Читать книгу Lessons From The Felt: Advanced Strategies And Tactics For No-limit Hold'em Tournaments - David Apostolico - Страница 12

The traditional home game has been turned on its head in recent years. Throughout high school, college, law school, and postgraduate, I routinely played in a home game. Back then, everything was dealer’s choice, that is, everyone had a turn to deal and could pick which game to play. Every game under the sun would come up, from simple stud to night baseball. Rarely, though, would Texas Hold’em be chosen. It was deemed too boring for most games.

The only common denominator throughout those years was that, even though the stakes were small, everyone played to win. Poker is a game designed to be played for something of monetary value. If there’s nothing at stake, it’s hard to imagine anyone playing that seriously. Well, I hadn’t played a home game in over fifteen years until this past year.

We recently moved into a new-construction neighborhood. One of the great things about a new neighborhood is that nobody knows each other and everyone is willing to have social events to get to know one another. One of the men in the neighborhood decided to organize a biweekly poker night. I had met Robert once before. He was a very friendly guy who absolutely loved watching poker on television. Of course, the only thing shown on television is Texas Hold’em tournaments. When Robert sent out his announcement to the neighborhood inviting all to a night of Texas Hold’em played just for fun, I was happy to go.

It would be a great relaxing way to meet some of the new neighbors. I had never played poker for zero stakes before, but this was meant to be much more of a social event than a poker outing. I figured I could have a few beers and offer pointers to anyone interested in learning. I didn’t think that anything remotely resembling real poker would be played. Even so, my expectations still managed to be too high. Six of us convened that first night. Of the six, four had little to no experience. When I mean little to no experience, I’m talking that they had to learn everything from square one. I certainly don’t mean this to be disparaging. They were a great group of guys who had other interests besides poker. The fifth player was Robert who had a firm understanding of the game but had never played competitively. His sole experience was limited to simulations on computer games and freerolls on websites. Nonetheless, he did understand how to play. As the host, he was very patient and understanding when teaching the rules to the other players.

It was extremely difficult to play poker that night when every hand was spent answering questions and teaching the four newbies each step of the game. Where I had hoped to offer some pointers, it was really way too premature for that. You can’t really teach strategy to someone until that person gets the hang of the game first. It ended up being a fun social night as I tried to put poker to the back of my mind. Still, I couldn’t help myself. If I am playing cards, I have to play to win. For the most part, everyone stayed in every hand, only calling but never raising. My strategy was quite simple. I only played strong hands and would raise when I did so. Sure enough, I had built up a sizable chip lead before calling it quits.

Of course, beating five guys getting together for a few beers and friendly cards is nothing to brag about, especially when none of them seemed to have any ambition to win. They were there solely to have a good time and rightfully so. That night only confirmed my belief that poker has to be played for something in order for people to take it seriously.

I missed the next couple of sessions but showed up about a month later. I was somewhat surprised at how the game had changed. Before the game was played like a cash game (with no value); now there was structure. We would be playing a single-table no limit Hold’em tournament. The blinds would increase at regular intervals, and once you were eliminated, it was off to play pool. Now I am not going to sit here and try to tell you that everyone had turned into Doyle Brunson overnight. In fact, the level of play was just about what you would expect from people just learning the game.

Players were still struggling with the rules more than anything else. However, I saw a big fundamental difference from that first time: everyone was playing to win. It was a friendly fun game, but everyone was playing in earnest. I’m not sure if it was the prospect of being the first one eliminated (and having to play pool by yourself) or the pure competitive desire to win that was driving people. But there was no mistaking the fact that everyone was trying to play the best he could.

Now this made things interesting for me. I love the game and I’m always looking for ways to improve. I was curious if I could learn anything to help my game. Still, the game did present a few challenges. Most of the players had tightened up considerably from the first time. Players were not just blindly playing every hand. Only one player, Pierre, was intent on playing a lot of hands. If he had any piece of the flop, he bet or raised. If he missed the flop completely, he still called down to the end 80 percent of the time.

