PokerPhilosopher
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
$400k winner at Chicago Poker Classic Boycotts Event Forever
$400K winner at Chicago Poker Classic Boycotts Event Forever
Horseshoe Hammond and
Indiana Gaming Commission Ethics Questioned
Paul Gibbons
In 2011 and 2012, I accrued more the $400,000 in tournament
winnings from Horseshoe Hammond in Indiana in just two visits to the Chicago
Poker Classic (CPC). That includes two
firsts, one chopped first-second, and a slew of min-cashes.
I will not, however, ever go there again and fellow Poker
Players may want to know why.
We are spoiled for choice as tournament players. As the CPC opens this week, I count no fewer
than six alternatives. Before the events
of 2012 unfolded, I was a loyal Horseshoe Hammond customer – sometimes making
the drive from Madison, Wisconsin to play cash games and entering all their tournament series. The Casino is owned by Caesars Entertainment,
and I estimate that over the last two years, I’ve entered $150k worth of events
providing them with approximately $30k in rake.
I’ve also spent a further $20k in Caesars properties on food and
lodging.
Does $50k in gross income make me a good customer? Apparently not!
Unprofessionalism,
lack of ethics and customer service
In the 2012 CPC, I won the first event, won the last turbo
and won three matches in the $1k heads-up.
Looking at the rules published on the website and on display throughout
the tournament area, a certain number of points are awarded for each of
those. Add those up, and I score 42
points. No other points system or
official record appears anywhere. Those
42 points are worth $50,000 and ‘Player of the Series’.
Alas, unknown to anyone, and unannounced (especially to the
points-leader), they decided you needed to win four heads-up matches to get points. Fair enough.
I lose five points and $50,000. At
the last moment, they were a few entries short of target of 256 players, so
adjusted the payouts. Normal, but they failed to change the formal point’s
payout at any time. I was aware I did
not min-cash the Heads-up, but (foolishly) assumed the written rules applied. I’ve competed in ‘points system’ type
competitions in Bridge, Backgammon and Poker and this is the first I’ve heard
of this ‘rule’. It is common (I now
understand) in Poker, but I’m not sure how when the written rules disagree with
informal rules, how a player is to know which to trust.
Now the Casino has the right to award points as they see fit
in their promotional events. They have
the right to change the point’s structure as they see fit. They probably also have the right to change
the structure mid-series, and probably have the right to disregard their
published information and award prizes to their brother-in-law if they
like.
You would think that when a player (a very well-known player
to them) drew this discrepancy to their attention, they would fix it pronto. You would think when customer who spent $50k
on your properties complained, you would pay attention.
At the very least, you
would think politeness, customer service, apology for miscommunication and a
thorough investigation of the matter would ensue.
You would think, since the facts are completely indisputable
and irrefutable, that they would take the complaint seriously. The
facts are simple: one written points structure existed, it was never changed;
my total points using that structure was clear of second place by three points.
No. Poker players, by
and large, are not treated like customers by Casinos. We seem to be, at least in their eyes, an
inconvenience to deal with as they earn their rake. This example is typical of this.
Here is what they did when I drew the matter to their
attention:
-
The first Director yelled from the stage in
front of a room full of several hundred players that I was shooting angles, and
(with plenty of added profanity) ‘I don’t know how you can look yourself in the
mirror daily’.
-
The second, said ‘I have been instructed by
Casino management not to discuss this with you’.
-
The third, professionally this time, said he
understood, but that ‘it was too late’.
(There was still one tournament in progress where I might have been
overtaken!! Too late how?)
-
A fourth official makes the unofficial
pronouncement that the tip I left after event 1 was derisory so I ‘deserve what
I get’.
Leaving $50k poorer, I petition, in a formal letter, the
Casino management. They write back:
-
A one-paragraph letter that failed to respond to
a single point.
