Every Hand Revealed

My approach to poker is mathematical and analytical and in my mind this is the only way to win in poker. My aggressive style has nothing to do with being macho at the poker table—it is simply the right way to play the game.

What you will discover is that my kind of poker requires constantly attacking your opponents, constantly accumulating chips, constantly

keeping track of pot odds and winning percentages, and constantly gearing up as blinds and antes increase.

It is the first poker book to go behind the scenes and actually show you what I had, and how I played it during the Aussie Millions Poker Tournament 2007. All the hands that I played are turned face up and every decision I made is explained in my pursuit of the title. The revealing is made possible because of the little tape recorder that I always bring to the tournament tables. After having played a hand, I take a couple of steps away from the table to record the action. In addition to describing the play of the hand, I also take note of my opponents and whether they have displayed any patterns, mannerisms, etc. This is information I can hopefully use in later encounters. Although it takes focus away from the action at hand, it is necessary to capture all the impressions while they are still fresh in my mind. Each and every hand has been recorded and commented on, and the

I am a firm believer in listening to and learning from people who have done well but I rarely come across a book that convincingly presents a viable poker strategy based on practice, not theory.

I am a big fan of hand examples with extensive commentary as the poker problems become much easier to extrapolate from and understand.

There are many different ways to approach the beginning levels of a tournament. Some people feel the most appropriate measure is to sleep a couple of extra hours and enter the tournament at their convenience. A few pros actually take this method very seriously, following it almost religiously. Others think that the first couple of levels are the very building blocks of what could be a bright and prosperous tournament. The theories range from A to Z but it’s hard to say which one is better. I would say it depends solely on your mood. If you are feeling tired and exhausted from a late-night poker session the day before, it could very well be your best move to get some extra rest. Sacrifice a little equity in the beginning to be on top of your game for the subsequent higher and more important levels! If on the other hand you are in tune and ready to go, no need to skip anything! I have personally fiddled with both and my best results definitely stem from the latter.

Limping with a lot of hands, trying to see cheap flops. Playing ultra conservative, only entering pots with top-notch hands. Approach number one relies on superior post-flop play and that someone around the table will make a serious deep-stacked mistake. It is often used by players who believe themselves to have an edge against the rest of the field, which means just about every poker player in the world. Approach number two relies on superior hand-selection! People are not trying to flop a flush with Q 4 and double up, although each and every one of us would welcome that scenario. People are looking for pre-flop edges, and for their Kings to hold up against AJ, 66, or 98 suited. So which one will yield the best results? I wish I knew. I have used them both successfully and unsuccessfully.

I do believe that Hold’em is somewhat of a flop-game, so if you can see three cards relatively cheaply it is generally a good idea. The problem is that sometimes you get raised along the way, and now your speculative hand has turned into an unprofitable

one! Another problem with playing mediocre starting hands at the early levels is that it mainly depends on your opponents making mistakes. I personally don’t like my game plan to be built too much around other peoples’ inadequacies.

Somewhere along the same lines lies this statement: “There is almost no money in the pot. Why bother messing around with inferior holdings?” I can come up with no good answer! I would have a hard time arguing that limping for a 100 at the 50–100 level with 8–7 off-suit in middle position is an obvious moneymaker with 20,000 in front of me. I just cannot make that statement! It is way too hypothetical!

There is one question you should always ask yourself when playing tight: “Is my style too predictable?”

Besides my unlikely back-door flush I guess this is what you could call a “nothing-at-all” flop. An easy check-fold and on with the next hand. The blinds check, I check, and when Phil bets 300 into the 500 pot everybody mucks.

Hand 2 Four of my opponents limp for 100 and I tap the table in the BB holding 78o. Another five-handed flop: A very deceptive flop! An open-ended straight draw and an 8-high flush draw to boot. Looks good but in reality not much to cheer for! With four opponents a higher flush draw is highly likely, not to mention that somebody could have a made flush already. I check, hoping to get a free card and complete my straight-draw on the turn. The two initial limpers knock the table but Mr. Sui on the button over-bets the pot with a 600 bet. The SB folds and I immediately follow suit. Besides the fact that I could be drawing completely dead, there are still three guys left to act behind me. This makes

it almost impossible for me to call. Everybody folds behind me and Mr. Sui flips over 9 4—one of the few hands where I wish I would have called!

Hand 3 Everybody folds to my SB and I look down at 78o again. Limping and folding are okay but raising is just a lot more fun. Furthermore it is about time I win my first hand. I do as Mr. Wong folds.

