Was Colossus II a Disappointing Sequel?

The World Series of Poker is well under way.  The first “major” event was the return of Colossus.  As you will recall, I played in the very first Colossus event last year (see here and here).  This year, I’m not in Vegas yet so obviously I didn’t play in it.  Honestly, even if I was able to be in Vegas now, I would have skipped the event.  And apparently, I’m not alone in thinking that I could afford to miss this tournament.  The turnout was less than last year’s.

That is the subject of this post.  Was Colossus II a disappointment—attendance wise, that is?  Was it just another case of the sequel not being as good as the original?  Or would that be the wrong takeaway?

I initially got the idea to do this post on Thursday, the first day of the event.  When I saw the reports of the number of seats sold for the two flights that made up the first day, I was thinking that turnout must have been a huge disappointment.  And I started thinking of all the reasons why this was happening.

I’ll get back to that but now that we know how many people actually turned out for the event, it is obvious that “huge disappointment” is a totally inaccurate assessment.

But was it slightly disappointing, at least?  I’d have to say yes.  Let’s look at the numbers.

This year’s event drew 21,613 making it the second largest tournament field in poker history.  The first was of course last year’s Colossus, which had 22,374 entrants.

OK, that’s not much of a drop off.  But I heard they were expecting to break 30K players this year and if that’s true, then it is a disappointing turnout.

What’s important to note is that they added two more starting flights this year.  So they could have handled 30K players, where as last year they wouldn’t have been able to.

Last year, the Day 1’s  were on Friday and Saturday of the first week of the series (two each day).  This year, they were on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of that first week, again two a day.  I think they were anticipating pretty much maxing out each flight.

That would have been 4400-4800 each flight.  Thus, when I saw they “only” had 3,249 for Flight A on Thursday, followed by a much smaller field of 2,153 for Flight B later that day, it sure looked like a big disappointment.

But to a great extent, adding two more days just spread out almost the same number of players over six flights rather than four.  That was better for the players, and I guess for the staff as well, but probably not what the WSOP was hoping for.

The impact on the entire Vegas poker scene was way down too.  Last year, they had to use every single table in the Rio for Colossus or some other bracelet events.  They even used half of the Poker Kitchen for tables. No cash games at the Rio meant that cash game action was spread out over town and there were 3-4 hour waiting lists at many rooms to get into a cash game.

From what I could tell, nothing like that happened this year and I think the WSOP venue was able to run cash games most of the time (except maybe for part of Saturday). Thus the other rooms were busy, but not swamped. 

The turnout picked up on Friday (3,770 & 3,099) and then a huge turnout on Saturday (4,855 & 4,487). 

So, although not the turnout they hoped for, still an incredible number of players for a single tournament, to say the least.

But if we’re honest, it was on some level disappointing.  So why didn’t they exceed last year’s numbers even with two more starting flights?

I have a few theories. 

First, the novelty from last year was gone.  I’m sure a lot of players who played last year didn’t feel the need to play again (like me), either because it was more of a “one time thing” or because their experience wasn’t so good. 

As I reported in those posts I’ve linked to, it was kind of fustercluck last year.  Although they did an incredible job under the circumstances, there were still a lot of glitches—starting with having to change the number of levels played on Day 1 and having to change the start times of the afternoon flights.  One glitch from last year I unfortunately didn’t have to deal with was that there were incredibly long lines at the payout window for those lucky enough to cash.  I’m sure this left a bad taste in the mouths of some of those who got paid.  I’ll bet that’s one reason people who got paid last year may not have returned.  That and the other glitches I mentioned last year.

And for those who didn’t play but were thinking of it, remembering all the stories of the glitches from a year ago may have dissuaded them from playing this year.

Ironically, by adding the two starting flights and getting a similar number of players, I think they were able to do away with most of the glitches, so that was a bad reason I guess for people to decide not to play.

And they fixed the payout problem by having each starting flight have its own individual pay outs before the flight ended.  If you made it to Day 2 you cashed, but the money bubble hit during Day 1, and thus people who cashed but busted Day 1 could collect their money right then and there, reducing the lines for the pay outs. 