-
Introducing the fabrication that, ‘announcements were made’ at the time. (Since I
spent 14 hours a day in the Poker tournament area, I might have heard the sound
of $50k leaving my wallet. They might
also have contacted the point’s leaders personally and told him they were
withdrawing five points.)
-
Not addressing any of the customer service
‘irregularities’ i.e. the libelous attacks by staff
Collusion with the regulator?
We then tackle the Indiana Gaming Commission. They:
-
Take six months during which they are
unreachable.
-
Reply that they have fined the Casino for failure to publish their rules correctly
-
But despite
finding fault with the Casino, cannot pursue our complaint
-
Because… the
published rules were acceptable.
But WAIT we reply, the
published rules award us $50k. No
reply.
Wait. The published
rules award us $50k. Silence.
Now Chicago politics are known for their backroom, shady,
lack-of-transparency. Perhaps this
trickles across the border to Indiana State Government? Perhaps in order to work together a certain
‘closeness’ is required.
In essence, contacting the two bodies known for maintaining
ethics – the Casino Management and the Gaming Commission, we received what
amounts to a shrug of the shoulders.
Neither provided me with a refutation of the facts, neither mentioned the facts, and (effectively) both either lied, or
obfuscated.
The facts are this:
-
There was one published points system
-
Indisputably (arithmetic), I was at the top of
that (substantially clear of second place to whom the $50k was awarded)
-
Inexcusably, accused me of cheating
-
Confusingly, failed to mention the facts
presented and to refute any of them (or to explain their lack of relevance)
-
Indefensibly, failed to provide me with a
professional response
-
Questionably, persuaded the Gaming Commission
not to take this matter seriously, indeed communications from the Gaming
Commission suggest they failed to read the complaint at all.
While States are pressing for more gambling to attract more
revenues, there is no question that strong oversight will be required to
prevent customer abuses. Clearly the
cozy relationship between the Casino and Gaming Commission is not a template
which other States should emulate.
Goodbye Hammond
The tournaments in Hammond have been great to me, but I
don’t believe in luck, or that the Chicago players are much worse than the rest
of the country. Still I feel some
nostalgia for the place I arrived with a $3k bankroll and left with $165k in
cash two years ago.
On the minus side, the waits for cash games often exceed
several hours during the ‘Classic’, the nearby accommodation is ‘roach coach’
and generally the Hammond ‘experience’ is not a pleasant one: driving through
refineries and Indiana’s answer to the ugliest parts of Detroit on the way to
the Casino.
Given that on most weekends, the tournament player has a
choice of four to six locations, and every
poker location is nicer and more pleasant than Hammond, I would spend the extra
dime and go somewhere nice.
Furthermore, Vegas has decades of experience running
tournaments, and the regulators there know that a whiff of scandal could
destroy a multi-billion dollar industry.
They take customer complaints seriously.
They take their ethics seriously. Not so with Horseshoe, not so with
Indiana.
The entire attitude, of the Casino and the Gaming
Commission, throughout this complaint, has been: ‘we don’t give a damn’ (either
about the facts, or how you were treated).
Poker players can do better elsewhere.
Monday, December 17, 2012
The argument for banning handguns and assault weapons
The argument for banning handguns and assault weapons
Paul Gibbons
The gun debate revolves around two issues, a technical issue
(one which can be settled by facts and analysis) and a philosophical one. We need to clarify which one we are debating.
I hear them confused.
The technical issue is this: do hand guns and assault
weapons in the hands of the general public make for a safer country? Safer schools, malls, colleges, post-offices,
and temples?
Topping the list of firearm related deaths per capita are:
El Salvador, Honduras, Columbia and sister countries. Then comes number 12, the US, with 9 deaths
per 100,000 people. The US can do better
than compare itself with the unstable, poor countries of the South.
The worst of the older, stable, wealthy democracies are
Switzerland and Finland, where they like their guns too but where laws are much
more restrictive. They have just over
1/3 as many. When you get to the old,
Northern European democracies (UK, Germany, Ireland, and Italy) the average is
just over 1 death per 100,000.
