Tournaments

Trail to Victory World Poker Open

First off, I can't start my first article without thanking the PokerTrails.com editor, Jon Eaton, for allowing me this opportunity to write for such a great new website. The Pokertrails writing staff is top notch, and I am honored to have the chance to offer my views on the game along with all of them. I should also say that this article may seem a bit late, as the Jack Binion's World Poker Open happened over four months ago, however, my rags-to-riches success story of winning my first ever 10k event is the most interesting material I've got!

My dad convinced me to skip a half-week of class to go to the WPO with him, since he had won his entry to the main event online and wanted some company on the trip. I don't think my mom thought he was being a good influence, but I couldn't complain. My dad had bought my action in Costa Rica for a tournament before (where I took fourth and $15k), and put me in the $3k event. I busted out of that early on, and he put me in a $1k super-satellite. I won my entry and we were set to split the profits 50/50.

For three years I had been playing limit ring games exclusively, semi-professionally (my "real" job was being a full time student at the University of Wisconsin) at limits ranging from $30-60 to $100-200. I had played a few tournaments online with mild success, with my best finish being eighth place out of 1,350 in a $215 tournament on Party. Costa Rica had been my first ever larger buy-in live tournament. Still, I knew I had a lot to learn.

I couldn't even believe I was there, sitting across from T.J. Cloutier in the main event in Tunica, Mississippi. "This sure beats sitting in lecture," I thought to myself, feeling a little bit guilty for missing class. I started off playing very cautiously. Even though I only recognized Cloutier and Derek Tomko, both sitting across the table, I was very nervous that I would be outclassed in this field. After all, I was just beginning to play in no limit tournaments.

The first hand I was involved in didn't give me much more confidence. The unknown player in position 2 limped in and I looked down to the Qd-Jd in the cutoff. I limped along for 50 and Cloutier checked in the big blind. The flop came K-T-4 rainbow, with one diamond. It was checked to me and I bet 150 on a semi-bluff. T.J. called and the other limper folded. I thought it was very likely that he had second pair, a weak king, or maybe even a hand like A4 or AJ if he thought I was just betting my position. The turn card was a blank and again he checked to me. I thought there was a good chance I could win with a bet. The pot was 475 and I fired 425 into him. T.J. asked, "How much is that'" The dealer started to say 425, but fanned my chips out to reveal that one of the chips was actually a 1k chip. "1,325 is the bet." Whoops. T.J. asked me if that was intentional, and I tried to give nothing away even though the whole world knew it was a mistake. "I have to call you," said a confident T.J. The river was another blank and T.J. checked again. I felt this was no time do make another stupid mistake, so I gave up on the hand. T.J.'s K-Q won the pot and I was red with embarrassment and down to 8,400.

Luckily, just after that hand, and only about ten minutes into the event, I was moved to another table. I was glad to get away from that table where everyone "knew" I was the sucker! After about two minutes I could tell I was going to like my table. I recognized no one (David Plastik and Dan Heimiller were there, but I didn't know them at the time) and the player to my immediate right was obviously clueless. The four seat was empty, and a few people were commenting that the game would change when Phil arrives. I didn't like to hear that Phil Hellmuth would be coming (he's notorious for being late), but at least he would be across from me as I was in the nine seat. I didn't get too many hands early, and was hovering around 9k when Phil arrived near the end of round 1. To my surprise, however, it was a Phil Ivey, not Hellmuth.

"Well, that's no better than having Hellmuth," I thought. I wasn't happy when Phil had 22k in a matter of about 15 minutes, busting a guy with a queen-high flush against a 7-high flush and winning a big one off of the clueless gentleman to my right. It's very intimidating when someone as good as Phil Ivey has a lot of chips early.

In the middle of round two, I was involved in two key hands with Phil. I was in the small blind with sixes and four players, including Phil, limped in. I limped along and the big blind checked. The flop was a delightful T-6-2, but two clubs were on the board. I could make a pot-sized bet here, not wanting to give a free card to a hand like 9-8 or a club draw. However, I was fairly sure that one of the five limpers would have caught enough of the flop to bet it for me, and if a disastrous free card happens at least the pot is small, so I am not giving up too much. Everyone checks to the button, who bets 500 (Whew!). I don't want to mess around with any draws at this point, so I make an almost-pot-sized raise of 2k. To my surprise, Phil makes it 6k. The button folds and my only choice is to go all-in for about 9k total. Phil instantly calls the extra 3k with the Ac-9c. I was rather surprised that Phil would risk so much on a semi-bluff there at a weak table, but I suppose he thought I was trying to protect a vulnerable hand like K-T that I would get away from, or he could also put me on a lower flush draw than his. The turn and river blanked and I was cruising with about 19k. I was starting to feel a little bit more confident. Everyone looks like a genius when you flop a set. 'What skill'' I jokingly thought.