They also made it simpler by not letting people register for more than one flight at a time.  You couldn’t register for a second flight until you busted from the current flight you were playing.  No doubt that made things go smoother. 

I did read some complaints on Twitter that there issues on Day 2 as they kept reaching another pay jump on the pay scale—apparently they were stopping the clock and playing hand for hand for each jump.  Can anyone confirm that?

Anyway, I wonder if a lot of people—whether they played last year or not—figured out that the odds of surviving such a huge tournament were so overwhelming that their tournament dollars were best spent elsewhere?  That’s probably the main reason I wouldn’t have returned this year even if I had been in town.  It is just way too big a crapshoot.  And once I had the experience one time, I didn’t need the thrill again.  Also, I believe there are a few more lower priced bracelet events this year, so there are more options for the low-rollers to play for a bracelet than last year.

And then there was the revised structure.  I mention that in my post here, where I linked to the article here explaining the new, almost turbo-like structure of the event. Can’t be sure how many people read this article—or maybe just figured out on their own that structure was much quicker—and decided that there was not enough value in the tournament to play in it.  But I’m sure the new structure had some effect. 

Now I realize you readers come to my blog expecting detailed posts about long tournament runs, and must be disappointed that I don’t have one for you this time (since, you know, I didn’t play).  So, if you want to read about a nice tournament run in Colossus, I’m giving this link hereto my friend Don’s write up. I’ve mentioned Don numerous times, we’re pals from the days when PokerAtlas was All Vegas Poker. For some reason, Don calls himself “Dave” in his summary. As you can see, Don actually won a free seat to Colossus and it paid off for him.  I think you’ll enjoy his reportage of the event. 

So that’s it.  Do you think the turnout for Colossus II was disappointing?  And if so, why do you think turnout was off?  Please share your thoughts. And if you played, let us know how it was and how you did.  

Read More

Do You Like Bounty Tournaments?

I guess this is going to be my first “real” post in awhile.  I returned from Vegas last week, and I’m still trying to figure out how to write up the posts I have in my mind from the trip—what is the best way to do them?  I mean, not only was the poker lousy for me, but I have to say, I have kind of soured on Las Vegas, as those of you who follow me on Twitter probably noticed.  I really wasn’t sorry to come home, and right now, I don’t feel any urgency at all in returning.  That is not because the poker was bad, it has more to do the Vegas itself.  Vegas is constantly changing and I don’t think what’s been changing is for the better—quite the contrary.  But I’ll get to that in the (near?) future.

When I got back home, I was a bit under the weather and thus ended up taking the weekend off (from blogging and pretty much everything else).  So that leaves me with precious little time to get a blog post ready for you good folks now. I don’t have time to go over my notes from the trip for a post, so I’m going to do something a bit different.  I’m going to talk about poker tournaments in a general sense. Specifically, bounty tournaments.

I’ve had the idea to talk about this running around on my brain for awhile, and I was recently reminded of it by Nick.  He was reviewing some of the upcoming summer poker tournaments and a $400 bounty tournament at Venetian caught his eye. He asked me if I had any idea what kind of turnout they’d get and how long the tournament might last.  I don’t think I was much help, but it did make me wonder—why a bounty tournament?

So let me throw the question open for discussion.  What do you all think of bounty tournaments?  Do you find them preferable to a regular tournament?  Less desireable?  Or does it make no difference to you?  And more importantly, why?

Bounty tournaments obviously have their fans (in addition to Nick).  They are a major part of a lot of series—a good percentage of Venetian’s evening events during the Deepstacks are bounty tournaments.  A lot of rooms have them on their regular schedules.  Most don’t have them daily, but they might replace their regular non-bounty tournament with a bounty version once or twice a week. 

They’re in the minority—most tournaments are not bounty tourneys.  So I guess they’re not quite as popular as regular ones.  So maybe some people just like them as a change of pace, to add some variety?  Yet I suspect there are some players who are “bounty hunters’—folks who prefer the bounty tourneys and play those almost exclusively.

So what is the actual the appeal of them?  Of course, I asked Nick and he pointed out the obvious—that if you knock a few players out, as you tend to do in a good tournament run—you get some of your buy-in back with the bounties.  Maybe you even knock out enough people so that you get all of your buy-in back, and maybe make a profit even if you don’t cash.  Right?

