GUN BARREL CITY--Interesting story in the new issue of CardPlayer, where previous poker teetotaler/not Daniel Negreanu explains how booze and pot-limit hold'em go hand in hand -- one makes the other better! Uh-duh, of course. The Batfaces have been testing (and proving) that theory almost weekly.

P.S. I am on "vacation" for the holidays -- my first in as long as I can remember. FYI to those of you awaiting a return phone call and/or email.

I made my first trip to a certain legally questionable room tonight. They were playing $1/$2 NL. Buy-in was $40-$200. I bought in for $140. I was relieved to get seated at the "second" table ... where the biggest stack had less than $400, and there were two or three folks well below $100. The other table featured several players with triple, quadruple, and even quintiple the max buy-in.

Anyhow, I played a good game (with Sweet Texas Jimmy at my table). I had more than doubled up, and made easy folds whenever I felt my stacks threatened. My only problem was that when I got monsters, I think I was betting them too strong -- not enough action when I hit a "hidden" gutshot straight on the turn, and even less action when I flopped quad 9s. (That hand did win me a T-shirt, however.)

Oops. I logged on to Empire and bought into a 7-Stud Hi-Lo tourney. I was the first of eight to sit, and at the late hour it takes a while for such a single table to fill up. So I started working on other things ...

My beautiful Hickory Hold'em table had just arrived. It's basically taking up my entire living room. You see, my humble abode is too small -- the table fits, but there's hardly any room for chairs and people to go around it -- so the table will reside in Shane's new house until I move to a bigger place. However, Shane is out of town, which is why it is still here. Dude, this table is awesome -- can't wait to play on it -- blue felt with a sweet/thick/cushy black rail ... Anyhow, I decided to finally go through my overflowing "to do" basket, and now I have eight or so piles of paperwork atop of the felt. (Lodge work, writing gigs, blog business, poker business, bills to pay, people to call, etc.)

Like I said ... oops. While it's great that I'm finally getting to all this (work) stuff, I forgot that I had bought in to a 7-Stud tourney online. I stepped back to my desk, looked at my computer, and saw that the game was over. Interestingly, even though I just missed making the money, it was my best finish at the $30 level.

I think I'll print out the tournament summary below and study it (with two highlighters at the ready) to learn something about how so few hands are really worth playing. Yes, I will print it out, staple the pages together and put it in the now empty "to do" basket ... which I will get to as soon as I go through all the different piles on the poker table ...

One of these days I will learn where theSPORTSpage is actually distributed, so I can direct you to a place to pick it up. I know they have it by the "dancer's entrance" at The Lodge, and my folks found a copy at the Chuck's Hamburger's at Coit and Arapaho. (Or is it Coit and Belt Line?) Regardless, in the meantime, I will simply provide you electronically enabled readers the link.

Here is my latest ... this week's topic: Bluffing. As one who is prone to do it a bit too often, I may have provided nothing of actual use to anyone. Thankfully Chris Ferguson, Andy Bloch, Robert Williamson, Eric Siedel, and Hasan Habib helped me fill in some theoretical blanks.

In addition to Jimmy and Shane, Matt C. was also in Las Vegas last weekend -- and he managed to find his way to some poker tables as well. He sent this email ...

From: Matt Comstock
To: 'Brown, Randy' ; Todd.Phillips ; 'dan michalski' ; 'Eric Celeste'
Subject: What would you do

Joined a satellite at Bellagio. First hand, I am on the button and get dealt QJs. Everyone folds to me. What do you think is the right play here?

P.S. Strangely, this email collection reads better if you start at the bottom.

Tried my hand at Empire's $5,000 guaranteed ($25+2) again today ... 183 entrants, top 20 get paid ... I finished 32nd. Didn't do anything too boneheadedish, didn't leak much away when I had stacks. Never got any real cards, however, so I was never a big stack, and I successfully climbed out of a couple short-stack situations.

