Before we get into today’s topic, I am again looking for volunteers to act as Admin for the forum. With the publication of the two books I was involved in (my book: Advanced Limit Hold’em Strategy, and the Borer-Mak book, Limit Hold’em: Winning Short-Handed Strategies), I need to reopen the forum to new member s who wish to discuss. question, or criticize the texts. To avoid the spam problem, we will have requests for forum membership sent directly to the admin, who will enter them. We will not put the admins address directly into the website, but rather use something like “johnAThotmail.com”‘ so the volunteer(s) will not be spammed. If you are willing to volunteer, please send me a message either at my e-mail address or using the contact page. I want to thank Fred Kray for his help, but he is working on a book and is no longer doing poker.

OK, live vs. online poker. For a while there, online poker was easy. This actually followed a well-known phenomenon in live poker. When a new part of the country legalized poker, some professionals would travel there to take advantage of the local players who thought they understood the game via home games. For a while, the pros feasted on these players, until they either learned to get better or quit (though of course, like everywhere, a few did neither and just continued to lose).

When Internet poker became popular, it was as if the whole nation suddenly legalized poker. Thousand of people rushed to join and play, and many of them had little or no idea what a complex and sophisticated game they were getting involved in. It took a far longer time for the learn-or-drop-out mechanism to work, because new people kept coming in. This was bound to end sooner or later, as nobody is willing to just lose every day.

Another phenomenon of online poker is that it is impossible for the losers to kid themselves. Occasional live players tend to take money from their overall life bankroll and play. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but they do not keep records and can thus delude themselves that they more or less break even. Obviously online play requires a finite deposit, and when it s gone, you must deposit more. It thus becomes clear that losers are in fact losing. They may keep reloading for a while, but again, they will either study to find out why or just decide they are too unlucky to continue.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Regulation Act accelerated this inevitable process, by making it more difficult for the casual player to make deposits and withdrawals. It even made him feel like a criminal. Even before that Internet poker had clearly become more challenging and tougher to beat. Scores of bright college kids with an active curiosity, a penchant for study, and the time to play hours on end became good to excellent players.

Live poker became somewhat tougher, but there are still plenty of casual players, recreational players, and gamblers to keep the games going.

In all forms of poker, skill operates inexorably. I am fond of saying that poker is a “ruthless meritocracy.” As poor players leave, decent players become losers as excellent players still win. Because poker is a long term game, and even big winners have losing streaks, it takes quite a whole for a player who used to be a winner to realize that he is now actually a loser in the same game. Thus, especially on the Internet, people who should step down (or study harder and learn new stuff) keep playing and ignoring the signs.

But there is no question the Internet is a far tougher place to play than cardrooms and casinos.

Two quick topics today. Both stem froma conversatin I had last night att he Bellagio with a regular, young, $100-$200 player. Things are slow right now at the Bellagio, with the highest limit game being $30-$50 (up to $10-$20 NL). One of the first thingsd he mentioned was that he felt I was a low variance player, based on his observations of the time we played. Now many of you know that is not true, but I admit it may look that way over several sessions. The reason came to me as I watched some football this week (my fantasy team is 0-1 thanks to Plaxico Burress last week, but it looks good so far).

Several quarterbacks were saying, “You have to take what the defense gives you.” I thought, “Hey, that applies to poker as well.” There are games where you simply cannot do anything but wait for cards. Nobody folds to raises, nobody lays down hands on the flop. Few people raise to let you know where are. I remember a $20-$40 game about 15 years ago where after a few minutes I turned to my friend on my left and said, ” This is a game where you can’t do anything but wait.” He ignored me of course and continued to play California Standard. He lost a ton, i won a decent amount playing almost no hands. You have to be able to recognize and take what the game gives you.

That’s why it’s wrong to have a “style.” I used to think, “Let the game come to you,” another sports mantra, but this week I think I’ll go with, “Take what the game gives you.”

The pro also mentioned that he when gets up a lot, but then goes down some, he leaves so he will not lost it all back. This may make sense from a psychological point of view, but from a poker perspective, it is nonsense.

First, as you know, the next and you play is the next hand you play, regardless of whether you cash out first, or tag home, or sleep, or whatever. Second, that’s not entirely true, because the fact that you are at the table means you have already studied the players and have some idea what you are up against. If you go home and come back, new players will be in the game (yes, even the $100-$200) and the other players will be playing differently than you remember because stuff will have happened to them.

Also, if you stay, you can trade on a certain amount of respect because you are winning. Your opponents may defer to you a bit more, meaning you may be able to steal an extra pot, get a free card, eliminate a player or otherwise make a play you will not be able to during the the next game.

Certainly you should go home if you are tired, or not playing well, or want to see your family or many other excellent reasons. Being up and then losing some back is not one of them.

Let’s not talk about the book for a change, and just launch into a topic I promised I would cover due tot a post on my Forum. That topic is

What do you do in steal position (in this case the button as other cases are harder to cover) against two people in the blinds who essentially never fold? Do you raise more? Less? Something else?

First, let’s agree that “stealing” in an inoperative word. You cannot steal anything, as the players in question simply will not allow it. You can raise, but you will always be called.

There are hands that are clearly a huge favorite against two random hands. Holdings such as A-J, 9-9, K-Q are excellent raising hands. The players that will call are generally making a big mistake, and that is good.

There are hands that are clearly dogs to random hands, and these are folds Position will not work all that well when you raise with some garbage hand like 10-4, 6-3, and your opponents both call, almost always with better hands than yours. So you should fold those, which you probably would anyway against all but the tightest blind players, who fold way too often (different topic).