The second hand happened nine hands later when I was in the small blind again, in virtually the same scenario. This time there were 3 limpers (Phil again among them) and I had the Th-Td. A lot of people would make a big raise here, trying to pick up what's there, or get heads-up with what is most likely the best hand. While I think that play is a good one, I am of the philosophy that early in tournaments small and medium pairs have more value in busting people than they do picking up blinds. That is, the goal with pairs under kings or queens should be to flop a set and hopefully get action on it. It won't happen very often, but when it does you will win a very large pot (remember those sixes'), as opposed to the blinds, which are not much in the grand scheme of things. I limped along and let the other limpers see a flop for free.

The flop wasn't so good for my hand: Q-9-3 with two hearts. I was ready to give up on this pot, but it checked around. An innocent-looking 7s rolled off on the turn. I thought there was a strong chance that I had the best hand, as anyone with a queen would have probably bet to protect their hand against the draws. I made a pot-sized bet of 500. The two people folded to Phil who raised the pot to 1,600. The player behind Phil folded and it was 1,100 to me. I thought for about ten seconds and called. I don't like to think long; I truly felt this was a bluff or semi-bluff. He certainly would not check a queen on that flop with only one limper to act behind him. He would practically be forced to bet out. He could have pocket sevens, which would be the only hand that could beat me that would make sense based on the action. Upon reflection, I probably should have put in a third bet here to not let him see the river, since I was confident I had the best hand and he could be on a draw. An offsuit six came on the river and I checked immediately. There is no value in a bet since he probably can't call anyways, and if he can he has me beat. He thought for about 20 seconds, glancing back and forth from his chips to me. "I'm all-in," he said rather nonchalantly.

The bet was 4,300 (he had lost another pot to the clueless guy) and I had him quite covered. This time I thought longer, about 30 seconds. "Would Phil Ivey bluff all his chips away'!' Maybe he does have a set..." I stopped myself there. I had made a read and had to stick with it. I put him on a bluff. He just shook his head when I called and that was the end for a great player. Now, perhaps, I had reason to be confident.

Check back next week to see how the rest of the day went, and then my continuation into day two!

John Stolzmann

note by gank: John Stolzman won nearly 1.5 million dollars by taking 1st in the Jack Binion World Poker Open No Limit Holdem Championship in 2005. The final table had famous players like Daniel Negreanu, Scotty Nguyen, and Michael Mizrachi. His brick and mortar tournament skills are very good and he will undoubtably continue to have a great deal of success.

Poker Tournaments

In 2003, a Tennessee accountant named Chris Moneymaker won entry into the World Series of Poker Main Event via a $40 online satellite tournament.  He won his Main Event seat on PokerStars, although other Online poker sites, such as Full Tilt Poker, offer similar opportunities for winning your way into the WSOP.  Moneymaker made the most of his having won a seat, taking down the Main Event and winning a cool $2.5 million.

Moneymaker’s victory sparked interest in poker, generally speaking, but also in tournaments, which suddenly became especially popular both online and in brick-and-mortar poker rooms.  Even though the general Poker rules governing the play of a given hand is essentially the same, tournaments require a much different strategy than do cash games.

There are three primary differences between tournaments and cash games that particularly affect how the game is played:  the “structure” of the tournament, differences in players’ stack sizes, and the payouts.

The “structure” of the tournament refers to the schedule of blinds/antes increases as the tournament proceeds from level to level.  In live tournaments, levels can last as little as 20 minutes or as long as two hours.  Online, you also find differently-paced tournaments, with some “turbo” tourneys actually featuring five-minute levels (in which you really can only play just a few hands).

The reason for increasing blinds/antes is to encourage players to play and not sit around indefinitely waiting for premium hands.  Some tournaments have a “fast” structure with steep increases (e.g., the blinds are doubled from level to level), while others have a “slow” structure with much more gradual increases in the blinds/antes.  Always be mindful of the structure of your tournament, as that should dictate how patient you can (or can’t be) when it comes to choosing hands to play.