But if there is a lesson learned here -- based on the hand below on which I got eliminated -- it's don't go all-in against a player who obviously has something when you've got nothing and only the slimmest chance for improvement. Duh.

Here's my first newsprint-variety column -- which ran last week and may seem remarkably like a good-ole-fashioned "Poker Watch" to loyal Pokeratizens. (You'll recognize some familiar characters.) This installment remembers a day back when Randy used to get knocked out on the bubble and I didn't.

Enjoy.

Here is the hand I believe really cost me the tournament (or at least a money finish in it). Turns out it was the hand immediately preceding the horrible runner-runner referenced below.

So I'm in Empire's $5k guaranteed ...

We started with 176 players, were down to 26, top 20 got paid. I was in acceptable chip position, and was in my mind composing an entry called "Didn't Bubble."

Then this hand happened:

(ALT HED: I Hate Poker)

We'll start with the ALT HEDs, which could be either:

I'm No Shane or ...
Anatomy of a Meltdown

At the last break, with 32 players left, I returned a friend's call that I didn't take a while earlier when I was in a big hand.

"How are you doing?" she asked.

"Pretty well. I'm a little short-stacked right now, but I only need two players to go down to make the money," I said. "And there's a guy on my left who's been nursing a tiny stack for the last hour. He's bound to go any time."

Interestingly enough, dude would survive. Me? 32nd. (Bad cry.)

Rustin in Dallas writes in (a while back) to offer a little more advice to those of us who are still newbies at Nebraska Hold'em:

Dan-

If you want to learn Omaha then see if you can find "A One-Page Lesson in How to Beat Most Omaha High-Low Games," by Barry Shulman in the April 27, 2001 CardPlayer. It is definitely the best introduction to the game I have found anywhere. Well worth it if you can find a copy (it's not online anywhere as far as I can tell). Not the last word on the game of course, but a great guide for the new player.

I consider myself a very good O8 player as I regularly beat the game through the 15/30 level. It's mostly Gonzbaiting to say that, but also a way of lending some credibility to the cited article. If you already know how to play O8 better than you're letting on, then kindly disregard this message.

Remember that lesson I was supposed to learn about hitting the "nut" flush? Well the straight-flush got me again ... my real error, however, of course, I think, maybe, was calling the pre-flop raise. (Or should I have raised with the backdoor almost-Royal Flush draw on the flop?)

Regardless, had I paused for even a moment before my river raise, I could've at least saved myself $22.30 -- and would've been a touch less steamed to see that the eventual winner called the same pre-flop raise with T5o.

Hold’em is an enormously complex game. While I hate for my first post to interrupt the poker-kissed minutia that normally dominates this blog, I figured it might be interesting to throw a number out there to consider the next time you think a situation looks familiar...

I know Pete and Gonz are our resident Omaha experts ... but for those of us who haven't yet mastered the finer nuances Cornhusker cardzies (did you know Tommy Lee is playing in the Nebraska drumline this year?), here's a pretty good article in CardPlayer explaining why aces ain't all that special in 4-card Hold'em.

When I look back at this hand, especially my gambly, ill-conceived check on the turn, I'm still not sure I was beat. But I think it was a good laydown -- especially since he easily coulda had two-pair all along ... or a straight draw, one of which quite possibly hit. (Though he was in the big blind, so that makes me less certain.)

I guess we'll see if it was the right move, and if it's something I can replicate when necessary ... I'm currently in $20 +2 multitable ... 30 entrants ... 21 left, I have a very average chip stack, and am looking at KK with a flop of A-Q-8.

Jimmy, I'd like to see your bankroll balance. With tips like that -- I completely disagree with just about all but two of them -- I question whether or not they could make anyone "a consistent winner." Remember, we want our readers to play good poker. However, if you were trying to "misdirect" fish at the lowest levels of the poker food pyramid, then nice work.

Either way, welcome aboard. I think our readers will quickly see why we invite you to play with us.

