Mitigating Factors

The comments to "The Delicate Issue of Women in Poker" have prompted me to do some more noodling about my views regarding women in poker. Some of the things that I have been thinking about are what specific elements of no-limit texas hold'em tournaments create the biggest barriers to entry for women (beyond pure economic factors). For simplicity's sake, here are the two major barriers.

1. Predominantly male competitors.

2. Skill at no-limit texas hold'em tournaments.

Because item 2 is an issue that confronts any beginning player, people who are intent upon specifically increasing participation by women seem to have focused mostly on item 1.

Said another way, item 1 is the item on the list where sex is a differentiating element for beginning men players versus beginning women players, so in order to appeal to women players, mitigate item 1.

By focusing on mitigating item 1 (i.e., by hosting ladies-only events), aren't you (1) amplifying the impact of item 1 and (2) potentially failing to account for the other item?

For those of you who are familiar with poker, wouldn't you say that your comfort with / proficiency in the type of game you're playing far outweighs any sex-based differentiation? That is to say that your skill set in terms of the type of game (texas hold'em), betting structure of game (no-limit) and format of game (tournament) will far outweigh any advantage or disadvantage that is actually or perceptually created by your sex.

If I know that a competitor is making sex-based assumptions about my play, I've found it far easier to use such assumptions to my advantage. For example, if a guy thinks that all women players are weak, I will slow play big hands and let that opponent hang himself by virtue of his tendency to play more aggressively against me when I am perceived to be weak. However, I've found that more and more of my opponents do not make sex-based assumptions about my play (particularly after having spent any considerable amount of time with me at a table), so it becomes a question of my proficiency in the type of game, betting structure of the game and format of the game versus that of my opponents.

Texas hold'em in the no-limit tournament format (in today's environment) creates, at its core, a necessary aggressiveness that is based upon a combination of mathematical and situational awareness. For some reason, however, this necessary aggressiveness has also leaked into a sex-based differentiation of players based on societal views of the sexes. So long as there are ladies-only events, I believe that those societal views (at least in the world of poker) will never change.

Based on my conversations with ladies who have played in ladies-only events, one of the reasons that they feel that the field is so soft is because there is less aggressiveness / less willingness to combat another player's aggressiveness. Therefore, they feel that they can "run over the field" relatively easily. I know it would be difficult to measure this statistic, but I can imagine that the % of re-stealing going on in a ladies-only event is a mere fraction of that in an open event. However, because that necessary aggressiveness is not sufficiently modeled in a ladies-only event, women may not understand that it is a function of the GAME, not one's sex.

I recall watching some of the online coverage of the ladies-only event the year that Katja Thater and Vanessa Selbst both made the final table. Noticeably, both Thater and Selbst were the most active of the players. Not surprisingly, both Thater and Selbst have had success in open events and the other final tablists have faded into the poker ether.

So let's focus on how to mitigate item 2. If we teach players to understand the mathematical and situational considerations that lead to "optimal" play in a NLHE tourney, don't we begin to reinforce to players that the sex-based differentiations are the least significant of the two items listed above? Even if you believe that there are natural differences between men and women when it comes to aggressiveness, I believe that a player can be taught to both understand how the game rewards selective aggressiveness (based on mathematical and situational considerations) and display such behavior through practice.

Conversely, if we as a poker community continue to accept the existence of ladies-only events, don't we begin to reinforce to players that the sex-based differentiations are the more significant of the two items listed above?

If we truly believe that poker is a game of skill, shouldn't the focus be on the development of a poker player's skills? Therefore, if we are really intent on bringing more women into the game, shouldn't priority number 1 be the development of those women as players in the game as it is currently (and optimally) played? The focus should be on training, not isolation / separation.

Four

Date: Saturday, February 4, 2006
Location: Trump Taj Mahal
Game: $2/$4 LHE
Reason: Wadzilla thought it was a good idea after my bloodbath at the blackjack tables
Next Day: Super Bowl XL (Pittsburgh Steelers / Seattle Seahawks)

Today is the four-year anniversary of my first poker session.

There are several things in our society that happen quadrennially: a U.S. presidential election, the Summer Olympics, the Winter Olympics and the World Cup, an extra day in February. Four years is also the standard length of time required to obtain an undergraduate degree.

I haven't moved up in stakes, nor do I feel compelled to make a push to do so. In fact, my frequency of playing $2/$5 NLH has decreased dramatically since I moved to Las Vegas. My access to poker is significantly increased, so I feel less compelled to show a *large* profit in a more compressed period of playing time. The decisions in $1/$2 NLH are generally straightforward - most players aren't 3-betting at any point unless they (1) have the nuts (or close to it), (2) are in the relatively easily recognizable category of LAG / Crasian / Grange or (3) are a solid player who knows how to make a move from time to time. The solid players, while also easily recognizable, generally don't hang around at $1/$2 NLH for long unless they share similar beliefs about the consistency with which one can generate a good profit in $1/$2 NLH.

Sure, it's possible that I'm rationalizing the fact that I've returned to the land of $1/$2 NLH. However, because I know my NLH cash stakes trajectory isn't going anywhere any time soon, I feel no need to invest the time necessary to move up.

I realize now that I've spent the past four years obtaining a basic poker education - an undergraduate degree in poker, to make a potentially trite comparison. I am proficient in each of the types of games that are typically spread in live and online casinos. I have dabbled in a mix of cash games and tournaments. I have evaluated my results and come to a conclusion about where my strengths lie.

If you've been following this blog long enough, I'm sure you can figure it out as well. When I am playing an average (by my standards) number of hours at $1/$2 NLH, I can generate a monthly four-figure profit. While such profit cannot (and will not) replace my monthly salary, it makes for a nice little side income. For the time being, I doubt that I'll stray from that level / frequency of NLH cash game play, with certain exceptions for $2/$5 NLH (particularly in the Amazon Room during the WSOP).

The thing that I've noticed, however, is that I have an increased interest in playing tournaments. Things really clicked for me during the WSOP as far as how to approach O-8 / stud-8 / mixed game tournaments. I cashed in the WSOP OE event and made Day 2 of the O-8 event. Then I went on to final table an O-8 event in the Binions Poker Classic with Drizzle. Although I only managed one cash in the LAPC, I felt that I was make some pretty solid decisions throughout (other than some minor spewage during the stud-8 rounds mid-stage of the O-8 / stud-8 event). The Challenge II has forced me to start grinding micro-stakes online tournaments.

What does that mean?

I am going to try to build my online bankrolls on Full Tilt and PokerStars to a point where I can start playing larger O-8 / stud-8 / PLO-8 / HORSE / 8-game tournaments on a more frequent basis. Sure, I could just throw some more money onto those sites so I have a big enough cushion to play higher, but I don't want to. Until I become more accustomed to the online grind, it makes sense to keep things small for now and work my way up. The experience of increased volume in those types of tournaments should help me when I get the (rare) opportunity to play them live.