Kathy bets out 400, not giving me any information whatsoever. I have to decide which path to take: Folding! A bit premature with a pair and a back-door flush draw. Calling! Reasonable to see what the turn will bring and maybe be able to use my positional advantage. Raising! Last legal and viable option. Knocks out any inferior holding and some superior as well. It also gives me some more information as to where I stand in the hand. I believe it is a close call between options two and three, and as many times before I choose the active route. I raise 900 more but would quickly regret that as Kathy came right back over the top for a total of 4,000. Time to depart with bottom pair.

That is all the information I need! I’m not going to back off this one. My only concern is how to extract another 8,150 from Mr. Sui! Even though there are two flush-draws lurking out there, checking seems to be the right approach. I’m pretty confident he is going to fire again and I see no need to interfere with that kind of behavior. I check and he bets 2,600.

Four people limp and it felt like the right time to make my first stab. I make it 1,350 on the button with A 7. Having an Ace in my hand didn’t really influence my decision.

Raising a bunch of

limpers is a very common theme for most of the early big-stack professionals. Players like Antonio Esfandi-ari, Michael Mizrachi, and Alan Goehring love to represent big holdings, thereby picking up a lot of medium-sized pots. I have always been a little wary of making that move but I am starting to like it.

Everybody folds except one. That doesn’t necessarily mean that my attempt has failed as I still have one barrel left. After the usual “check to the raiser” I am gonna fire on the flop no matter what.

I open in first position for 600 with K 9. My nemesis from the previous hand tries to interfere once again and calls the 600 1 off the button—and so does the table chip leader in the BB.

The flop comes: King high flush draw and two over cards—what more could you want? The BB checks and I bet 1,200. Nemesis calls 1,200 and surprisingly the BB raises 2,000 more to a total of 3,200. I don’t see how I can fold this hand, leaving me with two options: Calling—hoping for a call behind me Moving all-in—hoping everybody folds

Nemesis—who afterward said that he folded the Queen high flush—took a couple of minutes of his own before he folded. In general you should not believe the stories you hear at the poker table but if in fact he did fold the Queen high flush, I have to compliment him! I am not sure I would have been able to make that play. Analyzing the hand away from the table, though, it all makes a lot of sense. What could I possibly have, apart from an insane bluff? Remember I did open in 1st position, I did bet on the flop in a three-handed pot, I did call a check-raise with a guy who had already shown some strength behind me, and when the third diamond hit I did push all-in. All in all, the Queen-high flush didn’t look that enticing anymore.

so for starters I have him in the tight category.

My note: see how he categorizes players

When I am facing a decision where I am a little bit in the dark as to my opponent’s whereabouts I like to bet and let him make the decision.

The 2 on the turn had brought two hearts on the table and it was very possible that he was making a play with A x. Three thousand to win 9,000 seems like a reasonable investment!

My note: see how he puts himself in there shoes when doing the math

I open for 1,000 with JT, 2 off the button. The BB—a presumably very tight player—calls. The flop comes: Good flop! He checks, I bet, 1,200, and he calls. Turn: He checks again. There is now 4,800 in the pot and my opponent is left with 12,000. I am not quite sure what his check call on the flop meant. Could he be flushing? Straighting? Pairing? I guess they are all possible. I do believe my two Jacks is the best hand right now, so it is time to pull out my preferred play of all time—all-in! Instead of trying to extract more money from my opponent, picking up the 4,800 is

my main priority. Only betting 3,000 on the turn could leave me in a very tough spot facing a 9,000 bet when the K shows up on the river. Whatever he is drawing to I know he has outs to beat me and I want him to pay top dollar if he wants to make that attempt. I would obviously have proceeded differently had my opponent had 40k left but with only 12k in his stack I was ready to gamble. I bet 13,000 and I guess “top dollar” wasn’t in his vocabulary since he quickly folded. I happily pick up the 4,800.

I check and he quickly checks behind me. By now I should obviously have realized that he dislikes the Ace more than me.

My note: thats a diff way for me to look at that

SOME REFLECTIONS Limping: Fine Calling the continuation bet: Fine Checking the turn: Fine

Planning to give up when he bets the turn: Fine Giving up when he didn’t bet the turn: Horrible! My opponent was eager to bet the flop but was disgusted when checking the turn. Failing to pick up on tells like that is plainly and simply unforgivable. I even get the added security of a King on the river making it just about impossible for him to call with his JJ or QQ. On the river I should have led out with a pot-sized bet and taken down the pot. I cannot afford to miss out on such obvious bluff opportunities in the future!

Nice pickup instead of having to play the flop out of position.

