Just Poker Talk

Launch Poker is announcing that Canadians will no longer be able to use Neteller to tranfer money to and from online poker rooms.

From Launch Poker:

Online money mover Neteller recently announced that, like US poker players, Canadian players would no longer be able to use their services to move money to and from online poker rooms. Neteller’s InstaCASH service has already been blocked, and the final move to block Canadian customers from moving money to an online gambling site will take place by April 8 th. The company has dropped Canada from its list of clients in order to improve their bottom line for 2007, according to recent reports. The Neteller Board of Directors also decided to take similar step towards customers in Turkey.

I’m wondering why Neteller chose to drop its Canadian customers. As far as I know, there is no anti-poker legislation in Canada.

I’m not knowledgeable in business, so I’m wondering how cutting clients would improve their bottom line? My guess is that it has something do with customer service based in Northern America. Without business from the US, their Canadian customers are not enough to make a profit and they are probably losing money customer service and other services.

Neteller, Canada, poker

PokerSmoke is a brand of poker bot software. If you don’t know what a poker bot is, it’s basically a computer that plays in place of a human player at the online poker tables.

Here is an excerpt of what it can do from PressRelease365:

PokerSmoke is a poker bot that has been designed to give players the edge over all those others who are not making use of poker bots. With very high level programming and artificial intelligence to back it up, players have been making more money than ever. Simply because PokerSmoke has been designed to make the best possible decisions at the right times. Every imaginable situation that may arise in a poker game has been taken into consideration and incorporated into the programming.

The implications of this type of software are pretty obvious, especially with vastly improving AI.

For the user of this type of software, one can play online poker for every hour of the day and at as many tables as the site allows. This allows the user to generate money without playing. If the AI can be used in combination with PT or has a built in feature that analyzes important statistics, poker bots can be very dangerous against the average player, and also it takes away the human element of playing online poker, makes people more cynical to the online game.

Imagine sitting at a poker table and facing eight bots. The social aspect of poker is a large part of the success of the game, and with online poker the social aspect is already lacking, and now with the abundance of bots, that pretty much ends the social aspect. In the end we end up playing alone against a computer with only one goal, to make money.

Another potential problem is if online poker rooms start employing bots as prop players to boost traffic. It’s a win-win situation for the poker room, and it’s not like the average user can detect the problem. I for one don’t know how to read if a player is a bot or not, and if I was able to detect one, who would I complain to? Certainly not management.

I would be interested in what percentage of players are poker bots and what online poker rooms are doing to detect users of poker bots.

The other question on my mind is what online poker is about to the people who play. There are obviously many reasons, but does playing against computers instead of real humans matter? When we play online poker, there is the assumption that the players we’re playing against are all real players, but we only know that because that is our assumption and we don’t have much proof whether they’re real or not. Would the revelation that all along we’ve been playing against computers, change anything for us?

PokerSmoke, poker bot, poker, cheating

5. Gus Hansen

Gus Hansen is one of my favorite poker players. He was by far my favorite poker player during that one stretch when he was always at the WPT final table. His aggressive bluffing style is fun to watch. The only reason he isn’t higher on the list is because I haven’t seen him on television much. The last time I watched him was on an episode of Poker After Dark. He ended up winning, but he seemed more in control than before, less wild.

4. Scotty Nguyen

Between players 4-2, it was hard to choose because I like watching them for pretty much the same reasons, so they are pretty interchangeable in that regard. Scotty Nguyen’s another one of those players that’s just very confident about his poker skills and his his arrogant table image is a product of that. Maybe it’s not the proper etiquette to have at a poker table, but it’s entertaining to watch as Scotty berates his opponent when he has the nuts and goads him to call.

3. Phil Hellmuth

Phil Hellmuth’s fun to watch just to see him get rivered by an amateur and having him explode and tell his opponent how terrible they played the hand. How could they call with that?

2. Mike Matusow

Mike Matusow is another of those loud-mouth poker players, and I guess that’s the trend in my list. Matusow is up at number two mainly because he’s not always berating players at the tables, like most of the others. He seems to get into more normal conversations than the others. Also there’s something sad about Matusow now, as he tries to reform himself from debt and his blowups.