One-tenth, if you please, of the US numbers.
This is a correlation.
For the ‘fewer guns make safer streets’ argument to hold, it has to be a
causal relationship. Non-violent crime
rates are similar, so it is not that the US just has more crime. In fact it has less non-violent crime, such
as robbery or car-theft. They have
mental illness, poverty, broken homes, bullying in school also.
The onus of proof surely lies with the gun lobby. Why does the UK have 58 firearm murders per
year and the US 8,775? Adjusting for
population grosses the UK number up to 290: that is a 30-fold difference.
The UK has a multi-racial society, problems controlling immigration,
a large wealth gap between rich and poor (although nothing compares to the US
in this regard). Cops do not carry guns
(with the exception of anti-terrorism and other security sensitive work). Why?
They don’t need them. (And you
can be sure that if cops were dying, or crime rates soaring the public outcry would
be for gun-carrying cops.)
This will not settle the argument for the gun-nuts, but for thoughtful
people in the middle, this should give them pause for thought.
The other argument goes:
well it is our right!
This invokes a silly dualism: individual rights versus collective
good. Trade-offs between these are made all the time.
The left need to acknowledge that preservation of individual
rights is something that was fought for over centuries: freedom of conscience,
freedom to associate freely, freedom of religion. Those rights were enshrined not just in the
US founding framework, but in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
approved by the UN in 1948.
Nobody wants to withdraw those. Gun ownership is a plausible right: ‘a man
[sic] ought to be free to defend his home.’
Possibly.
However, as individuals we routinely and freely give up
certain rights because even though those rights benefit the ‘rights holder’
they cause aggregate harm to society. We
give up our right to drive as we like, as fast as we like, or on whichever side
of the street pleases us. We give up our
rights to dispose of refuse anywhere we like, or to allow our pets to do
so. We give up our right to listen to
music at any volume we like at any time we like because to do otherwise would create
an intolerable unruliness.
The country would be a horrible place with people dumping,
driving and blasting as they please.
With each right comes consequences. When ‘honest Joe citizen’ defends his right,
he is (in a narrow sense) correct. Yes Joe, taking away your right is a bad thing. But there are worse things: honest Joe’s right comes with a price.
Here is the price:
-
There is a mass shooting, on average, every two
months. There have been five since the
summer. (Compared with three in the UK in the last three decades.)
-
We cannot easily restrict the rights of ‘dishonest,
insane, or criminal Joe’ without also restricting Joe’s right. ‘Background checks’ do not catch people with
no backgrounds. The Sandyhook shooter
did not have a background, neither did the Columbine shooters. They got their guns through leaks in the system.
-
Guns in the hands of ‘honest Joe’s’ mean that at
least some guns will fall into the hands of crazies. It only takes one crazy to shoot up a school,
mall or temple. We have 300m citizens,
which means a lot of crazies.
-
Joe’s (and hundreds of thousands like him)
purchase supports the gun economy,
and this gun economy means gun stores. Gun
stores leak. Gun store owners are
human: they make mistakes, they have economic needs. You are supposed to be 21 to drink, and 19 to
buy cigarettes – but leaks happen. Kids
get drunk and smoke. Same with guns.
-
The presence of 300m plus guns creates a gun
culture, a culture of fear. My kid lives daily with the knowledge (after
Sandyhook), that a madman might walk into his school and kill him. Dad has explained the probabilities, but
those sorts of facts do not allay fears in adults, nevermind kids. He
will grow up with a fear that kids in other countries never ever experience.
The question becomes, with all these consequences, whether
this trade-off is one we want to make.
Can we let go of this right, because in doing so, we make the country a
much safer place?
The gun lobby assert – if you take away the guns of the good
guys, only the bad guys will be left with guns.
Nonsense! We could not and should not expect an overnight and complete elimination. That is fantasy. But.