A new player at the table opens for 1,300, 1 off the button. I am in the big blind with K7o and decide to give him a warm welcome. I re-raise to 4,500 and he folds. I’m starting to be a tad more aggressive with late-position raisers, and so far it has worked pretty well.

I check my 7 high with no plans of ever putting any more money in the pot. He bets 3,000 and I fold.

Every time we jump to a new level I take a minute or two to figure out how I want to proceed at this exact level, calculating the ratio between the blinds and the different stack sizes around the table, and of course considering whether the ante is high enough to go into hyper-aggressive or just aggressive mode.

With a cost of 2,100 per round and an at-the-moment average stack size of 40k I felt it was a good time to pick up some pots.

Picking up 6,300 with no contest whatsoever is not bad for a round’s work! Taking advantage of people’s mindset and doing it at a time when it actually adds some bite to your chip stack is, in my opinion, mandatory.

Where did I go wrong? My initial read about him wanting to re-raise before the flop was correct. Re-raising pre-flop with TT would be the normal play. My read on his confidence level after his lead-out bet was also correct. I think taking my time made my opponent certain that his TT was the best hand because how could I ever be taking that long with a Jack in my

hand? My read on his lead-out bet was incorrect—I took it as a sign of strength where it was in fact meant as a stab to take down the pot if I didn’t hit the flop. I made an informed decision based on all the facts I had available at the time. I came to the wrong conclusion but that is bound to happen when you sit for more than ten hours at the poker table. Maybe I should think twice next time I am about to fold top pair on the flop.

I’ll be back on the limping wagon before long—but remember, only for the early levels.

High-ante structure—you gotta love it! A feast for the aggressive player,

Before I get too ecstatic let’s start out by determining what I consider a high-ante structure. The measuring stick is the ratio between the small blind and the antes. In most tournaments you will encounter ratios ranging from 6 to 1 to 3 to 1. I believe anything lower than a 4 to 1 ratio between the small blind and the antes should be considered a high-ante structure, with a 3 to 1 ratio being the highest.

Another reason I’m so excited about the antes is the fact that I don’t believe most people take the appropriate measures against an ongoing assault.

With antes in the middle, pot odds go up. Pot odds go up, people steal more. People steal more, starting requirements go down!

The sneaky little antes are not so insignificant anymore and should not be taken lightly. Still, I have a feeling nobody takes them seriously enough. There is an unwritten rule lurking around out there that says the standard raise should be three times the big blind. A reasonable assumption, but if you ask me, a little flawed! It seems like the rule forgot to take antes into account. Raising the same amount with and without antes is plain and simply off balance. My recommendation is raise to proportionally more when antes arrive! As you will see I love to be hyper-aggressive during high-ante structures. I see no other approach that comes close in results, fun, or accumulative aspects. Certain is a word that I usually refrain from using in my poker vocabulary, so let me put it this way instead. I am fairly sure that the best way to deal with large antes is: attack, attack, attack! Back

At this point in time, I also need a very good reason to put such a substantial part of my stack into the middle. Curiosity won’t cut it anymore, and I couldn’t come up with another compelling argument to call.

The best explanation I can come up with is that I had very limited experience with Mr. Dunwoodie’s play and check-calling with an AK AQ could definitely have been part of his repertoire.

Passive play is not gonna win tournaments! Giving me a couple of extra chances to hit my hand was a big mistake on my opponent’s part.

Switching back and forth on whether or not to make a continuation bet has proved a successful strategy so far. Sometimes picking up the pot with nothing, but also cutting my losses when my opponent showed too much interest in the hand. This time betting seemed like the best approach.

The fact that I am not betting 100% but only 80% of the time has added a little bit of credibility toward the strength of my hand—ultimately making it easier for my opponents to believe the stories I’m trying to tell. Before

The main reason for my successful continuation-bets is of course the fact that my opponents have had jack-shit, zippo, absolutely

nothing!

If you are able to pick up all the pots when both of you have nothing, you’ll do very well in No Limit Hold’em tournaments.

This illustrates very well the difference between being the initial raiser and facing a raise. As an initial raiser I am prepared to play just about any two cards dealt to me. If somebody has raised in front of me my hand selection becomes much more conservative and otherwise decent raising hands just go straight to the muck.

Hand 72 I open in first position for 6,200 with A K. Everybody folds to the BB, who raises an additional 8,000. A very tiny re-raise! Even though I have come to the conclusion that more and more people use the mini-raise as kind of an information raise instead of the old-fashioned I-have-two-Aces trap, I have a feeling this raise is for real. Suspecting a rather strong hand from my opponent, I’m not looking to invest too much money in this hand unless I improve dramatically. Of course I am not gonna fold but re-raising is not even part of my vocabulary under these circumstances.