As of right now, I'm not sure where I stand on NLH tournaments. It's obvious to me that I still play way too tight to be able to amass enough chips to make a final table run. My play during Day 1D of LAPC Event #1 was an obvious case in point. Unless I catch good, I am destined to peter out at or around the bubble, which means that I'm only min-cashing if I make it into the money at all. While I may laud my skills as a short-stack ninja, the reason that I've become such a short-stack ninja is because I often find myself in that position. Practice . . . perfect . . . you know the deal. If I want to spend more time on NLH tournaments, I need to heed the advice of the late Amir Vahedi - "In order to live, you must be willing to die." I find it interesting that I won a $2k WSOP package in the BBT4 TOC freeroll by coming in 3rd and won a T$215 SCOOP ticket in the WBCOOP main event freeroll after finishing 27th of 2,062 players. Key word: freeroll. Although I've made some pretty ballsy moves at the cash game tables, I have a serious mental block when it comes to making similar moves in tournaments. I need to keep reminding myself that the best NLH tournament players are in the money less than 1/5th of the time.

The question, however, is whether I have / will dedicate the amount of time necessary to accomplish all of these things. At the end of the day, I am still a recreational player. After finding out that I live in Las Vegas, one of my tablemates during the LAPC asked if I played professionally. "No," I replied. "Well, you must take the game pretty seriously if you're sitting here on a Wednesday," he remarked. "That's fair I guess. So I'm a serious recreational player, whatever that means," I said.

The Delicate Issue of Women in Poker

I recently read an article on the PokerStars Blog that left me scratching my head.

Titled "Watch Out, the Women are Coming" and written by Rebekah Mercer, the article summarizes how women fared in the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure and provides some broader conclusions extrapolated from that data.

Mercer writes, "The women in this year's [PCA] Main Event cashed at the same rate as men, and they demonstrated that, like men, they have the fortitude to work their way through a huge field to the top." The cash rate comment is based on the fact that 4 of the 29 women (13.79%) who entered the Main Event were in the money, while 220 of the 1,500 men (14.67%) were in the money. Amanda Baker was the highest female finisher (38th place for $59,000).

What the author fails to point out, however, is that 14.65% of the PCA Main Event field made the money. Statistically speaking, this means that the women, taken as an independent group, cashed at slightly below standard rates compared to the full field. However, the difference between the women's cash rate and the overall cash rate is close enough that one could infer that the women's rate was on par with the overall field. Fair enough.

The problem is that the overall take for the combined 4 women cashers was $141,500 of the $14,831,300 prize pool (0.95%). Therefore, while women constituted 1.90% of the total field, they only accumulated 0.95% of the prize pool while cashing at the same rate as the men / total field. The picture seems less rosy now.

The potential danger of blindly following Mercer's quoted statement is that it ignores the harsh reality of big buy-in live tournament poker. Currently, women players are not taking down the top prizes - and the top prizes are where all the money is. During last year's WSOP, no woman won an open event bracelet. When was the last time you saw a woman at the final table of the WSOP Main Event? Can you count the number of women who have won open WPT Main Events? (As far as I know, it's only one - Van Nguyen.)

If, as Mercer writes, "[the PCA is] a competition that is truly on a level playing field with men," where are these women we're supposed to watch out for?

I've listed a couple of factors that are contributing to the relative lack of success of women poker players in big buy-in live tournaments.

1. Lack of participation. As Mercer correctly points out, "[p]articipation by women . . . is much too low." The fewer the number of women participants, the less likely a woman will be able to outlast a field that is predominantly male. Hard to dispute that one. In addition, assuming a standard distribution of finishes between men and women, fewer women (by number) will have the opportunity to reach the highest level payouts. However, we can't assume that there will be a standard distribution of finishes as between the sexes.

2. Insufficient bankrolls to support big buy-in live tournament play. As I've mentioned before, a good tournament player can expect to be in the money somewhere between 15% to 18% of the time. However, these percentages are based on multiple data points over a period of time. Mercer suggests that "[Women] just need to play more satellites to get in, find a sponsor, or pony up $10,000." The latter two of those suggestions, however, are generally impossible for most women players (or any player, for that matter). In order to withstand normal tournament variance, a player would have to be able to absorb multiple $10,000 buy-in tournament losses if that player is doing a self buy-in to the event. According to my friend LJ, most backers are online players / focus on online players, and the stables rarely have any mares. That leaves satellites.

3. The tricky nature of satellites. In one of Daniel Negreanu's blog entries, he prepared an ROI analysis of people who have played a minimum of 30 WPT Main Events. Daniel writes:

"Assuming the average buy in for a WPT event is $10,000 (it's likely a bit higher including the $25k and two $15k buy ins) you need to have an ROI of $10,000 or better to break even, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

When you factor in travel, accommodations, and taxes, you really need to have an ROI of at least $20,000 in order for it to make it worth traveling. As you'll see by some of the numbers, surviving is not as easy as you'd think.

It's one of the key reasons that a solid satellite system is essential for any live tour to be successful. Without smaller feeder tournaments, the cost of playing is too big. Now, I love the WPT, but I think one of the biggest mistakes they've made is not focusing more on a feeder system involving online satellites. It's essential."

The problem with satellites, however, is that the player is playing for the right to enter into another tournament (or a small consolation prize in lieu thereof). If the player busts out of the satellite, that player is further away from playing in the targeted event (diminished bankroll). If you factor in normal tournament variance, a solid player can only expect to be "in the money" a slightly higher percent of the time than the percent of players who win a prize in the satellite. So now the player must overcome variance in the satellite ranks, as well as overcoming variance in the tournament ranks.

I agree that satellites are the most accessible means through which an unestablished player can take shots at the big events. However, the gorilla over there tells me that the inherent issue with women in poker isn't completely diminished by encouraging more satellite play.

Really? Why not?

It all goes back to one of the points I made above.

"Therefore, while women constituted 1.90% of the total field, they only accumulated 0.95% of the prize pool while cashing at the same rate as the men / total field."

There currently aren't enough women poker players who are skilled enough to make the deep runs necessary in big buy-in live tournaments to produce a positive ROI.

Yeah, I said it.

I'm sure none of you are surprised.

Mercer, however, might take exception to that statement. She writes, "When women understand that their ROI is high enough to justify the expense, they will start playing more." I'm not sure how she came to the conclusion that women's ROI is high enough to justify playing in big buy-in live tournaments. Based on Negreanu's analysis (which required that a player have entered at least 30 WPT Main Events), "[o]f the 12 women who qualify, only three are showing a profit, with Vanessa [Rousso] and Mimi [Tran] right on the borderline when you factor in expenses and taxes." The three "profitable players"? J.J Liu (35th overall), Kathy Liebert (58th overall), and Jennifer Harman (61st overall).

What's the solution?

Simple answer: increase the number of women poker players and increase their poker skill sets.

My final issue with Mercer's article is the glamorization of the PCA's Ladies Event. Mercer writes:

"In addition to women's participation in the Main Event, this year's PCA saw the launch of the $1K Ladies Event with 91 entries and a prize pool of $88,270. This was the largest event exclusively for women ever held (the WSOP Ladies Event allows men to enter) and 33 of the women who played won a package via an online satellite through PokerStars (the package included the $1K event entry, $900 for expenses, three nights at the Atlantis, a $250 spa voucher, and participation in the High Heels Poker Tour Academy)."

I detest ladies events. I refuse to play in them. (Disclosure: I did play in the 2006 WSOP Ladies Event, just five months after I started to play poker. After that experience, I vowed that I would never play another ladies event.) My very good friend Jen has taken a beating over her similar view of ladies events.

