Math double-check

I've written a thing for an upcoming PokerNews article that involves a lot of math--not highly advanced, but moderately complex poker probability stuff that can't be looked up online. I'd like to have any embarrassing errors discovered before it gets published, rather than after.

If you're reasonably good at figuring out probabilities using the formula for card combinations, and you're willing to spend what I think would be 30 minutes or so looking over my work, please let me know: submit a comment below with "do not publish" or words to that effect, and your name and email, and I'll send it to you for a look-over.

Thanks.

PokerNews article #111

Have you ever lamented that you finally pick up a big hand, and everybody folds to your raise? Here's how to fix that.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/everybody-folds-when-you-finally-have-a-big-hand-how-to-fix--24664.htm

PokerNews article #110

Autism, Star Trek, and Kenny Rogers:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/reading-emotions-and-poker-24610.htm

Full day of poker

Yesterday Nina and I went to Harrah's Cherokee to play in the second WSOP-C seniors event. (The first was April 17.) I did decently well in it, going out with about 150 left out of 568 entrants, but not well enough to make the money (last 63). As is often the case in such things, winning instead of losing one 50/50 race would have made all the difference.

Next I played in a cash game for a while. It's actually been three years since I played a $1-2 NLHE cash game with chips and a dealer instead of PokerPro machines. I kept forgetting to tip the dealer when I won pots. I started well, but eventually made a bad all-in move and lost my buy-in. The game was already breaking up, so I decided not to start over.

But they were assembling a 10-player, $125 sit-and-go for $1100 cash, winner take all. I don't think I've ever done a tournament format like that. The closest I've come has been some WSOP single-table satellites. I figured I had a couple of hours of good poker left in me, so I signed up. Nina came by when there was just one seat left, and I persuaded her to take it.

I picked a seat card at random and ended up sitting next to a blog reader, who lives in Durham. He recognized me and introduced himself. (Hi, Matt!) It wasn't too uncommon to run into readers at the poker tables in Las Vegas, but this is the first time it's happened since I moved to North Carolina.

I started the tournament epically card-dead. Just could not pick up a real hand to save my life. And every time I thought a good steal opportunity was coming my way, Matt, on my right, beat me to it.

The structure was fast. 2000 in starting chips, blinds going up every 15 minutes, starting at 25/25, then 25/50, 50/100, etc. The whole thing took less than two hours. So after losing some chips to blinds and speculative hands that went nowhere, I had to do something. When there were a few limpers but no raise, I decided to shove with A-3 offsuit and hope for the best. It worked. Matt thought a long time about calling, but finally folded with the rest of them, and I was back to my original stack.

Then card-dead again, until I finally made a stand with pocket 8s, flopped a set, and tripled up. Then I finally had enough chips to start really playing.

We had four women starting this event, and three of them, along with me, were the final four. That's right--I was the last man standing.

One got knocked out and it was down to me, Nina, and an odd older woman. She looked rather like a caricature of everybody's grandmother, including a hat that looked like it was meant for gardening. She was impossible to figure out--not because she was particularly skilled, but because she was so random. She would show up with hands that made no sense to have been playing in the spots she was playing them, and she made bad calls that somehow worked out almost every time.

Nina went out in third place, and I was left heads-up with Grandma. She wanted to chop the prize money. I gather that chopping the last two, three, or four places is pretty much de rigueur in these events, but I politely declined her repeated offers to do so. I wanted the whole $1100, I started heads-up play with more chips than she had (1200 to 800), and I was absolutely certain I was the better player. Besides, the tavern poker league I've been meddling in for the last year or so has given me a decent amount of experience heads-up with weaker players at the end of fast-structured tournaments. As long as I didn't do anything too stupid and didn't get too unlucky, I should be able to win.

And I did. The final blow came when I had pocket queens on the button. She called my raise. The flop was all low, uncoordinated, perfectly safe-looking. She checked, I shoved, and she insta-called with king-high, no pair. That was all she wrote.

Grandma shook hands politely, but walked away muttering something about my unwillingness to chop.

I liked the format. Not a huge time commitment, not too much of a financial investment, but a handsome payoff. It felt good to win.

PokerNews article #109

This installment is about anger--how it costs you money, and how it can make you money.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-anger-costs-you-profit-from-others-anger-24563.htm

PokerNews article #108

This week's column is all about, well, this:






For the explanation, see:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/lyin-truthin-nancy-sinatra-rule-of-poker-24511.htm

PokerNews article #107

This is about dealing with freeroll-entry poker room promotions.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-strategies-for-approaching-freeroll-tournaments-24459.htm

WSOP photos

My friend Elizabeth Wolynski has compiled some of her fine WSOP photographs into a video. I especially like many of the black & white portraits in the first couple of minutes.

