Full Tilt Suspends Poker tracker Accounts

I would rather tell people the truth that they can,and now it looks like will be suspended for using prohibited software on Full Tilt. I think there is a clear line, but some people are looking for ways to cross it.I do not want to see anyone's account suspended, it's sick, I'm all for the players here. With that said, I would NEVER recommend using prohibited software.

Almost anyone that visits 2+2 with any regularity would know that there are threads popping up daily about this very issue. Most people are ignoring the poker sites warnings. I never thought this was a good idea when our money is involved. The only way to make sure you are not breaking the rules,is to not find way to bend them. No software means just that, no.

Texas Holdem Rules

I was wondering about what the standards are when 2 (or more) players agree to check down a hand when a player in the hand is all-in. I always perceived it as a form of collusion when two players make openly make such an agreement before the action takes place. Am I correct? Or should I just let this thing go?

I'm by no means a poker rules expert, but I've always considered this to be a form of collusion. It definitely cheapens the game and is unfair to the third player that is all-in, in my opinion. I also believe it's against the official poker rules if I'm not mistaken, but don't quote me on that. I'd speak up about it, especially if I were involved in the hand.

This is correct - it is collusion WHEN there is an open agreement as you are describing. Most situations though involve more experienced players who know enough to keep their mouths shut and THEN check it down - which is perfectly legal, although always suspected.

Is TI miscounting OUTS as User claims?

I noticed something curious about Tournament Indicator, where I think the poker software miscounted my outs.

Let me give you the setup.

My hole cards: 6s As

The board: 3c 8s 9s 7d (we're on the Turn, with the River yet to come)

Outs as calculated by Tournament Indicator: 21 outs

(9 spades, 3 Tens, 3 Fives, 3 Sixes, 3 Aces)

The pot: $400

I'm on the cut-off, with 3 players in front of me, with me yet to act.

Okay.

Obviously, I have a Flush draw and an Open Straight draw.

What I don't understand is why does Tournament Indicator only count THREE of the tens and THREE of the fives as outs, rather than FOUR outs for each?

There are FOUR tens and FOUR fives remaining, since none of these cards are in my hand nor are they on the board.

I know, I know. I'm always worried about bugs in the software that could affect my long term profitability.

Is the software in error or are those "outs" being discounted for some reason. If they're being discounted, why?

As always, I appreciate any insight.
---

Not to worry, TI is doing its job just fine. Here's how its broken down:

-9 spades - simple enough
-3 sixes/aces - obvious again
-3 tens/fives - non-spade cards for the straight

The key here is non-spade cards. TI is not making the mistake of double counting one card twice. In this case it has already counted the ten and five of spades as two of the nine spade outs. Therefore, it does not count it again as an out to the straight.

Avoid that double counting, it makes the pot odds seem better than they are!

---

Oh, yes, of course!

How could I have MISSED that?!

LOL!

Clearly an example of me forgetting not to double count outs! Very Happy

Poker Bots Rule the World!!!

Should poker bots be allowed or not? Some players actually feel they are not as threatening as some make them out to be. In reality, poker is about really about playing the cards you are dealt and knowing who your opponents are, and what they are likely to do. You also have to be bright enough to pick a table that you feel you can beat, and avoid the ones you are not favored to win at. A REAL player may make a decision to play at a certain time when he feels his competitors are tired, or perhaps inebriated.

There is a difference between live players and bots that never succumb to human nature and fall weak because they are tired, angry, impatient or careless. A long stretch in a cash game or tournament can wear a human thin after 12 ro 14 hours. He will NOT be playing optimally then.

Therefore, playing against a BOT that you really think is a player, is clearly a disadvantage that becomes more and more evident as the session, game or poker tournament progresses.

It is really a form of cheating, and most of the poker sites agree, especially Poker Stars who are adamant about preventing such machinery. But cheating at cards has been around since well, games have been played. Like life, it finds a way.Now cheating is at a distance and with very little supervision. It's not like busting an old time card shark over the knuckles and sending him off to the next city.

Its likely Poker BOTS are here to stay, because there is simply an overwhelming demand for such things to fill the desire of greed in humans. Alas though it is not necessarily because of the superior playing ability that BOTS have, but more so because of the stamina and automation they represent.