Also welcome Tiny B., aka Big Todd. His game has recently expanded beyond flopping sets -- and I suspect you, the reader, will be better for it.

There's one more new blogger on the way, by the way. Matt Sommer -- whom you probably know from previous PWs as Sommer, or Matt -- will be covering our algorithm and game-theory beat while flexing his sizable guns.

My grandfather is 94 years old, and has been playing high stakes Hold 'Em in Vegas his entire life. I have been playing, mostly online, for less than 3 years, and I now rely on my poker playing as an important source of income.

I firmly believe that, thanks to online poker, I have played significantly more hands in my life than my grandfather, and have therefore become a more experienced player. Granted, I'm sure he is still better at reading players in a live game. However, I feel that experienced online players like Texas Pete, Double Down Trent (you'll hear more from him later), and I are taking full advantage of the Online Poker Revolution. We stand to earn a lot of money in our careers, assuming that new poker laws dont blow the fun for all of us.

Here are a few tips that have made me a consistent winner, I hope it helps:
SWEET TEXAS JIMMY"S ONLINE TIPS:

One of the great things about tournament poker, or any poker for that matter, is the way in which certain situations can come up again and again, yet with a new wrinkle or two each different time you see it. Often times getting to the bottom of a particular situation (and determining the right play) involves trying to (a) recognize them and (b) take the time to unravel the variants applied thereto in an effort to see what’s truly happening.

Had an interesting discussion with Chuck the Commenter last night after the Lodge tourney. (Chuck got no cards, making it only the first or second time he didn't make it to the final table.) He claims, via Tom McEvoy, that early in a tourney, when flops are cheap, that unsuited connectors make very playable hands -- moreso than suited connectors. The contention is that they seldom put you into losing-flush (or flush-draw) situations -- easy to get away from -- and yet when they make a straight or funky trips or whatnot, you can win big.

Sounds logical to me. But I have been trying to remove hands from my game -- not add to them! Very disturbing.

As usual, John misrepresents our conversation about Greg Raymer's bust-out in the WSOP TOC. I did not see the hand in question. I had the TV on but was doing other things and not paying close attention, so I had no idea we were talking about 9-T offsuit. I did notice that one moment Raymer (who looked like he felt a bit out of place among that crowd) was in it, and then he wasn't -- but I already knew Annie Duke won (Jennifer Harmon is reportedly pissed) so really I was just saying "Yeah-yeah-yeah" to humor John as he yapped about "calling with garbage."

For the record, I've never called a tournament-risking bet with 9-T offsuit, nor would I advise anyone to do so. However, I may have made such a call two or three times with the likes of J-T suited, or even 5-6 suited, which is why I have an understanding of how Fossilman could make such a bonehead play. (And understanding the tendency, as opposed to simply berating it, is how we can learn to exploit it in other players.)

It must be great being Gonzalez, knowing only how to play perfect poker. So much less to think about that way.

We've had discussions during the DSOP and other home-game tourneys about when it makes sense to split the prize pool. You know ... I'm in the top four, top three get paid ... maybe we all should just take the money and run, right?

You'd think at the WSOP TOC -- with $2 million guaranteed -- this pot would've been primed for splitting. As in, hmm, I could take a 9-in-10 chance of finishing with $0; a 1-in-10 chance of beating Doyle, T.J. Howard, et al. for the whole shebang; or an absolute certainty of going home with $200k. Not a bad payday even for high-stakes players.

Well it turns out, a reliable source tells Pokerati, that this pot was indeed split. The players supposedly agreed beforehand that the winner would take home a cool million, and the rest would be split nine ways.

(It's somewhere between genius and pussy.)

And finally ... before we bid farewell to Mr. Positively Fifth Street ... he leaves us with a reminder designed to help you (and me) play better poker. In today's tip, the WSOP final table-ist says "fold," and gives an explanation of what percentage of hands are generally worth playing. But he stops short of rehashing that tight-aggressive-Sklansky-grouping stuff, and admits that in today's game, the best players are seeing a lot of flops.

