Sklansky dollars and fictitious currency in online poker

Plotting the right course of action when you’re in the heat of a green felt battle is obviously the factor that seems to carry the most importance for you there and then. Evaluating the efficiency of your decisions in hindsight is equally important though. I know what wise guys will say: there’s no better way to see how well you’re performing than by taking a look at your bottom line at the end of the month. While I do tend to agree with that viewpoint, I also need to acknowledge that there may be theories allowing for a much more direct and immediate estimate of your actual poker performance.

These theories are no dime-a-dozen ramblings either, they have sprung from some of poker’s greatest minds, like David Sklansky’s. The evaluation method I’ll present in this article is called Sklansky dollars, and it is a theoretical estimation of the quality of decisions you make at the poker table.

The concept itself is extremely simple. Here’s an example to show you how it works. Suppose you get all your money ($100) into the middle, holding pocket rockets. Your opponent makes the call with J,J and proceeds to hit another J on the turn for the set, to steal the pot from you. This is what poker players know as a suck-out. You get the dough in holding the best hand, so you obviously make the correct decision. Your opponent makes the call with the weaker hand, so he makes a bad decision. The luck factor though rewards your opponent with the win, which doesn’t mean that you should avoid to get your money into the middle against him on similar hands in the future. As a matter of fact, if he got it all-in against you every time a situation like the above described one came about, you’d end up a huge winner.

Obviously, in this situation, where the real money goes does not accurately reflect the quality of the decisions made at the table. In real money terms, you’ve just dropped $100, but in Sklansky dollars, you’ve walked away a winner. Sklansky dollars are meant to give you an idea of just how much money you would be able to make if you made the same call every time you’re faced with the same situation. Your A,A is an approximately 83% favorite over your opponent’s smaller pair, which means that instead of dropping $100, you’ve actually taken down a $163 pot, of which $63 represents your pure Sklansky dollar profit.

The interesting thing about the Sklansky dollars is that even though they only represent a theoretical quantity, in the long-run, the math does add up. If you were to play 100 A,A vs J,J hands, your actual profits would be extremely close to your Sklansky dollar profits. If you were to play 1,000 such hands, the two would pretty much coincide.

This is also the source of a paradox. The above situation is a rather big favorite vs a small underdog match-up, but many of the optimal decisions you’ll make will be a lot more marginal. In such situations, the long-run I mentioned above may be much harder to define. It may be that the required sample size will be bigger than the number of hands a player can accumulate over his lifetime. Thus, it is theoretically possible (though obviously not very likely) that a player be a lifetime loser despite making the correct decision every time. This theory is slowly crossing into poker philosophy though, and the bottom line is, that for practical purposes, sample sizes of a few thousand hands should suffice.

Tournaments at which every decent poker pro should be seen

There are many players out there who claim to be poker professionals. Some of them do indeed make a living off poker, and that’s what the definition of “professionalism” requires at the end of the day. There are unwritten rules though, and those rules say that in order to be somebody in the poker world, you need to get past an informal “initiation”. For poker players, that initiation consists of playing in 5 tournaments. Without having played in all these events, you will not be able to consider yourself a true poker professional, and others will certainly not view you as that either. Enough beating about the bush though: here’s a list with the 5 poker tournaments that you should play in by all means in your poker career.

We might as well begin with the obvious: the WSOP. You need to play in this one and it’s almost senseless to discuss why you need to. The WSOP is the crown jewel of the poker world, live and online. Online poker rooms run WSOP Main Event qualifiers months before the Big Dance kicks off. People fret about going to the WSOP pretty much all year long: it’s what the poker universe revolves around. Another thing about the WSOP Main Event is that it can provide a life changing boost to one’s bankroll, and one doesn’t even have to win it for that. For most players, making the WSOP final table alone is enough to secure their future. Some (like Jamie Gold) may not agree with that though.

The PCA (PokerStars Caribbean Adventure). An EPT stop, the PCA has grown into THE destination for those looking to take the wife or the girlfriend out of the monotony of everyday existence. The PCA takes place in the Bahamas, in a tropical paradise which will confirm every dream you’ve ever had about such locations. On top of all the goodness offered by the mere location of the event, the prize-pools are out of this world and you will get to rub shoulders with some of the world’s best.
Another must is the WPT – the $25k WPT World Championship that is. I know it doesn’t sound like a tournament you can just show up for, but as long as you cough up the buy-in (and only those dead serious about their game will), you can. Registering for this baby will give you the opportunity to play pretty much only against the greats. Each table will be a table of death and if you make it through this one, not only will you be able to redefine your poker self esteem, you’ll take home a huge jug-o-money too.