Another big difference between tourneys and cash games has to do with players’ stack sizes.  Whereas in cash games players can always buy more chips if they get short, in tournaments they cannot (unless it is a special “rebuy” tournament).  That means shorter-stacked players will have to adopt different strategies to try to survive, while the players with the big stacks will have more and more opportunities
to pressure others and take advantage of their limited options.

Finally, a third factor that affects how tourneys are played is the way the payouts are set up.  Usually only the top 10% of the field cashes in a tournament, although that percentage can vary widely.  It is important to be aware when the tournament is getting close to the money -- when the cash “bubble” is about to burst (as they say).  Some players will tighten up when the bubble approaches, while others will play more loosely in an effort to grab extra chips from the tight ones.

It is important to be aware of how many players will be cashing in a tournament, as well as what the gradations are between places that do cash.  Usually first place gets a significant chunk of the prize pool -- sometimes as much as 50% (or even more) -- while the rest of those cashing receive much less.  Knowing where the jumps are in the payouts can help you plan your strategy and maximize your profit.

These are just three factors that make tournaments much different from cash games.  Another big difference that many tourney players attest to is how exciting and drama-filled tournaments can be when compared to cash games.  It is up to you to figure out which form of poker suits you best.

Joseph Robert

Sit and Go Poker Tournament Strategy

Part I

This is a topic that I have been meaning to write at length about but haven't got around to it. Before I begin, a little background, and an introduction to what sit and goes I am discussing.

When I began playing poker about three years ago-seriously approaching the game, as opposed to just for fun-I was playing no-limit cash games with friends. It was what we saw on TV. I then played in a tournament, my first ever mind you, and beat out about 25 drunks and took third. We were still playing but we had never structured a tournament before, and it was going to take hours to finish, so we chopped it up based on our current chip counts.

I then hopped online and started playing sit and go tournaments exclusively on TruePoker.com. It's a very small site with odd software, but it was the only site I knew of at the time. I started dominating those slowly, without even knowing what I was doing. I remember I was winning about twenty-percent of the tournaments I played, which was a good percent at the time.

In the past two years I've been playing online, I've logged probably 1,500 to 2,000 sit and goes. All from buy-ins as small as $10 and as big as $200. About eighty-percent of them have been from buy-ins under $50. So, I have a lot of knowledge of these games.

When I met Brett Jungblut, he got me started on Party Poker sit and goes. Their structure was similar to TruePoker's, and I immediately took off on them. I still maintain a fifty-percent cash rate at those little $10 sit and goes, and I hover around forty-five percent in the other buy-ins. Brett's advice on end-game play helped immensely and I was destroying these little $10 and $20 tournaments for about $1,000 a week!

Now the structure for any $30 and under sit and go on Party is pretty basic. 800 chips to begin, 10-15 blinds, and 10 hands per blind level. It's a fast structure and when it gets down to short-handed play, it's an all-in or fold situation generally. While it's a little more of a 'crapshoot' than say PokerStars sit and goes, it provides for easy competition. Plus, you can play 20-to-30 sit and goes in about a six-hour session easily.

Early on, the strategy is extremely simple: exceedingly tight. Brett Chen approached this topic in his last article, but I felt I needed to clarify a little. I think Brett might be losing too many chips early seeing too many flops. The strategy is to play really tight, simply because you're definitely getting action when you enter a pot. It's very rare to open a pot and not get at least one call at this level.

So, sit around and wait for a hand. In the first few positions and all the way until you get to the cut-off seat and button, don't even play anything but A K or big pairs. I will limp with A Q, and limp in on occasion with medium pairs (mostly during the first level, and after that, I tighten up and won't even limp with these). With J J, T T, etc, I will just limp and see a flop. You're goal is to flop a set or over-pair on a non-threatening board.

With a bettor in front, I will tighten up even more so and fold A Q and worse. A K I will re-raise regardless. At these levels, you can re-raise and still get action from worse hands. Big pairs I will play a little hard pre-flop in order to reduce the field, especially so if I have bad position.

In late position, early on you can limp with some hands for the minimum behind others, like suited aces, K Q suited, Q J suited, and maybe even other suited connectors. Small pairs are very playable here.

The goal is to let everyone else do the bidding for you. Get them to knock themselves out and get yourself short-handed, where you hold a bigger edge. When the blinds get ridiculously high, the game is simple: pure aggression. If you have a lot of chips, start putting pressure on the table when you're four-handed.