Anti-hand-gun and assault rifle laws, if passed on January
the 1st won’t mean the Crips hand over their guns on the 2nd. But in shutting down the gun economy, we shut
down the leaks. By stiffening penalties
for possession and use over time, the bad guys won’t have
theirs either. Let’s go Draconian shall we: when ‘Fred the Crip’ gets pulled over and has
a Glock-9 in his glove compartment, he gets an instant five years. Assault
rifle, ten. Will we get them all, ever?
No.
Would an 80% reduction serve us and
is it possible? Yes! Will it take a decade? Perhaps. Is it worth the effort and the wait? You decide.
There are also hundreds of murders yearly caused by good
people, who get enraged (as we all do), and who happen to have a gun
nearby. Our Kansas City linebacker was,
until the recent tragedy, probably such a ‘good person’ overtaken by a
temporary insanity. The difference between
here and Europe is his madness had a convenient means of instant expression. Kids who find guns in homes (again a leak)
will not accidentally shoot a sibling or friend (as also happened recently).
Let us ask ‘honest Joe’.
Joe, if we could, in a decade, reduce the number of gun deaths in the US
to European levels; if we could reduce mass murders to once a decade (once a
year would be a huge improvement); if we could stop kids accodentally harming
themselves; if we could stop a crime of passion (madness) becoming a murder; if
we could reduce gang murders (and the culture of fear where each side must arm
themselves to the teeth) to a fraction of today’s; if we could walk into a
mall, temple, school, college or post-office with a no fear (no rational fear)
of someone firing off several hundred rounds?
Joe – would you pay that price? Would you give up a little bit of individual liberty,
for a whole lot of social good? For your
kids?
Friday, April 27, 2012
Turning Poker Pro: A 51 year-old's perspective
Today is the day. As
I type this, I can feel the resistance to becoming a Professional Poker player in
my chest, and I feel greater reluctance to making it public.
For a few years, I’ve been part time Professor, part-time
writer, part-time entrepreneur and part-time Poker player. Although I’ve 500k in cashes (300k live, 200k
online) in two years, the ‘pro’ bit was always hedged.
Partly this is because of family and societal pressures and
partly my ADD likes to do lots of things.
However, it has become increasingly clear to me that I cannot do
everything well. I’m 51, have two kids,
live a long way from Las Vegas. My Poker performance has been exceptional, but
I don’t yet think I’m that good.
There is a great scene in the old Karate Kid movie. Miyagi says: ‘Walk one side of street, fine; walk other
side of street, fine; walk middle of road, squash rike glape. Same karate. Karate do, fine; karate not do,
fine; karate half do, squash rike glape’.
This means a shift in my identity: how I see myself, or, the
story (narrative) that guides my life.
Now that I’m fully pro:
-
Super late sessions when I play horribly will
end. Not what a pro does.
-
A renewed attention to study – at least ten
hours a week. That is what a pro does.
-
My body and mind have to be treated like money
making machines. (They are in every discipline, but in other areas it is easy to
get away with being tired, out of shape, or in a sugar-coma.)
-
A much more disciplined approach to the
game. No more ‘f^%# it, I call’, less
randomly shoveling chips in, randomly jumping up three stake levels in cash games because I’m bored.
-
Approaching each hand with all the care,
attention, mindfulness and concentration I can.
No more missing the previous action (at least once a live tournament),
no more forgetting the blinds are up and being forced to min-raise, no more ‘insta’
calling and then saying ‘why the f*#k did I do that’ – patience grasshoppah….
One old coach used to say I could
treat each day as a Samurai, disciplined, peaceful and focused in every interaction,
lethal with a sword. I never ever made
it, but was a lot closer than now.
I’m old to be doing this. I have to think what my competitive advantages
are over young pros that eat, breathe, and shit poker 24/7. Few to be sure, but perhaps this old head can
bring some wisdom in its approach to the game to make up for less stamina and
lower testosterone levels. (Yes, I am
still talking about Poker.)