Being on the warpath for huge prize-pools doesn’t always mean you have to leave the comfort of your home and hit the often intimidating live scene. You can stay home and play for more than $10 million in the WCOOP (World Championship of Online Poker). Unlike in most of the live events, the buy-ins are pretty decently sized in this one and the global reach of the event is only paralleled by that of the WSOP. Given that it’s the only online event on the 5-event calendar I’ve jotted down, it becomes painfully obvious that in order to be someone in poker, you need to go for the live action.

Last on the list is the WSOPE (World Series of Poker Europe). If you’re really looking for a WSOP bracelet, this is your best bet. The fields are small, and even though many of the top pros have been known to question the true value of a WSOPE bracelet, Main Event winners would probably disagree, as would you if you worked yourself up into that position.

Overachievers and disappointments at the 2010 WSOP

The 2010 WSOP is (mostly) over and some players have obviously stolen all the headlines, while others – much better quoted – have disappointed bitterly. It’s not exactly rocket science to point a finger to the best performers, as well as to those who had promised, hyped, then failed to deliver.

Let’s start with those who brought something to the table. Frank Kassela. This guy has definitely been responsible for delivering some of the biggest surprises for layman observers this edition of the WSOP. In poker circles, Kassela had been known for a while before the WSOP, but he truly delivered a breakout performance that instantly put him onto the map for the entire poker community.
Kassela was the only player who managed to win 2 WSOP bracelets this year, and on top of that, he finished 3rd in the players’ championship event. He cashed six times including a final table, so he’s definitely a serious candidate for the “Player of the Year” title.
The only player who could rob him of the distinction would be Michael Mizrachi, who may yet win the Big Dance in November. Another guy who looked like he was going to snatch the POY title away at one point through the Series was Vladimir Schmelev. Unlike Kassela, the Russian came out of nowhere quite literally and first shocked the poker world by finishing second, behind Michael Mizrachi in the $50k player’s championship event. It’s true that he did not manage to get his hands on the gold, but he reached the final table in 4 more events, a more than genuine proof of his green felt prowess. The really impressive thing about Schmelev was that this was his debut on the US poker scene, and he managed to accumulate more than $1.14 million straight away.

When it comes to overachievers, the British contingent should definitely be given a collective award. At times, it appeared as though the Brits were going to take over the series and surely enough, they won no fewer than 4 bracelets among them and made several final tables. Pras Bansi was the one who spearheaded the British invasion. Neil Channing made a deep run shortly after. Steve Jelinek pocketed some gold too, and Richard Ashby and James Dempsey had excellent runs in several events too.
Now on to those who disappointed. Spotting winners is easy, because they’re all in the lime-light, but singling out those who stood out by simply not showing up, is a different kind of challenge. When it comes to not showing up, one name is definitely the top of the list: Joe Cada. The reigning WSOP Main Event Champ only played in 16 events, which in itself is quite surprising, but when one tops it off with the fact that he didn’t manage to even get close to cashing in any of these events, the situation turns downright dire.
Barry Greenstein was definitely another no-show, and on my part I’d say Daniel Negreanu’s WSOP run was extremely disappointing as well, but that may only be in light of the possibly exaggerated expectations I’d built up regarding the PokerStars pro. Then again, based on the same line of thought, Doyle Brunson, Mike Matusow, Annie Duke and Chris Ferguson would also have to be included among the let-downs.

It may be that this is a new time and age though and the WSOP window for the above mentioned names has closed. For Annette Obrestad though, that was certainly not the case. She was the poster-face of the series and there was a tremendous amount of expectation burdening her, to which it wasn’t exactly a surprise that she couldn’t live up.

The long winding road from poker cash games to poker tournaments

One of the best ways to make it big in online poker is to build up a bankroll via SNGs or cash games and then to start playing in high buy-in guaranteed prize-pool tournaments (run by pretty much all major poker sites every weekend). For that though you need to make the move from the cash game tables to the tournament ones. If you manage to work your way up to being able to play in such high buy-in tournaments every week, you’ve probably earned the right to consider yourself a successful cash game player. Does that mean you’ll be as successful in tournaments too? After all, the game is the same, played by the same rules, what could go wrong?

Lots of things actually. The few differences in rules between cash games and tournaments twist the game completely out of shape thus being a good cash game player won’t guarantee you anything at the tourney tables. You’ll be forced to rethink the whole essence of your approach and basically learn to play again.
The biggest difference between cash games and tournaments stems from the nature of the stacks available to players. In a cash game, your stack is infinite (assuming of course that you can afford to re-deposit every time you hit rock bottom). This means that taking advantage of marginal EV+ situations not only makes perfect sense, it’s a must.