Now as anybody who’s played the game knows, if you play a lot of hands, you are going to win a lot of pots. In fact, you can have some fairly significant upside swings. This situation only serves to reinforce the behavior, which is why so many beginning players fall into this trap. Of course, at the end of the day, anyone playing this loose is destined to lose all his chips. Watching Pierre play, I thought of what I think is my biggest weakness. When I get a big stack, I have a tendency to play too loose. This is something I have known for a while and continue to work on. However, to see Pierre make such a common beginner’s mistake was a real eye-opener for me.

When I get a big stack while playing in bigger tournaments, things are obviously going well for me. Yet, I was falling into the same beginner’s trap of starting to feed off that positive reinforcement, that is, I’m winning hands, so I should play more of them. Now there are times to play more aggressively with a large stack in a tournament. Yet, I still need to be selectively aggressive and not just craving action.

All right, back to the home game. As sincerely as everyone was playing, nobody except for Robert had anything more than an elementary understanding of the game. I thought it would be easy to pick up tells on these guys, but the opposite was true. It is impossible to put someone on a hand when he does not know himself what he has. Let me clarify that statement so that it does not sound so disparaging. What I mean is that since these players were just beginning, they did not know the relative strengths of their hands. A player holding any pair would stay until the showdown believing he may have the best hand. Another player with two pair would be convinced he had a monster even when the board contained four clubs and he was holding two red cards. This teaches a valuable lesson. While these guys were playing unintentionally unpredictably, it shows the significance of mixing up your play in order to keep your opponents from getting a read on you.

So the strategy for that first tournament was quite simple: I just laid back and observed for the most part. I would only play medium-strong to strong hands. I played just a few hands, but when I did, I bet them strong and would get paid off. I realized early on that Robert would be the only one who posed any kind of threat. When we were down to three players and I had a sizable chip lead, the following hand came up. I had A♥-Q♥ when the flop came A-10-7 with two spades. Robert led out betting and I re-raised him all-in. I did not want him chasing a flush. Robert called with A♠-5♣. Robert ended up hitting runner-runner spades and doubling up. Oh well, that’s poker.

Soon thereafter the third player was eliminated, and it came down to Robert and me heads-up. I had a small chip advantage. Now a funny thing happened. I had been having a good time enjoying everyone’s company and feeling very relaxed. All of a sudden, I tightened up. We were playing strictly for fun and pride, but something came over me. I had absolutely nothing to win and a lot to lose. Since I knew something about poker and had a great deal more experience than anyone else, I was expected to win. If I lost, though, I would lose credibility. At least, that’s the way I saw it. I’m sure the rest of the group, all being good guys, would not think anything either way.

Well, as soon as you start playing not to lose, you are guaranteed not to win. Robert played very aggressively as you must when you are heads-up and the blinds are high. I played tentatively, waiting for an opportunity to exploit. Instead, I was outplayed and ended up coming in second. Again, I learned a valuable lesson from what I thought would be just a fun social event. No matter what the circumstances, to play not to lose is a poor choice. There will be times in a tournament to tighten up, but to play not to lose anytime is wrong. Unless you are playing a satellite, tournament payouts are always weighted heavily toward the top. If you want to win the big money, you always have to be playing to win.

A perfect example of this is when bubble time approaches in a tournament. Many players are content just to make the money. Others want to win the tournament or at least advance as far as they can. Those who want to make the money will play not to lose at that point in time. The more experienced players will take advantage of this.

Our neighborhood home game continued to be played on a regular basis. It was both fun and interesting to me. It was a great social event, and I learned you could really learn something from every situation. During this time, I was playing in events on the Professional Poker Tour, the World Series of Poker Circuit, and the World Series of Poker itself. I saw players on each of those events making some of the same mistakes as players in my home game. I really looked forward to playing in the home game.