Why do I hate them so?

1. Perpetuation of the view that women can't win open events. In my opinion, so long as there are ladies-only events in major poker tournament series (where the winner receives the same trophy or trinket as the winner of an open event), people will continue to think that these events are necessary so a woman can win at least something (Borgata Ladies Event and WSOP Circuit - Lake Tahoe Ladies Event notwithstanding). If poker is a game in which sex is not an impediment to the act of playing in such game, then sex should not be used as a distinguishing factor for entry into a particular event. (An ancillary note to this point is that I cannot stand the way the WSOP handles the ladies event - all of the special announcements and special clapping moments reinforces the view that it's extra-super-special-oh-how-cute that a woman won something at the WSOP. I almost vomited in my chair on multiple occasions because the O-8 / stud-8 event started the same day as the ladies event and our tournaments were in similar sections of the room, subjecting me to the constant yelping and awwwwwwing. JKMAFMDB.)

2. Cannibalization of participation by women in other events. Given the relatively low number of women in the game, the increased introduction of ladies events into major poker tournament series may result in more traffic directed to the ladies event instead of the open events.

3. Slower development of women as poker players. If women continue to seek the "comfort" of ladies events, they will not progress as players (or will progress more slowly). I've learned the most from watching and playing against players who are significantly better than I. I've learned that I need to be aware of how my sex impacts the impressions that other players have of me, as well as how to exploit those impressions. I've learned that there's no reason to fear sitting at a table full of, or in a room full of, male poker players because at the end of the day, it's just chips and cards. But I had to go through the process of repeatedly putting myself in that situation in order for it to *really* sink in.

So what's the solution from a practical perspective?

I don't think there's an easy answer because the solution requires the player to take a proactive part in her / his advancement.

Regardless of whether I am male or female, will I go back and review my hand histories after a session?

Regardless of whether I am male or female, will I commit to playing in x number of satellites this year with the goal to reach x number of big buy-in live tournaments.

Regardless of whether I am male or female, will I commit to watching training videos and reading strategy books so that I can expand my poker knowledge and arsenal?

Regardless of whether I am male or female, will I find a mentor / coach / sounding board so that I can analyze my play with someone who has an objective viewpoint?

Regardless of whether I am male or female, will I analyze my image at the table (including likely misconceptions) to see how that image is exploitable?

Regardless of whether I am male or female, will I put in the time necessary to win?

One of the reasons that I used the title "The Delicate Issue of Women in Poker" is because of the inherent difficulty in introducing a sex-based discussion into a game where sex is not an inherent advantage / disadvantage. I don't even want to think about the number of nasty emails / comments / etc. that Jen received when she wrote about her thoughts on the WSOP Ladies Event. Heck, I might even get a number of nasty emails / comments / etc. based on this post.

While there is currently a noticeable disparity between male / female participation rates and male / female success rates in poker, pretending that there is no difference when such delusion masks the reasons for such disparity or coddling the perceived lesser sex in a manner which may continue to stunt that sub-group's development are not the means through which to reduce that disparity.

But what do I know? I'm just a girl.

WBCOOP Main Event

The only WBCOOP event I could play given my LAPC schedule was today's main event.

2,062 entrants. 153 players would receive SCOOP tickets of varying amounts starting at T$22.

To say that I ran good would be a huge understatement. My AJ out-flopped AK. My AQ out-turned AK. My KcTc rivered KK. QcTc was good against 44 and T8 AIPF. I never had a huge stack late, but I'm a known short-stack ninja. I picked my spots and shoved. Eventually, my 88 succumbed to A4 when the dirty ace came right on the flop.

But who am I to complain?

I just won a T$215 SCOOP ticket!



Thank you to everyone sending me support via IM, twitter, texts, etc :-)

Now let's see what I can do with this puppy. (*waves at OnAFoldDraw)

LAPC Event #8

$335 stud-8. 150 entrants. 16 ITM.

I started off okay but hit a horrible stretch during the 75 ante, 150 bring in, 500 / 1000 level. My stack was slightly above average at that time, but I kept getting 3 - 4 good starting cards and bricking miserably. I finished somewhere in the low 40s.

BLOW.

Next up is omaha-8 / stud-8 . . . trying to improve on my WSOP min-cash by making a super deep run.

LAPC Event #6

Sorry for the quick wrap-up, but it's almost 3am PT and I have another event in a couple of hours.

The O-8 event drew 320 players, with 36 making the money. I played my typical TAG game and continued to chip up throughout the day. My high water mark was T31,000 when we were down to about 5 tables, but things went south from there. I missed a number of key nut nut draws and went miserably card dead once we were in the money.

I finished in 25th place for a cash of $780. Not exactly a min-cash (second tier of cashes), but I would have liked to make a deeper run.

Special thanks to F-Train and Absinthetics for the live rail, as well as all of your support on the virtual rail. Also, I owe a big thanks to those of you who supported me by purchasing shares.

Next up is Stud-8!

LAPC Event #1

I played in Day 1D of Event #1 ($335 NLHE).

There were 1,100 starting players plus 704 alternates. Tables were set up in 4 different locations, but Matt Savage's team did a fantastic job keeping everything running smoothly.

171 would make the money, with the lowest cash at $600. As of the time of this post, Day 1D just hit the money. 18 players will continue on to Day 2, where 72 players from all four Day 1s will play for a $363k first prize.

Things started off pretty well for me. The big hand of the day was flopping the nut crub draw on a Tc-8c-rag board. I was up against K-K. There was really no doubt in my mind that crubs were gonna get there. #notshiftlessandlazy #whistle I couldn't really explain the theory to the table, but they quickly got the impression that I was a gambler. It's not gambling when something is a certainty.

Jamie Gold was moved to my table for a portion of the day, but he really didn't splash around or talk as much as you might think he would. According to the most recent tournament updates, he's still in the running.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get action on a couple of key hands during the 300/600 (75 ante) level just before dinner break. I raised with 9-9 on the button and the guy in the BB almost shipped with 8-8. No action. The very next hand, I raised with A-A. The same guy almost shipped with A-J (or so he said). Again, no action. I went to the dinner break with T8,900, facing the next level of 400/800 with a 100 ante.

A few hands after the dinner break, a guy at the far end of the table opened for T2,400. For some reason, that guy really reminded me of HighOnPoker (purely based on appearance). The Crasian in the 10 seat shipped for a shade under T8,000. I was in LP and reshipped with T-T. The original raiser folded. Crasian had Q-J. I had seen Crasian ship with a very wide range of hands, but I was surprised that he shipped *that* light. J in the door, and I had 400 chips left. After the 100 ante, I went all-in blind and woke up to the mighty deuce-four. Turned out I was up against A-Q. GG me.

Finishing somewhere around 300th from a starting field of 1,804 was a bit of a disappointment given the time invested for no cash, but I think that the time I've been investing in NLHE tournaments is starting to pay off.

Next on my schedule is the O-8 on Tuesday at 4pm PT. I'm sure all of you know that this is the one on which my sights are set.

Final Table Doom Switch

I made the final table in a $5.50 HORSE tourney on FT, but the doom switch really came on late. I won't bore you with screen shots of all the particulars.



