Some people take bad beats in stride. Others talk about how lucky their opponents are. Some even berate the lucky. How do you react? Like a calm person or an irrational one?
I am good about taking bad beats. I know they are part of the math; part of the game. I also know that others have been on the receiving end as my cards have spiked the turn and/or river. So when I have Aces crumble to 10s9s, I feel no need to go about making a fool of myself. My hope is that you follow suit (pun intended). If you don’t, you may want to think about changing your style. Whether you’re trying to a physchological edge at the table or not, a cool demeanor in the face of unlikely cards won’t be detrimental to your facaude. In fact, you’ll develop a more polished image.
To illustrate my point, I found one of the better bad beats on youtube. The guy bites his lip a little bit and appears begrudging, but doesn’t succomb anywhere close to Hellmuth or Madusow levels. Even well reguarded pros like Joe Hachem have a bad habbit about whining “just hold up one time.” Alternatively, when he needs a lucky card, Hachem will plead to win “just this once.” Those antics get old. An even tempered demeanor will serve you better.
If you’re having trouble racking up W’s in tournaments or money in the cash games, you might want to get back to the basics instead of keeping the kinks in your game. I’m not much of a fan of Phil Hellmuth, but he gives strong fundamental advice to beginners that holds true no matter what.
Be patient and play premium hands. That simple. This might not be the recipe for exciting play or early huge chip stacks, but every time I’ve taken a step back and applied what I term the Phil Hellmuth method (although I’m sure others have instructed on it), my game has become a lot simpler and I end up lasting a lot longer in tournaments. I haven’t always been dominating but the wild swings in my chip count go out the window and I’m usually playing above the curve. Of course, this doesn’t make you immune from bad beats or coin flips, but at least your always right there whereas wild play can have you unknowingly way behind.
Another drawback is you become much more predictable. However, at the same time, your cards and plays become much more respected and you know if a smarter, more savvy player is coming back at you, then you can be confident they have something huge.
This style is also well suited even if you’re playing decently with an aggressive and/or loose game and you’re simply looking to change the pace to keep your opponents off balance. The great thing about the conservative approach is you’re probably going to maintain what you have, if not slowly build on your chip stack. If you’ve zoomed out to a tremendous lead like Demetrius Nobles did in the WSOP, then this is the way to play. Huge chip stacks in huge tournaments don’t last if you keep playing aggressive early. The odds are going to come back and get you eventually. Now Demetrius also played recklessly and well horrible, but even better aggressive play can lead you into the sand trap with a huge field ahead of you.
I watch a lot of the poker on tv, but I know it’s only snippets of everything that goes on. Still, what I see is all I can use to go on.
My pick for best poker player (as you probably know) is Daniel Negreanu. Here are Daniel’s attributes in video game rating fashion:
Reads: 10/10 - No one can make the correct read every time, but Daniel’s ability to call cards is nothing short of amazing. He not only is spectacular, but consistent in knowing his opponents card. He’ll lay down the big hand and go hard with a mediocre hand once he makes his mind up. He’s got consistency, confidence, and spectacular ability to read. This is his best attribute and is the biggest component of poker once you’ve got the fundamentals down. The best reader: Daniel Negreanu.
Bluffing Power: 7/10 - Daniel’s not a notorious bluffer, but he can make a move when relying on his reading power. I think Daniel stays away from bluffing for the most part as it doesn’t suit his game. It’s a slight nuance in poker, but I think Daniel more likes to outplay his opponents rather than straight bluff them. The best bluffer: Gus Hansen
Talk: 8/10 - Daniel is no Jamie Gold, but he can talk a good game. He usually stays low key so as not to give information away, but he can talk his opponents out of hands by telling them what they do have or what they’re drawing on. Not that it improves his performance, but Daniel is also quiet entertaining for TV purposes when he talks his hand through when the final action rests on him. The best talker: Jamie Gold.
Likability: 9/10 - Daniel is not only respected, but also well liked within the poker community. His friendliness gets opponents to take it easier on him and he has more lasting power than a Phil Hellmuth or Jean-Robert Ballande because of it. The most likable: Doyle Brunson. (he’s not really overly friendly but everybody respects the hell out of him.)
Cash Game: 8/10 - One very dominant trait about Daniel that you may not know is he’s very thrifty. Daniel hates to lose a wooden nickel. He has tons of money and will keep it that way. You’ll never see Daniel pretending to buy airplane trips like Scotty Nguyen. Daniel likes his money in his pocket and it helps prevent him from getting loose with his money. Typically, Daniel fares well in cash games, but he’s not in the legions of Phil Ivey. The best cash game player: Phil Ivey.
