Hugo's Blogspotting: 15 November

Fancy a Swap?

Poker, as we all know, can be incredibly frustrating and if tournaments are your bag then you’d better welcome frustration and disappointment. One thing that many regular players and pros do to soften the blows is to swap percentages. But where do you draw the line? Karl Mahrenholz at the Hit Squad poses this very question:

“I tend to do 5%'s with a few people but the thing is, you're never going to make a life changing sum from 5% of someone and yet by giving out multiples of 5 in yourself, if and when you do get a big score, the amount you have to give out is actually very significant. If and when I take down a big tournament I'll want the money to be life changing. If i'm only in for 50% this isn't really going to happen.”

The only reason for swapping a percentage of yourself is in the hope of getting back some, if not all, of your buy-in to the tournament if you don’t make the money. Of course if you are sponsored you don’t really need to do this as your buy-ins are covered. Having said that I can think of quite a few sponsored players who do trade percentages anyway which I’ve never really understood. Maybe they have really strict make-up deals and are trying to keep their sponsors happy?

Grind vs Glory

The trouble is, when a poker player goes from the grind of cash games to the “glory” of tournaments and ends up having a nice touch, he/she expects that sort of result every other time. Beanie at Always Bluff has observed this up close and makes an interesting post about Mike “The Grinder” Mizrachi and Erick Lindgren, both huge winners at the cash games at one time who now devote their energies to tournaments. Much like a cash game player finds it hard to go back down in limits after a bad run, Beanie notes how difficult it has been for these two stars of the modern game to go back to their bread and butter after great results in the tournaments:

“Both of those guys have been cursed by tournaments. Sure it has provided them with a lifetime of experiences but it is a little difficult to go back to grinding 15-30 if you are Erick Lindgren. Same with Mike, I saw Mike blow 80k to a buddy of mine in about 30 minutes once. The old Mike would have never done that and really he didn’t have a chance against my friend, he just wanted the gamble.”

When you think about it, when was the last time you saw Mizrachi’s name at a final table? A couple of years ago he was making final tables left, right and centre and now it seems like he can’t get arrested. This doesn’t mean he’s a bad player of course; other players catch up to him and let’s not forget our old pal variance. As Beanie says,

“Winning a tournament is such a rush that you want to do it all the time, the only problem is that luck and variance gets in your way. Rather than grinding things out you become addicted to the adrenaline."

Maybe a little bit of ego is involved too – I can think of one player I know who sometimes coaches beginners. He noticed his Sharkscope stats weren’t too impressive, so he decided to play a bunch of $200 - $500 sitngoes to get his figures looking better for his students. You can guess the rest. And all for the sake of looking good to a bunch of people who have no idea in the first place!

The Champ is a Goldfish

Speaking of Sharkscope my mate and EPT Champion Victoria Coren mentions it in her most recent column for the Guardian. As I’m sure you all know, Sharkscope rates your play, shows your profit or loss, and puts a little cartoon next to your name indicating whether you are a fish or a shark and so on:

“My friend Keith "the Camel" Hawkins has a revolving diamond star next to his name, to indicate that he has not lost a pot since Boadicea died. Next to mine, there is currently a goldfish. And that's after I've won several one-table tournaments in a row. Before that, I assume they simply put a picture of an exploding cashpoint.”

Funnily enough Vicky, next to my name is a picture of the actual cash point nearest my house with my debit card details including my pin number.

Silliness

At least Vicky goes on to report winning a few sitngoes unlike most other bloggers this week. Nath at tworags.com has a post entitled Tournaments are Silly which basically sums it up. I don’t even really need to bother quoting from it do I? But then I wouldn’t have much of a column so here’s a couple of choice nuggets from this entertaining entry:

“The nature of what it takes to win a tournament is so capricious that I'm not sure I can ever really move back into them…. In a tournament, I have to cross my fingers and hope I can get in a pot with a donkey, and then hope the donkey puts his money in bad, and that my hand holds when he does.”