(Keyword: "best," not "fourth-best among Pokerati contributors.")

Congrats to Austin Pete on the four-digit performance. His question about whether he should have gone all-in with A-8s in that position (short stacked, needing to double up, feeling the pressure of the blinds) leads me to something I want to throw open for discussion. I think he should not have gone all in there, and upon reflection he seems to agree. To me, this is the biggest mistake we all make when we get to or close to the final table.

TBR passes along some friendly advice about my online play (the Poker Watch of which originally began as an email to him):

So I came home from the Lodge tourney last night horny for poker. I should've let writing about the game give me my fill, but oh well, the beck of online called.

How many times am I going to have to hit the "nut" flush before I learn the hand is still beatable? What am I, an amateur? Oh, wait, sometimes I forget ...

Here's a part of my game I don't fully understand ... the guys I play against regularly know I'm willing to play almost any two cards. I mean they know I don't haphazardly re-raise with 4-8o just for the muck of it, but a moderate-size bet generally doesn't invoke the fear of Ferguson in them either. So be it. I should know how to use that to my advantage.

I only recently began raising with KQs pre-flop. I used to like to lie low with this hand, wielding it sneakily against the likes of KJ, QT, and jack-high flushes. But now I see the advantage of raising out junk aces and potential two-pair threats. Perhaps I didn't raise enough in the hand below ...

But that's not really the issue here. The lesson that escaped me (I think) is one of the earliest ones you learn -- the need to know what the bona fide nuts are at any given point in a hand. This board never paired, so with the ace showing, when that 4 of diamonds came on the river, I fully believed I was golden. My only goal was to get the one guy who wasn't all-in to push the rest of his stack in the pot. That would prove easier than I imagined -- because truth be told, when I saw diamond, I didn't consider any other possibilities:

Here at Pokerati, we want you to play good poker. With that in mind, we're always asking people in the know for ways to improve your game. But sometimes the pros are busy. And when that happens, we've got to go to the B-list.

So today's poker tip comes from Kato Kaelin, who has played in a WPT pro-am and is still waiting for a call from Celebrity Poker Showdown. Click here to hear his thoughts on riding a winning wave.

He also offered a second tip that, frankly, I should've listened to before last night's game. I was running late and the guys called to ask me to pick up some munchibles on my way over. Naturally, I obliged. But it didn't occur to me that some snacks might be better for poker than others. Oops.

I became a better player today -- first time to ever lay down a boat. Had invested heavily in the pot, too. Yet it was still relatively easy.

Think about it ... one of the first lessons a poker player learns is that you can't get married to a hand. You mean this 88 is no good after a lot of pre-flop raising and a flop of A-K-T? It wasn't always easy to get away from, if you recall. But after a few such hands, you figure out why it's easy to see that you're probably to beat. On this occasion (it was a not-so-typical Thursday night of Royal China PL .50/$1 hold em) I was playing 89 suited in middle position. The flop came A-9-x. Check, check, $5 bet, call, call. The turn is another 9. Ten-dollar bet, call, call. River is an ace ...

I've never been a big fan of excruciating hand analysis, but last night I played a hand worthy of revisiting.

TBR is right ... there is so much to write about last week's ever-bodacious game. I introduced Dan's Bankroll v. 2.0 with great fanfare and nudity. Have just been a bit busy to give the evening a proper Poker Watch send-up.

However, I did manage to send a brief report to one of my "poker advisors," Wendeen Eolis. And, a bit to my surprise, she wrote back somewhat chiding of my "winning" play:

Daniel Negreanu has obviously been reading his Pokerati ... as he continues the PL vs. NL debate in the latest CardPlayer. And this time he's getting downright pissy about it! (Is he mad at Sklansky?)

Also makes me wonder ... perhaps we Dallas pokes should give a pot-limit tourney a go? If not The Big Randy, then perhaps a forthcoming Pokerati PL Invitational?