Tournaments: 6/10 - Daniel seems to struggle more in tournament play. I’ve never seen him advance decently far into the wades of the WSOP and its because of his aggressive style in tournament play. In fact, Daniel might not have the patience to last in a huge field. He’s caught too often making all or nothing moves and in larger tournaments this behavior will have you ousted in hours. Daniel has been heard calling for rebuys more than once after tournaments. The best tournament player: Dan Harrington, Greg Raymer (a close second).
What do you think? I have Daniel listed as the best overall, but the subject is very debatable.
In general, my strategy with pocket aces heads up is to slow play them. And by in general, I mean 98% of the time. The rationale is simple: if you’re going to go all-in with them preflop, why not just draw the hand out to the end? Think about it, you’re holding AA. If the game is heads up, what is your hurry? The cards are going to be the same whether you pushed in the beginning or the end, so why not wait to see if your opponent can catch something?
Obviously, if your opponent forces the action, of course you’ll gladly go all in as a 4-1 favorite. However, if they don’t raise, I’m not raising. Doubling the blind arouses suspicion. Tripling it either tells them you’ve got a good hand or you’re trying to steal, but they usually won’t want to risk that 3x on a suspicion of you stealing their blind. A smooth call or check disguises your hand completely and mentally puts you in the driver seat as you have supreme confidence in whatever move you can make. If you lose with pocket aces, then you got beat by a 1-4 chance. Being a 4:1 favorite in Texas Hold’em is about all you can ask for. With that in mind, slow play your opponent with confidence.
I went back to look at the “bluff of the century” as Norman Chad called it at the time. Here I’m referring to the 2003 WSOP where Chris Moneymaker out dueled Sammy Farha to take home the gold. I remembered the play as a huge bluff, but seeing the video again it was more like a gusty, aggressive play against someone with a very susceptible top pair.
Farha called it right after Moneymaker went all-in, asking if he had missed his flush. However, at this point he didn’t want to risk his tournament life on a pair of 9s. I can’t say that I blame him. There was both flush and straight possibilities and although Chris checked the flop he emphatically reraised the turn and pushed at the river. It was a great move in the sense he was going up against a pro that didn’t want to be eliminated. He knew that. There was a nice amount in the center. It was a very opportune time to steal and he took advantage of it.
From Sammy’s point of view, he probably thought he could afford to lose the pot and out play Chris the rest of the way. In that situation, there was a lot that could beat him and I really don’t blame him for backing down. I do question his check on the river. In retrospect, it made his confidence in his hand look very shaky. That’s playing Monday morning QB though. Its hard to bet that in the moment in the WSOP.
The only real tale I thought MoneyMaker gave off was the puckering of his lips and brief smile followed with a head turn and scratch. That was pretty much a dead give away. I’m not sure if Sammy saw that. He had already won the hand, but it may have turned him a little more aggressive the rest of the way.
I want to create a running list of poker’s greatest highlights. The video below is absolutely incredible. In the first hand of a WSOP main event (not sure which one), Sammy Farha has A10 and his opponent has 1010. The flop comes out an unbelievable AA10 giving both players full houses. What are you going to do with that one if you have the pocket 10s? If I lose my way out of a tournament, I want it to be because of that. I can sleep well at night knowing a flopped a full house and lost. There’s no way you’re going to put another player on a better flopped full house. If you do and fold, then you have powers beyond any poker table in the world.
It seems like every poker player under 45 says the word sick at least once every two hours at the poker table. I guess it was a trend that started with some of the 20something year olds and it manifested into a phenomenon where every bad beat, good call, or good laydown warrants the fad adjective. Even aged pros Phil Hellmuth and Annie Duke have shamelessly picked up.
I think the word in poker way over used and needs to quietly slink away the way other similar fads have gone. If the word sick was ever merited, I liken it to finding a good song on the radio. After you hear it, you download it and play it on repeat to the point you don’t like it anymore.
If I’m looking for material to blog on, I just dial up youtube and I can find all I need for 10 years. First, I was looking for the Scotty Nguyen horse blow up. That was pretty interesting. Then I just started clicking on the next video and the video after that and most were pretty decent watches. If you had told me before poker got real press that it would be fun to watch I wouldn’t have believed you.
Why is it so interesting?