Or, even more succinctly, when playing a tournament,

“1)People are even worse than I remembered.
2)It's really hard to take advantage of that.”

Amen.

Run Like a God

If you still think tournaments are easy money then why not check out what many consider the best multi-table tournament player around today has to say about them.

“The variance can be devestating at times. I know a lot of players have big expecations when they for example win a satellite to play in the bigger buy in tourneys. But the odds of actually making the final table in those or even getting close are sooooooooo slim that ur chances sucks no matter how good u are.”

Can you guess who wrote that? The phone text spelling and broken English should be a clue here, maybe a teenage girl? Yes, you got it, it’s Annette_15. She wins more of these tournaments than some of us have hot dinners – if she thinks they’re hard what chance have the rest of us got?

“You have to run like a god and play well to get there and it's a tough combination, because we can't control the cards, only what we do with them."

More Golf with Antonius

“Run like a god”…I like that. Especially as it segues nicely into another current poker god, Patrik Antonius. You may remember last week I questioned whether Patrik was getting hustled at golf? I seriously doubt he reads this drivel, but it looks like he may have as this week he mentions numbers:

“Overall I am stuck a little over $100k in golf bets so far”

$100k to Patrik is probably the equivalent of a tenner to you and me, but nonetheless Patrik says he is not happy about being stuck this amount. As long as he doesn’t end up buried in the bunker like Negreanu he should be alright:

“In the past when I get stuck at something, it usually means I am going to put a lot of time into getting so good that I can get even and make some good money. For now, I look at the loss as a initiation to the golf gambling world. My swing under pressure is not the same on the range, so once I can master that, I should be in great shape.”

Don’t forget that Antonius originally had his sights set on being a professional tennis player - it shouldn't be too long before he gets good at golf.

“Golf is such a great game and I see why poker players love gambling on it. I hope when its all said and done, I am the biggest golf better around.”

The Chancer is out of his Mind

Talking about Antonius, how about that massive pot he lost to Jamie Gold on the current series of High Stakes Poker? (you can see it here, about two minutes in) Lucky for Patrik he asked to run it three times at the last minute and got a third of his money back. Elsewhere on this site The Chancer seems to think that Jamie Gold has redeemed himself in the eyes of millions of poker players. Er… Chancer, have we been watching the same program? Granted you could never call Jamie a nit, but that’s about the only good thing I can think of to say about his showing in this season of High Stakes Poker.

How is raising all of your money (about $300k into a $150k pot) into the nuts and then sucking out on the river good poker?

We all know Jamie loves talking during a hand, but surely even he must realize by now that most people have seen him do this on TV and he is only giving away what he has? This is the speech he gives before he re-raises with pocket kings:

“I got a hand…feels like aces, I wish it was aces, but it feels like it.”

Hmmm, let me think, what hand in Holdem feels like aces but isn’t aces? Gee, I wonder if Patrik Antonius, one of the best poker players in the world, got any clues from Jamie’s little speech?

Commentator Gabe Kaplan sums it up when the king hits the turn giving Antonius the nuts and Jaimie trips. Analysing the situation Kaplan acknowledges that it is possible that Jamie knows that Antonius has him beat, but,

“I don’t think Jamie can stop himself”

Has the Chancer seen earlier episodes in this season? Considering that on more than one occasion Gold has told the whole table how he wants to be known as the best bluffer he has shown really poor play on the river, only betting the nuts or bluffing air and choosing to check down all other hands. As Kaplan has noted if you want to be a good bluffer you have to learn how to value bet a few hands on the river too. It seems like Jamie has not grasped this basic concept.

You only have to notice how all the top pros are being super-friendly to Jamie to realize how they are in fact licking their lips at the prospect of playing with him. Sammy Farha tries to arrange a heads-up match with him and both Antonius and David Benyamine encourage Jamie to take up Omaha, telling him that the game is a bluffer’s paradise. Jamie comes across as a nice guy, but I don’t think that’s the reason they all want him in the game.