The flop comes: He instantly bets 25k into a 32k pot and I surrender. I see absolutely no reason to alter my pre-flop read and since I didn’t connect it was an easy fold.

Although he had just beaten me in the previous hand I wanted to keep my composure—after all, there was no reason to make it personal.

Figuring out how much you can lose, or how much you want to lose before entering a pot is a crucial element in good tournament poker.

In this case the BB has 45k left and Minh about 40k for a total of 48k. Note how this somewhat limits my possibilities, as a standard re-raise to about 24k leaves me pot committed—making the all-in move a superior raising option. So where do I want to go with this hand?

Do I have the best hand? Do I think I have the best hand? How does my hand play post-flop vs. pre-flop?

Let’s take it from the bottom. There is no doubt in my

mind that medium pairs play much better pre-flop than post-flop.

I re-raise to 50k and leave it up to my opponents to make their decisions.

Continuing my aggressive play I open 2 off the button for 6,000 with K3. The short-stacked small blind moves all-in for about 16k. This gives me almost 3:1 on the call and I can’t remember the last time I folded under these circumstances. I call and he shows A8o, giving me 40%.

They both check and I see no reason to give more free cards.

I bet 3,300 into an 8k pot with my two Treys. They both fold.

It’s one of those 2:1 deals that I just can’t refuse.

I reconstruct the entire hand and play it over in my head a couple of

times.

With absolutely no read on Mr. Fletcher it is sometimes better to be safe than sorry!

By merely calling you just delay the inevitable question: “Do I have the best hand?”

The lower the cards on the flop, the more important it is to just close your eyes and make a continuation bet.

My opponent had checked the nuts behind me, obviously to trap me for a river bet.

Instead I allowed Mr. Fletcher to control the pace and subsequently outdraw me on the river,

A double belly-buster, but not a pretty one! I have no diamonds in my hand and even if I should be so lucky to hit a King there is no guarantee I am going to win a big pot. People tend to freeze up when there is a four-straight on the board. I check and Keith bets 20k into a 24k pot. I would like to take one off, but the price is a little steep, considering my implied odds are not very good. I don’t want to get too entangled in this pot.

Best way to avoid that: fold. I fold. Keith wins the pot.

Noticing that your opponent might be out of his comfort zone allows you to make some moves with a very high probability of success. It also lets you to control the game much better as your competitors will be more reluctant to raise you, fearing the big re-raise.

Remember Keith has two totally random cards in his hand as it was checked to his BB.

But what about the accumulators—don’t they make mistakes? Or have they just found the perfect way to approach this game? Well, remember this brief little intermezzo is only a guideline for play around the

bubble. As long as the rest of the table let them accumulate in peace they have got a pretty good thing going. But their tactics can be exploited as well. The accumulators obviously play way too many hands, and as a regulator you should regulate. Exploit the survivors, but don’t stop there. Come over the top on the accumulators and you will surely make a killing! It all sounds very simple, straightforward, and easy but you still have to figure out who fits in which category. Knowing who you are up against at the poker

table is important information, but at bubble time it is absolutely crucial to know before you proceed! There

You have to be able to put a label on your opponent in order to be effective at this hour.

it is a lot easier for me to steal the blinds and antes when the tournament director has told everybody that it is OK to let me steal. By announcing bubble time, he made everybody aware of how important it is NOT to get knocked out.

surprise. The bubble tends to favor aggressive play,

Somebody once said, “Patience is a virtue” and I’m sure

he was right. All I know is he definitely wasn’t talking about short-handed tournament poker. Too much patience will end up ruining you, as the fast-paced nature of the game will take its toll. In a nine-handed game patient hand-selection and watching the world go by is a very reasonable approach, but those virtues come up a tad bit short when we are down to six players.

Six-handed is more of a brute force environment where aggressive behavior and constant pressure is the nature of the beast.

With nine players

around the table you can quietly pick your spots, but as the number of players goes down and the intensity goes up sometimes the spots pick you!

Let me give you another example: Going by tight nine-handed standards, you might be playing approximately 15% of all hands dealt to you. Transfer those percentages into a six-handed environment, where you have six players each playing 15% of the hands—15% multiplied by 6 is 90%. Something just doesn’t add up! Who is going to win the last 10% of the

hands? Let me tell you—I will!

What I am trying to say is: I believe the right percentage of hands to play in a six-handed game is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%. You should of course add or subtract from that number depending on your opponents, but if you ever go lower than 20%, you will put yourself at a major disadvantage.