1. Daniel Negreanu

Negreanu is my favorite poker player, both because of his table talk and his skill. His table talk is not as mean-spirited as the rest of the players on this list, which is refreshing. I also learn something from his play every time I watch him.

Negreanu, Hansen, Matusow, Hellmuth, Nguyen, poker, top ten

I enjoy watching poker on television because of the pros. Watching amateurs bore me. There’s nothing to learn from those players and most aren’t too interesting. Occasionally there are some intriguing characters though. Although I enjoy watching the pros, not all the pros are worth skipping work or canceling a date to watch. Here are the first five players on my list of favorite poker players to watch on television. The top five will be posted tomorrow.

10. Humberto Brenes

It was tough call for the number 10 spot. It was either Clonie Gowan, Phil Laak, Jennifer Harman, Antionio Esfandiari, or Humberto Brenes. I went with the latter. The first time I watched Humberto Brenes was during an old World Series of Poker broadcast on ESPN. I’m not sure which one it was, but I think it was in the late 90’s. Humberto is just one of those players that likes to have fun playing poker. He is a bit condescending and arrogant to his opponents, but there is still a sense that he’s not taking it too seriously. It’s interesting because he’s not very fluent in English, yet he talks so much and isn’t intimidated by anyone.

9. Doyle Brunson


Doyle Brunson is a sentimental pick for me. I find him hard to watch. It’s tough watching him lose and he feels out of place amongst the younger players nowadays. While I have a hard time watching him, I do feel compelled to watch him play and hope he continues to prove his greatness.

8. Dan Harrington


I put Harrington on my list because he plays solid steady poker. His two final table appearances in 2003 and 2004 solidified that for me. That’s a pretty amazing feat in the continually growing size of the Main Event. I like that he doesn’t trash talk and just plays the game.

7. Shawn Sheikhan


When I first watched Shawn Sheikhan, I didn’t like him much. It was during the 2005 WSOP and he and Matusow were going at it. Shawn Sheikhan reminded me of Josh Arieh clone. Maybe it’s because they look similar in a very vague way or something. But the more I watch Sheikhan, the more I like watching him, but mostly because of his banter with Matusow. Without him, Sheikhan is much less interesting to watch.

6. Phil Ivey


What can I say about Phil Ivey other than the fact that he’s the best poker player around. It’s like he’s barely trying. Half the time he seems bored as hell playing tournaments. That’s one of the reasons why he’s great to watch, but also one of the reasons why I don’t like watching him. He’s not that emotional. The one time I remember him getting pretty emotional was when Moneymaker beat him in the 2003 WSOP. I’m not sure what the hand was but I think Moneymaker cracked Ivey’s set of 7s or something. I can only imagine what would’ve happened if Moneymaker didn’t luck out on that hand.

top ten, poker, Phil Ivey, Humberto Brenes, Doyle Brunson, Shawn Sheikhan, Dan Harrington

Bodog Nation has a question and answer with Josh Arieh. He sounds like a pretty good guy, which is a lot different than how he was portrayed in ESPN’s coverage of the WSOP. He came off as kind of arrogant and made him unlikable to me. Maybe that was just his table image.

I found his answer to one of the questions pretty helpful. It’s about moving to higher limits. I agree with his approach. Here’s his response:

Don’t be afraid to take a chance at a bigger game once in a while. Wait until you are feeling real good about your game and until you see a game that looks ripe for the picking. If you take a hit, go back to the game that you beat on a regular basis. If you win, don’t be afraid to take another shot at the game. That’s how everyone moves up in limits. Unfortunately everyone isn’t blessed with a huge bankroll to start playing big limits right away. If you’re good enough (and lucky enough), you will put together a few good sessions in a row and you will have an adequate bankroll to play 5-10 NL on a regular basis.

I’m not saying jump right up into the 5-10 game, I’m simply saying, take a shot at the 2-4 or 3-6 game… if you find it’s too hard, go back down to what you’re comfortable at. I think 5-10 NL is the goal to make a good living as a pro. Best of luck in your mission. Keep me posted on how it works.

The rest of the Q&A, though kind of short, is pretty interesting, especially about how he became a professional poker player. You can read the interview here.

Bodog, Josh Arieh, poker

This is an excerpt from a UK show called The Real Hustle. The premise is to reveal secrets of how to perform a variety of different hustles, and there’s one specifically about poker, where they beat three members of the Hendon Mob at a game of no-limit hold’em, which I found fitting to this blog.

(more…)

So I had the option of choosing a Burt Reynolds picture or a Shannon Elizabeth picture to begin my post. I was going to flip a coin, but then figured it’d be too much work and went with the Shannon Elizabeth picture.

Anyway I was browsing IMDB and I stumbled upon a movie called Deal. I never heard of this movie before. Right now it’s in post-production. I’m not sure what that means, but I think that it’s a good thing. I figure the movie will be released later this year in the US. Shannon Elizabeth and Burt Reynolds are in the movie. That probably explains why Shannon Elizabeth has been playing in all these poker events lately, or maybe not.

Here is the plot summary according to IMDB:

As an ex-gambler teaches a hot-shot college kid some things about playing cards, he finds himself pulled into the world series of poker, where his protégé is his toughest competition.

I assume the hot-shot college kid will be played Shannon Elizabeth and that the ex-gambler will be played by Burt Reynolds. One would assume that the hot-shot college kid would be male. I wonder what motivated this choice, if that’s the case of course. I’m not positive about this. More and more, actually, I’m getting this feeling that I’m completely wrong and just being an idiot.

The only remotely interesting thing about the movie is the where the poker action is set. It’s different than Rounders which depicted poker as a pretty gritty and deviant game. In Deal the poker seems to be portrayed in a more controlled and commercialized setting, which really reflects the world of poker now, even after the passage of the UIGEA.

Overall the movie sounds like your typical Hollywood movie. I’m not sure if I’ll watch this in theaters, but I’ll probably rent it.

Deal, movie, Shannon Elizabeth, poker, Burt Reynolds, Rounders

In the past few weeks I’ve come across a couple articles about how more women are playing poker. Like there was an article about Shannon Elizabeth getting to the final four at the National Heads Up Poker Championship and another article about more women playing online poker. Today I just read an article at burnabynewsleader.com about how women are playing more live poker, which you can read here.

The article is pretty interesting. Like I never knew there was a Woman’s Poker Club or Women Poker Player Magazine, but apparently there are. With the latter I wonder how many people subscribe to it, as it’s obviously not as well known as Card Player or Bluff. Also that magazine really only fills a small niche.

The article also goes into some reasons why some women don’t play poker. A lot of the reasons leaned toward poker being a male dominated game and that the men intimidated some women at the poker table. That’s definitely the image of poker that I get in the media. Like I’ll be watching some sitcom or cartoon and they never have women playing pokerl it’s always all men playing.

I’ve been reading a book called the Sociology of Risk and Gambling Reader and it makes some interesting points. One point that relates to this article is that men tend to play more skill oriented gambling games, like Poker and Horse racing, as it gives them a chance to control their fate, or at least a perceived chance, and that conversely women tended to play more passive gambling games, like Slots and Bingo, which their fate rested completely on luck. In effect they had no control. They were dependent on an external force to win. This division kind of parallels the social roles of men and woman before the women’s rights movement. Granted American society is still a very much male dominated society.

Another possible reason for the growth of women poker players is the more commercialized and clean family-friendly image that the poker world is advertising. I think that makes women feel more comfortable playing poker because poker seems more accepted nowadays and they definitely don’t have to play like how Doyle Brunson used to make a living by traveling the country and looking for games to hustle.

Also online poker rooms are helpful in bringing in more women players because it’s hard to distinguish gender without the physical presence of the players.