In other, more important news, congrats to Columbo on his 2-way chop for the top spots in the $42k Guarantee!

Another Close Call

I wanted to work on my mixed game a bit, so I fired up an $11 HORSE tourney on PokerStars. I really wish I could have final tabled this one, but I had to fight to get back into contention and unfortunately didn't run well enough toward the end.



Here's a summary in pictures.



I entered the tournament a bit late, so stud-hi was my first game. In one of the early hands that I played, I had rolled up Ts against a guy who had buried Js. When he raised, I re-raised. After he raised again, I decided to flat and let him think I had split Ts.



This was a tough situation where I wasn't exactly sure where I stood on the low. The river, however, was pretty nice.



The player to my left was sitting out for a long time, so I knew that people were going to pick on my small blind. The player on the button raised, and I three-bet. I led the whole way, and villain called me down with an unimproved Asian Jew. I was actually quite surprised to see that villain had that strong of a hand. However, people laid off my blinds a little bit after that.



This was the second time I was rolled up in stud-hi. It's like getting A-A in hold'em or A-A-2-3 double suited in omaha-8. Given my up cards, I tried to play it like I had a low draw.



This hand hurt me a little bit. We got it all-in early, and then I just kept bricking. This hand reminded me of my several encounters with Michael Craig during the WSOP OE. OUCH.



I was incredibly short and just had to pick a hand and go. Asian Jew suited? Sure, why not. I wasn't completely confident that I would hit the flush draw (it wasn't crubs, after all), but that river got me back into fighting shape. I still had a lot of work to do.



The river giveth, and the river taketh away (half).



In all of my years of playing poker (almost 4), this was only my second steel wheel. (The first was in crubs.) Both happened online.



I was still on the short side and loved my hand after 7th. Unfortunately, so did my opponent. Interestingly, we had pretty similar hands going into 7th, but at least I had a pair . . .



This hand really helped me to stay alive in the tournament. As much as I hate stud-hi, I really was picking up some big pots during those rounds. Maybe I should rethink my hatred toward stud-hi.



This hand was rather painful, but it reminded me of the fact that I'd always rather have the made low and be freerolling against a high only hand than vice versa.



I was all in pre-flop on this hand against a decent starting hand. As omaha-8 goes, however, you're never too much of a favorite or too much of a dog.



The A-8-8-T player was all in pre-flop in this hand. Interestingly, the other villain kept leading into me. I raised the river and he re-raised, putting me all in. That's the second time I've hit quad jacks in two days. Once here, and once in a NLHE tourney.



This uber-brick in razz set me back a bit. From there on out, I started to fritter chips away. The stud rounds in succession can eat away at your chips pretty quickly. Given the extra round of betting versus flop games, it can become rather expensive to see a hand through the end.

I finally took a stand with K-x-x (three hearts) in stud-hi, but I ended up losing to a guy who hit aces on 5th and 6th. Ah well. I really can't complain about cashing in the tournament, but I'm always gunning for the top spots.

Oh Look, I Finally Made a Final Table

Feels good to get down to the final table. Now I need to win one!

And So It Continues . . .

Another min-cash.

When I busted out, I was a below average stack with about 17-18 BBs. The patient play would have been to sit around and wait for a premium hand with which to shove. The problem with that strategy is that I'm likely waiting around too long (losing blinds and antes in the process) in the hopes that I'll (1) get a premium hand, (2) get action on my premium hand and (3) have my premium hand hold up. Not so good. I decided to get frisky with mid-suited connectors, flopped top pair and shoved into a guy who had top pair better kicker. Ah well.

Although it wasn't a big score monetarily, it helps with the Slayer of Donkeys prop bet in The Challenge II (smallest fraction: finish place / # of entrants).

HammerCon 2010

This year's installment of HammerCon was a more slimmed down version. Much like the WPBT Winter Gathering, attendance seemed to have been impacted by the state of the economy.

Per usual, the weekend kicked off with the Venetian 7pm tournament. 117 runners, 13 got paid. I was at the same starting table as Cupcake. Chippy McStacks and Wadzilla were at the table next to us. SM was in the air somewhere. By the first break, I had almost tripled up from the 7,500 starting stack. That was due in some part to the fact that Cupcake didn't know that he needed the whistle in order to hit his crub draw and also to the fact that most of our table was either very clueless or very weak-tight. Chippy McStacks almost went busto with K-K into A-A early on but got some chippies from Wadzilla when his A-K suited bested Wadzilla's A-A. Wadzilla flopped an ace, but Chippy went runner-runner hearts for the non-paired board flush. Ouch. (BTW, I ran the math and Chippy was 5% to win after that flop.)

Things went sour for me after the break. In the first bad hand, I opened from MP with Q-Q. The quiet Euro guy shoved in LP for about 2.5 my raise. Then the guy in the BB decided to push. I had the guy in the BB covered, but I would be risking about 1/2 of my stack with a call. After counting out my chips, I elected to make the call. The BB said, "Somebody's gonna win a big pot here." He flipped over A-Ko. Quiet Euro guy had 8-8. The flop was a perfectly respectable T-high, but the A on the turn was a total downer. Then the 8 fell on the river, giving me the third best hand by the time all was said and done. Brilliant.

I went back to chipping back up and had gotten back to my pre-QQ debacle chip stack when I ran into disaster yet again. The Crasian in the 5 seat opened to 2,400, which I believe was 4x BB. The guy to my immediate right was getting short, so he shoved for approximately 5,000. I checked my hand and saw that I had Q-Q again. I didn't want to be in a multiway pot with Q-Q again, so I reshoved. The Crasian looked at his cards a couple of times and eventually settled on a call. With K-Jo. Again, the flop was perfectly fine. The K on the turn was a killer, particularly after the Crasian decided to act like an uber-douche and do a fist-pump-clap-yell. Then, brilliant poker mastermind that he was, he felt the need to explain to the guy with banana all over his fingers that if he raised, he wasn't going to back down.

The Crasian was true to his word a few hands later when a guy with a massive chip stack opened in EP, I called all-in for slightly less (suited mid-connectors) and the Crasian decided to shove from the BB. The guy with the massive chip stack had witnessed the Crasian's antics and reluctantly made the call with A-Ko. The Crasian showed K-4o. I couldn't improve and busted somewhere in the mid-40s.

For the second year in a row, Chippy lucksacked his way to the final table and did a three-way chop for the top spots. Wadzilla and I were at the same $1/$2 NLHE table where I bled out about $80 before calling it a night.

On Friday, we decided to play some golf at Rhodes Ranch. Chippy showed off his old man golf skills, SM shot a very respectable 88, Wadzilla barely managed to avoid a Pants on the Ground situation on one of the tee boxes by just clearing the ladies tees by about 6 inches, and I had an all-around inconsistent day. After chilling out for a bit, we reconvened at Joe's Stone Crab with F-Train for dinner. After dinner, we made our way to the Caesars poker room. The annual MBA tournament was taking place at Caesars that weekend, which generally equates to good action. In my very first hand, I flopped the unterhaus with 7-7 on a Q-Q-7 board and got a guy in Seat 2 to reshove into me holding T-T. Par for my runs at Caesars, the dealer threw out a Q on the turn, which counterfeited my hand and halved my stack. Just effin' brilliant.

