PokerNews article #133

Today I try to teach you about how to use a binomial calculator, and what kinds of poker math questions it can answer for you.

https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/poker-math-online-tool-binomial-calculator-26022.htm

Lee Jones, Deuce-Four skeptic

Yesterday I finally met Lee Jones, who is the director of communications for PokerStars, and author of the well-regarded Winning Low-Limit Hold'Em (which Amazon helpfully informs me that I purchased on June 8, 2006). I say "finally" because I had learned from a mutual friend that he lived around Asheville. As a result, I had expected to bump into him a lot earlier, but he moved away around the same time that I was moving here from Vegas.

He kindly reached out to me to say that he and some friends would be at Harrah's Cherokee Saturday, and would I like to join them? I would indeed, and I did.

Delightful fellow, as I had expected based not only on his writings but on reports from others who know him. But I have to say, for somebody so steeped in the poker world, he has a shockingly poor grasp of the game's most powerful hands.

The group of us split between two tables. Lee was at the other with a friend who was taking her first stab at casino poker. After a while, Lee came over to tell us her unhappy experience. She got all in with a set of fives, on a flop of A-3-5.

Would you like to guess what hand beat her? (Hint: Not pocket aces.)

Any regular reader of this blog knows the answer without a moment's hesitation: The Mighty Deuce-Four, of course!

Despite his years in the poker world, Lee has somehow not learned that this is the most powerful hand in hold'em poker. I tried to explain it to him, tried to tell him that I now have 177 blog posts documenting the invincibility of Deuce-Four. I assumed he was in one of those moments that make one subject to seeing the light, having just beheld the power with his own eyes.

Sadly, rather than embracing the truth, he hardened his heart and would not hear the message of the 2-4 Gospel--even though it was coming straight from the High Priest of the Holy Order of the Deuce-Four himself.

Lee, my new friend: I forgive you your unbelief. But I will patiently continue to try to get you to accept what must now appear to you as foolishness. I have confidence that in time the scales will fall from your eyes so that you may see clearly. And I'll be waiting to anoint you into our cult community of faith when that great day arrives.

All Hail the Mighty Deuce-Four!

PokerNews article #132

This is an introduction to the concept of elasticity in poker.

https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/elasticity-poker-introduction-25967.htm

Vegas trip

Through my local tavern poker club, I won entry into two of their national-championship tournaments in Vegas coming up in November. Today I found reasonable hotel and airfare prices, so I booked the trip and I'm going. I'll be arriving late on November 4, leaving early on November 10, and staying at the Orleans (which is where the tournaments are being held). This will be my first time back in town since moving away 3 1/2 years ago.

PokerNews article #131

In which I try to derive a poker lesson from the acrophobia I experienced crossing that swinging bridge at Grandfather Mountain last week:

https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/mountains-swinging-bridges-and-fear-of-loss-in-poker-25911.htm

Grandfather Mountain

Once a month, Nina and I set aside a whole day to spend together doing something fun or adventurous (ideally, both). Today we drove to Grandfather Mountain, a privately owned preserve about 80 miles from Asheville. It's a lovely place, with stunning views in every direction.

It's been a while since I bragged about the beauty of western North Carolina by sharing some photos, so let's fix that now. (Right click/open link in new tab to see them full size.)


The aptly named Split Rock:

Immediately adjacent to Split Rock is this one, which they call Sphinx Rock. Yes, the entire thing (estimated to weigh 4000 tons) is resting on the small rock under it.

The Rickety Bridge of Certain Death. Well, that's what it felt like walking across. It's possible that's not its official name.

Grandfather Mountain actually has several peaks on the same base. This is the tallest one, seen from one of the more accessible ones.

Just a few random dramatic views:

Here's a couple of shots rendered in black and white, all Ansel-Adams-like. (People often say his work was nearly as good as mine.)

And finally, here's a cute river otter from one of their animal habitats:

Oh, one more thing: On the road up to the summit, signs identify one short stretch as "Forrest Gump Curve." Turns out that a bit of Forrest's famous run was filmed there. You can see it in this clip, from 3:58 to 4:04--just six seconds long.

PokerNews article #130

Poker advice from...William Shakespeare???

Yes, that William Shakespeare.

https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/five-lessons-william-shakespeare-unexpected-poker-coach-25865.htm

PokerNews article #129

This is the last of a series of articles I've written on insights about deception and its application to poker from the realm of evolutionary biology.

https://www.pokernews.com/strategy/dangers-of-selective-attention-why-we-repeat-poker-mistakes-25794.htm

PokerNews article #128

Here I continue with insights about deception in poker from a book by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers about deception in the natural world.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/why-bluffing-is-hard-and-other-poker-insights-from-biology-25744.htm

PokerNews article #127

You can make more money just by wasting less time at the table. Here's how:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/seven-ways-to-keep-the-game-moving-increase-hourly-profit-25691.htm

PokerNews #126

This is a long piece trying to dispose of a common--but wrong--objection that I've encountered several times about the standard way of calculating poker probabilities.