PokerNews article #106

A new study of the psychology of Rock Paper Scissors can teach you something about poker, too.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/make-your-poker-game-less-exploitable-rock-paper-scissors-24419.htm

PokerNews article #105

In this one, I categorize the different ways that players observe the flop.


http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/six-kinds-of-players-are-taking-in-the-flop-which-are-you-24363.htm

PokerNews article #104

The pros and cons of having a lucky hand.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/four-reasons-lucky-poker-hand-24295.htm

Strategy quiz

This is a good one. I got 8/8, but I had to really stop and think hard about some of them.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/the-weekly-pokernews-strategy-quiz-everything-is-not-even-mo-24291.htm

PokerNews article #103

Three ways to avoid repeating your mistakes in poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/three-ways-to-avoid-repeating-your-poker-mistakes-24247.htm

PokerNews article #102

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/book-the-win-advice-on-breaking-a-losing-streak-24184.htm

PokerNews article #101

This is part two of my introduction to Bayes' theorem for poker players.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/call-or-fold-bayes-theorem-poker-uncertainty-2-24133.htm

Poker quiz from Mike Caro

Question on his Facebook page:

Okay, so you're playing hold 'em and all cards have been dealt. As you begin the final betting round, you realize that you have the lowest-ranking hand that can't possibly be beat or even tied. What's on the board and what cards do you hold?

See here for his answer and explanation. But try to work it out for yourself first. It's a worthwhile brain exercise.

(I got it right. Did you?)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Today I went to Harrah's Cherokee today. Got a seat right away in a $1/2 NLHE game at one of the PokerPro electronic tables. I bought in for $200.

On my third or fourth hand, I had 3d-6d one off the button. I raised to $8, because The Spanish Inquisition is awesome. The button called (sitting on $450 or so), as did the big blind (short stack).

Flop: 3s-7c-3c. Yahtzee! BB checked. I bet $12. Button called. Big blind check-raised all-in for $22. It wasn't enough to reopen the betting, so I could only call. Button called, too.

Turn: Qh. The pot was about $90. I bet $60. I was surprised when the button called. I didn't think most people would call that with a flush draw. I thought his most likely holding was a medium pair--something between 8s and jacks. If so, he was calling only as a bluff-catcher.

River: 7d. This was problematic. If the button had called me on the flop and turn because he had a 7, he had just backed into a bigger full house than mine. But I decided that was relatively unlikely, and I should stick with my read that he thought I was bluffing with something like A-K, and therefore might call again. The pot was now about $210, so I threw my last $110 at it. Sure enough, the button called, though not as quickly or eagerly as I thought he would have if he had a 7.

I was sort of right: He had been slow-playing pocket aces. Ouch! Sorry, sir, but your three pair do not beat my treys full.

The BB had As-5s, so he was just going for the flush draw.

I think it's safe to conclude that neither of them expected The Spanish Inquisition.

I kept getting hit by the deck. I raised with 7h-8h, and got a 7-7-10 flop. I raised with Q-K off, and got a Q-Q-J flop. Won them both with a continuation bet. In fact, during this session I won every single hand in which I put in money on the flop and/or turn.

The final example of the poker gods' kindness to me today was this one: I raised to $9 from the button with Qc-9c. Two callers. Flop: 7-8-J rainbow. Checked around. My only hope was really a 10 for the straight. Turn: 10 of the fourth suit! Nutterific! First guy bet $10. Next guy raised to $25. He immediately became my target, because if he's raising here, with me still to act, he might be willing to get it all in while I'm holding the nuts. Besides, I don't want to have to make a horribly difficult decision if the river pairs the board. He had about $115 left. I shoved. First guy folded, second guy called. He had J-8. He had flopped top two pair, and was probably planning a check-raise on the flop, which got foiled when I checked behind. He was springing his trap one street too late. River was a deuce, I think. I'll take that virtual stack of chips you were playing, sir, thankyouverymuch.

I folded a couple more hands, then logged out. I was up $395 in 35 minutes, and it kind of felt like I had used up more than my fair share of good luck, so I took the money and ran.

That turned out to be the shortest session I've ever played at Harrah's Cherokee.

PokerNews article #100

This two-part article (Part One now, Part Two next week) is one I've had in mind to write for a year or more. But it was a daunting challenge. Bayes' Theorem is a difficult mathematical concept for people to grasp, because it often leads to counterintuitive results. But I finally spent enough time over the last few days to put together what I hope is a reasonably user-friendly introduction to the subject. Next week we get to how it applies to poker.

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/call-or-fold-bayes-theorem-poker-uncertainty-24077.htm

PokerNews article #99

Four steps to success in unfamiliar poker variants:

http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/four-steps-to-success-in-unfamiliar-poker-variants-24021.htm

"Top Pair" podcast

This week, the boys talk about my recent visit to the Salt Lake City home game, one of my recent PokerNews articles, and other stuff. Listen here, with show notes:

http://www.toppair.net/pls/apex/f?p=TOPPAIR:1:0

There will be more about that Utah home-game experience in my next PokerNews article, probably coming out Monday.