The guys in Seat 1 and Seat 2 were aggro-donks, so I decided to order a cocktail and buckle down for a potentially high-variance session. Seat 2 kept apologizing about the bad beat and Seat 1 was trying to convince me to go to a gentlemen's club with them. I decided to play the girl card. I wanted these guys at the table. I wanted them to keep playing big pots against me. I invited ebhizzle to join the table so I had a female partner in crime. We told them that we were from NYC. Luckily, nobody blew my cover, even though the guy to my left said "liar" under his breath when I mentioned that I had never played poker before.

Slowly but surely, my stack continued to grow. Seat 1 opened for $15 (he raised every pot that he entered and was playing about 85% of the hands). The crunchy looking guy in seat 5 called, and I opted to shove for about $180 with the Asian Jew. Seat 1 made the call rather quickly and asked if I had a pair. My response: "I don't know yet." The flop was all low cards, but the J on the turn and another J on the river pretty much assured me the win. Seat 1 didn't show his cards to the table, but he showed them to the dealer. F-Train was standing there at the time and said that Seat 1 had 5-5. Presto is not gold when it's up against the Asian Jew.

I wasn't involved in too many massive pots after that, but I continued to pick up nice pots with timely aggression. There was one interesting hand against the guy in seat 4. He looked to be in his mid to late 30s and from the conversation at the table, seemed to be in town for the MBA tournament. I'll call him Rick. After the maniac guys in the 1 and 2 seats left, Rick was the only player with a sizable stack. He didn't play too many hands and didn't seem to get out of line too often, so I figured that he was somewhat knowledgeable. He limped in EP, as did Wadzilla and I. The guy to my left (Bob) raised to $12. Bob was having a rough night. He would bemoan his bad luck but kept reloading or retopping. After one of the players in the blinds called, Rick and Wadzilla both called. I called as well with 4-4. The flop was Q-J-4 rainbow. The three players ahead of me checked, so I bet $55. Bob folded, as did the player in the blinds. Rick thought for a few seconds and carefully placed $55 in front of him. Wadzilla though for a bit and then folded.

The turn was a 3. This time, Rick grabbed a stack of reds and forcefully pushed it in front of him. He had about $350 behind. If you follow Caro's line of advice, strong means weak. I wouldn't say that Rick slammed the chips onto the table, but from his method of betting, I could discern that there was an aggressiveness to it that I had not seen previously. At this point, I figured that Rick's most likely hand was a draw and that his $100 was a blocking bet. I announced all-in. Given Rick's stack size, I could have either min-raised or shoved. In these situations, I sometimes err on the side of taking the most aggressive route.

When Rick didn't insta-call, I knew my hand was good. However, I also figured he wasn't going to call. He looked down at his chips and patted the top of them with one of his hands. It was an almost protective move. He wasn't willing to go broke with whatever hand he had. At that point, I wondered if I had badly misplayed the hand. The problem is that if he had an OESD and I simply min-raised, he was getting the right odds to call. $60 in the pot preflop, another $110 after the flop and another $300 in the pot after his bet and my min-raise would have put $470 in the pot, and he would have had to call another $100. 4.7 to 1 on a 4 to 1 proposition. On the other hand, if I raised to $300, there would have been $570 in the pot and he would have had to call another $200. Because he only had $350 behind, I wasn't sure that a standard raise would have made too much of a difference. I guess we'll never know.

As the night wore on, the action started to die down a bit. A 2x BI profit for me at Caesars is an absolute rarity, so I was happy to book a W. Chippy, Wadzilla, ebhizzle and I met up with Cupcake and SM for some late night drinks and then decided to head home.

HammerCon always takes place during the weekend of the divisional round of the NFL playoffs. Naturally, that means that Saturdays and Sundays are spent in the sports book. For the second year in a row, Red Rock was the chosen casino. I bet $5 on a 10-leg parlay, $5 on a 7-leg parlay and $5 on the Ravens ML. That didn't work out so well. However, V had the worst of it. V couldn't make it to HammerCon, so he asked some of the guys to place some bets for him. Two of his picks were Hightower to score the first TD in the ARI / NO game and Collie to score the first TD in the BAL / IND game. For some reason, Red Rock wasn't doing individual first TD props this past weekend, so V's bets were never placed. OUCH. After watching the games, we headed to dinner at Nora's wine bar. I didn't make it out of the house after that because I had to get up at 7:00 in the morning.

7:00am? Yeah. At the last minute, we decided to road trip to the Colts / Chargers game in San Diego. Chippy found some reasonably priced tickets and 2 of the attendees from HammerCon last year already had tickets, so off to SD we went. I met up with Love Elf and Smokkee during halftime, where Love Elf proceeded to tell me that Waffles had gone 3-0 on the weekend so far. "So," Love Elf said, "if he went 0-4 last weekend and he goes 4-0 this weekend, that means he's break even. That sounds about right." Despite the fact that we may have thought that Waffles' cooler powers were gone, he must have had a special WoW session with Nate Kaeding before the game.

We left SD at 6pm on the nose and had to make it back to LV pretty quickly so that Wadzilla could make his 11:30pm flight. The problem was that Wadzilla's stuff was still at my house and his rental car was at Mandalay. Chippy's expert driving skills got us to my house by 10:30pm, and we dropped off Wadzilla at the airport around 10:50pm. Not too shabby. That left Chippy and me to get Wadzilla's rental car returned, which worked out just fine.

Another HammerCon is in the books.

**********

I am closing the sale of LAPC shares a few hours early. For those of you who purchased, thank you thank you thank you! I'm really looking forward to playing in the tournaments.

What To Do?

It's becoming a trend. Min-cashing in PLO-8 tournaments. Now that I have a handful of these tournaments under my belt, I've noticed some trends:

1. Players will play most ace-wheel combinations regardless of the action pre-flop (particularly if the ace is suited) and regardless of whether the other two hole cards are remotely related to the ace-wheel combo.

2. Players will play most high pocket pairs regardless of the action pre-flop and regardless of whether the other two hole cards are remotely related to the high PP.

3. Players will chase half the pot regardless of the action, the strength of the half pot draw or the number of players involved in the hand. This includes chasing non-nut draws like middle flush draws, dummy end of straight draws and second or third low draws, and chasing for half in heads-up situations.

4. Players will bet a made lock low or a lock low draw with no high, even if that means that player will likely be quartered.

It's not that I expect players to do otherwise. These are $4.40 buy-in tournaments, and the items I listed above are typical mistakes for a newer omaha-8 player.

The problem is that it becomes more difficult to amass a stack big enough to both withstand "normal" omaha-8 variance and account for the higher percentage of players seeing flops or chasing non-nut or non-equitable draws. This becomes particularly difficult in the middle and late stages of the tournaments, where continued chip accumulation is the key to making the final table, yet players' stack sizes relative to the blinds are increasingly dwindling. Also, given the higher number of players who see a flop (or a turn), pot sizes swell significantly faster, making any particular hand (even for a decent-sized stack) potentially disastrous.

I'm not sure that there is a solution to this problem other than play as optimally as you can and run better, but my plan is to spend some time with my HHs from recent PLO-8 tournaments to see if there's a better path.

