Identifying the Bluff
May 29, 2006 at 1:22 pm | In Tells | Leave a Comment
First published in Poker Player Newspaper
After an opponent has just bet, you ask: "Is he bluffing, or does he really have something good?"
Mike has taught me that if you observe your opponent in a discreet manner, you'll frequently receive "tells" that can provide the answer. How your opponent appears, or the sounds he makes, can be an indication of how strong or weak his hand is.
Forceful betting. For instance, if your opponent shoves his chips out with more force than necessary when making a bet, he's probably bluffing. He wants you to be fearful of his strong bet. If he is messy with his chips when betting and tries to straighten the chips afterwards, he's also probably bluffing. If he doesn't fix the messy chips, then he's holding a strong hand. The reason for this is that a player who "fumbles" his chips is afraid that you'll be suspicious and call. If he's weak or bluffing, then he'll often try to undo the damage.
How does your opponent bet? Is it a strong bet or a fearful one? If he bets in an unconvincingly aggressive manner, that usually means weakness. However, if he bets hesitantly, then he is quite likely holding a strong hand. Mike advises against calling a bet that an opponent makes after he shrugs his shoulders and sighs. That opponent wants you to think he has a poor hand and that he's betting it reluctantly anyway. Don't fall for it.
Mike says this is reversed against a skilled player making a forceful bet in a belligerent manner. That player wants you to call. He's trying to fool you into believing he is bluffing.
Afraid to breathe. Suppose a player who bet strongly is now sitting rather stiffly and seems to be holding his breath. Well, Mike has taught me that this represents a blatant "tell." The player is afraid that if he takes a drink, coughs, or makes any movement (even normal breathing) it might influence you to call. So, call this bet, even if it seems a bit ridiculous or scary at the moment, because that opponent is bluffing. Mike says, "When an opponent actually has a strong hand, he'll be relaxed and at ease, breathing normally or even excessively. An opponent who is bluffing is afraid to move, or to breathe."
If an opponent studies his cards a little too long, then later places a bet, he probably is bluffing. When opponents are looking at their cards in such a manner, or continue to refer to them several times, as if to reassure them of what they are holding, you can pretty much assume that they don't have a strong hand. Someone that glances at his cards and quickly looks away is usually holding a good hand. After all, who is going to forget they are holding a pair of aces? Who needs to check to make sure those two kings are still there? They are going to remember those cards.
If your opponent has been annoying with his persistent whistling and humming, then bets, but ceases when you appear to be calling, he's probably bluffing. Mike says it's safe to call that bet, because bluffers freeze in an effort to become less noticeable so you aren't suspicious.
Sometimes an opponent will try to maintain eye contact with you, but is unable to confidently do so, and instinctively looks away. He's usually bluffing. If the player is able to maintain eye contact, it often (but not always) means he's feeling confident. Smiles make a difference, too. Even smiles can give a player away. A real smile means your opponent is relaxed and comfortable and is probably holding a strong hand. A fake, weak smile is usually a sign that he's bluffing. A bluffer is rarely argumentative. He's going to be friendly, so that he doesn't antagonize you into calling.
I hope that these tips will be helpful in determining whether your opponents are bluffing.
MGM, Harrah’s Step up the Pressure on Congress for Online Poker Legislation
May 25, 2006 at 5:42 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
by John Caldwell
First published in Poker News
Two of the largest gaming companies in the world are stepping up their efforts to get Congress to consider legalizing, taxing, and regulating the booming online gaming industry.
According to an article at Bloomberg.com, the casino companies feel the time is right to apply pressure to the legislative body to consider the legalization, taxation, and regulation of the multi-billion dollar industry. The first step in considering this would be a federal study of the online gaming space, which is what the casino companies are pushing for.
A study would accomplish a couple things. First, any formal study by the Federal Government of the online gaming space would likely put any currently pending legislation on hold. This would slow down the legislative process, and also slow any perceived momentum the current bill, which is scheduled to be opened for discussion by the House Judiciary Committee again tomorrow, would have gained to this point.
But, a study would also accomplish something else. It may enlighten lawmakers to the real challenge that any ban of online gaming would present. Is such a ban even possible, in a day and age when the internet is such a dynamic, constantly changeable entity? Many senators don't think so. "It doesn't look like you can ban it" Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) told Bloomberg. "The argument the industry is making is, if it is being done offshore, why not bring it to the US, where it can be regulated."
The American Gaming Association, who are the lobby group representing the casinos in this quest for a study maintains a 'neutral' position on the current piece of legislation finding its way up Capitol Hill, but called the online gaming industry the "wild, wild West", and suggested "Why not take a hard look at it?" before enacting any legislation. The AGA feels any study would show if legalization and regulation of online gaming would actually reduce the risk of fraud, and abuse – one of the proponents of the current bills main concerns.
Any study that might lead to legalization and regulation of the online gaming industry would be great news to the large casino congloms, who are eager to jump into the sector were it legal to do so. These companies would have a natural competitive advantage with being able to use their massive marketing muscle to associate their 'brick and mortar' brand with a similarly branded online casino.
The casino companies and the American Gaming Association certainly have a voice that is heard on Capitol Hill. Time will tell if that voice is loud enough to get the Federal Government to take a hard look at all of its options.
Playing A Hand In a Straight- Forward Fashion
May 25, 2006 at 4:51 pm | In Texas Holdem No Limit | Leave a Comment
by Scott Aigner
First published in Poker Player
In the last two articles, I discussed some of the reasons why playing in a straight forward fashion when you have a made hand is better than slow playing in no limit hold em. This goes for vulnerable made hands as well as hands that might not seem that vulnerable. The more opponents in the hand, the more likely one of them is going to have something they are willing to call with. Even when you have a big made hand like a set, you should bet to narrow the field, gain information on the players who do call you, eliminate free draws that can beat you both on the turn as well as the small chance that a player can catch a runner runner draw. Betting out also builds the pot so that you can make bigger value bets on the later rounds.
In the first article I stated that you can make a smaller bet to give a heads up opponent some odds in an early round. In a multi handed situation there is less need to make a small bet. The looser the opponents are, the more likely they will call a pot sized bet. Finally, each subsequent player in this setting who calls not only receives better pot odds but also increases the pot odds for the rest of the opponents in the hand as well.
In Texas hold em there are very few board textures that can come out that do not also contain some type of a draw. In fact the only boards that do not have a straight draw possibility are paired boards and K-8-2, K-7-2, and Q-7-2. Given the relative passive nature of low blind low staked no limit hold em games there are going to be a number of players calling with suited connectors and small or medium pocket pairs. This means that there will often be at least a gut shot straight draw out there in most flops. When you bet out on the flop you help to minimize an opponent from catching that lucky free card. Your bet narrows the field, allows you to gain information on the remaining players in the hand, and allows you to make a big reraise if anyone plays back at you (beware of the free card raise ploy as it does exists in no limit hold em too).
The best situation is when a player flops top pair in late position and raises your lead bet. You then have a chance to eliminate some of the initial callers. Of course a check raise will also work but I much prefer to lead out and have several calls then have a player bet and then check raise and eliminate the extra bets that I could have gained by leading into the field. It just makes more sense (and cents) to win as much as you can when you have a big hand and I have found the lead bet to be much more profitable.
Most of the situations involve flopping a set although I have also led out when I flopped a full house. In this situation I had a pair of Aces and reraised a player who was playing extremely loose aggressive. He was making a lot of pre flop raises from early position. I reraised him preflop from the BB and he called. The flop came A_8_8. I made a 1/2 pot bet without a second of hesitation. My opponent thought I was trying to steal the pot (I even implied that I was tired of his overly aggressive play). Right after I said this he just couldn't resist making a huge raise that covered me.
Understand Who?
May 25, 2006 at 4:42 pm | In Psychology | Leave a Comment
by Tom Leonard
First published in Poker Player
I recently received an e-mail from a regular reader of "Improving Performance" who is relatively new to the game but has certainly been bitten by the poker bug. He has been playing for the better part of a year and has read several good books and plays both live and internet low limit hold'em. He feels he understands the game well and is very frustrated that he isn't a winning player. His analysis of why he can't seem to win is interesting and I believe common among low limit players in his predicament. He wrote in part, "As I become more and more knowledgeable about the game it just drives me crazy that I see such horrible play by my opponents and I still can't seem to win. I believe it is because they just don't understand. They don't understand the game and they certainly don't understand what raises mean. I raise when in proper position with a good hand and they just call and call and wind up sucking out to beat me. I think I should move up in limits to where the players will better understand my moves. What do you think? Any advise would be appreciated."
Well, that's an interesting approach on how to turn a losing game into a winning game. I wrote back and told him that I thought he had the "understanding" dilemma backwards. I explained that I felt he should be more concerned with knowing/understanding what was motivating his opponents and less concerned about them understanding his moves. It's been said that if your opponents are clueless to begin with that they aren't going to pick up on and understand the message you are conveying. If you can't figure out how to beat the low limit games you really don't have a prayer in beating the higher stake games. The only positive element of moving up unprepared is that the rake in the lower games is just horrendous. Of course, trying to save some money through a lower rake while your more experienced opponents take your whole bankroll doesn't seem like the best course of action. I constantly harp on the importance of learning and understanding your opponents' tendencies and how the table is playing. If you're sitting at a table full of calling stations you should certainly be able to take advantage of this loose and losing style, assuming, of course, that you have the patience and discipline required. Many players in this environment tend to play down to the style that is prevalent at the table. A horrible course of action. Take advantage of your opponents' mistakes, don't join in the lunacy! When you can regularly book wins at the limit you're playing is when you should consider moving up in limits, not because you believe it is the solution on how to win. To move up in limits because you can't beat the limit you're currently playing is analogous to bankroll suicide.
So who should we be concerned is understanding? Our goal for this session is to know the answer to this question. The answer is three fold and in order of importance is: First, understand yourself, then understand your opponents and, finally, understand your opponents' image of you and therefore their most likely reaction to what you do.
See you next "TIME".
Advertising Plays
May 23, 2006 at 8:40 pm | In Texas Holdem No Limit | Leave a Comment
First published in Poker Listings
Introduction
There are many weapons to use in order to not become predictable. For example, bluffing, semi-bluffing, check-raising, trying for free cards and slowplaying. But there is one play that is different from all the aforementioned plays. These are called advertising plays. You do advertising plays in order to mess with the other player's heads and to cash in on these plays later on. Advertising plays is simply playing "crazy" with hands you don't normally play in this way and making sure the whole table sees it. This play should only be done when you are fairly sure you'll be playing with the same players for quite a while. There is no reason to make an advertising play on your last hand of the night if you'll never play with the same players again.
The type of hands to advertise
When making advertising plays you don't have to be totally reckless and raise with hands like 7-2 off suit when sitting under the gun. The best way to make advertising plays is when you also are giving yourself a decent chance of actually winning the pot. The types of hands to play are the small suited connectors 65s, 76s, Axs and the small pairs. When you make an advertising play you are being overly aggressive with hands that you normally shouldn't play in this way. For example, you can raise with one of these hands sitting under the gun and then play it aggressively all the way to the river. Or you can reraise when you are sitting in late position and then continue to play it extremely aggressive from there. If you get caught bluffing on the river make sure everyone sees your hand so that they remember how crazy you played it. If you win the pot without having to show down your hand it's even better, because then you can make new advertising play soon after and you have won a pot you normally wouldn't have been involved in. After you have made an advertising play it is time to play a lot tighter for a while and go back to your normal strategy. Your advertising will stick in your opponent's heads and they will make calls and bets against you that they normally wouldn't. So it is important to keep in mind that your opponent's are likely to make plays against you that they normally wouldn't, knowing this is what you are supposed to use against them.
Google is a hypocrite when it comes to advertising
May 23, 2006 at 12:25 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
The following article accurately points out the hypocrisy of Google's advertising policy. Use caution when using google's ads to find a reputable poker room and/or poker product. Their phony "non-gambling" policy rewards only the sneakiest of advertisers.
Check the full article at Professional Poker.
Texas Hold’em: Set vs. Set vs. Set
May 22, 2006 at 12:51 pm | In Probabilities | 1 Comment
by Richard Burke
First published in Poker Player
On a blustery Friday afternoon in late winter, I was playing $4-8 Hold'Em in my local poker room and wondering if the dealer would ever toss a starting hand my way, when Steve came over to my Hold'Em table between hands at his table. He asked me about a hand in a ten-handed $2- 5 No-Limit Hold'Em game the night before.
The Flop was Af-Qa-9d. Holding pocket Aces, Queens, and Nines, three players went all-in before the Turn. They tabled their Sets face-up, crossed their fingers, and watched blanks fall on the Turn and River. (The dealer pushed the $2500 pot to the player with the Aces.) Steve asked me, "What were the odds of three players making Sets on the Flop?" If you're not interested in combinatorial mathematics, then skip on down to the answer. For those who are, here's how I figured it.
Consider first that three pairs of three different ranks were dealt among the ten players. There are 286 ways to choose those three ranks. Counting suits, there are 6 ways to deal each pair. There are forty cards of other ranks available to distribute among the seven other players, and C(40,14) ways to do that. There are 13!! ways that seven doubletons could have been dealt to the other seven players. The total number of ways to deal three pairs of different ranks and fourteen cards from the other ten ranks is 286*63*C(40,14)*13!!, or 193,733,765,427,641 million. The formula, C(52,20)*19!!, gives the total number of ways to deal out ten doubletons from a fifty-two card deck, or 82,492,346,176,096,200 million. (The large numbers are unwieldy; I'll use probabilities hereafter.) Dividing obtains the probability, 0.0023485. It remains to compute the probability that one of the two remaining cards of each rank would appear on the Flop. The chance of that is 23/C(32,3), or 0.001613. Their product is 0.0000037879.
If seven cards of three ranks were dealt among the ten players, then there are 858 ways to choose the three ranks, and 4*36 ways to choose three pairs from those ranks. 858*4*62*C(40,13)/ C(52,20)*3*13!!/19!! is the whole formula, which obtains 0.007306. The Flop must contain the one rank, and either of the two cards from the other two ranks. C(1,1)*C(2,1)*C(2,1)/C(32,3) obtains 0.008065. The combined probability is .000058923.
For eight cards having been dealt from three ranks, 858*42*6*C(40,12)/C(52,20)*9*13!!/19!! obtains the probability that they will have been dealt into three pairs, 0.006785. The Flop must contain one from two ranks and either from the other rank, a probability of C(2,1)/C(32,3), which equals 0.0004032. The product is 0.0000027357.
If nine cards were dealt, there must be three from each rank, 286*C(3,3)*C(3,3)*C(3,3)*C(40,11)/ C(49,20), and the probability that they were dealt into three pairs is (27*13!!/19!!), for a total probability of 0.001872. One of each rank on the Flop has a probability of 0.0002016. The combined probability is 0.0000003773.
The inverse of the sum of the probabilities is 78,166. The odds against three players flopping a Set are 78,165 to 1.
Are All Bets Off?
May 20, 2006 at 3:34 pm | In Uncategorized | 1 Comment
by Lawrence Carrel
First published in Smart Money
Here's our weekly look at small-capitalization stocks that are making big moves on Wall Street.
INVESTORS BETTING ON small-cap gaming stocks are running into the gamblers' quandary of knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.
Take PokerTek (PTEK: 9.96, +0.40, +4.2%), the Charlotte, N.C., maker of electronic poker tables. Since reporting on May 11 that its first-quarter loss more than doubled, PokerTek shares have tumbled 20% to $9.56 (through Thursday). The stock is down 37% from its April 18 peak of $15.16, and sits below the October initial public offering price of $11.
PokerTek's fortunes are tied to its main product, PokerPro, an electronic poker table that's a hybrid between online gambling and live poker. With PokerPro there's no dealer, no cards and no chips. The table can accommodate up to 10 players who sit in front of personal video screens. A computer deals the cards electronically on the screens, and players touch the screens to place bets.
"I think players' attitudes toward it will parallel their attitudes toward online poker," say John Caldwell, editor-in-chief of PokerNews, a poker information web site. "You get the benefit of seeing your opponents live, but with the speed of playing online."
PokerTek's prospects were looking up on April 18, the day the company received regulatory approval to distribute PokerPro tables in the United Kingdom and California. Previously, the table was only allowed in tribal Florida and tribal Oklahoma. California holds the largest concentration of poker tables in the world, about 1,300.
But the disappointing first-quarter financial results erased much of the goodwill garnered by the regulatory approval. PokerTek reported a loss of $1.6 million, or 17 cents a share, vs. a year-earlier loss of $725,000, or 11 cents. Clint Morrison of Minneapolis investment bank Feltl & Co., the lone analyst covering the stock, had expected a narrower per-share loss of 14 cents. (Feltl underwrote the IPO.)
Revenues totaled $473,000, up from no revenues 12 months ago. Licensing fees were $360,000, with the remainder from equipment sales to Aristocrat, its international distributor. The company attributed the wider loss to boosting staff to 47, fees related to being public and noncash option expenses. As of March 31, the company had no debt and $18.3 million in cash. The company burns between $600,000 and $800,000 of its cash a month. In February, Aristocrat acquired approximately 10% of the company's shares from insiders, who still own 53% of PokerTek.
Going All In
Worries about whether the poker craze that has swept the U.S. in recent years still has legs may be contributing to the selloff. According to the American Gaming Association's 2006 survey, 18% of all U.S. adults played poker last year, a 50% increase from 2003. However, 2005 figures were flat with 2004. Consumer spending in Nevada poker rooms surged 30% year-over-year to $140 million in 2005, says the American Gaming Association, a casino industry trade group. The amount spent in New Jersey poker rooms leapt 27% to $67 million. (Figures exclude Native American-run casinos.)
PokerTek is counting on PokerPro tables to lift those numbers. In poker, players play against each other, not the house. The casino makes money by taking a flat percentage, called a rake, out of every pot. PokerTek says PokerPro deals 50% faster than human dealers. With more hands, casinos collect more rakes. Casinos also save money by not paying dealers.
"Online players are used to a faster paced game, and they find the speed of humans too frustrating," says Lou White, PokerTek's chief executive. "If you were to interview 100 poker players and ask them 'would you like to play more or fewer hands per hour?' I'd say 95% would want to play more."
So far, PokerTek is having a hard time convincing many that its electronic tables are more than a novelty. The tables aren't purchased but rather leased for $70,000 a year. According to Casino City Press, a publisher of gaming directories, there are about 5,100 poker tables in the U.S. That's a potential market of $357 million. The company began the year leasing 20 tables, but by the time the first quarter ended it had lost 12 contracts and installed six new tables, including four on cruise ships, for a total of 14 leases. PokerTek expects to end 2006 with 75 to 100 leases, down from prior guidance of 100 to 125.
"While we are intrigued by this product and the potentially large market opportunity, [the] most significant aspect of this quarterly report was the low installed table count, which is down over the past five months," says Feltl's Morrison, who reiterated his Hold rating. "The learning curve and adoption cycle of this product is clearly longer than originally expected. Until we have increased comfort that the installs are ramping and we see existing customers reorder additional machines, we are not comfortable recommending the stock. But as price comes down, I'm warming up to it."
In the end it really comes down to players and pit bosses warming to the electronic tables.
"This might have a place in towns where there are no casinos; in that market it could make a fortune," says Mark Speert, a professional poker player based in Las Vegas. "But for the 21-year-olds who have made millions playing on the Internet, they don't need the speed, they've made their money. They come to the casino for the experience, the interaction, the adrenalin rush and the feeling of playing the big players. And you can be sure the top players won't be playing this table."
Chips Are Down
One company with a vested interest in the PokerPro table's success is WPT Enterprises (WPTE: 5.38, -0.07, -1.3%). The producer of the "World Poker Tour" TV series has anted up for about a 5% stake in PokerTek. When we looked at the West Hollywood, Calif., company last year its stock had just soared 49% to $26.50. Doyle Brunson, one of the world's best-known professional players, had offered to buy WPT for $35 a share. In the 10 months since the stock has plummeted 80% to $5.45 (as of Thursday's close), below its 2004 IPO price of $8 a share. The unsolicited offer fizzled, and now the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating. WPT says it's cooperating and not a subject of the probe.
More serious is the complete implosion of its online gaming business. Because online gambling isn't legal in the U.S., WPT has relied on a company with overseas operations to develop the business.
"We've had challenges with our technology partner, Wager Works," says Todd Steele, WPT's chief financial officer. The online gambling platform breaks down under heavy traffic. Wager Works is based in San Francisco.
"Certainly it's safe to say the online gaming portion of the business is likely to be the company's most significant growth driver," says Steele. Meanwhile, "World Poker Tour" is currently showing its fourth season on the Travel Channel and beginning production on the fifth. A new show called the "Professional Poker Tour" will start to air on the Travel Channel in July.
For its first quarter ended April 2, WPT swung to a profit of $3.6 million, or 17 cents a share, reversing a loss of $1.6 million, or eight cents, in the previous year's quarter. Revenues leapt 57% to $6.5 million. As of April 2, the company had no debt, cash totaling $3.7 million and short-term investments of approximately $35.9 million. Second-quarter sales are expected to be in the range of $10.5 million to $11.0 million.
Pacific Poker Endorses Spam and Malware
May 19, 2006 at 2:12 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Here is another report of a poker room allowing less than ethical practices in order to grow its business. How comfortable can you feel playing at sites that tacitly endorse less than upstanding behavior just to get your business?
Click on the link to read the complete story.
http://www.professional-poker.com/news/2006/may/476-paradise-poker-spam.htm
Is gambling on the Internet legal?
May 16, 2006 at 1:12 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
by I Nelson Rose
First published in Top10Online
The question I get far more than any other is, "Is gambling on the Internet legal?"
My favorite emails are from gamblers who have won big and now want to know if they
will get arrested. I have a standard answer: There is no federal law against being
merely a player. About half the states do have ancient laws on the books that
sometimes make it a crime to make a bet. But you have a better chance of winning the
World Poker Tour than of being arrested.
For gaming operators, the major federal statute is the Wire Act: anyone in the
business of gambling cannot use a wire to send bets or information useful in the
placing of bets across state boundaries.
The Department of Justice believes the Wire Act covers all forms of Internet
gambling. But courts have ruled the prohibition is limited to bets on racing and
sports events. Online casinos, lotteries and poker do not fall under this law.
This does not mean that overseas sports books are going to be prosecuted. Besides the
practical problems of going after operators in foreign countries, there are legal
barriers. Only a few recent extradition treaties, like the one the U.S. entered into
with Hong Kong in 2000, include gambling. And the U.S. has Mutual Lateral Assistance
Treaties or MLATs with other countries, which requires that before the U.S. can take
criminal action against a foreign citizen who is physically in his own country, there
must first be top government to government discussions.
Licensed bookies still have to be careful. I worked with a British bookmaker who had
$734,578.82 in a bank account in New Jersey. Although I raised the MLAT issue, the
court decided this was a civil forfeiture.
Few other federal crimes might apply. RICO, short for Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations, does includes gambling, but it is expressly limited to state
felonies. Most state gambling crimes are misdemeanors.
The Travel Act makes it illegal to use "any facility" in interstate commerce to
conduct an unlawful business, including violating the gambling laws of a state. The
Internet may not be a "facility."
The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 created a new federal crime, "illegal
gambling business." Because Congress cannot outlaw purely in-state activities, it
declared that large (5 people, $2,000 a day for 30 days) operations have an impact on
interstate commerce.
These federal crimes are unique because they do not say the state illegal gambling
has to be felonies.
Still, there are problems. Exactly what state crimes are being committed? State
anti-gambling laws cannot reach into other states or nations unless they expressly
say they are intended to cover activities outside the states' borders.
All the sovereignty issues kick in. Nevada does have a statute that clearly makes it
a crime in Nevada for someone in a foreign country to take a bet online from someone
in Nevada. But can Nevada do that, when the operator is a citizen of a foreign
nation, licensed by his own country? What if it is the foreign country itself,
accepting bets on its state lottery? And exactly how is the state of Nevada going to
go about arresting someone in a foreign country, with gambling not covered by an
extradition treaty?
Somehow I cannot see the governor sending the Nevada National Guard to make an arrest
in England. Even if that were legal.
As the English would say, it's just not done.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