Well sure that’s possible.  To me though, that’s not worth the trade-off.  You’ve heard me bitch and moan over and over again about the payouts in tournaments, particularly the dreaded min-cash (here, for example). Well, those bounties just reduce the prize pool up and down the line, and/or reduce the number of people who actually cash.  So someone like me is not going to be happy with the pay scale of a bounty tournament, to be sure.  Of course you can make up the difference with the bounties you get, but that’s kind of hit-or-miss.

Or is it?  Because the next question I have is, does the fact that it’s a bounty tourney affect your style of play—and should it?  Are you more inclined to call a short stack’s all-in knowing if you bust him out, you get some money right then and there?  And is that really a good strategy?  If you are trying to win a tournament, why be distracted by something like that?  Your decision to call should be based on several factors, but should a $25—or even a $100—bounty, be one of them?  What if you call to get the bounty when you otherwise wouldn’t, and not only fail to knock the other play out, but cost yourself the chips you need to cash in the process?  Yes, of course, it could work the other way.  Maybe the bounty encouraged you to make the “right” call and helped you get chips, in addition to the bounty.  But to me, I don’t like having an outside factor affect my decision making.

What I really don’t get is when the bounties are small.  I mean, the one Nick was looking at has $100 bounties.  That’s certainly meaningful (but also means a very meaningful hit on the size of the overall prize pay outs).  But you see some bounty tournaments with really small bounties, and you have to wonder, what’s the point?  I guess I could be convinced that a $25 would be worthwhile, but once you get under that, I can’t see how it is even worth the effort to keep track of them. I guess that’s a knock on bounty tournaments—they create more work for the dealers and the players to keep track of.  And for a small bounty, it just doesn’t seem worth it.

I actually wrote a blog post about a bounty tournament I played at the Bike (see here).  It was a small tournament with $10 bounties and I honestly thought the bounties were just dumb.  I mean $10 bounties?  Absurd.  And I know there are actually really small tourneys around the country—say with $25/$30 buy-ins—that have $5 bounties!  That’s just nuts.  But then, I guess if you’re gonna play in a $25 tournament, you’re probably not much of a serious poker player anyway.

I seem to recall a few times last summer, when everyone had their big series going on, I was looking for a tournament to play and the only ones in my price range were bounty tournaments.  So I passed.  Frustrating.

And by the way...sometimes rooms run bounty tournaments where the bounties (which may be prizes, rather than cash) are funded by the room, not the prize pool.  Those are definitely worth playing, not at all what I'm talking about.

But maybe you guys have convincing arguments on the awesomeness of bounty tournaments.  Let me hear them.

Read More

Should I Avoid Rooms That Have Freerolls?

Remember the post I did here about promos and how they make me stupid?  Of course you do.  I know my loyal readers memorize every word of each of my posts (because, you know, there are so few words in them anyway).

I pretty much “wrote” that post—in my mind, anyway—while driving back home from Vegas after that rather unsuccessful trip.  I was thinking a lot about the promos and how they had affected my play.  Or to be more accurate and put the blame where it belongs, how I letthem affect my play.

But there was one kind of promo that was also on my mind during that drive that I didn’t talk about in that post. Freerolls.

The thing is, freerolls don’t really affect my actual play, that’s why I didn’t include a discussion of them in that post.  But not long before then, I saw or heard someone make an observation about freerolls that made me think I was making a mistake by ever playing in a room that had a freeroll as one of its promos.

Now, freerolls can be different things at different times and in different places.  I’m talking specifically about the freerolls that rooms in Vegas offers.  Freerolls that you have to qualify for by playing a certain number of hours within a certain time frame.  And that are funded by the promotional drop that they take out of each pot in a cash game (and they sometimes take it from the tournament fee, too).  I know online sites offer freerolls that you don’t have to qualify for—that’s totally different.  Your local poker room may offer freerolls that are different, maybe sometimes that are house funded.