I'm happy that I've been making the money in these tournaments pretty consistently, but I'm not happy that my cashes have been on the smaller side.

The Challenge II: Well Hmmmmm . . .

I am continuing to play smaller stakes MTTs as part of The Challenge II. I missed my regular $4.40 PLO-8 on PokerStars, so I had to settle for a $2.20 NLHE tourney on PokerStars, a cheapie PLO-8 on Full Tilt and the two Daily Doubles on Full Tilt.

I busted out of the $2.20 NLHE with KK (button) against AA (SB) a bit short of the money. I honestly don't remember what happened during the PLO-8. I started off okay in the DD B, but things stalled a bit and I was never able to recover.

I was doing fine in the DD A until we got to the third or fourth level of antes. I probably should have kicked into extra-extra gear instead of just extra gear.

The good thing about The Challenge II is that I am forcing myself to play more MTTs and I am trying to build an online bankroll for the first time since the UIGEA was passed.

Some guys from my fantasy football league start getting into town tomorrow and Thursday, so I'll probably be playing live most of the remainder of the week.

The Challenge II: First Blood

As I mentioned previously, I'm participating in the latest blogger bankroll challenge (creatively dubbed "The Challenge II").

In addition to making sure that I'm putting my time in for the challenge, I'm also trying to spend more time on my tournament game.

I played in 3 tournaments tonight, with the following results:







That's my second deep run in a PokerStars PLO-8 tournament in two tries. I'm beginning to think there might be some value there . . .

More details about my tournaments can be found on the Bankroll Challenge blog here.

So far, several of you have already expressed interest in purchasing LAPC shares. Thank you so much for your support! I'll be in touch about final allocations, etc. in the coming days.

If you're still interested in purchasing shares, you can email me at ckbwop at gmail dot com.

LAPC Shares

Assuming I get my vacation time approved, I will be heading to the City of Angels for the first week of the LAPC. Matt Savage and his team always set up a fantastic tournament series (types of events, ranges of buy-ins, structures, etc.). I was thrilled when I saw that there are a plethora of non-NLHE events, including three events over three consecutive days that are right up my alley.

Right now, I have penciled out 5 potential events:

Event #1 NLHE (Day 1D start Saturday, January 23) $335
Event #6 L O-8 (Tuesday, January 26) $335
Event #8 L Stud-8 (Wednesday, January 27) $335
Event #9 L O-8 / Stud-8 (Thursday, January 28) $545
Event #12 HORSE (Saturday, January 30) $545

Similar to what I did for WSOP Event #46, I have decided to sell shares of my action.

I am willing to sell up to 20 shares for $50 per share. Each share represents 2.4% of the aggregate buy-ins (assuming I play all 5 events) and entitles the purchaser of such share to 2% of my gross winnings (pre-tax / pre-tokes) for each event. You may note that the premium for these shares is different than the premium charged for the WSOP Event #46 shares. That is because the WSOP Event #46 shares covered a limit O-8 event, versus these shares that cover a NLHE event and a HORSE event, coupled with 3 split-pot events.

In the event that I am unable to play in any or all of the events, purchasers will receive a pro rated refund of the share price, to be paid in the same manner in which payment was transferred to me by the purchaser. It is possible that I will not be able to play Event #8 or Event #9 because each of the events are 2-day events and Event #6, #8 and #9 are on consecutive days. Depending on how I'm feeling, I may also bag Event #12. Playing long tournament days can be incredibly exhausting, so if I'm making deep runs in the mid-week events, it might be more prudent to take that time off. (The pro rated portions work out to $8 per share for the $335 events and $13 per share for the $545 events.)

If you are interested in purchasing a share, email me at ckbwop at gmail dot com before 9pm PT on Monday, January 18, 2010. In your email, please tell me how many shares you wish to purchase. Sending me an email DOES NOT guarantee that you will be able to purchase any shares or the number of shares requested by you. I will send an email in response to all inquiries no later than 11:00pm PT on Tuesday, January 19, 2010. The response email will indicate if there are any shares available to be purchased by you. You ARE NOT entitled to purchase any shares unless I have indicated as such in the response email.

I will accept Full Tilt, PokerStars, PayPal or in-person cash payments for the price of the shares. Due to the limited number of shares, please DO NOT make any payments until I respond to your email and advise you that you are part of the purchaser pool. All payments must be made no later than 3pm PT on Friday, January 21, 2010. If payment is not received by 3pm PT on Friday, January 21, 2010, then you will forfeit the right to purchase any shares.

Payment on shares (if any) will be made via one or more of the following methods: Full Tilt, PokerStars, PayPal, in-person cash payment or personal check as agreed to by both purchaser and me. Taxes on any payment on shares are your responsibility. You agree to provide taxpayer identification numbers and other relevant personal information at my request so that I may comply with tax regulations regarding any gross winnings / payment on shares. If you do not provide any requested information, payment on shares will be delayed until I have received such information.

I reserve all right to make any deals regarding allocation of the tournament prize pool. If a deal has been made, I will advise you via email as to how the deal affected the published payouts. Payment on shares is determined based on the actual payouts, not any published payouts, regardless of the source.

Thank you for your support!

Crazy Start to 2010 and Other Random Snippets

I closed my deal around 5pm local time on New Year's Eve. I fell asleep around 11pm. So much for ringing in the new year with the bottle of Veuve my assistant bought for me.

F-Train and I signed up for the noon tourney at Venetian on New Year's Day. I would add that we both played in the aforementioned tourney, but we were both out by level 2. As I was walking away from my table (busted out with set against higher set), I saw that F-Train was in a big hand. His K-K against A-A all-in on a low flop didn't improve. Despite the fact that I know that NLHE tournaments are a losing proposition for me, that didn't stop me from blowing the first $150 out of my poker BR in 2010 on a NLHE tourney. (For the record, the first flop I witnessed in 2010 was all crubs - sadly, I was not involved in the hand.)

We both wanted to play cash, but we decided that a change of scenery was in order. Off to Aria and the over-designed, yet somewhat comfortable poker room. I took the open seat at $1/$3 NLHE and F-Train was first on the list. At first glance, I guessed that it was going to be a pretty tough table at which to make a big profit. There was one big stack in Seat 2 (I was in Seat 4), one decent stack in Seat 7 and a lot of stacks in the $150 range. In addition to the relevant stack sizes, most of the players were older gentlemen. That generally equates to pretty nitty play.

What I didn't realize, however, was what the cowboy in Seat 8 had been up to.

First hand at the table I was one off the button. After a couple of limps ahead of me, I looked down to see two red aces. I popped it to $18. The button and both blinds folded. Action was to the cowboy in Seat 8. He very quickly moved all-in. A couple of folks at the table chuckled or shook their heads, but I had no idea what that meant. The interim limpers folded, and I quickly called. As soon as I called, I flipped over my hand. Normally I would wait for the aggressor to show his cards, but I will be very forthcoming when I am all-in PF with aces. At that point, the guy in Seat 2 said to me, "He's been doing that all day. Shoving pre-flop."