Then there are hands in the middle These hand you would like to play, but your opponent will also be correct to call your raise. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker (Sklansky’s basic premise that if the opponents play as if they could see your hand, you lose, and if they play as if they did not see your hand, you win…a much deeper and better explanation is found in Theory of Poker by David Sklansky and should be required reading for every player of any poker game), if you raise with a hand what your opponents are correct to call, and they do call, you lose (actually you may gain if they would be correct to raise and they do not, but their calling is still a minus for you). This sounds off topic, but it is crucial for understand the proper play.

Say you have A-3, or 8-7 suited. You would certainly like to play these hands in position against two players, but if you raise, they will call and they will be at least correct almost regardless of their hands. Let’s take an opponent with 10-5. You raise with A-3, the small blind sees 3.5 bets, and must call 1.5. He is getting 2.3:1 and is only a 3-2 dog to your hand. And that’s not counting the price he will get if the big blind calls, as we know he will. (Please let’s leave BB raises out of this for now…this is only a Thought and not a Chapter). It is even clearer if he calls your raise when you hold 8-7 suited, as he is now calling with the best hand!

My solution, which is probably controversial, but, hey, it’s my website, is to call! Yes, I often open-call on the button in the specific circumstance in which I wish to play the hand, my opponents will be correct to call, my hand is not a big favorite over almost the entire range of hands they may hold, my position will be an asset, and both of my opponents in the blinds will never fold if I raise.

By doing this, I keep the pot small, so I will not get too committed if I end up with nothing, and my opponents will likely be making bigger errors if I end up with something and bet or raise into he small er pot. Also, by calling with A-6 through A-2, I also get considerable action when an ace flops, as my opponents simply cannot conceive that a person with an ace would not make a steal raise (which, in this case, would not be a steal raise, of course) on the button.

Raising, getting auto-called, then betting the flop after two checks offers the next player 7:1. If I call and both players play, then check, I can check without feeling like I’m giving up too much equity, or bet and offer the next player 4:1 instead, which is a major difference.

In addition, some auto-callers also can think, and they become highly suspicious when I call on the button, assuming I must have A-A or K-K and be afraid that the blinds will fold (contradictory, I know, but it happens).

So, for what it’s worth, consider calling on the button in this circumstance with a variety of hands and see what happens. It has worked for me.

I hope you all had a great holiday weekend.

I am back from Florida, where I got my Mom’s condo cleaned out and up for sale, mostly thanks to Betty the wife, who worked like crazy to get it ready. If you want a 1-bedroom, 1.5-bath sixth floor condo in a nice 55+ building with pool, clubhouse and so on, let me know (soon, as I already have an offer). asking $124, 900, less than the appraisal.

More on Florida later in this Thought. First, more frustrating book news. The book exists and is on its way to America. It will be here in 2-3 weeks. In the meantime, Amazon has decided, for no known reasons, to declare that is has been delayed and has written to all advanced orderers asking if they wish a refund. *sigh*. It has not been delayed, it is on its way. Hopefully, my publisher (D&B) will straighten this out rapidly. If not, you will be able to get the book from many other sources, including, cardplayer.com, conjelco.com, professionalpoker.com, and here . I will be offering full price copies plus shipping for autographed copies personalized as you wish them. Details will be posted as soon as I have enough copies…probably three or so weeks.

OK, back to Florida. I did not play any cards, but I have been informed that the new laws now allow no limit hold’em to be played. Thereis a $100 limit on the buy in for any game. In spite of this, they seem to spread $1-$2, $2-$5, and, amazingly, $5-$10 blinds. The latter is clearly an all-in fest, with players bringing multiple buy-ins and pushing to build up big stacks so they can play deeper. I find this weird, but I live in Las Vegas, so I get the benefit of 37 competing cardrooms with few legal restrictions on poker at all.

A gripe: Betty and I took a two-day cruise to Nassau. I take lots of cruises, mostly with cardplayercruises.com, and this was far from the loveliest (and was not with CPC). They did have a poker table in the casino, spreading $3-$6 hold’em. And this is where the gripe comes in. Not that they never spread it. They took a list but had no way of calling it or scheduling the game. So no one ever played. That was OK, as I had no need to play.

The gripe was one of the rules that Betty pointed out to me. She had played poker on a different recent cruise, with the same stupid rule, so it must be a cruise thing (uniform casino-cruise poker rules?). Say you are playing and get up when it is your blind to hit the restroom, or run to the buffet, or check on the kids, or whatever. The dealer gives you a blind button. Now you return and wait for your blind again. When it is your turn the dealer will ask you to post the big blind as usual, and a dead small blind. Of course, on the next hand, you will post the small blind again, live.

I never heard of this before, so it took a long time to sink in that they ask for a small blind as penalty for missing your blind. Two more remarkable things about this:

1 - It is OK to get up, pick up your chips, return to the game, put them back down, and only take the big blind (in fact, there seems to be no rule about putting back the same number, as you are a new player every time you sit down again!)

2 - On the previous cruise, Betty objected tot he rule, and spoke with the manager. He told her (I am not making this up) that this is the way they do it at Bellagio!

Anyway, if anyone reading this has an influence with the cruise casino industry, please try to set them straight. This missed blind penalty is quite out of place, as is carrying your chips around the ship to avoid it.

End gripe. We will need a new admin for the forum, as we wil be opening it to new members very shortly. I will post more on this in a few days. Thanks for visiting my website, and I hope to have real good book news soon.