For one, watching a magician like Daniel Negreanu is incredible. He is the best I’ve seen at putting his opponents hands together. Just an incredible feel for the game. Besides the card players, you also have the prestige of the events. The WSOP is a huge event and knowing the enormity makes viewing an even better draw. And you can’t forget about the insane amount of money at stake. It’s also interesting to see all the various people who play poker and how there styles differ Along those lines, there is as much gamesmanship as you’re going to see in anything.
Poker’s appeal has also manifested because of all the drama. This has probably caught a lot of the non-afficianado fans. Some of us enjoy poker for poker. Others need something more to draw them in and the blowups of all varieties do just that. Mike Matusow and Phil Hellmuth are the standards for ill behavior. Others like Jean-Robert Belland and Shawn Sheikan walk a fine line around irritating opponents and repulsiveness. The names continue. I still remember young punk Eric Molena serving as an embarrassment to the parents who raised him in the 2007 WSOP. Recently, the Prince of Poker, Scotty Nguyen, had a drawn out tirade at the final table of the HORSE tournament. Alcohol was definitely in play, but drinks or not, one’s actions are one’s actions.
So the question becomes is this good for the game? Unfortunately it might be - at least for the immediate proliferation of the game. Drama sells in our current society and poker is proffering plenty of it. Like it or not, bad behavior “puts asses in the seats.” The act does grow old though. Eventually, more will be repugnated by the disappointing actions.
I saved a clip of Tony G. for the end. If anything epitomizes embarrassing, ugly, and unsportsmanlike it’s this. Watch it and ask yourself, is there a need for poker players to initiate some sort of minimal, self imposed code of conduct.
The more you talk, the more information you are giving to your opponents. See for yourself.
Daniel Negreanu is normally a decent talker who keeps his opponents guessing, but this time he came off as a babbling amateur who gave his hand away because he couldn’t shut up. Come to think of it, Negreanu usually waits until the action rests on him to start really talking it out. This time the roles reversed and Antonio Esfandiari was the one thinking. Daniel had woven a nice web until the end.
In a seperate aspect of the video, I had no idea Gabe Kaplan was such a Monday Morning QB. Here he continues to boast on how obvious it is Antonio has Jacks. I’d love to see how obvious these hands are when Kaplan can’t see the cards.
I was actually looking for a High Stakes Poker clip to put the question out there: How much money do these guys actually have? I mean think about it: even if you have $10,000,000 in the bank, that’s not nearly enough to go messing around with $200,000 at the Poker table. One bad night and you just lost 2% of your liquid wealth.
In this clip, Daniel Negreanu loses about $125,000 in one hand. That speaks volumes to how much money he has. I didn’t think pro poker players eclipsed that much higher than $25,000,000 but apparently they do.
Anyways, the hand in the video is actually quite interesting. Go ahead and watch and I’ll leave my commentary below.
Gabe Kaplan’s call on this is annoying, if not horrendous. He continues to labor throughout the match about how he doesn’t understand why Daniel isn’t laying this down. Hey, guess what Gabe Kaplan - Daniel can’t see Lindgren’s hole cards in pocket cam like you can.
I didn’t think the call was a bad one even though Daniel looked more curious than hopeful he had won. Lindgren’s smooth call preflop with pocket 8s combined with his extreme luckiness set him up for a bonanza of money. It was the perfect combo because Daniel was thrown off guard because Lindgren only called.
Negreanu couldn’t put him on anything because of the unorthodox call. With only Q, 8, or J showing, it would be really hard to put him on any of those pocket pairs. [Edit: when writing this I negleted j8, Q8, etc.] When the turn of another 8 came, obviously it would have given a fullhouse had he had Q or J, but that just didn’t add up. Combine this with the fact, its almost unheard of to hit quads and Daniel was understandably befuddled. The Ace hit on the river, but Daniel knew Lindgren wasn’t wishing that long on a draw. Just a bad sequence of luck for Daniel here.
From an outsider looking in, Lindgren’s actions, body language, and expressions made him look somewhat amateur. He was so shocked he hit quads, he had to act extra slow to settle himself down. You can see Lindgren become very deliberate as his hand went from monster to mega monster. It was his best method of controlling how overwhelmed he was.
Daniel, the best player in the game, played this hand very well but just got unlucky.
About All Poker Addicts - Poker tips, poker players and poker news
Get the latest poker news, poker tips and poker advice. Get the scoop on the professional poker players. Talk with other poker addicts about your pokers winnings and bad beats.
Interested in sports? Then our sports editors have you covered. All the news, gossip, rivalries, scandals, and enjoyment of the sporting world - at your fingertips - all the time.
Recent Comments