The best play you can make when it gets four-handed is the auto-steal. This occurs when there's a short-stack on the verge of being eliminated or all-in for the blind, and you're against two shorter stacks who have enough chips to wait for that other guy to be eliminated. When the short-stack player folds, you move in-no matter what. The blinds will often now be about 150-300 or higher, and the 450-plus chips to add to your stack is important. Pound the table while they can't call you unless they have aces, which happens rarely anyway.

When you yourself are short-stacked, start attacking the medium stacks. Let's say it folds to you in the small blind, and the big stack has about 3,000 chips, another guy has about 1,900, and the big blind has 1,800. You have the remaining 1,300 chips. Unless your hand is extremely weak, you should be moving all-in with regularity. If he calls, any two random cards aren't much worse than two-to-one against a calling hand. If he doesn't, you add a lot of chips to your stack.

My rule of thumb for when to start playing overly-aggressive is when the blinds equate to about one-fifth or greater of your stack. So if you have 1,500 chips and the blinds are 200-400, the blinds will increase your stack by forty-percent. I'd be moving all-in here with almost any two cards.

When you're the medium stack, I suggest sitting back and trying to fold into the money. Don't play anything but your better hands. The presence of a stack who can bust you, and leave you with $0 to show for your tournament, means you have to tighten up. They're liable to call with a big ace or any medium to big pair, so I wouldn't suggest pushing with just any two cards against them. Even when the blinds are really high, against the big stack, I'd be a little more selective.

When you're in the money, it's back to war. If you're the short-stack, start trying to steal the blinds quickly. If you are imminently short, then it doesn't matter what your cards are-just hope they fold, or you get lucky. When you're the big stack, put pressure on the number two man, if he has enough chips to wait out the short stack. You can steal his blind with regularity.

The best situations you can come across are those times when you're either three or four handed, and there's a stack with just enough to either post the blind, not enough to post the blind, or less than two blinds. In that case, if you're the big stack, you can put the second man all-in no matter what your hand is. The threat of being knocked out there, and the fact that he usually won't have a hand anyway, means his blind is for the taking.

Remember, tight is right early. Don't get involved unless you have a reason. Even if you double up on hand one, you can still make $0 for your efforts. When you get down to the end, start opening up and stealing the blinds you are so right to steal. Happy bluffing!

Jon Eaton

note by gank: Jon Eaton is an extremely talented online and real life poker pro living in Las Vegas. He has really come into his own the last couple years after I mentored him.

Sit and Go Poker Tournament Strategy

Part II

Since my last article on the topic, I have changed a few things in my game plan and added some new tricks to my repertoire. Last time I advocated limping in with a lot of pairs pre-flop, and calling a lot of raises with these hands. The general rule was if it doesn't cost you more than seven-percent of your starting stack, then it's a solid move.

The reason for this advice is pretty obvious. Seven-percent of your stack is a small risk pre-flop, and pairs that flop sets will double you up often. However, I think I need to address this topic a little more, as I have changed my opinion of these hands.

First, I would generally advocate limping in any position with any pair early in a sit and go. On occasion, this will create a problem, as many will peg you as weak-passive. It will also cost you a lot of chips if you're getting a lot of small pairs and seeing a lot of flops, and missing them.

The weak-passive label isn't as big a deal, as 90-percent of the players won't even notice. However, limping off a portion of your stack is a big deal. If you keep limping over and over, then you're just giving off chips, since only one in eight times you see a flop with these hands you will flop trips.

My new advice for playing small pairs is to limp with eights or better early in a sit and go from early-to-mid positions. From later positions, eights or better then become raising hands-but ONLY late position! I don't want anyone posting hand histories on the message board, showing me that they opened with two eights in first position. This is a bad play! You will rarely thin the field as much as you would require early in a sit and go to make raising with marginal pairs a profitable play.

As more people enter the pot, you can start limping with pairs again. I like to ensure that there's a few other people ahead of me who are willing to play with me, before I see a flop with something like two fours. The reason is that your hand loses value as less and less people see the flop. This seems like obvious stuff, but many players forget that a set is useless if it's not going to get paid off. You really want another player giving you action when you are that strong, and limping with two threes in first position and playing heads-up against the blind isn't desirable. The same is also said when there is a raise-I won't call it with the smaller pairs until at least one or more players do ahead of me.

As the sit and go progresses and seats become vacated, pairs become more valuable, as you are more likely to take the pot down pre-flop or with a bet on the flop. Short-handed play dictates you open your game up, but be careful-the same rules before apply. You don't need to gamble at all when you have a lot of chips!

