I'm All-in

   A played in a rather odd online sitngo tournament a few weeks back. The game had progressed fairly normally up until the point where there were just four players left on the table. There was myself and two others with medium-sized stacks and one big stack. On one particular hand, the big stack (BS) went all-in pre-flop, and everyone folded. This is not unusual behaviour for a big stack, and is called 'stealing the blinds'. In the next hand, BS went all-in again, and everyone folded. Then he went all-in pre-flop again. And again. And again. And again.
   By this stage I'd realised that this player had decided to just go all-in on every hand. As I had a slightly larger stack than the other two players I decided to just wait it out and let the other two players tangle with this character. So I resolved to fold everything but pocket aces or kings, and sat back to watch the fun.
   Obviously, the other two smaller stacks couldn't afford to sit and wait, so they did what I expected they would. When either one of them got a decent pre-flop hand they went all-in or called the all-in bet. On these occasions, BS usually had the worst hand and usually lost, but he persisted with his strategy. Eventually his stack-size had dwindled below that of the other three and he got eliminated on one of his all-in bets.
   After he'd gone play continued in a normal way, with no more all-in bets than you would expect to see in the later stages of a sitngo. We three remaining players had a few comments to make about Mr All-in. Basically, we couldn't understand the reasoning behind such a strategy. He was the big stack. If he'd wanted to, he probably could have sat out nearly every hand and still ended up in first or second spot. Instead, he just threw his chips away. Very odd.
   Although this was a pretty extreme example, I've noticed that quite a few players have 'all-in fever'. This is particularly evident in tournaments, especially in the early stages. You get players going all-in pre-flop with absolute rubbish, and other players calling them with hands that are marginal at best. I've never really understood the logic behind putting your entire stack at risk to win a handful of chips. Likewise, calling an all-in bet with middle-strength card when you have no idea of the strength of the other hand is just plain stupid to me.
   Now, it may be that these types of player have decided that it's better to take a risk early on and hope for a double-up than to play for an hour or more and then get eliminated. If that's the case then I guess it's a reasonable strategy, though not one that I would want to pursue. But I suspect that this is not the case for most of these players. I think that these players are just looking to gamble. They're looking for the thrill of putting their tournament life on the line and hoping for the rush of the double-up. In other words, it's a strategy that's not designed to win the game, but rather to provide an adrenaline rush.
   This is typical gambling behaviour and it may well be fuelled by televised poker games. After all, TV is always looking for the dramatic and poker shows that cover many hours of play are edited down to a few of the most dramatic moments. So inevitably we see a lot of all-in situations, lots of coin-flips, lots of eliminations and double-ups, and of course, the occasional lucky, game-saving river card. So maybe some of these players want to be like the pros and put all their chips on the line, even if the circumstances are completely different.
   Myself, I limit all-in plays to certain specific circumstances. I've always been aware of the basic principal that you need a much better hand to call an all-in bet than you need to make one. However, my recent analysis of my poorest plays has revealed that I still tend to call all-in bets more than I should. So now I work on the following simple rule: don't call an all-in bet pre-flop unless you have pocket kings or aces. Of course all rules have exceptions. Where I was the big stack I might well call an all-in bet from a short stack if I had a reasonably strong hand. Likewise, if I was very short-stacked I might very well call an all-in bet from a loose player or the big stack, if I had decent pre-flop hand.
   Going all-in is a bit different because the aggressor has the advantage. It can be a very useful tool both pre-flop and post-flop, provided it is used sparingly. Use it too much and it loses its value. Most of the time when I go all-in I don't want to be called. It usually happens when I think I have the best hand but I'm not sure. I figure that if I go all-in, my opponent would have to have a VERY good hand to call. Most of the time it works.
   The all-in play that really puzzles me is when a player hits a monster hand (say, the nut straight) and then goes all-in. In a situation like that I'm usually thinking 'what's the most that I can bet and still get a call?'. The funny thing is, quite often someone will call one of these all-in bets, and lose most or all of their chips. Why would someone do that? Did they really think it was a bluff? Sure, sometimes players  bluff at the pot, but in my experience it happens a lot less often than you might think, at the lower level games at least. There have been occasions in the past where I've hit a monster hand and gone all-in, hoping my opponent would think I was bluffing. It hardly ever works for me, even though it seems to happen quite frequently for other players. Maybe they've noticed how tight I am. Then again, I doubt that they'd have that degree of awareness.
   So my guidelines are pretty simple. Stay out of the way of players who want to make the big push. Leave the hero calls to others. And then use the all-in play when the time and circumstances are right, just like other poker moves. After all, if I want to gamble all my chips on a 50/50 shot, I'll put them all on red at the roulette table.
  







  

News Briefs

   I've been watching edited highlights of the World Series of Poker Main Event over the last few weeks. I finally  worked out that Sky TV was showing it late on Sunday nights, so I started recording it. They started with Day 3 and now we're down to Day 7, with just 29 players left. I've been careful not to look at any poker news sites so I don't know who's going to make the final table. Although they usually call these players the 'November Nine', I think the final table is actually played at the end of October this year. As usual, all the big name professional players are out of it. At least my favourite pro, Daniel Negraneau made another deep run this year, before getting knocked out by actor/comedian Kevin Pollack. As always, it's highly entertaining stuff. Over 8 million dollars first prize. A nice payday for someone.