Something that got cut from the article because of length was a link back to the first time I addressed it in this blog. It started with me doing a probability calculation here, to which an anonymous reader replied. My further explanation got too long for a comment, so I made it into a new blog post here. That, in turn, triggered a long and quite interesting discussion in the comments. By the end, I think we had finally convinced the doubter that the standard calculation is, in fact, correct.

Last week a friend (who knew nothing of that years-old blog exchange) mentioned to me the very same objection, in the context of the standard way of calculating the probability of hitting a flush draw. So I decided to try to refute it as carefully and thoroughly as I knew how to do, and this was the result:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/six-ways-of-correcting-a-common-poker-probability-error-25628.htm

Phil Laak rocks the Deuce-Four

I just came across this while browsing YouTube. If I've ever seen it before, I don't remember it.

Lee Jones responds

Lee Jones has an article at PokerNews responding to mine of earlier this week (see post immediately below). As would be expected from him, it's thoughtful, articulate, and comes down on the side of going out of your way to make the game friendly and fun, even at the cost of "a shekel or two less that ends up in your pocket."

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/using-poker-rules-for-a-tactical-advantage-a-rebuttal-25614.htm

I have no quarrel with the position he takes. Moreover, it is perfectly consistent with the general attitude he has shown in a couple of other recent controversies about the intersection of rules, angle-shooting, and generosity to other players--see here and here.


Though Lee addresses all three of my examples, most attention from others has focused on my first one, which has caused me to think about it more. Specifically, I've thought about how the situation is both similar to and different from the common one of a relative newcomer to poker putting out a single oversized chip after another player bets, intending it as a raise, but with no verbal announcement.

The two situations are similar in that an ambiguity has been created by a player's action. Is the tapping a check or not a check? Is the single chip a call or a raise?

The key difference is that in the latter scenario, we have a pretty robust, universal rule that dictates how the ambiguity is to be resolved. In home games or pub poker, the player might be given a chance to explain his intention and let it stand, whatever it may be. But in any other setting that I've experienced, whether tournament or cash game, the dealer will automatically announce it as a call, and, if the player protests that it was meant to be a raise, explain the applicable rule. There's no grace period; the outcome is not dependent on the player's intention or level of experience with live play, nor is it decided by asking the other players whether or not to allow it to stand as a raise. Players tend to make this mistake just once, because the consequences of getting it wrong are politely but consistently enforced.

With the questionable check, though, we don't have a comparable interpretive rule. I quoted Roy Cooke's rule book, and I think he's right to have such a rule, but it's by no means universally treated as such. This means that every time the tapping ambiguity is created, it has to get resolved on some sort of ad hoc basis: The dealer tries to determine intent, perhaps other players are questioned about whether they were misled or whether they want to allow the offending player to still be able to bet if he wants to, perhaps the decision is guided by whether others acted in turn afterward.

If we had a universally enforced rule along the lines of Cooke's wording, and, as with the oversized chip, it were universally regarded as the dealer's job to announce the ambiguous tapping as a check, it would end the need to devise a custom resolution of the ambiguity every time it occurs. It, too, would become a mistake that new players would tend to make just once. Other players wouldn't be put in the position of having to decide whether to extend generosity or protect their own interests.

Perhaps the TDA will deem this worthy of consideration for a new rule at their next meeting?

PokerNews article #125

This one is about using less-known poker rules to create a tactical edge for yourself.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-lesser-known-poker-rules-you-can-use-to-your-advantage-25570.htm



ADDENDUM:

I see that some people on Twitter are saying that my article is encouraging and/or teaching angle-shooting. See here.

This is deeply mistaken--and it's not even a close call. There is no honest, reasonable reading of the article that sees it as promoting angle-shooting. (FWIW, I've previously done two articles denouncing angle-shooting, and teaching readers how to spot and combat it. See here and here.)

The hallmark of most forms of angle-shooting is either deliberately creating ambiguity or deliberately misrepresenting what is going on. An example of the former is sliding a stack of chips to a point just short of the betting line (in a casino that uses betting lines), so that it looks like a bet, raise, or call--but technically isn't. The player then either tries to withdraw it or make it count, depending on the opponent's reaction. An example of the latter is falsely declaring one's hand when the action is concluded, then, if caught, proclaim that it was an innocent mistake.