Over the last few years, poker has become somewhat of a job to me. To be able to play purely for fun serves as a reminder of why I love the game so much. That is another lesson learned. Poker should be fun. You have to stay focused and play to win, but you should be having fun doing it. I find that I play better when I am enjoying myself. That does not mean that the game is stress free. Far from it. But it’s like any other worthwhile endeavor. I find the challenges exhilarating.

It was fun to watch the different players develop during the course of the home game. I did not believe that any of the guys were playing anywhere else besides the home game. At least if they were, they were not telling. And I could not make every home game with my schedule. Still, I could really witness each player develop and find his own unique style.

First, there was Gib. Shortly after our very first game, my first book Tournament Poker and The Art of War was released. Gib was kind enough to come to a signing at a local bookstore and pick up a copy. He also read the book, which showed that he was interested in learning. The fact that he wanted to learn and realized that outside sources could help made a big difference in his game. The next time we played, he was a completely different player. While the other players were making baby steps, Gib made a quantum leap. He was playing very few hands, and when he did, he played them with strength. The two of us easily played the least amount of hands. Not coincidentally, the game came down to the two of us playing heads-up. We started with approximately the same amount of chips.

I was not about to make the same mistake again. This time, I played to win and was extremely aggressive. It did not take long for me to win. The biggest mistake Gib made was failing to adjust his starting hand requirements when we were heads-up. Otherwise, I was extremely impressed with how much Gib had improved in such a short time. He really grasped the concept of using your chips as power, which is so important in a no-limit Hold’em tournament. He did not needlessly squander his chips at any point. You could tell that Gib was also beginning to understand the relative value of hands. He tightened up his starting hand requirements. This paid off in a big way, for when he entered a pot, he was typically a big favorite to win.

The two biggest weaknesses I could see in everyone’s game was the failure to make adjustments and the failure to use position. Most of the players appeared to play their hands in a vacuum, that is, so long as they liked what they had in their own hand, they played it the same regardless of what else was going on. They failed to adjust to the number of opponents entering the pot, the size of the blinds, the number of players still in the game, and the hands their opponents might be holding. Just as important, they never used position to their advantage. No one adjusted his starting hand requirement even if everyone folded to him on the button.

Now since these were all beginning players, their failure to make adjustments is completely understandable and easily excused. Yet, I see it happen all the time in much bigger events. So many things change in tournament poker that you constantly have to adapt if you want to succeed. The blinds increase, antes are introduced, players are eliminated, tables are consolidated, and stacks can go from big to small (and vice versa) in one hand. You cannot go into cruise control for one minute. Unlike a cash game, in which you can be playing with the same opponents for hours on end at the same levels (and players can dip into their pockets and replenish their stacks if need be), the only constant in a tournament is change.

To make adjustments constantly is very difficult. The consequences of failing to adjust are apparent when watching a table of beginners. The slight adjustments needed to survive and thrive in a more competitive environment are not as apparent but equally destructive to your chances to win. I was determined to work on this aspect of my game after this home-game session.

Let’s next take another look at Robert, our host of the home game. Here’s a guy with a ten-man poker table, clay composite chips, a card shuffler, dealer button, and every other poker paraphernalia imaginable. The guy loves poker and understands the value of hands. In addition, he knows when to bet and raise. The other guys outside of Gib still prefer to call and check just about every time. Robert also loves to bluff, and that’s his biggest fault at the poker table. He learned it from watching edited final tables on television where they’re going to show an inordinate amount of bluffing. A common belief of beginning poker players is that poker is all about bluffing. Certainly, bluffing plays a large part, but it’s much smaller than beginning players think.

Texas Hold’em is about playing position and your opponent. It’s about making correct decisions and avoiding mistakes. And yes, it’s about bluffing at opportune times. Bluffing only works when you try it in the right situation and against the right opponent. In tournaments, the ability to choose spots to bluff is critical because you cannot always afford to wait for cards. Robert, however, bluffed indiscriminately.

There is an old poker saying that “you can’t bluff a sucker.” What that means is don’t bother bluffing a bad player who’s going to call with just about anything. Yet, Robert would insist on trying to bluff Pierre. Pierre was going to call no matter what, so what is the point in bluffing. You’re only going to lose chips. Robert would try to bluff me, which was a smart thing to do. If I didn’t have anything, I would usually fold even when I knew Robert was bluffing. Why would I do that? I was happy to lose a few small pots because I knew Robert would keep trying. Then one of two things would inevitably happen: either I would wait for a strong hand and trap Robert or I would wait for the blinds to increase and then re-raise him when he was bluffing no matter what I had.

We usually played with a very generous structure. We would start with over $5,000 in chips and the blinds would only be $2–$4. So there was plenty of time to be patient. Robert would usually start bluffing right away. There would be times he would get out to a decent chip lead. But as the other players learned to become more patient, Robert would usually be one of the first people eliminated. Now what do I make of this? I think there are a couple of lessons that can be learned here:

First, Robert became interested in the game from watching it on television. His initial understanding of the game gave him an initial advantage over the others. However, he picked up many bad habits that would not serve him well in the end. The highly edited shows are entertaining but also show only the sexy hands that typically include a lot of bluffing. Playing position and stealing blinds does not make great television.

The other guys who regularly played were learning from scratch. They were taking their real-life playing experiences and learning to improve for the next time. In the case of Gib, he was reading outside sources to supplement his learning curve, and it was making a big difference.

The next lesson to be learned is that as poker tournaments have become more popular, you are going to find players at every level who come out of the gate shooting from the hip. Many players, including some top professionals, are very successful employing this strategy, but it is an extremely difficult strategy to pull off. Most players who attempt it fail miserably. They may get off to a fast start, but they inevitably crash and burn. When you encounter one of these players, avoid the temptation to join the party. Rather, stay focused and patient and play your game. Your opportunity will come.

Now to Robert’s credit, he improved tremendously over time. He became more patient and looked for opportunities to exploit. If you combine this with Robert’s inherent understanding of the need to accumulate chips, Robert has all the tools necessary to become a successful poker player. He’ll attack pots when nobody else has a hand. He also knows when to back off when he’s beat. The inherent aggressiveness he shows at the poker table is critical to success. Now that he is learning to harness that energy and use it when necessary, his play has become more unpredictable and he’s able to not only bluff his way to some pots but win big pots with aggressive plays when he has a strong hand.

Throughout this past year, the players who exercised patience and waited for opportunities would regularly last the longest in the tournament. Even though we started out not playing for anything, everyone played to win. That’s the beauty of tournament poker. You can play for pride since you have a clear-cut winner. As time progressed, a small entry fee was initiated with the winner taking all. I don’t think it made any difference in the earnestness of the play because I thought everyone was playing seriously before that.

During the course of the home game I played with some hard-core regulars, some others who came and went, and still others who joined later and became regulars. Let’s take a closer look at some of the players and see what we can learn from them. I don’t believe Vimal had ever missed a poker night in the home game. The first time he joined us was the first time he had ever played poker. He was there to be social and have a good time. The poker was clearly secondary. He took to the game very quickly, however. While he clearly had no idea what he was doing that first night (which would be expected of anyone playing for the first time), he made great strides. You could tell that he really learned from his experiences. The first night, he played every hand. The next time I saw him, he played any hand in which he had a piece of the flop. After a few more sessions, he was laying down hands when he knew he was beat. Vimal became very patient and let the game come to him. He never forced the action. A few more sessions and Vimal was always one of the last men standing. In fact, on two occasions the game came down to Vimal and me heads-up. The first time, Vimal had a substantial chip lead over me. I just played super aggressively and quickly took the lead before winning out. The next time we played, I had an enormous chip lead over him, and he was eliminated within a few hands.