On the very next hand I choose to discard my general

rule to lay low for a hand or two after I’ve just lost a big pot.

What I’m trying to get at is this: the most important factor is to keep your cool and not give away an inch. If

Being out of position, facing a tough opponent with a big chip

stack, I opted for the more conservative call.

Continuation bets is a big part of winning tournament strategy and should be performed a very high percentage of the time, especially this time when he actually has a flush draw to back it up!

It is not always the result that matters.

Three checks in a row usually means: “I’m telling you the truth and I’m not too proud of my hand.”

I know players who subscribe to the idea of just checking it down and taking the pot, but if you have ever seen Phil Ivey in action you will know that it is not the right way to play poker. He is a true master of the value bet and will punish you for having inferior hands and maybe, just maybe, bluff you out of the best one.

But then again, this is Hold’em. If you assume that your opponents always hit the flop you are going to handcuff yourself, and you will never be able to play good aggressive poker!

For the most part I relied on controlled aggression and my big stack.

One of the best ways to improve your game is to have long and healthy poker discussions with your peers.

All-ins are not easy to deal with, especially when they put you right on the spot, knowing you almost get the right price, but not quite. There’s no chance even to make up for it with a solid value bet along the way, since your opponent is all-in. The best way to avoid it is to constantly keep an eye on surrounding stack sizes and deal with it to the best of your abilities.

Best play: Keep the aggressive touch, and try to manipulate the bet size so they fit into your agenda.

To go back to the beginning, what is the best way to

deal with small-stack all-ins? Here are four quick tips: Keep the pot-odds in perspective and play accordingly. Instead of raising aimlessly, analyze the situation and look a couple of moves ahead. Be aware of what possible counter-measures might be available to your opponents. Don’t get stuck on standard raises, but use your imagination.

Even though the two straights worry me, I don’t have to spend too much energy on those ugly scenarios, because if indeed he has made a straight all the money is going into the middle anyway

No, I have to figure out the best way to deal with all the other possible holdings—the KQ, QJ, JT, T9, and I could go on!

make a bet that makes it unprofitable for him to draw.

That is it for all the math, but there is still one factor to consider—Patrik’s perception of the whole enchilada.

Even though the result was very satisfying, I made a minor mistake on the flop. Choosing the right bet size can save you tons of chips at the end of the day. With no significant draws on the flop, a “tiny” bet of

more than 200k would have been sufficient to knock out hands like JT of clubs. If I was behind, neither 200k nor 300k would win me the pot. It is not only about winning and losing pots. It is just as important to win the maximum and lose the minimum!

I have a tendency to give people a lot of credit the first time around. If the pressure continues and they start to re-raise a lot, I am of course forced to change course! Until then, I can afford to let this one go.

It costs 70k a round to play at this table and apart from me nobody has enough money to sit back, relax, and enjoy the movie.

Not

taking the blind and ante structure seriously is simply a recipe for disaster.

Funny how you sometimes spend the break trying to figure out the optimal strategy for the five different players around the table.

am fairly certain that Jimmy didn’t check two pair or a set behind me, so even if the river should pair the board, I would still consider my straight as the nuts.

“How much money can I extract from Jimmy?”

Ugly card! There is not so much a fear of getting beat by a flush, but more the very realistic possibility of not getting paid off!

Marc could have the real deal but just as likely he has used the I-bet-because-he-checked maneuver!

Fold—never going to happen. Call—seems stupid. My hand plays better pre-flop than when facing over cards on the flop. Re-raise to 350,000—a bit silly, since I will then be

pot-committed against Kristy’s 1.07 million. All-in—much better! Puts Kristy to the test and I am pot-committed anyway.

There is a good chance I could have induced a bluff from Jimmy by checking the river. If Jimmy had a Jack he would for sure call a value-bet on my part. But he would also value-bet a Jack himself if I checked, making it somewhat a matter of indifference what I do.

If Jimmy was on a draw my only chance to pick up extra money would be to check.

If you don’t know exactly what you are up against, you are often better off letting your opponent do the guessing.

I have a general rule that I want to stay out of trouble after losing a huge pot.

I don’t want to face any big decisions with my head still spinning. On the other hand I don’t want to throw away perfectly good playable hands just because I had a little misfortune.

Probably the most common mistake in poker is the “check to the raiser.”

Here is a list of some of the downsides when checking blindly.

You give away the initiative. You gain no information. You give away free cards. You over-commit yourself when check-raising.

I am a sucker for numbers, stats, and fancy computations.