When the cowboy in Seat 8 saw my cards, he just shook his head. "You got me," he said. "Well," I replied, "you might just get there." The board ran out Q-T-6-Q-4 no flush possible (or something like that), and the cowboy in Seat 8 flipped over K-K. The table was shocked. Shocked, not because Seat 8 had just run K-K into A-A AIPF, but rather because it was the first time that Seat 8 had made that move with a premium hand. What I soon came to learn was that Seat 8 was a gambling man. If he limped and anyone raised, he often shoved. If it limped around to him on the button or when he was in the blinds, he often shoved. (Oddly enough, he never shoved when he straddled and it limped around to him.) His shove range was any ace, any two broadway, any pair and any suited connectors (regardless of size). In addition, he notoriously defended his blinds. He would stack off, rebuy for $200 and repeat.

Shortly after the A-A versus K-K hand, I raised to $18 in MP with two black aces. I have no idea why Astin loaned his account to me for the day, but I knew that if I kept getting good cards, the cowboy in Seat 8 was going to keep gifting me chips. A guy in LP called, Seat 8 called out of the blinds and an EP limper came along for the ride. The flop was A-J-8 with two diamonds. It checked around to me. Based on what I had witnessed for about an orbit and a half, Seat 8 was going to give action if he had any piece of the board, and the other two players were probably going to fold to any bet unless they had an absolute monster. I bet $65. LP guy folded. Seat 8 just smiled at me and threw in his $65. That left him about $33 behind. The other player folded as well. The turn was another 8. Seat 8 checked again. I thought that Seat 8 would call any bet given the amount that he had invested so far in the pot. I threw out a stack. He just shrugged his shoulders and folded. Hmmmmmmmmm. Was he unwilling to stack off to me again, or was his "piece" of the board so miserable that he refused to put his last $33 into the pot?

At one point, I went over to F-Train's table and told him that the cowboy in Seat 8 was stacking off $200 to $300 at a time. Eventually, Seat 10 opened up, and I waved F-Train over. After he had been at the table for a few hands, we both took a break to compare notes. That's when F-Train asked me why I hadn't given him more details about the cowboy in Seat 8. You see, the cowboy in Seat 8 wasn't your typical cowboy. He was wearing the standard cowboy hat and leather jacket, but he was also wearing a white silk neck scarf, a diamond encrusted watch, some ring bling and a pair of rather fancy looking sunglasses. If he was a cowboy at all, he was definitely a Flashy Cowboy. (Later we guessed that Flashy Cowboy might have been an oil man, rather than a cowboy.)

Unfortunately for F-Train, Flashy Cowboy calmed down shortly after F-Train joined the table. Once the focus was off Flashy Cowboy, the new interesting spot was the aggro black chick who came to Seat 3. ("ABC" is probably a misnomer, but I'll use that for ease of reference.) ABC reminded me of Shavonne Mitchell. I met Shavonne during the 2008 WSOP when I ended up in a 3-handed $20/$40 BOTE game that ran through the night. Shavonne had a deep run in the WSOP ladies event that year (22nd), but seemed to be doing much better at the cash game tables than in the tournaments. Shavonne was hyper aggressive. So was ABC. But here's the thing. Sometimes being aggressive solely for aggression's sake can be a dangerous proposition. I quickly developed a plan for countering her aggressiveness and was thrilled that I had position on her during most hands.

In our first encounter, it limped around to ABC in the SB. ABC almost always raised if it was limped / folded around to her in late position. She almost always raised if it was limped to her in the blinds. Her c-bet frequency was probably in the 95% range, and she often re-raised post-flop if someone led into her in a hand where she had been the pre-flop raiser. ABC also loved to show her hands. This gave me a very clear picture of what she was up to, even though her play was already incredibly predictable. Given the way the table was playing, however, I wouldn't say that it was the wrong strategy. The table, for the most part, was more on the snug side, so her aggression allowed her to either push people off hands or get to the river without much resistance. On top of being aggressive, she was hitting cards when she needed to (e.g., rivering an ace when she had been firing with ace-high on all streets). ABC never hesitated to make a big move when a scare card arrived. She also hated to back down / relinquish a pot.

ABC raised to $8. Given the number of limpers, I knew I had to re-raise in this spot with J-J. I decided on $40. As soon as I announced the re-raise and pushed out $40, ABC immediately said (not to anyone in particular, but loudly enough that my end of the table could hear it) "small pair." I didn't want to give anything away by admonishing her for speculating about my hand while action was pending, but at the same time, I didn't mind the inaccurate information that she was projecting. It folded around to the guy on the button who had amassed a nice stack (mainly by tagging Flashy Cowboy a couple of times) but hadn't gotten out of line all session. (We'll call him Solid Guy.) He looked at ABC. ABC continued her speculation: "That's definitely a don't call me bet. I should just call out of spite. I know it's a small pair." I'm not sure if ABC's speech impacted Solid Guy's decision, but Solid Guy eventually made the call. Action was back to ABC. I was secretly hoping that she would throw in one of the standard plays from the aggro bible and re-re-raise after the re-raise and flat call. If she was so convinced that my bet was a don't call me bet (and repeatedly referred to her "spot-on read" of my hand), then a re-re-raise on her part would have been a natural move. For some reason, however, she thought otherwise. She actually folded.

The flop was A-rag-rag, which was not the best board for me considering that a guy limped on the button and then flat-called after a raise and a re-raise ahead of him. He either had an ace in his hand or a medium pocket pair. I knew I had to bet, so I decided on $60. ABC started muttering, but I couldn't make out what she was saying. Solid Guy took about 5 seconds to think before he flipped over his T-T and threw it into the muck. While I wouldn't normally say anything to my opponent in that situation, I wanted to say something that would throw ABC off a little bit. "I'm pretty sure you were behind the whole way," I said to Solid Guy, as I looked in ABC's direction. ABC gave me the standard eye-roll, and I knew it was game on.

Unfortunately, I didn't have many opportunities to get involved with ABC after that hand. She started to spew in other directions while I was folding unsuited 5-gappers and the like. After dusting off about 1/2 of her profits, she decided to leave.

My other big profitable hand of the night was a cooler + gift. A guy in MP raised to $10, and a number of players called. I had limped in EP with 6-6 and figured that I would get the correct odds to set mine. Despite the fact that the guy in MP had hardly raised any hands pre-flop, six players called his raise. The flop was T-6-rag. I checked, as did a player or two behind me. The initial raiser shoved for about $75. The Long Island lady in Seat 2 flatted with about $110 behind. Long Island lady had been having a relatively rough go of it, and I sensed that she wasn't going to give up this hand regardless of whether I made my move after the flop or after the turn. I decided to make my move there, just in case a turn card would scare her out of the pot. I announced all-in. Long Island lady said, "I know you have me beat" as she threw in her last $110. I love hearing those words. Initial raiser had K-K and Long Island lady had J-T. The turn was a Q and the river was another T, giving me the unterhaus against trips and an over-pair. Awesomeness.

I had got involved in two hands where I wasn't quite sure what to do. Let's see what you would have done in the following situations:

1. Limp in MP with Js-Ts. 5 or 6 players see a flop of 9-7-2 (two spades). Action checks around to the relatively tight player in LP who fires $20. Older guy in Seat 1 who hasn't been having a good go of it calls the $20. I call the $20. Turn is a non-spade 2. Older guy checks, I check, LP Tighty checks as well. River is a non-spade 8. Older guy suddenly shoves for his last $75. What do you do? What is your plan if there is subsequent action by LP Tighty?