Matt C. in Dallas points us to a thread on 2-plus-2 on how to play less-than-perfect pocket pairs from early position. Interesting ... ish.

I dunno, Pete. Seems to me it's still a hand I am better off folding. I am pretty sure he was going to call with those jacks anyhow, in which case he still woulda beat me, even though I had him beat.

Also have to take into account that it was a tourney -- so if I misread or he catches cards, I am outta the money. In a ring game, you can build back up. Then again, since it is just a single-table ... maybe you are right about needing to think about how it plays in the long-run.

Peter, do you have any idea how good we Dallas kids are these days?

Here is my take on that whole QQ deal. If you put him on a hand other than KK or AA (which you did), you are a statistical favorite and the only play you can make at that point is go over the top and re-raise.

Keep in mind that you cannot look at poker in terms of a single game or a single hand, but rather have to see the big picture and know that playing correctly will make you money over time. Statisically speaking, if you put your chips/money at risk when you are a favorite, the odds say you will win more than you will lose. So, if you put your opponent on a hand (and feel confident that you are right), the only play I see is to put your chips at risk. Sure you may lose occasionally, but over time you should profit.

Right?

TBR sent me an email this morning:

Right, so many will call the coin-flip (AK) in that spot, so why not let $45 go?

Click below to enjoy the entire thread.

Paul Phillips has an excellent explanation of how to play a strong drawing hand (flush and outside-straight) in tournament action. There's more to it than just all-in or fold.

Laura in Dallas writes in with a question about last night's game: "What is leakage?"

Great question, Laura, as it's something any player who finds himself able to play well enough to get his chip-count up regularly, only to not be able to keep it up, should be asking.

My response, from an off-blog email:

Randy references a big hand at the end of his post that he lost to Eric Celeste. It really was monstrous -- considering $300 somehow got in the pot on the flop -- and ours was a 25-cent/50-cent PL game. In the end, Eric cracked Randy's aces drawing to a "two-outer." Interestingly enough, both outs hit -- giving the Bald Okie quad queens.

I've lauded Eric's game before -- as he is clever ... but I think I see something else in his action that may or may not be one to grow on. Eric wins fewer pots than many. In fact, he shows down a lot of losers. But when the big money is in play, more often than not, he seems to get the best of it.

It's no secret that the best players win fewer pots, but they win bigger ones when they do win. So that begs the question: How do you choose which pots you want to help turn into monsters?

LAS VEGAS--The vibe at Binion's Horshoe is decidedly more subdued today, as the WSOP main event gets rolling. The throngs of excited fish have been replaced by the muted cicada rattle of 100 tables worth of chip fiddling.

The WSOP started today's heat with 120 tables of 10, and 100 alternates. At the dinner break (which is right now), we're down to 95 tables. The big buzz along the rail is that Chris Moneymaker has been eliminated -- which is a shame, Pokerati-wise, because he was going to be our next Poker-a-Tippy, offering insight on how to avoid being eliminated in a big field.

As Pokerati's Rolodex thickens, we still want you to play good poker. Thus, today's two-part tip comes from Wendeen Eolis -- the first woman to ever finish in the money in the main event at the World Series -- with advice for anyone hoping to qualify for a big tourney by way of single-table satellite.

The first key to winning one, she says, is playing only when you are feeling super-focused and highly competitive. Second, choose your table carefully.

(Have a listen.)

Incidentally, Wendeen is two-for-two in single-table satellites in this year's WSOP, one of which she parlayed into a 33rd place finish (out of 834) in the $2,000 NL Hold 'Em event. Not a bad payday on a $220 buy-in.

UPDATE: She won her seat into the $10,000 event yesterday, playing in "the super mega satellite." Pokerati says woo.

Hmm, might be moving in the wrong direction with that hedline ...

But still, what matters at Pokerati is that you play good poker. With that in mind, we spoke to Mike Caro, "the mad genius of poker," about how to make the most of your check-raise: Pay attention.