Interpreting the Aggression Factor in Poker Calculators

The Aggression factor used in poker calculator software is a valuable profiling measurement that you can use to strategize against your opponent whether it be high or low. Aggression Factor, or AF, is a actually a ratio, not a percentage which describes the nature of a player's betting tendencies, and it’s important to know how the AF is actually determined and what it really means.

So let’s start here: The formula for determining AF = ((bets + raises) / calls ) . So an Aggression Factor of 1.0 implies that the person makes bets equal to the mount of times he calls, which is a relatively balanced and flexible marker.

In general, if you see an opponent’s AF dropping consistently below .75, you can surely consider him to be a passive player, but being too passive isn’t normally a good strategy in poker. An AF over 1.5 might be considered an aggressive player, but you still have to monitor this over a matter of time.

So what if an opponent has a relatively high aggression factor, like for example 2.5 or 3.5 and the person bets or raises post-flop? How are you supposed to know the person has the strength they represent with their bet or raise? This would be a much easier answer from someone with a passive aggression factor less than .75 because an opponent who has been checking/calling, and then suddenly bets/raises, is more than likely to actually have the strength they represent.

To clarify though, high aggression factor on your poker calculator only tells you that your opponent rarely calls, it doesn't tell you anything about how often he bets/raises. So you still are not going to "know" one way or another if he is strong. The frequency of certain aggressive traits indicates a range of hands and a style of play of your opponent. Since you still cannot determine if any one particular hand of his is strong, it will eventually come down to risk, probabilities, tournament stage and structure.

Playing against such a player often puts you in the difficult conundrum of re-raising or folding, and a lot of that depends on your counter strategy and plan of attack against him, and that it makes sense for your situation in the tournament and bankroll. You cannot guess what they have, but you can be reasonably assured of being ahead when you NEED to be ahead.

You can also use smaller re-raises on the flop and turn to further determine if your opponent actually has something. If he hasn’t given up on the hand, his hole card strength is presumably better than normal and has possibly gotten help from the board. However if your poker tournament strategy situation is critical, Red or Orange, getting it in against this type of player with one of your medium strength hands is an excellent strategy.

HUD debate for poker calculator software

The poker forum is a plcae for such debates, but in this one I really feel such softwrae features are better off with other products.

I know it won't happen, but I think it would be awesome it TI had a small HUD that, if nothing else, placed the opponents profile icon and MZone number (in the appropriate color) next to their name on the table. That's all. I'm not looking to have all the information up on the table, just those two key reference points and reminders.

This may not seem like a big deal, and sometimes it's not, but it would be nice to have a simple reminder up there while I play.

I still study the Tournament Indicator grid information regularly and I would not discount or disregard that information, but, especially when multi-tabling, it would be nice to have a little icon "at eye level" that quickly reminds me (or at least keeps me from making a stupid mistake) who I am playing against.

Anyways, I know it's just wishful thinking, and many of you will probably say it's not necessary (of course, it's not necessary) but it would prove helpful for me at least, so I thought I would throw it out there. : )

I hope this NEVER happens because it means screen-scraping technology rather than reading the chat box, a far more reliable option for poker assist software which is what TI, HI and now Omaha Indicator use. HUD means a very difficult and quirky prone update process whenever the poker sites change their software, limited resizing options, and monopolization of your monitor. You can always get quick, individual player stats by clicking on their name in the profile window. - a neat, clean, and superior functioning option.

First, one of the reasons I doubt something like this would ever happen is the instability issues that you mentioned. I agree that a HUD complicates this from a developers stand point. That said, I have used HUDs in both poker and a variety of other applications that go off without a hitch. It can be done well, it's just a matter of doing it well.

As far as monopolization of one's monitor, that sounds like a little bit of an overstatement as a tiny icon and a colored number are nothing compared to what some of these ridiculous HUDs try to do. I can't stand looking at all that number graffiti all over the place either. A HUD can still be neat and clean.

I can and do click on people's names to get information and that is helpful, but again, for me personally, this is not really any quicker or easier than just looking at the profile grid when you are multi-tabling.

Anyways, I was not so much pleading for a new feature as commenting on something that I believe would help me personally. It's just my two cents. For me, the only negative would be from a developer's standpoint (particularly as someone who is familiar with this side of things). Even though it could be done (and done well) it is a commitment on the part of the developer so I understand and don't expect such a feature to come about.