What I mean is that even when you're six handed or so, you don't need to start opening with weak pairs like twos, threes, fours and fives. These hands will rarely hold up in a multi-way pot unless you flop a set, and even heads up pots are tough because rarely will you flop an over-pair.

If you have an absurd chip lead, then by all means, start opening up with these hands short handed and gamble with the smaller stacks that you can afford to gamble with. When I say absurd chip lead, I mean like having half or more of the chips in play when you are four or five handed. In this case, even if you are called and double up someone, you've still got a lot of chips.

Another strategic adjustment I've made is opening a little more often against loose limpers. For example, I used to just limp along with AQ or something like two nines when a player limped in front of me. Now, let's say I have either of these hands, and a player with a stack similar to mine limps. I have 725 chips and the blinds are 25-50. I know that this player limps a lot and I know that AQ or 99 is probably a favorite against this player, maybe even a substantial favorite. Before, I might have just limped here, or maybe passed with medium pairs. But now, I fully believe that putting in a larger than normal raise is profitable. Especially when you are in late position and only a few players are left to act.

The problem with just calling is you are putting in a decent chunk of chips (almost 7% of your chips, and there hasn't even been a raise!) and you're not guaranteed to take this pot down on the flop. You've shown no strength, and even if the other players check to you, it'll be hard to convince them you have a big hand if you lead at the flop. Even with what looks to be the best hand (like AQ on a 2 4 9 board) when it is checked to you, someone might look you up with a four or two or a weak nine or straight draw. You've lost the chance to pick this pot up by playing passively pre-flop.

I see this way too often in sit and goes, and I was doing it until recently as well. Now, when you see a player enter a pot that you believe to be weak, you need to put in a raise, say to 250 here, and hope to pick up the pot pre-flop. If someone jams the pot and goes all-in, well, you are stuck and have to pray your hand wins. If the limper comes over the top, you're in similar shape.

These calls with be judgment calls, but in the example given, I'd usually call every time. Your hands are just too good to fold, even if you strongly believe the limp-raiser has a good hand. Your pot odds are going to be around two-to-one or even better, and that's just too good a spot to pass up with AQ, AJ, 99, 88, 77, or whatever other hand you raised with. Limp-raisers don't always turn over big pairs, remember.

Also remember that the more limpers, the merrier. The first limper is the only one I ever worry about-everyone after that is just along because no one has raised yet. They will rarely call your over-sized raise. So, if a few others had limped in and I had the same stack with AQ, I will occasionally toss in that big raise.

This play isn't a definitive move to make. By that I mean you don't always do it. Use your head, as sometimes you will notice a lot of limp-raising going on, or that people will limp in and call big raises almost regardless of their hand or chip stack. You don't want to go kamikaze with two nines when five people limp, and they are known to call any raise!

One final topic I will discuss is the minimum raise and bet. This is the weakest play players will make in a sit and go, and I pounce on it. Let's say I was in first position during the 15-30 level and just limped with TT, JJ or AQ. If a few others limp and then a late-position player raises the minimum, I will often just jam the pot and make them make a tough call.

This is especially true if say a player to my left makes the small raise, and then a lot of players call. Let's say I limp UTG, second position raises to 60, and five people call behind me, including the blinds. Now, there's 330 chips in the pot and no one has shown almost any strength! Why wouldn't you push with JJ here' Unless you have a ton of chips and the pot doesn't represent much of your stack here, then I would probably move all-in every time with the hands I mentioned.

What does the minimum raiser have' Generally, very little. They often do this with small pairs, and hands like KQ, KJ, AT, AJ, etc. Rarely if ever does anyone do this with a big pocket pair.

The same can be said for the minimum bet. My favorite time to pounce on this is short-handed, when your opponent knows you likely missed the flop. Now, his bet is purely because he thinks you'll fold, not because he caught anything. Against someone who comes out betting the minimum on a ragged flop, I will often re-raise and push in some cases with any pair on the board. I will also push with big draws and even smaller ones, too. Use judgment even more here, as I will make this play against chronic weak bettors more often than the guy who has bet into me once for the minimum (for obvious reasons).

Remember, pounce on weakness. Pressure the stacks you can pressure. Pick up all the small pots you can, and keep putting on the pressure against the blinds! Those blinds are valuable late in a sit and go. Keep swining!

Jon Eaton

note by gank: Jon Eaton is an extremely talented online and real life poker pro living in Las Vegas. He has really come into his own the last couple years after I mentored him.