Good Fold of the Week: I was in the Empire/Party $25 PL game last night. Since I don't work in the salt mines, I bought in for just $15, and cashed out for $92. I owe last night's success to Randy's royal flush. I found myself in an eerily similar situation -- only difference being I was the one playing the ugly Ax offsuit -- and woulda check-raised away my entire wad had his post, which I had just read, not instilled the proper fear in me.

(Dude didn't have the royal, but he still had me slapped.)

I learned a few things at our home game this past week. 1.) I learned that losing $160 (something I haven't done in close to a year) is very, very hurty for a guy who works at an alternative weekly. 2.) And this is the big thing, I learned that no matter how aggressive you are, it's hard to chase someone out of a pot if that someone carries more cash in his pocket than you've made in your life....

OK, so I may need to workshop the hedline, but still ...

Pokerati wants you to play good poker. And in that spirit we bring you tips to help you improve your game. Today's sage advice comes from Scotty Nguyen, who talked to Pokerati despite being a little down after having just lost $20k on a draw that didn't hit. (Ouch, hurty.)

Have a listen. (Helpy.)

Daniel Negreanu wrote an article on the art of pot limit vs. no limit holdem, and I think he has a point. In it, he rightly notes that “no-limit hold’em tournaments are not the most skill-requiring version of hold’em.” Of course, it’s that same luck factor that allows the uncleaned masses a fighting chance with the big boys. Just not with queens.

Pocket Queens. Pretty Ladies. Four… you get the picture. Is there a hand to hate more? Kings are kings. I mean, you feel pretty good with them. When you get your money in there with kings, so be it. Jacks are tricky, but easier not to over commit. But queens. Damn. Are they even playable? Do they play themselves? And after my results this past weekend, do they ever actually win?

It was first hand of the tourney ... and I was dealt Ace-Ace. The way they get cracked by 10-8 suited (no draw) is almost so comical that you have to chalk it up to "just one of those things." But on further inspection, I really should have played them more cautiously ... which would've entailed going all-in sooner.

Todd in Dallas writes in with some thoughts on where I went awry with those pocket kings:

I think the play is to go all-in pre-flop after you have two small raises and lots of callers. If someone has aces, then tough, but you'd probably get cleaned out anyway You're $200 raise didn't run many people off and the first caller gave pot odds to other callers.

Here's my response I emailed to Todd:

You gotta be able to get away from poket kings sometimes -- but just because a queen shows on the board? Utterly shameful.

Ended up in an impromptu post-tourney cash game last night -- against some home-game regulars, a stranger, and The Fat Guy. At one point in the night, Todd ended up taking every last chip from my stack -- just as I accused Randy of plotting to do.

Would love to tell you where the hand went awry for me, but I have no recollection of it -- which might have been part of the problem. Guard was down and Todd pounced, as he is prone to do.

With this being my inaugural foray into the world of weblogging or web-blogging or blogging or whatever the hell you geeks are calling it these days, I approach this post with cautious trepidation and the humbleness of a saint that mirrors my usual demeanor amongst our weekly group of rounders.

Let me kick things off with what I hope will become a weekly, at least, rant/analysis of a couple of interesting hands with the view of hindsight that only common sense and sobriety can capture. I’ll affectionately refer to this segment as “Tales from TBR." So let’s jump right in with a few hands from last week’s pokerpalooza at the Lodge ...

Meaty game last night. I may have fared OK, but Randy was the one who ended up building a Great Wall of Chips that could probably be seen from outer space. And not on lucky suck-outs, mind you -- he did most of his big raking with creative, skillful plays.

Don't think I don't see what you are doing, TBR. You were in a bit of a "slump" for a while, but really, you are going around the table, systematically, figuring out what it takes for each one of us to surrender all our chips on a single hand. Excellent long-term strategy. You've nailed Todd, and now Eric. But I see the game you're playing here and can say ... you won't get me.

(Unless you're lucky.)