2. Younger Tighty opens out of the SB to $15. Call in BB with A-Ko (no spade). Guy who has been a bit of a duster calls in LP after limping. Flop is K-Q-rag with two spades. Younger Tighty c-bets $40. Call with TPTK. LP Duster calls as well. Turn is a non-spade J. Younger Tighty bets $60. What do you do? What is your plan if there is subsequent action by LP Duster and / or Younger Tighty?

After the action at the table turned for the worse, including the arrival of multiple short-stackers, F-Train and I called it quits. I had to make my traditional PA Dutch New Year's Day meal (pork and sauerkraut) and wanted to rest up before my first round of golf in 2010. First day of poker in 2010 in the books. Tournament: -$150. Cash games: +$538. Not too bad, but I really need to think about how much I'm willing to donk off playing NLHE tourneys this year.

F-Train and I booked a tee time with Katkin and JDN for DANY (day after new year). Because the idea hadn't popped into our heads until some point late on New Year's Eve, a number of our preferred courses didn't have slots available when we wanted to play. We ended up at Siena, which is one of my least favorite courses because of the ungodly number of bunkers (some of which are more than 7 feet deep) and the par 4s with arroyos running across the fairway that require me to hit 3-wood (worst club in my bag) or the perfect drive off the tee. It was a gorgeous day (60 degrees, no wind), so I couldn't really complain.

We decided to play team skins straight up with no carryover (F-Train and me versus Katkin and JDN). Losers buy lunch. I hadn't golfed with Katkin or JDN previously, but based on our respective handicaps, it seemed like a fair bet.

Things started off incredibly rocky for me. Quadruple on the par-4 first hole. Double on the par-4 second hole. Quintuple on the par-5 third hole. The quint on 3 was particularly painful because I was in the green-side bunker in 4, but it took me 4 shots to get out. I put 2 balls in the water on the par-3 fifth hole and then finally hit my third tee shot somewhere near green. I had a couple of problems around the green and carded another quintuple. I was making horrible shots with my irons and was hitting bunkers more than fairways and greens. Despite absolutely exploding on the front 9 (I shot a 63) F-Train and I were only down one skin heading into the back 9.

Things changed dramatically on the back 9. I made three pars and one birdie for a 45. That's one stroke off my best side, and were it not for the kerfuffle on 14, I probably could have made a 44. Here's how the kerfuffle came about: We were behind a relatively slow group on the front 9, so we were often waiting to hit our shots (leading to the group behind us, a threesome, also waiting to hit their shots). We stopped for a bathroom break before resuming play on the back 9 and then hit a bit of a snag on 11 when *someone* hit driver behind a bush near the white tee box and couldn't get past the ladies tee box in about 4 or 5 shots. By the time we teed off on 14, we were a bit behind pace. While I was standing on the green on 14, I heard a couple of guys shouting. Then, their carts starting zooming toward our general direction. One of the guys in the group behind us decided to be an asshole and complain that we were ruining his day by playing too slow. Although we were slightly behind pace, we weren't purposefully slowing down the game. (From what Angry Guy's friend told us, Angry Guy had been having a pretty shitty day on the course and was just frustrated.) After a simple "Don't be an asshole" from JDN, Angry Guy threatened to knock him out. All of this while I'm standing over a putt for par. I should have just stepped away from my ball, but I just wanted to get the hole over with and figure out what the hell was going on.

The highlight of the day was one of Katkin's tee shots. From the second the ball left the tee box, we knew it was going to be unplayable. Nasty hook heading straight for a house. Then we heard a ping (ball hitting fence) and a clank (ball hitting side of house, thereby avoiding the rather large windows) and watched as the ball shot back toward the fairway, across the cart path and onto a rather playable lie just off the fairway. I suppose you could say it was golf's version of one of those old school Nike commercials ( . . . nothing but net). Highlight #2 of the day was when JDN luckboxed a 300+ yard drive when all of us were convinced he drop-kicked it. We didn't know where his drive landed until one of the marshalls stopped by and congratulated whomever it was who drove it to within 20 yards of the pin. I had a drive get to within about 20 yards of the pin on 18, but my tee box was only 245 from the pin. The boys were complaining that my tee box was about 130 yards ahead of them on that particular hole, which led to me carding the only birdie out of the group.

I guess they didn't realize that Northwestern Mutual hired me to model for their website. (h/t F-Train)



F-Train, Katkin and I decided to play poker after golf, so we met up at the Venetian and were quickly seated at the same $1/$2 NLHE table. That ended up being a pretty bad idea when I lost $500 rather quickly. Some of it went to F-Train after I slow-played top two and let him go runner-runner nut flush and some of it went to Katkin after I flopped a set on a two-diamond board, we got it all in on the turn (third diamond) and the river four-flushed, giving Katkin the nuts with Ad-Ax. I made a handful of speculative calls and moves to go along with the runner-runner agony, so I decided to do what I normally do after a disastrous Venetian session - win it all back playing -EV games. After approx 30 minutes at the roulette table, I made back my $500 (plus a bit more that I tipped to the dealer) and headed back to the poker room.

F-Train and Katkin weren't enamored with the table, so we opted to head to Mandalay Bay. I don't play at Mandalay often, but I've generally found the tables to be pretty soft. Such was not the case on Saturday. The guy in Seat 1 hit two pair on the turn against my top pair / better kicker on the flop and turned OESD that didn't get there. I decided to gamble a bit against a limp re-raiser who really had A-A against my flush draw. It was all sorts of bad, partly due to blechy variance and partly due to probably playing a few too many hands a wee bit too aggressively. What happens when BWoP has a miserable poker session? She makes it all back playing -EV games. I took a seat at a fun Let It Ride table and was mostly in the +$50 range until my last hand of the night. Three-card straight with 8-9-T, dealer flips a J and then a 7 to give me a five-card straight. Awesomeness.

I would prefer to forget about what happened on Sunday . . .

But in other football news, both Memphis Mojo and Gentleman Jim went a perfect 17-0 in the Blogger Eliminator Challenge. Congrats! The stupid Broncos loss to the Raiders in Week 15 totally killed my chances of going perfect (I did make winning picks in Week 16 and Week 17). Thanks to AlCantHang for the shots that he's supposed to buy me sometime.

I have another football prop bet with Dawn Summers. If Pats lose a round before Eagles, she has to buy me a $70 NFLshop.com item. If Eagles lose a round before Pats, I have to buy her a $70 NFLshop.com item. If both teams lose in the same round, the team that loses by the smallest margin "wins". If either team wins the Super Bowl, in addition to the $70 item, the loser has to wear the winner's team gear during the next #WPBT. Given the way both of our teams have looked recently, it could be a very interesting wild card weekend.

I have also decided to participate in portions of the blogger Bankroll Challenge with APOSEC72, BLAARGH, DrChako, Katitude and MeanHappyGuy. I'm involved in the bets relating to largest score and slayer of donkeys (smallest fraction: finish place / # of entrants), because my online play is generally going to center around MTTs. There's still time to join in on the fun. Just drop a line in the comments section here.

Three days into 2010, and I already have 4 poker sessions booked, a round of golf under my belt and some prop bets lined up. Not too shabby.