Regardless of the short-term luck-induced bankroll swings, in the long run you will always see a profit provided you only get your money into the middle on EV+ situations. In a tournament, things aren’t quite as simple. Given the finite nature of your stack, getting it all into the middle on a marginal EV hand is quite foolish. In cash games, your stack is a weapon that you use to make money. In a tournament, besides being a weapon, your stack also represents your lifeblood. In order to be able to use it to forward your cause, you first need to protect it. If you’re faced with a marginal EV+ situation, you’re therefore better off just letting it go, so you can shove your chips into the middle on a much better opportunity later. Tournament poker means that you need to walk away from certain EV+ situations, regardless of what your gut tells you to do.

Another thing about tournaments is that the blinds increase at set intervals with the express goal of placing more pressure on players all the time, in order to force the outcome.

The ever increasing blinds mean that you need to keep chipping up in order to maintain your stack-size on an optimal level, and for that, you need to adapt your strategy to your changing blinds/stack-size ratio. Being able to play optimal poker when your stack size is large will not be enough for tournament success. You’ll have to learn to handle different stack sizes, and you’ll have to be aware of the optimal way to play in every situation. Stealing blinds is something that happens in cash games too, but in tournaments, past a certain stage, its importance will sky-rocket. Without proper blinds-stealing skills, you will not make it past the most critical stage of the tournament.
During the later stages, when the blinds become truly significant compared to everyone’s stacks, you’ll have to make moves that you shouldn’t even dream about during the early stages. When you’re down to your last few chips, taking a coin-flip is the best bet you can make under the given circumstances. This is where the fold equity comes into play: being the aggressor (the player doing the shoving) instead of the caller is extremely important when it comes to securing the best possible odds.

If cash games are about playing the same type of poker to perfection, tournament poker is about flexibility and adaptability. In order to be a successful poker tournament player, you need to be a complete player, mastering every aspect of the game.

In the wake of the 2010 WSOP

The World Series of Poker 2010′s Main Event has come to an end (or at least to a break before the 9 remaining players jump at each others’ throats again in November to decide the winner). The time to reflect on what’s been done and to look back at the accomplishments and disappointments is here. The story of the Mizrachi brothers would definitely have to go into the “accomplishments” column. The three of them embarked on a veritable invasion of the Main Event, and for a while there, it seemed like there was nothing that could stand in their way. Two of them did hit the rail following the bursting of the money bubble though. Michael, the oldest, the winner of the $50k Players Championship Event, did make it to the November Nine though, albeit on a short-ish stack. The fact that he’s a NL Holdem specialist though certainly makes him one of the favorites. The Mizrachi story is only one speck of color on the canvas of a Main Event which has apparently been about business only more than ever before.

In previous editions, tomfoolery was right at home in the main event venue. Folks dressed up in various costumes on account of having lost a prop bet, or just to shock. Who could forget Tom Dwan’s antics, or various folks dressing up in diapers, togas and who knows what else. This year, there was only one batman costume, and by Day 3, none of the non-poker celebrities were present at the tables anymore. Those who were left weren’t keen on fooling around, and thus the whole thing seemed a lot more sober than usually. The new “serious” image created by this year’s event was considered a plus by many of the experts though. With legal online poker looking more likely than ever during the past few years, poker needs this type of image, if it’s ever to pass as a sport rather than a game.
What poker does not need though, is the influx of playmates and porn-starlets used by various sites to push their brand. Women who played in past Main Events hadn’t exactly been looked at as top-notch competition either, but this year, the bar has been lowered to new lows and I’m not sure how well that bodes for the image of serious female poker players.

This year, the ladies made up only a meager 3%, down from last year’s 5%, and no woman made it to Day 7. The tough pros we all know and respect were there, and some of them did indeed manage to build monster stacks in the early going, but luck did not side with them, and by the time the field had whittled down to 270, only 2 women were left in contention. The last woman standing this year was Breeze Zuckerman and she was eventually eliminated in 121st place.
Another thing that poker probably doesn’t need is the bounty hunt that commences as soon as the field thins down a little. Agents of various online and offline poker interests descend upon the tables, making it quite impossible for the remaining participants to partake in a decent bathroom break. Such agents have been a nuisance in the past, but the situation appears to grow from bad to worse each year.
The attempts of the Harrah’s staff to announce the names and hometowns of each player as they busted out (after the field had been reduced to a set number), were quite obviously a feat well worthy of an achievement column somewhere too. Given the amount of trouble writing down some of the name of the players gives me, I can honestly say I feel for those guys.