Freerolls are offered by rooms in Vegas to get people into them and to play longer than they otherwise might to qualify for the freeroll.  The hours required aren’t that many, really, sometimes 8, or 10, or 15, or 20, usually within a week.  Then you have to show up at a certain time on a certain day and play in what is basically a turbo tournament (few starting chips and a fast structure) and if you do well enough, you win some money.  Could be $100, $200, $400, not usually more unless it’s a really big freeroll where you accumulate hours over a month or a quarter instead of a week.

The obvious thing about any freeroll in Vegas is that it is geared towards locals.  The average tourist isn’t going to be in town long enough to qualify for a freeroll, and even if they are, they might not be available for the freeroll anyway.

The fact that so many rooms on the Strip offer freerolls is proof that even the Strip poker rooms need local players to keep their rooms going.  No poker room in Vegas could survive with just visitors playing. The locals are an important part of their customer base.  And so all the poker rooms are competing for the same set of locals. Freerolls not only get players in the room, it keeps them there and prevents them from playing in a competitor’s room.

As an aside, I would love to know what the percentage of business the local base is for the average poker room in Vegas.  I have no idea.  I wonder if the rooms are able to track this (with player’s cards, I guess they can, at least partially).

Now, I’m not a Vegas local so those freerolls are clearly not aimed at me.  OTOH, I’m not a typical tourist either.  When I go to Vegas, it’s usually a minimum of 10 days at a time, so if I wanted to, I could probably qualify for most of the weekly freerolls available.  It would mean playing a lot of poker in the room that had the freeroll, largely to the exclusion of other rooms, but as you may have noticed, I tend to do that anyway.

I might be inclined to try to play in a freeroll or two if I could set the rules and more importantly, the time and day of the freeroll.  But obviously I can’t.  So unless the payout is particularly juicy, the odds of winning money are very good, and the freeroll is scheduled at a real convenient time, I’m not going to bother with it.  You may feel I am being too close-minded to the idea of freerolls—so be it. With my limited time in town, I just don’t want to have to deal with them.

Would I view them differently if I lived in Vegas?  Perhaps.  I suppose at that point I would consider them and I would have to evaluate each one’s merits.  And if the freeroll was held at a time I considered convenient, and the other details were to my liking, maybe I would work my poker schedule around a freeroll.  But I probably would only do that occasionally, not regularly.

I want to make it clear that I don’t begrudge any room for having a freeroll as one of its promos.  Poker room managers have to do what they can to get people in the room.  If the freeroll helps them do that, good for them.

And so during that drive, I started to ask myself if it makes any sense at all for me to ever play in a room that has a freeroll as one of its promos.  Because, you know, a “freeroll” isn’t really “free.”  It’s the players own money being recycled back to them.  That money that goes down the jackpot slot every pot funds all the house promos, be it a bad beat jackpot, high bonuses, cash drawings, Aces cracked, etc.  And yes, the freeroll.

Almost any other promo in a room I’d play in, I have a chance to win some of that money taken from each pot (some of what used to be my money).  I can win a cash drawing or a football drawing.  I can get a high hand or a splash pot or even Aces cracked.  I could win a bad beat jackpot.  So I always have a chance to get some of that money back.

But if I am committed to not playing in the freeroll (whether I qualify or not), there’s a part of that money I contribute that I have zero chance of getting.

Think about it, here’s how an actual Vegas freeroll works.  The locals who qualify meet at the appointed time and split up all the money the tourists so generously donate during the week.  That’s pretty much it, right?  A little simplistic perhaps but let’s face it, the whole concept is based a bunch of money being donated by players who will never show up for the freeroll.  If you had a room that was 100% locals who were all committed to showing up for the freeroll, the math wouldn’t work.  The winnings would be too little, and/or it would be way too tough to cash in the tournament.  It can only work with a lot of visitors just giving their money away thru that promo drop.

Why should I be one of those visitors generously giving my money the grinders in any room I play in?  They are usually tough players anyway.  They very well may have gotten some of my money during the week (some of them surely did).  And they are tough to get money out of as well, assuming they are good grinders.  Why should I just hand them more money, uncontested?

A question you might be asking is, “Are the games different in rooms that offer freerolls?”  Well I have definitely seen some evidence of it.  I’ve been in a few games—usually near the end of the freeroll qualifying period—where there were mostly guys talking about how close they were to getting all their hours in.  None of these players were putting any money in the pot unless they had the nuts or close to it.  So yeah, they were playing like super-nits.  But you know, if they’re grinders who can play that many hours in a week (to qualify) and still be profitable, they might not be playing very differently if there was no freeroll to qualify for.  And also, the one game I remember that was just ultra-nitty and they were all talking about how close they were to making their hours, well, if there was no freeroll, I don’t think any of them would have been there playing and the game I was at wouldn’t have existed.

But the truth is, most of the time when I play in rooms with freerolls, I don’t really notice it.  The games don’t seem any nittier than the average game in a room that doesn’t have a freeroll.  Good players don’t spew chips whether they’re trying to qualify for a freeroll or not.

On the way home, while I was vowing never to play in a room that had thr kind of promos that would affect my play, I kind of also vowed to stay away from any room that has a freeroll I don’t intend to play in.

But it’s been a few weeks, and I wonder if it really is going to make a significant difference to me.  With the amount of hours I play, how much of an impact does it have on my bottom line, just giving a certain portion of my promo drop money to the grinders?

I know a lot of the grinders are somewhat maniacally about things like rake and promo drops.  It affects their hourly rate.  Some of them will not play in a room with a promo drop, or where they take a $5 max rake instead of a $4 max rake.  But other grinders tell me that makes little difference.  Some actually prefer the promos—they think it attracts the fishier players and they more than make up for the extra rake by being in easier games where they can win more often.

But that logic probably doesn’t work with freeroll rooms.  The players that freeroll attracts are not the fish.  It’s the grinders who are tough to win money from anyway.

I’m still working this through in my mind. I doubt I will avoid freeroll rooms 100%, but I probably will play in them a lot less next time. If you have any thoughts, please let me hear them. If you only play in Vegas occasionally, do you ever give any consideration to whether a room has a freeroll in deciding whether or not to play there?  Do you avoid rooms with freerolls that you won’t be able to play in?

Read More

How Do I Get That Last Hundred Bucks?

I returned to Player’s Casino yesterday for another poker session, and it turned out to be a good one.

When I got there, the parking lot was quite full and I suspected I’d have to wait a bit to get into a game, and I was right.  Eighteen people on the list for the 1/2 game and 10 on the list for the 2/3 game that I play.  Unfortunately, this poker room does not take call-ins, so you just have to tough it out.  There were at capacity and unable to open any more games until tournament tables (they have a $125 tournament on Saturdays that starts at 11AM) broke.

I decided to put my name on the list for the 1/2 game (which I’d never played) as well as the 2/3, thinking that since there were more 1/2 games I could get probably get a seat there first, and then decide if I wanted to move when my name came up on the 2/3 list.  And within a few minutes after arriving, they did call a new 1/2 game so I was pretty sure I’d get into a 1/2 game first.  My only issue with the 1/2 game is that that max buy-in is $100 so you are pretty much always playing short-stacked until you can win a decent pot.

Sure enough, I got called into 1/2 game.  It was the table that had just opened right after I arrived.  Perhaps that was the reason it was so tight, as I’ve seen other 1/2 games with big stacks.  One of my other minor complaints with that game is that they insist on playing it with $1 chips, not $5 chips, which I find inconvenient and annoying.

I was there for about an orbit when I got a decent enough hand—Queen-10 suited in late position.  I opened for $8 and didn’t get a call.  A few minutes later I heard my name called for a new 2/3 game and had no problem deciding to move to that.  I knew that brand new 2/3 games at this poker room are not typically tight. 

After about an orbit or two, I got my first playable hand—my old friends, the dreaded pocket Kings. I opened the pot to $12 and it was four of us seeing a flop of 7-7-3.  I c-bet $40 and didn’t get a call.

On the button, I had Ace-7 of clubs, and called $13 from the player who was the most aggro at this point in the session.  He apparently is from Texas (or has lived there—didn’t have the accent), so let’s call him “Texas.” Three of us saw the flop of 10-7-2, two clubs.  I called Texas’ c-bet of $31 and we were heads up.  The last two cards were bricks, but there was no further betting.  Could my pair of 7’s be good?  Yes, they were, he had Ace-King.

I limped in with pocket 8’s.  Seven of us saw a flop of Ace-8-6, two clubs.  I led out for $12 and got two callers.  A red 7 hit the turn and the guy who had first action led out with a shove—it was only $85.  I had him well covered.  The guy behind me had less than $50 so I had nothing to do but call.  The guy behind me openly debated about putting his last $43 in the pot on what was obviously a draw.  He eventually called. A red 3 on the river looked pretty harmless.  The guy who shoved for $85 showed Ace-6 offsuit for a flopped two pair.  The other guy mucked some kind of draw.  It was a pretty nice pot, and my $300 buy-in had grown to over $500.

There was a hand that will illustrate the kind of player Texas was that I wasn’t involved in.  New player came into the game, immediately on my right, between Texas and me.  Someone in early position had opened for $12, and Texas, in late position, made it $42.  This new guy, who had come to the game with about $200, announced all-in.  It folded back to Texas who had the new guy covered.  He debated openly about whether he wanted to gamble and defend his $42 three-bet.  He finally decided to call.  The only important card on the board was, believe it or not, a 5.  New guy had Ace-Queen of spades—Ace high, therefore.  Texas had King-5 offsuit!  Yeah.  Seriously.  He three-bet with that hand and that called an all-in for $200 from a new player—as far as I could tell he didn’t know the guy from Adam—with King-5 off.  And of course got lucky enough to win the pot with a lowly pair of 5’s.

The new guy rebought and kept prooving that he was a very loose, aggressive player.  So there were at least two players at the table not afraid to put chips in play with marginal holdings.  I was licking my chops, just waiting to get something decent (or even semi-decent) with which to get some of these guys’ chips.

Then this young guy came to the table.  He looked like someone you see at every third seat in a Vegas poker room—but not that frequently in the L.A. rooms. Sunglasses, baseball cap (worn properly), earbuds.  Not a hoodie, more of an athletic type windbreaker, but close enough.  He said he had just busted out of the tournament.  He bought in for the max, $300, and made his presence known immediately.

I had Ace-King off and after one limper, I made it $15 and a couple of players called.  Then this young guy with the shades, who was playing his first hand at the table, made it $53.  It folded to me.  What should I have done there?  The $300 he had was much less than me but more than everyone left in the hand, stacks of around $125-$200.  I thought it was slightly more likely than not that no one behind me would call.  It was an awkward spot for me.  If I call, I’m not really sure how much I like an Ace or a King.  And other than my “read” by his general look, I had no information on this player.  I thought about raising (shoving?) but did I really feel like risking $300 on Ace-King?  Some of you might, but I didn’t. 

I folded but two players did call and saw a flop of Jack-9-x, rainbow.  The guy with the shades made a $100 c-bet and took it down uncontested.  Did I make a bad fold there?  I’ll never know.

I had pocket Queens and raised to $15 and had two callers.  The flop was King-Queen-6, two spades.  Ugh.  Pretty scary flop for middle set.  I bet $30 and didn’t get a call.  That was the second set I hit for the day, didn’t get paid much for it, and I figured that I had probably used up all my luck flopping sets for the day.

With those three guys in the game, and a few others, I was just waiting for another opportunity.  But I went incredibly card dead, and just couldn’t find another spot to play for a long, long time.  I tried opening up as much as I could, but there weren’t a lot of opportunities, and when I did play a few speculative hands, I’d miss completely and just bleed chips. Example:  With pocket 3’s, I called a raise to $20 from a relatively short stack because there were the aggros with big stacks who hadn’t folded yet.  One or two of them did call but I missed and had to fold to a big flop bet. I didn’t think this was the type of table where bluffing would have been at all successful. 

I stuck around for a couple of more hours and hadn’t really gotten anywhere.  But in trying to catch something, my stack had dwindled down to about $350-$360 or so.  The shades guy had moved over to the PLO game, but the other two maniacs were still there.  I wanted to leave, but as the big blind came to me, I decided that I would play one last orbit.  I really came thisclose to leaving at that point, but decided to post my big blind and that for absolutely sure, this would be the last one I posted this day.