I think it’s a good thing that more women are playing poker. The more players the better.

women and poker, Shannon Elizabeth, poker, Women Poker Player Magazine

The Pahrump Valley Times has an article about the World Series of Poker. It talks about the how Harrah’s is expecting 10,000 entrants this year. That’s old news, but what interests me about the article is this statistic: “Half of the 2006 participants were estimated to have won their seats in online qualifier events.” Obviously this a factor in the record setting 8,773 participants at the Main Event last year.

In the article it also talks about how Harrah’s is being more stringent about the use of their trademark and logo. This was all said during the WSOP teleconference* a few weeks ago, except I wasn’t clear on Harrah’s motives for this, which I now realize have to do with online poker rooms using the WSOP logo and trademark to advertise their WSOP qualifier tournaments. And this in turn may explain why Harrah’s does not accept entries won on online poker sites. Or maybe not; this is just my hypothesis.

The big question for me is why does Harrah’s refuse to accept entries from online poker sites? Are they looking to commercialize the tournament further by forcing online sites to sign endorsement deals with the WSOP, to use their trademark and allow said site to hold online qualifiers for the WSOP? If that’s what they’re trying to do, it won’t work, as poker sites have already found a way to get around this by giving cash to the winners instead.

I can understand that Harrah’s wants to protect their trademark, but why do they want to stifle the growth of the WSOP? Growth can only lead to more profit for Harrah’s and Las Vegas as a whole. Commercially there are no negatives to the increased attendance.

The drawback of growth is that the large fields make the Main Event more of a crap shoot than anything. The level of play also dwindles with the increased participants and immense popularity of the event in general. So, personally, I would love to see a smaller field for the Main Event. Some have suggested that increasing the buy-in to 25 grand would discourage entrants and help shrink the field, and I think that is a good idea. $10,000 dollars was worth a lot more back in the 70’s when the tournament first started. But at the same time, if the fields did not shrink, the winner could win 40 million dollars, which is interesting in itself.

*Pokerati has an audio file of the conference posted on their site. You can listen to it here.

WSOP teleconference, online qualifiers for WSOP, World Series of Poker

Daniel Negreanu’s most impressive skill, at least to me, is his ability to read other players. It amazes me how close he is when calls out what his opponent may have. Reading players is a difficult skill to learn and requires astute observation. Tools like Poker Tracker and HUDS may help with reads, but it can’t replace your own observations.

The most difficult part about observation is knowing what to look for and what to disregard. There are so many things happening at once that it’s hard to notice everything, let alone find a tell or a betting pattern. More often than not, making a conscious effort to observe is a futile exercise. It’s almost better to just let the observations come to you, however this only works if you know what to look for.

Daniel Negreanu has an article in the Falls Church News-Press on how to spot a bluff. He offers five things to look for when deciding whether an opponent is bluffing or not. You can read the article here.

Daniel Negreanu, bluffing, poker, how to spot a bluff, poker strategy, poker tips

I’m not a much of a tournament player. I used to play the $1000 free rolls at Royal Vegas Poker everyday. It was easy to cash in those tournaments since 80 spots were paid and if you played the late night tournaments there’d be five to six hundred entrants, half of whom would be eliminated in the first twenty minutes. Sometimes ghost players would make it into the money without playing a single hand. My best finishes were 2nd and 3rd, along with a handful of top ten finishes. With that said, free roll strategy differs from real money tournament strategy.

I haven’t had much success in the real money tournaments, though I did win a 60 cent tournament a few months ago. Part of my lack of success is that I just don’t play many. I’m afraid to make the investment and take the bumps needed to improve and develop a winning strategy. The losing wouldn’t discourage me. It’s more that I’m afraid to lose money, so I stick with my comfort zone, which is 25NL ring games.

Lately, I’ve been trying to break out of that habit, since I know that I have to take a risk to improve, and so far it has paid off, my endeavor into 50NL and 100NL ring games. At first I lost $150 but then I adjusted, calmed down, and started winning. If my winning will last, I’m not sure, but from now on I’m making an effort to push myself. Winning can come later. And hopefully pay dividends.

I’m contemplating entering more tournaments, that after I figure out how to enter tournaments at FTP. Also I probably won’t be playing for a few more weeks because I’m kind of busy with other projects right now. So for now I plan to read up on tournament strategy. I’m strongly thinking about purchasing Harrington’s books, since many people have told me that it’s a great read in terms of strategy.

