. Thornburg.  With five players remaining, WSOP officials had enough of his antics, removed his chips from play, and had him physically escorted from the playing area.  Congratulations to the WSOP and the officials in charge who made a rule and stuck to it!!!

The $300 buy-in no-limit hold’em event, which attracted one of the largest fields in the Circuit’s history, was won by Frank Panetta, a 76-year-old former real estate developer.  Unfortunately, Mr. Panetta’s victory was overshadowed by the antics of Thornburg.  According to a tournament report by the WSOP media director, Thornburg received two warnings for unsportsmanlike behavior during the event’s first day for “a ceaseless display of loud comments and baiting tactics lasting several hours.”   It sounds to me like Thornburg has played in a few too many home games that have no regard for rules and sportsmanship.  No player should have to put up with this behavior.  He probably should have been disqualified long before he reached the final table.

According to the CardPlayer Magazine online article, the fun seemed to really begin when Thornburg ended up all-in against Andy Santiago, who had Thornburg dominated with A-Q versus A-7.  A 7 on the flop gave the boisterous Thornburg the chip lead, to the dismay of the remaining players, who were forced to further endure his tactics.  When Santiago’s AQ did not improve, he was out of the tournament.

Two hands later, Thornburg made another bonehead play and found himself in a big pot as a heavy underdog again.  This time, he called an all-in raise by Edward “Yank” Sullivan, who held pocket sevens.  When Thornburg felted pocket fours, the remaining players thought their nightmare might soon be over, but a 4 flopped and knocked Sullivan out of the tournament.

According to the WSOP media director’s report, this is when the nightmare escalated:

Then, all hell broke loose.  Literally.  Holding onto a perilous chip lead, Thornburg lost self-control and began jamming chips into the pot with reckless abandon.  Warned by tournament officials (repeatedly) to stack his chips properly and obey the rules, Thornburg crossed the final demarcation of everyone’s patience when he shoved half of his stack into the pot and then later announced, “all in.”  Fed up with the annoying and confusing antics, officials announced Thornburg’s immediate disqualification.  Lesley Thornburg, a general contractor from Richmond, Va., earned $19,026 in prize money.

It’s about time somebody stood up and said “enough is enough.”  Poker is about winning, there is no doubt about it, but it’s also about sportsmanship and ensuring there is a level playing field for all - Thornburg’s constant taunting and disregard for the rules was a travesty.  Not only should he have been disqualified from the tournament, the WSOP, Caesars Atlantic City, and all casinos owned by Caesars should ban Thornburg from all future events.

I hope Thornburg is happy with himself.  Not only did he cost himself thousands of dollars (he surely could have coasted to a better finish as the chip leader), but he put another black eye on the poker world with his antics.  I hope this disqualification sends a huge message to poker players around the country and the world.  Shape up or don’t bother entering the tournament.

I searched for a picture of this moron so I could post it on here for the world to see, but I couldn’t find one.  If anybody runs across one, please send it to me.

Until next time,

KC

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the second article in the “Home Poker Tournament Pitfalls” series.  Future articles will include such topics as determining the number and type of chips to use, how to handle dealing responsibilities, identifying issues with common rulings, and many, many more.  Please stay tuned for more articles in the very near future.

In the first article of this series, Home Poker Tournament Pitfalls: Logistics and Comfort, we discussed ways to determine how many players you should invite to your tournament.  Now that you have a number in mind, you must determine how long you want the tournament to last and an appropriate blind structure for it.  While there are no steadfast rules on blind structures, there are some very good guidelines.

For beginners, I suggest using blind structures that have already been used by others and are known to work well.  There are a couple very good sources from which you can obtain proven blind structures. Continue Reading »

Twitter This

Usuario: Password: