Loveable Rogues Poker

BY STEVE ROSENBLOOM

Chicago Tribune

First published in TwinCities.com

When playing from the blinds, many top players try to lose as little money as possible. They are forced to come into the pot without seeing their cards, and they likely will be out of position for the hand.

But that situation also presents a chance to take down an unraised pot with a semi-bluff, because opponents know that the blinds could have any two cards instead of the big hands that players who voluntarily enter the pot are given credit for. With blinds at $600-$1,200 as players battled to get into the money in a $2,000-buy-in no-limit hold ‘em tournament at Bellagio in Las Vegas in December 2005, the respected Richard Tatalovich limped from early position with A-10 and a stack of about $27,000.

Action folded to David Plastik in the small blind. With about $21,000 in chips, he completed the bet while holding 9-4 of spades.

“I had chips and there was another player in the pot, so I’m getting odds,” Plastik said. “There was value in playing suited cards and trying to get lucky. If a 9 comes, I’m not going to go crazy on it. I know I’m only going to go crazy on it if it’s a flush draw or if I can make a big hand.”

The big blind checked, and the three players took a flop of 10-7-3. Plastik checked his flush draw. The big blind also checked. With top pair/top kicker, Tatalovich bet $5,000.

Plastik saw a chance to make a move, so he semi-bluffed by raising all in for an additional $16,000. This is the advantage a player in the blind can have in a limp pot. Plastik could be making this move with a set of 3s.

“That’s why I made the move, thinking he would lay it down because I could have any hand,” said Plastik, who was an accomplished photographer of rock bands before coming to poker.

If Plastik had just doubled Tatalovich’s bet, he would have been committing more than half his stack, which is essentially the same as committing all his chips, so he moved in.

“I don’t want him to call, so I figured the only way I could put the pressure on him was to put him all in,” Plastik said. “I don’t want him to make a move back on me.

“After a while, he decided he had the best hand, and he was actually right. I was very surprised that he took a chance with that hand because he could easily not have the best hand.”

Tatalovich was getting almost 3-1 on his money — calling $16,000 into a pot of about $47,000 — and couldn’t think he was a 3-1 underdog while holding top pair/top kicker. In fact, he was a 3-2 favorite.

But the turn came the jack of spades, giving Plastik the flush and the pot.

“It’s a limp pot, that’s the thing,” Plastik said. “You’re not supposed to go broke in a limp pot. I could easily have 3-7, 10-7, so many hands. I was very surprised that he called.”

Steve Rosenbloom can be reached at srosenbloom@tribune.com.

by Scott Aigner

Last issue I revealed how our local maniac stumbled onto an extremely effective strategy in tournament play. The wording here has double meaning as Doug was usually plastered at this point in the tournament as a result of his intake of alcohol. While everyone else was tightening up their play hoping that someone else would get unlucky and bomb out, Doug was stealing pot after pot and increasing his stack size even more. It didn’t matter to Doug whether he won or lost and as a result he had no fear. This made his aggressive play even more effective than usual and doubly so in tournaments (at least on the sober and reasonably minded players).

There are several strategies that one can utilize to make it deep in a tournament ( the structure of the tournament does influence these strategies ). The two most common styles that are successful in most tournaments are loose aggressive play and tight aggressive play. There are definite advantages and disadvantages to each style of play and certainly one’s own demeanor and personality influences our own style of play.. No matter what style you do choose to play the biggest factor in a tournament that looms large on everyone’s mind is survival. This can be done by either gathering a lot of chips by being willing to gamble and risk your tournament life frequently early on or by playing a controlled game waiting to catch a big hand or some good luck at just the right time.

Tom McEvoy and Dan Harrington are two well known authors who advocate the more conservative style of play. Whereas Doyle Brunson and players like Daniel Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Gus Hansen, and Tuan Le are well known for their loose aggressive style. Even among these players there are some unique strategies, abilities, and understanding of their own game that increases the success they have with the style of play they choose . For instance Dan Harrington has the ability to pull off a successful bluff at a much higher rate of success as a result of his reputation of only playing aggressively when he has the goods. Anyone who saw him succeed with a big bluff at the final table in 2004 to win a nice pot can appreciate his ability to read players and situations extremely well and use his knowledge and abilities when the time is “right” to do so. He has excellent deductive reasoning skills and he uses this ability to key on when he should risk all of his chips on a gamble and when to lay low and wait for a better opportunity. Although he rarely makes a big bluff, he also realizes that he has to accumulate chips to stick around and still have a stack that is still effective enough to deter the other opponents from stealing him blind.

On the other side of the fence Daniel Negreanu has the ability to fold a big hand based on his read of a situation. He is usually willing to gamble it up but only when he has the right odds and usually also has enough chips where he won’t get busted even if he does lose the confrontation. He also has an excellent post flop game that allows him to accumulate a lot of chips early on in a tournament. By accumulating chips he also survives the later stages when one has little choice except to gamble it up. When the tournament does get to the later stages his strategy also changes. Rather then relying strictly on his post flop abilities which become less effective, he also has learned how to contend with a lot of players who are all in before the flop as a result of the chip compression that naturally occurs with the ever rising blinds and antes. Next time I will finish up on the effectiveness of a loose aggressive strategy and a maniac named Doug.

by STEVE ROSENBLOOM of the Chicago Tribune

First published in Pioneer Press

Dicey thing, playing middle pairs, especially from early position.

Depending on how well you know your opponents and how aggressive your table is playing, your best move generally is to see if you can flop a set and play it big enough to extract the most chips without having someone draw out on you. But if you flop something bigger, then you need to figure out how to get the maximum value out of it.

With blinds at $50-$100 in the deep-stack World Poker Tour Championship at Las Vegas’ Bellagio in April, cash-game pro and tournament regular Evelyn Ng drew pocket 7s under the gun and limped in for $100. Two other players limped. Maureen Feduniak raised it to $700 in late position to show strength and thin the field.

Carlos Mortensen called from the big blind. Ng also called. The other early limpers folded.

The flop came 7-8-8. Ng didn’t just flop a set, she flopped 7s full of 8s.

“When you flop something that big and another player has raised pre-flop to establish some image of holding a big hand, you’re in great position,” said Ng, who would attempt to turn her opponent’s show of strength into a weakness by checking.

Feduniak made it $2,000 to go. Mortensen called. Ng check-raised to $5,000.

“With a pair on the board, I didn’t think I could get too much action if I check-raised on the turn, so I check-raised on the flop,” Ng said.

“I thought if I was going to get in a raise, it would have to be on the flop, because if I raised on the turn, she might let aces go.”

But it wasn’t just the move, it was the amount of Ng’s check-raise — enough to build a pot without running off her opponent.

“I didn’t want to make it too big,” Ng said, “but I thought if she had an A-K, she might take a card off for that amount, or if she had a big pair, she might take a card off.”

Indeed, Feduniak called. Mortensen folded. The turn came the king of diamonds, potentially disastrous for Ng if Feduniak held pocket kings, giving her a bigger full house than Ng’s 7s over 8s.

Ng bet $6,000 on the turn. Feduniak called. The river came the 2 of diamonds. Ng bet $17,000, about two-thirds of the pot, an amount that represented strength but was still less than half of Feduniak’s stack.

“The pot was really big,” Ng said, “so I didn’t have to make a huge, huge bet, because she probably wouldn’t call all her chips. I left her with about $20,000. I figured it was an amount that she might call if she thought her aces were good or if she thought her king was good.”

Ng got the call she wanted, then showed her full house. Feduniak mucked her cards.

Steve Rosenbloom can be reached at srosenbloom@tribune.com.