I think that you can learn a few things from Vimal’s play: The first being that steady, solid, patient play will take you very far in a tournament. The next being that such play will only take you so far. If you want to win, you have to be selectively aggressive at times and you have to make adjustments for short-handed play. When we were down to three players and even heads-up, Vimal was still waiting for solid cards. You cannot afford to do that. When you are heads-up, you have to be aggressive. With the blinds high and only one opponent, every pot is worth going after. This doesn’t mean being reckless. But you can’t let your opponent run over you either. It’s an entirely different strategy from playing with eight or nine people at the table. Vimal is a quick learner, though. I have no doubt that he will learn from his heads-up experience and be a much tougher opponent in the future. In fact, the last game (which I did not attend), I heard that Vimal won.

We have had a few recent additions to the game, including a friend of a friend who is commonly known as the guy who never folds. More accurately, he should be known as the guy who always calls. He calls any and all bets every hand. He never folds and never bets or raises. Of course, he is guaranteed to lose every time. While he is playing, though, he can wreak havoc. It is impossible to steal or semi-bluff as long as he is still in the game since he will stay in the hand. The guy who never folds actually poses some real problems. For instance, say I raise in late position with A-Q suited and get two callers including the guy who never folds. The flop comes 2-4-8 rainbow. Everyone checks to me. This is usually a great time to bet out and win the pot. That is not going to happen here, though. So what do I do? I bet enough to force the other player out and get “the guy who never folds” heads-up. Then I check it down the rest of the way unless my hand improves. There is no sense betting into danger. Better to wait until I have a hand and then bet away at the guy who never folds.

Now there’s another interesting twist to playing with this guy. He’s usually out quickly, so you only have a short time to win his chips. What I try to do then is to isolate him pre-flop as much as I can. Again, if I miss the flop, I check it down. If I get a piece, then I value bet depending on the strength of my hand. While you are likely never to find a player as bizarre as the guy who never folds, a valuable lesson can be learned here. In today’s environment, there are weak players at every level. That presents some interesting challenges. These weak players are anxious to give away their chips, and the astute player who picks those chips up will be at a real advantage.

So try to identify those players early on, and then choose spots in which to isolate them. The type of player you’ll usually find is the calling station who’ll check call a lot of hands. The difference between the calling station and the guy who never folds is that the calling station will fold on the river when he does not make his hand. Isolate these players, build the pot, and then chase them out. Many players like to start out the tournament rather conservatively. That’s a solid strategy as you get the feel for the game. Don’t wait too long, though, to attack the weak links. They won’t last long, so you might as well be the one to take their chips. This is both an offensive and defensive strategy. You’re trying to accumulate chips, but you’re also trying to keep one of your better opponents from picking up those same chips.

The last lesson to learn from the guy who never folds is that when a player does the same thing every hand, it is impossible to put him on a hand. I am not suggesting that you call every hand, but some uniformity will actually make it more difficult for your opponents to put you on a hand. Let me offer a few examples to illustrate what I am talking about: Say you never limp in from late position if everyone has folded to you. If you are going to enter, you will raise three times the amount of the big blind. If you then try to slow play and limp in with pocket aces in that same situation hoping to get action, you are actually giving away too much information. Your opponents will be suspicious. You are better off raising your normal amount because that will hide your hand better. In another example, say that whenever you raise from early position pre-flop, you always bet out post-flop. Now if you flop a set and decide to slow play instead of betting out, you are going to send out alarm signals. You are better off doing what you normally would because that would make it more difficult for your opponents to get a read on you.

Poker is a game of seeming contradictions. For instance, there are times to mix up your play in order to be unpredictable and there are times to play consistently. How do you decide which to do? It’s going to be all based on experience and your opponents. The more you play, the better feel you will have for what to do. Playing no-limit Hold’em tournaments is an art form. For instance, if you always bet out post-flop when you have raised pre-flop, then try check-raising after the flop when you totally miss the flop. Just as this would have sent out alarm signals if you hit a monster, those same alarm systems should be going off depending on your opponent. Knowing the psychology of your opponent and, more important, knowing what you think your opponent thinks of you will guide you in making these kinds of decisions.