I have been wildly successful in everything I've tackled in life. My old father said to me yesterday, 'you have a habit of stopping just before you make it huge'. I graduated college at 19, made a million a year by 24, quit consulting before becoming a partner, exited the firm I founded after six years when it would have been really valuable after a few more, abandoned a subject on which I literally 'wrote the book' before real fame took hold, and moved to the US when more or less at the apex of my career in the UK.
I can no longer afford to half do anything. I have two kids who depend on me (and they are 15 years from college), and am under-invested for my autumn years and constantly stretched for cash today.
Time to get serious.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
HUDs and Data Mining: Moral? Mandatory, or Unfair?
To my amazement, I read fairly often in forums of people objecting to HUDs and to Data mining.
If you have been living under a poker rock, a HUD is a heads-up display - when you play online, it shows you for the hands you've played against everybody how loose/ aggressive (and much much more) they are. Data mining is using the billions of hands played on sites, and extracting information about a player (profitability, and looseness/ aggression) and selling it to people who use it to play better.
Both are fine with me. (And would be if I were an amateur or pro.)
Here is why. Online poker is a lot like securities trading. There is some math, there is some psychology, and there is balancing risk and security. When I traded stocks and bonds online, I had data on all my companies/ securities, as well as information about who was buying and selling a given stock, as well as market analyses, graphs, trends, and 'forecasts'.
Some people don't. Some buy 'tips'. Some do what their broker says. Some play hunches. All are valid strategies. But to INSIST that I, who take things seriously, have to play hunches, or seat of pants, and use only my memory to remember thousands (tens of thousands) of stocks, profit and losses, charts, news events, and 'math' is daft.
I maintain that online poker is morally exactly the same pursuit as day trading. Duh, it is not the same thing - but they differ in ways that are not relevant morally.
A poker day-trader can sit with a few beers, gambol-gambol, and vaguely remember that IamaHUGEfish likes to get it in light, whereas Immasuckyoudry is a solid reg. It is his money, and I hope he can afford to lose. He would get better odds in roulette, but he likes poker more. He plays for fun.
Our other day trader (poker pro) dropped out of MIT where he was a Math and Finance major. He treats poker as if he were trading stocks. He could no more buy a stock on a 'hunch' than he would put 10k on a roulette table. He could work at Goldman analyzing stocks easily enough, but he prefers poker. He has three monitors, and securities (player) data, market data (table and game selection), and analytical tools (Stove, SnG Wiz, Flopzilla, etc). He records and studies his hands and opponent hands. He loves the game, but he plays to make money.
Both are valid. To insist that both people play like the first (beer drinking, hunch following, barely remembering) is completely absurd.
Just like poker, there is a trading equivalent of live poker. (Most stock trading is in offices now.) You remember the scene from Trading Places (Murphy and Nolte) - where they traded on the 'floor'. No computers, no databases, no math - just hunch, psychology, fear and greed. They probably knew that when the guy from Lake Forest came to the front of the crowed he was going to sell a ton (and move the market downward), but they kept no 'player notes'.
In trading,both forms (live and 'online') co-exist. In trading there are math guys, and there are intuitives; there are 'regs' (pros) and fish.
I'm no libertarian (more socialist), but in this instance interfering with the market would be absurd. The market will rearrange itself so fish can play anonymously (Bovada), and some fish will learn to use the tools (it isn't very hard!) and get better.
Data mining will wait for another day - but the same sorts of principals apply.
For those who care, I'm a poker pro, former investment banker, former entrepreneur, with a Masters degree in Moral Philosophy (among others).
If you have been living under a poker rock, a HUD is a heads-up display - when you play online, it shows you for the hands you've played against everybody how loose/ aggressive (and much much more) they are. Data mining is using the billions of hands played on sites, and extracting information about a player (profitability, and looseness/ aggression) and selling it to people who use it to play better.
Both are fine with me. (And would be if I were an amateur or pro.)