Gambling911.com has an article on multi-table poker tournaments, which you can read here. It’s geared towards beginners, people who haven’t played many poker tournaments. Intermediate and experienced players will roll their eyes or scoff at the tips. Some of the strategy presented is also debatable. But for beginners I think the tips are good to keep in mind. I’m certainly taking the advice to heart. It may be completely wrong or partially right. It doesn’t matter. I’m here to listen and learn. I will discard faulty strategies when necessary, but not without giving them a chance.

poker, mult-table tournament, Full Tilt Poker, strategy

Pocketfives.com has an article on Full Tilt Poker’s PPA bonus. It’s basically a way to boost membership for the PPA. It’s not a bad deal because the bonus covers your donation. Plus you get some extra money and entry into a freeroll. The best option is donating $100 because you get a $200 bonus. For those who don’t want to donate, you can just sign up and donate nothing while still getting entry into the freeroll. This promotion ends on March 22, so, if you’re interested, sign up soon.

Personally I don’t plan on signing up. Mainly because I’m lazy and I just don’t play enough poker to be able to clear the bonus in time. The other reason is because of this apathy I feel towards the UIGEA and the aftermath of it, the new landscape of poker. Some days I could care less about what happens to online poker and poker in general. I kind of long for the old days of poker, the poker that I read about in Herbert O. Yardley’s Education of a Poker Player or the poker life described in the introduction of Doyle Brunson’s Super System. I’m not sure why that is though. But one thing’s for sure, we’re in a different era of poker. I’m not sure I like it, but at the same time I’m still here and playing.

PPA, Poker Player’s Alliance, Full Tilt Poker, bonus money, poker, UIGEA, new era of poker

I haven’t really played any poker since I cleared my bonus for Doyle’s Room. That was over a month ago, and so tonight I had some free time and decided to check out the ring games at Full Tilt Poker. This was not my first time playing there, as I did play a $5 dollar SNG earlier this week, which I won pretty easily. I had the help of hitting a few huge hands and that allowed me to bully everyone.

In tonight’s session, I started off a bit nervous since I was unaccustomed to the interface and the general style play, whether the players were aggressive or passive, loose or tight. Also I always have this fear that the players will play really well and that I’ll get slaughtered. Lucky for me that didn’t happen. I bought in for $13, my usual half buy-in, at the 25NL tables and finished up $42 in under 2 hours, mostly by winning two big pots. The first I had AA and my opponent had KK. The second I hit a set of 10’s and let someone overplay their AK.

Overall, I’m feeling good about the players’ lack of aggression. They weren’t as tough as I expected. When I first sat down, players were betting like crazy but the action slowed down drastically after a while. In the end, most were pretty passive so I was able to play my game. Granted I only played 89 hands and I understand that that’s not enough time to judge the quality of players yet. Also it’ll be interesting once all the PT users get enough hands on me.

Personally I’m still waiting for that new player luck to wear off. I read somewhere that some casinos let new players win on their first visit so that they can hook them to the thrill of winning, and then proceed to make them lose on subsequent visits once.

Full Tilt Poker, poker, session recap

Shana Hiatt, bloopers

On the front page of Doyle’s Room, there is a video of Mike Caro and Doyle Brunson playing a heads up match. There are two videos, one for each match. I won’t spoil how the two matches play out, except to say that it is funny in an unintentional way and that Mike Caro goes all-in with 6-4 suited in the second match. The latter alone made the videos worth watching. I could even ignore the fact that the videos were made for advertising purposes, as both players are playing online using Doyle’s Room software.

The advertising element of the video is part of why I found the match more funny than competitive and intense like real poker. But how can they take the game seriously if they only have money to gain? One things for sure, Mike Caro reminds me of those actors on infomercials, especially the one that wears the question mark suit and screams exuberantly.

Click here to watch: Doyle Brunson versus Mike Caro

Doyle’s Room, poker, Mike Caro, Doyle Brunson, heads up