All right, back to the home game. Dave C. joined the game about halfway through the first year. The first time he showed up, he played very few hands, and when he did, he played them with strength. He was finally eliminated in about third place. I thought for sure he had some previous experience, but in fact, he said it was the first time he had played. Dave C. really had a natural instinct for determining the relative value of hands and being selectively aggressive. He also asked me a ton of questions, because he was trying to learn whatever he could. I was happy to tutor him as much as possible. The very next game, which I could not make, Dave C. won. The lesson to be learned here is to soak up as much information as possible every time you play and from all outside sources. Don’t be afraid to ask questions. (A few months after he started playing and before this book went to print, Dave C. came in fourth place out of over two hundred players at the first annual Poker Author Challenge Tournament at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City.)

Finally, let’s look at my play. After that initial loss to Robert, I won every game I played for the better part of the next year. My strategy was relatively simple. We had a very generous blind structure, so I would be extremely patient and play conservatively. Tournament poker is all about picking spots to win chips and avoiding mistakes. Since the rest of the guys were still relatively inexperienced (although they were making great strides), they would inevitably make mistakes. Once we were down to three people, I would play much more aggressively. Finally, when I was heads-up, I would turn on the heat. A number of different players came in second over the course of that year, yet they would all make the same mistake. They would fail to make adjustments for heads-up play. They would not loosen up their starting hand requirements. After a while they would get tired of me stealing their chips, and they would make the mistake of calling off their chips instead of being the aggressor and raising me.

Well, after about a year, I finally met my match. One of the guys brought his son to the game who played a lot. He clearly knew what he was doing. As I anticipated, the game came down to the two of us heads-up. At that point, I had a chip advantage. However, from the first hand, he was clearly being aggressive. He was raising each hand. This guy was doing what I normally do. I figured I could set him up. The first two hands I had garbage and folded. We were now close to even in chips. The very next hand, he raised me from the small blind. I called with my 7-8 off-suit. The flop came 10-7-2 with two clubs. I bet and he raised me. Not to be out-done this time, I re-raised him. To my surprise, he re-raised all-in. I really thought he was on a flush draw, and I was very tempted to call him. I was not ready to risk the entire tournament, though, on a middle pair—especially when I was confident I could outplay him. So I folded.

The very next hand, I raised from the small blind with Q♠-10♠. He re-raised all-in. I called. He turned over A-7 off-suit. The flop brought a Queen, but the river brought an ace, and I lost for the second time since the home game had started. I was completely outplayed. I let my opponent take control of the betting. In most tournaments, by the time you are heads-up, the blinds are so high that every pot is worth fighting for. You cannot be at all tentative. I should have fought harder from the beginning. Chip stacks can change quickly. While I am a big believer in avoiding mistakes during the course of a tournament, at the end when the stakes are high, I would rather err on the side of being aggressive than cautious.

The main reason I lost, though, is that I again played not to lose when we were heads-up. If you’re not playing to win, you are not going to win. This actually leads me to the most important lesson I learned from the home game. Every time I went to the game, my entire focus was not on if I was going to win, but how I was going to win. I never doubted that I was going to win. There were times that I was extremely short stacked, and it never even occurred to me that I would not win.

Whenever I play, no matter what the competition, I always expect to win and hopefully play to win. However, until I played in the home game, I realized that I do not always know that I am going to win when I play against tough competition. And that is the attitude that you have to have if you are going to win. Confidence is a tremendous part of poker. If you talk to just about any top professional poker players, they will tell you (if they are being honest) about how they had to work their way up the ranks, that is, they would start out playing a low-stakes game until they could dominate it. Once they could, they would take a shot at a higher stake game. If they ran into trouble, they would step down to the lower stakes and regain their confidence and bankroll.

Every poker player is going to go through a rough patch. Unfortunately, losing is part of poker. When you are going through one of those spells, find a game that you are likely to dominate to get your confidence back. Play some low entry fee sit and go’s where the competition is fairly weak. Play them until you absolutely know you are going to win, and then take that same attitude with you to your next bigger event.