Here is why. Online poker is a lot like securities trading. There is some math, there is some psychology, and there is balancing risk and security. When I traded stocks and bonds online, I had data on all my companies/ securities, as well as information about who was buying and selling a given stock, as well as market analyses, graphs, trends, and 'forecasts'.
Some people don't. Some buy 'tips'. Some do what their broker says. Some play hunches. All are valid strategies. But to INSIST that I, who take things seriously, have to play hunches, or seat of pants, and use only my memory to remember thousands (tens of thousands) of stocks, profit and losses, charts, news events, and 'math' is daft.
I maintain that online poker is morally exactly the same pursuit as day trading. Duh, it is not the same thing - but they differ in ways that are not relevant morally.
A poker day-trader can sit with a few beers, gambol-gambol, and vaguely remember that IamaHUGEfish likes to get it in light, whereas Immasuckyoudry is a solid reg. It is his money, and I hope he can afford to lose. He would get better odds in roulette, but he likes poker more. He plays for fun.
Our other day trader (poker pro) dropped out of MIT where he was a Math and Finance major. He treats poker as if he were trading stocks. He could no more buy a stock on a 'hunch' than he would put 10k on a roulette table. He could work at Goldman analyzing stocks easily enough, but he prefers poker. He has three monitors, and securities (player) data, market data (table and game selection), and analytical tools (Stove, SnG Wiz, Flopzilla, etc). He records and studies his hands and opponent hands. He loves the game, but he plays to make money.
Both are valid. To insist that both people play like the first (beer drinking, hunch following, barely remembering) is completely absurd.
Just like poker, there is a trading equivalent of live poker. (Most stock trading is in offices now.) You remember the scene from Trading Places (Murphy and Nolte) - where they traded on the 'floor'. No computers, no databases, no math - just hunch, psychology, fear and greed. They probably knew that when the guy from Lake Forest came to the front of the crowed he was going to sell a ton (and move the market downward), but they kept no 'player notes'.
In trading,both forms (live and 'online') co-exist. In trading there are math guys, and there are intuitives; there are 'regs' (pros) and fish.
I'm no libertarian (more socialist), but in this instance interfering with the market would be absurd. The market will rearrange itself so fish can play anonymously (Bovada), and some fish will learn to use the tools (it isn't very hard!) and get better.
Data mining will wait for another day - but the same sorts of principals apply.
For those who care, I'm a poker pro, former investment banker, former entrepreneur, with a Masters degree in Moral Philosophy (among others).
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
110k in wins... Fear of success: How big an effect nearing final tables?
It is mystifying to me how someone can play (presumably
good) Poker for three days, and get within striking distance of $100k, and then completely lose their mind. I was the lucky beneficiary of four such
instances, and am $100k better off mostly as a result.
With 30 left, someone with a substantial chip position
decided that A3o on a board of A875 with three spades was worth a shove (no
spade). With 15 left, someone in about 7th
place (maybe 15bb), decided that 53s was worth a shove from the hijack. With 12 left, someone in 2nd place
decided that 55 with 30bb was an open shove from the button with the chip
leader (me) on his immediate left. As
chip leader, I guess I would shrug fold AK to a 30bb open-shove (I had only
40bb) as ICM probably means I need 2-1 to call (maybe more) and this is always
a pair (I mean there is no sensible value-range here, but it is 99%
pairs). However, I woke up with AA and
held.
I’ve won plenty of tournaments, but never have I had such
extraordinary spews (for entire stacks) thrust my way. In addition to these amazing gifts, I picked
up blinds and antes from late position steals relentlessly. (Another aspect of run-good is people not
having reshove hands!)
The mechanism that has people tilt may not just be fear of
failure. Nearing the end, emotions
excitement and anxiety, run high. From
my recollection all of these horrible plays were ‘insta’ – no real thought
given to stacks, ICM, ranges and the like. It is almost as if people become
giddy at the end.