I don’t remember the big blind hand, didn’t get to play it, but next hand, the small blind, I had Ace-7 offsuit. It limped to me so I completed for a buck and the big blind checked behind me.  Now, the big blind is the key player in this hand.  He had just come to the table a few minutes earlier, stack I guess around $200, and had engaged in a non-stop conversation with Texas since arriving.  It appeared they were old poker pals, not only from this room but from a few other rooms around southern California.  I didn’t get the impression they had ever socialized together outside of a poker and there was a pretty big age difference—Texas had at least 30 years on this guy, who looked quite young (no shades, cap or hoodie, however).

All told, seven of us saw the flop. It came Ace-7-3, but it was all clubs.  I led out for $12 and had two callers, including the big blind.  The turn was a King of spades and I put out $20.  The big blind popped it to $50 and the other guy folded.

Hmm….as I said, I had no read on the guy.  Did he flop a flush and slow-play it one street?  Did he like the King?  How?  Pocket Kings, he would have raised preflop, so no set of Kings.  Two pair, Ace-King?  No, again, he would have likely raised pre.  King-7?  Maybe.  A set of 7’s or 3’s he slow played until then?  With all those clubs on the board?

Obviously I could be behind a flush.  But for a read, I decided to go by this:  Maybe he plays like his buddy Texas.  If that had been Texas, I could sure see him raising the turn there with just a draw, or maybe a pair and a flush draw.  Maybe he had the King of clubs and a blank?

It’s hard to fold two pair and I couldn’t do it, and one of the reasons was that this guy was a buddy of the aggro, Texas.  Ever do that before?  Get a read based on who he’s friends with?

So I called.  I wasn’t sure how much I could comfortably call on the river, but then I saw the river card, which was a beautiful, beautiful 7.  No flush worries for me.

Now the decision was to bet or try for a check-raise.  If I bet, how much?  I really couldn’t count on him betting.  I figured the paired board might slow him up.  He might be happy to check with his flush, if that’s what he had.  By the same reasoning, he might be hesitant to call a really big bet.  That was just a judgment call, I really didn’t know.  I just grabbed a stack of $100, split it in half, and put the $50, hoping for a call.

He tanked a bit, asked for size of my bet, and then counted out chips….more chips.  He put out a big stack.  It was over $100.  I didn’t ask for an exact count, because I could see that what he had left was a bit less than what he had just bet.  So anything I raised would be all in if he called.

I didn’t really think, I just said, “all-in.”  He replied….”I was afraid of that.”

He tanked forever.  He verbalized his feelings and it was pretty clear he had flopped a flush.  He seemed to know he was beat, but was having difficulty letting go.  “You really liked that 7, didn’t you?”  I sat there stoned faced.  At another point, he said—apparently to Texas—“Should I waste another $100?”  Texas responded, appropriately, “I can’t help you.”

Finally, finally….he folded.  He showed 10-9 of clubs.  He said, “I can’t beat your full house.”  Texas said, “Or his bigger flush.”

He said “nice hand” as I happily stacked my chips.  I played that orbit and as I had promised myself, left when the big blind came back to me.  By this time, the guy who lost that pot had moved over to the PLO game.  I ended cashing out up $285, just shy of a double up.

It was a good day, for sure.  On the way home I was thinking about how I could have played the river better, and possible gotten all the guy’s chips.  One thing I always think of—does it matter that I went all-in when that was really the only bet?  I mean, if instead, suppose I had just bet twice his bet (which would have been all-in for him to call).  I mean psychologically, is it less intimidating than seeing an actual all-in with a big stack, even though the result is the same?  I always wonder about that.  In this case, the guy was an experienced player and I don’t think it mattered.  Would it make a difference with a more inexperienced player?

The other thing I thought of is something I never do, and don’t like it when they do it to me….talk.  I mean, before I re-raised.  You know, when he raised, I could have Hollywooded it up, asked for a count, counted my chips, then said something like, “Did you really flop a flush?  You flopped a flush?  Hmm….do I believe you flopped a flush?  I don’t think I believe you.”  Then pause and then put out a re-raise.  Might that have worked?  Is that something I need to add to my repertoire? 

I’m happy booking that win but I want to learn how to get that last hundred bucks, if possible.

And below is depiction of something else I'd like to learn how to get......

Read More