Not a single thing in my article advocates any attempt to trick or deceive another player, nor to misrepresent the truth, nor to create ambiguity, nor to evade or skirt the rules. Quite the opposite; in every case, I'm advocating following the rules.

In the first example, another player has created the ambiguity, which has to get resolved one way or the other. I'm simply advocating trying to get it resolved (1) according to published rules, and (2) in a direction that is advantageous. The blame for the ambiguity lies entirely with the player who created it, as does any fallout from having done so. (Moreover, the ambiguous maybe-a-check-maybe-not-a-check is something that an angle-shooter could do deliberately. I explain how to foil any such intention.)

In the second example, it's even harder for me to understand how anybody sees angle-shooting here. Again, the fault lies entirely with the player who didn't protect his hand. The worst interpretation you can give to my words is that I'm saying that the rules prescribe the outcome and that you don't have to be generous and let him reclaim a hand that the dealer killed. But the fact is that, nearly always, any such dispute will be left to the tournament personnel, and other players will have little say in what is decided.

My third example is what the attorneys would call black-letter law. I know of no set of poker rules (at least for American use) that disagrees on the prescribed order of showdown when the last round of betting has no action. My advice is simply to insist on following the rules. How that could even remotely be interpreted as "angle-shooting" wholly escapes me.

If people simply disagreed with the wisdom of following my advice, I wouldn't mind. After all, a good percentage of my own words were spent explaining why you might not want to. But angle-shooting is ugly and unethical. To say that I am promoting or teaching it is not merely mistaken (though it is that); it is outright insulting.

If you believe that an insistence on standard poker rules being followed constitutes angle-shooting, I'm at a loss to understand how you could so badly misunderstand what angle-shooting is.

Deuce-Four still awesome

Today I played in the seniors tournament at Harrah's Cherokee, part of the WSOP-C series.

The Deuce-Four did more than its share of work for me in the first couple of hours.

First time I had it, I raised, got a couple of callers, flopped a gutshot, and hit the wheel on the turn.

Second time, I flopped a pair and a flush draw, raised the initial bettor, and won the pot.

Third time was the big one--a full double-up. 2h-4h. I raised, got a couple of callers, flopped a flush, busted a guy with the same size chip stack who had flopped top pair/top kicker.

And finally, I must report that I overheard somebody at the table behind me saying, at one point, "I folded deuce-four. I woulda made the nuts." Some people are just too dumb to play poker right!

I made the money. There were 513 entries, 54 got paid. I finished in 33rd place for $530. Shoved my last 9 big blinds with AJ in late position, called by the big blind with A-10. Flop was 10-10-5, and that was all she wrote. If not for that, then, as Marlon Brando famously said, I coulda been a contender, instead of a bum, which is what I am.

PokerNews article #124

Play poker like an octopus, not like a mantis shrimp.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/play-poker-like-an-octopus-not-like-a-mantis-shrimp-25521.htm

PokerNews article #123

How might the information you don't have change a poker decision?

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-missing-data-can-mislead-you-in-poker-25452.htm

PokerNews article #122

This one is about the endless chain of causation that determines how a poker hand plays out.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/of-john-f-kennedy-the-butterfly-effect-and-poker-hands-25409.htm


Hat tip to this old blog post from Grange95, which talks about many of the same ideas. The original draft of my article lifted a big chunk of his post, but ended up cut due to length. It's worth reading anyway.

Blog worth reading

It's been a long time since I started reading a new (as in, new to me) poker blog and liked it enough to point y'all to it. (I live in the South now, so I'm not just allowed to say "y'all"--I'm required to.) But I've now found one that is worth calling your attention to. It's written by Rachel Kranz, and it's called "Adventures in Poker."

I first became aware of it because Jennifer Newell started posting links to it on both Facebook and Twitter a few weeks ago. I thought I'd get around to checking it out sooner or later, but didn't actually do so.

But then Nina (my girlfriend, aka Cardgrrl) told me that she had started reading, too, and was impressed at the quality of the writing. Nina is not easily impressed by blog writing, but she was this time--to the point of saying that she was envious: "If I were still doing my poker blog, I hope it would be that good." So yeah, that got my attention.

And now that I've read the last three posts, I see why both Jennifer and Nina thought it stood out from the field. It's well-written, thoughtful, introspective, brutally honest and even confessional. Really quite compelling.

You might want to go check it out.

PokerNews article #121

Shannon Elizabeth, the "law of attraction," and the illusion of control in poker.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/what-you-can-and-cant-control-in-poker-and-why-it-matters-25357.htm