I am prone to the same thing – in fact, when I spew, it is
almost always an insta-spew. I’m
laboriously slow at the best of times, but at the final table, I slow down even
more – if that irritates some players, excellent! The ability to do this comes from years of
high-level bridge. In that sphere I was
famously spewy on some occasions – but produced outstanding results because
when the stakes went up, I got better.
A few good hands
The most interesting is a hand from four-way action. I had 12m in chips, 2nd place had
9m, and there were two stacks of around 2m.
The blinds were 150/300k. (As you
can see, I’m not in bad shape.)
Take my opponent’s hand. In second place you open for 700k with 99 UTG
four-handed. The small blind, an older, very
sound, and very aggressive player (that would be me) 3-bets to 2m. (You have
about three hours of history, but haven’t played many pots.) (Pay jumps are as usual, 25k for 4th,
100k for 1st.) (He has not 3-bet you once, but he has 3 bet others
aggressively.)
I think this is a fascinating ICM problem. Clearly folding is absurdly exploitable as we
are top of our range, calling is possible, but we are left with and SPR of 2. (Can we fold an overpair? Can we fold on Qxx dry board?) What is our plan if we call and get the 100%
c-bet? On which flops will we stack
off? Jamming is clearly the 100% play
with even stacks, and perhaps here? How
often will villain want to stack off? I
think calling is by far the worst option.
We are just going to have to make a disgusting decision on the
flop.
Villain is hammering the short
stacks (open jamming a lot), and there is 50k between 2nd and 4th. I would have shoved 99 without a moment’s
thought (I am an online player after all).
We call (puke), the flop comes K 8 3 rainbow and villain
bets 2m into 4.4m. To cut a long story
short, we call, villain bet 3m into 8.4 on a 2 turn, and jammed a blank river.
We called, he showed AA and we lost about 30k relative to tournament EV. Villain (the author) then had 20m out of 25m
in play 3 handed and the rest is history.
Views vary on what to pre (nobody sees a flop)
- Let him run over us until they bust – there is no evidence that he is overdoing that – and he is playing hard against the shorties.
- Shove. I think this puts the pressure on him. How does he feel (ICM) with AQ? TT? A loss f Both AQ and TT are plus chip EV, but both folds from and ICM point of view I’d wager. If he calls and loses, is he who has given up 30k (maybe more) in tournament EV.
- 3 One (rejected out of hand by pros with who this was discussed) play is a min 4 bet. Of course we fold to a shove, and have done half our stack (to 5m), but look at how strong this looks. From his point of view we are never folding to the 5b, so we look (I think) like QQ+. I think wagering and additional 3.3m to win 3.3m he’d have to fold half the time. I’d say more like 75% is more likely. If we win, we have 12m and we are even with him. Of course there is something gross about turning 99 into a bluff here, and 4b folding from this stack looks horrible – but he knows this too.
I played one or two hands very well. One of my leaks is being a calling station –
I can talk myself into thinking villain is bluffing a lot more than he is. One very aggressive big stack limped in the
SB, I had Q6 suited. Resisting the
temptation to raise, we saw an AK3 rainbow flop and he bet half-pot. This guy never ever has an ace or king here,
so I called partly for value, and partly because I’m going to win here like
always when he checks the turn. The turn
brought a 6 making my next play even easier, he bet less than half pot and we
called. The river brought a 5, and
villain now bet pot. I snap-called and
he sheepishly turned over t9o. The table
ooh-and ahhed when I showed. Easy game.
Perhaps a better played hand, and the last one, is KQo 5
handed at the final table. I’m the chip
lead again against the 2nd place stack. We are very close in chips with 7m each. The blinds are 100/200k. I open for 425k and he calls out of the
BB. The flop is A 8 3 rainbow and we
check back. The turn is an 8, and he bets 450k, less than half pot. We call, the river is a very friendly K and
he bets 700k and shows JT when we call.