   My own results continue to be in the negative zone, although the downward slide has levelled out a bit. My bankroll is still below the break-even point and I have now played ten online tournaments in a row without cashing. Sitngos have been up and down, but mostly down.
   On the plus side, I'm actually doing pretty well in six-max fixed limit holdem. Since dropping to a lower level game I've won four sessions in a row, more than doubling my buy-in in two of those. I really don't see how this sudden success can be down to the drop in level as the type of play is much the same, and many of the same players from the higher level can also be found at this level. So I figure I must be getting used to this game type. When I play next I'll go back up to the next level and see what happens.


   My wife and I went and played in the NPPL tournament at our club on Saturday night. I just felt like playing some live poker and approached it as more of a night out than a serious game. As expected, there was some incredibly loose play. One example: a player raises THIRTEEN TIMES the big blind with pocket aces and gets called by another player with K 4! Of course - you guessed it - the player with K 4 hit two pair and won. My wife and I both played for a couple of hours before getting knocked out, but it was just a bit of fun. However, she says that certain players at her table seemed to have much larger stacks after the break when the chip denominations were changed. That's disconcerting and I guess it's another good reason not to play in this game.


   I went on holiday a few weeks ago and took a poker book with me to read. I originally wanted to take Doyle Brunson's Super System, but couldn't get it. So I took Barry Greenstein's Ace on the River.  It's not really aimed at novices like me (the subtitle is An Advanced Poker Guide), but it was still an interesting read. It sheds a lot of light on the fascinating world of the professional poker player. Greenstein comes across as an odd mix of ruthless poker professional, philanthropist and philosopher. Or maybe that's what he wants us to believe. Anyway, I enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone with a general interest in the world of poker.


   Another TV show I've been watching is The Big Game. This is a great concept. A novice player (called the 'loose cannon') is given a $50,000 buy-in to a ring game, and goes up against five professional players. After 150 hands, if the loose cannon has more than the original $50k, they get to keep the balance. It's a lot of fun to watch and involves some very big names in the poker world (including Daniel Negraneau). This show is on TV3 and they seem to be doing the same thing as Sky does with its poker shows. It was on for a while earlier in the year for a few weeks, then it stopped without warning, and now it seems to have started again in the middle of a series. This series is particularly good because Phil 'the poker brat' Hellmuth is playing and it's always entertaining to see him throw a tantrum when things don't go his way.


   I got an email from a ghost today. This message was from a poker site calling itself 'Fulltilt Poker'. Sounds vaguely familiar. Wasn't that the site that was closed down by the FBI a couple of years ago? Didn't they have their licence revoked by the Gaming Authority of whatever tax refuge they were operating out of? Didn't they meet all requests for information from their customers with a resounding silence? Well, apparently they are starting up again on November 6th. And they are inviting all old account-holders to come and play. Yeah right. Have I got 'sucker' stamped on my forehead?


  

A Game of Two Halves

   I played in a rather unusual game of fixed-limit Holdem last week. Unlike most of these games there was some very aggressive raising and re-raising, both before and after the flop. At first I thought I'd stumbled upon a table full of aggressive players, but after a while I realised it was largely down to one individual. Although there were a number of players raising and re-raising in almost every hand, it was in response to the tactics of this one player - let's call him Mr A. It didn't take me long to figure out that a pre-flop raise or re-raise from Mr A wasn't any indicator of the strength of his hand. Therefore, a further raise was often correct with any decent hand, after which Mr A would cap the betting. The other players had also figured this out, so the betting was often capped pre-flop, with three or more players in the pot. This made for a real action game.
   Some examples:
   I pick up AA and raise and re-raise until the betting is capped. There are four callers! Much to my surprise, my aces hold up against four other hands.
   With K8 I call a re-raise by Mr A. The flop is T 8 5, giving me middle pair. I bet and get called on the flop, turn and river. Mr A had 4 2. Middle pair wins.
   With AJ I raise and the betting is capped by Mr A. I call him all the way to the river with only ace high. He shows K2 for a pair of twos and wins.
   I get J9 and keep calling raises until the betting is capped. In a normal game I probably would have folded to the first raise, but there are five players in the pot and I figure I have the odds to call. No hit on the flop so I fold.
   I don't know whether Mr A always plays this way or whether or not it usually works for him, but on this particular occasion it didn't. I came into the game with 100 blinds and at that point Mr A had about 200 blinds. A couple of hours later Mr A lost his last few chips and left the table. I had doubled up.
   After Mr A left, the table settled down into the usual passive play you generally find in these games. Players who had previously been raising and re-raising with all sorts of hands pre-flop were now happy to just call and see the flop. This confirmed my assumption that the other players had adjusted their play to accommodate the 'action man'. I left the table after a couple of hours and found that I'd lost about 30 blinds since Mr A left. So I actually did a lot better on the aggressive table than the passive table.
   Some of the differences I noted about 'aggro FLH' are as follows.
 *You can call raises with marginal hands because of the size of the pot.
 *You're less likely to limp in with poor hands because of the likelihood of a raise.
 *You seldom raise with a good hand because someone else will probably raise for you.
 *It's harder to judge the strength of other players' hands.
 *It's harder to defend the blinds.
 *You often have the pot odds to keep calling post-flop.
   Although I did pretty well in the aggressive phase of this game, I don't think I'd like to play in this type of game too often. It seems to me that there is the potential for both big wins and big losses. This time I got the wins and Mr A got the losses. If we meet again, it could just as easily be the other way around.