Being a calling station helps. So does picking up AA twice with fewer than
18 left and having it hold.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Poker as a Career Choice: Should I play Poker professionally? (Part 1)
What started as pure recreation in 2004, and became a
substantial focus in 2009, is now my chief source of income and where most of
my productive time is spent. To some
extent, I chose this, and to some extent circumstances pushed me into it. As the Buddhists say 'and now this'. Here I am, what should I do.
Despite the fact that I am 51 and have achieved a great deal
in other spheres, have several college degrees, have had several different
white (starched white) collar careers, there is an old nagging question: is
this what I ought to be doing with my life?
My credentials for writing this? One of the things I’ve done with my life is
to earn a degree in Organizational Psychology, and one aspect of that field is ‘career
choice’. Another thing is to qualify and
earn my living as a career/ life coach for some of the highest paid people in
the world. And I play Poker professionally
now – so my comments come from ‘inside’ the profession (so to speak).
The reasons I ask this question of myself, and you should
ask it of yourself are two-fold.
If you don’t think you ‘ought’ to be doing this, then there
will be limits to your happiness. You
may achieve a lot, but if the voice in your head (sometimes called the ‘itty
bitty shitty committee’) feels you ought to be doing something else, the ‘bracelet’
moment will be quickly followed by more existential malaise. This is not theory. I returned from a massive series where I’d
won two tournaments and narrowly missed ‘player of the series’. I’ve been somewhat depressed since and this ‘ought
I to be doing this’ is part of that depression. (In a later article series, I'm going to discuss poker, addiction and mental health.)
If you don’t think you ought to be doing it, you will not
devote yourself passionately, whole-heartedly to being the best you can
be. You may be talented, but you will
not spend the countless hours away from the tables improving. You may not take ancillary factors seriously
enough: diet, sleep, exercise. You may
distract yourself with other, more ‘legit’ pursuits.
So we, I, need to settle this question. You need to settle this question.
Let us first deal with ‘ought’. In ethics, ‘ought’ has some moral force. In Freudian psychology, ‘ought’ is the superego
(parental and societal influences) talking.
Always, the ‘ought’ in poker comes out against it. It doesn’t count as a legit occupation in the
eyes of society – despite the fact, as I’ve argued elsewhere, that poker is
precisely the same set of intellectual activities as trading on Wall Street. Few parents, and especially not mine, find
tears of pride when they discuss ‘my son the poker player’.
However passionately we may feel about the game, those are
substantial psychic forces – greater in some individuals than in others – will act
as a counterweight to our passion: a ‘but’ that will always be there. That can be hard to live with. In this century, in the West, we are unlikely
to get invited to the snootiest of country clubs.
It is ok to care about this (negative) influence; it is ok
to not care about it. What is less ok
from a psychological point of view is to pretend not to care (who gives a
s^&t) when actually part of you does.
Intellectual honesty is required, and in my case, with my parentage, and
the cultural influences in my life, the ‘my son the poker bum’ will be hard to
avoid. It is one of the realities I have
to live with.
When you do decide ‘I can live with this’, it is wise to be
aware that it may limit opportunities elsewhere. The nice girl you now want to marry, may
decide as tying the knot comes closer, that the ‘oughts’ in her life are too
strongly against marrying a poker player.
Samurai warriors used to visualize their fear out in front of them, at their sword tip, so they could 'look it in the eye'. That is what, if you are serious, you need to do with the 'oughts' in your Pokerlife. They are always there - the choice is how to accept them fully, and deal with them honestly and squarely.
In part 2, I will look at a model of career values, and
provide you with a ‘values questionnaire’ to help you decide whether poker
aligns with your values.
In part 3, I will look at a three-part career model (from
career counseling), which asks whether the three key career choice factors are
there: passion, skills/ aptitude, and lifestyle
fit.
Paul Gibbons has been
an investment banker, a consultant, a top executive coach, and a successful serial
entrepreneur. In 2011, he founded
Healthy Poker LLC. He has $500k in live
and online cashes during the last eighteen months. He has degrees in
Biochemistry, Philosophy and Psychology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)