Anyways, to each their own and I still LOVE my TI. : )

Agreed. It is a separate program if you want to deal with the extra headaches... and they are there. One of the best facets of TI's appeal is its ease of use and quick updates.

I have tested and used many poker calculators with HUD displays and can firmly stand by such deficiencies mentioned above. Not as a matter of regular operation but of at least intermittent instability. If you still doubt that, you can check those programs own forums and feedback.

"As far as monopolization of one's monitor, that sounds like a little bit of an overstatement as a tiny icon and a colored number are nothing compared to what some of these ridiculous HUDs try to do. I can't stand looking at all that number graffiti all over the place either. A HUD can still be neat and clean."

The issue is NOT the space of HUD display, but the limitation in most of that type of poker software in resizing tables and table themes. The ones that have managed it to resize it are even more susceptible to crashing, screen jumps, and image freezing.

How are this guys poker calculator stats?

Poker Calculator Stats in the orange M zone.

a) vpip of 18%. That's 18% of hands dealt.
b) pfr% of 13%. That's 13% of hands dealt.
c) af of 3.8. I think I can figure that one out.
d) wsd% of 51%. That's 51% of 18%(vpip)
e) wsdw% of 84%. That's 84% of 51%(wsd%) of 18%(vpip)
f) won% of 18%. Thats 18% of ?

are a) through e) correct?
can someone fill in the blank in f) for me?

3) Except for the Green Mzone, my wsd% are all red. I assume red means suboptimal (is that a word?) Can someone explain the reasoning behind that?

4) Keeping in mind that I did a lot of low blind limping in position with crap to see 900 flops to unlock TI, what can I learn from my stats?

a) I don't play my Mzone correctly. My vpip doesn't go up as my M goes down. Correct?
b) My wsd% are all red but my wsd&won% are 85%,79%,84%,88% and 67%. What's up with that?

Any assistance would be appreciated. I've got a +ROI on 9 man SNG on Poker Stars: 14% over 1470 $1.20, 9.5% over 636 $3.40, 2.7% over 373 $5.50. Pacific this last week was 9% over 96 low BI STT. I give these stats to show what is possible for me playing super nitty first level thinking poker.

With TI, I can now start thinking past what I'm holding in my hand. I was going to cash out from Pacific once I unlocked Tournament Indicator, but I'm starting to get data on some semi-regs. It's a great feeling to sit down at a table and have stats on 2 or 3 of my opponents. Now I can start playing them instead of only my cards.

Odds calculation Q&A

Q: I'm trying to see if this makes sense:
You have AK. Flop is 852r. Opponent has JJ. You know this for sure.

There is $7.50 in the pot. He moves all in for $2.50. (Let's assume that AK has exactly a 25% chance of winning the pot on the flop if he's all in).

I have to call $2.50 to win $10, which is 25%. So if he moves all in for $3 I should fold?

Is that correct? Really I'm just trying to see if I understand pot odds properly, more than i care about debating calling or folding for other reasons.

___________________________________________

A: AK V JJ with a flop that eliminates all backdoor draws, basically simplifying it to 6 outs for the AK to win with the Jacks having 2 more jacks to eliminate any chance for the AK. I always use 45 as the range, so x/45 is the probability of hitting an out on each forthcoming street. Since you have 2 streets the chance to hit 6 outs is 6/45 + 6/44= 26.97% , given that you dont hit one the first street. There is the chance that they can hit a Jack and those odds are either 2/45 on the turn and 2/44 on the river, which only really matters if the AK were to hit on the turn since it doesnt affect anything really until AK improves.

This is how I would break it down:
-26.97 of the time AK improves and wins
-4.44% of the time a Jack will come on the turn and seal the deal so that the river doesnt affect anything if AK improves 13.63% of the time on the river
-Which breaks down in numbers to 6/44-2/45(6/44)= 13.02%
-4.54% of the time a Jack will come on the river if AK improves on the turn.
-Which breaks down in numbers to 6/45-2/44(6/45)= 12.73%
-Since you have 2 streets, each with outs on probability, you add the 2 chances together and come to a 25.75% chance of winning after a complete no drawing flop comes, of course in real simple terms, with real simple math and with no real other factors or variables in a perfect scenario, which cant be accomplished obviously.

The numbers most poker calculators gives is around 24%, slightly less than 3/1. Remember calling 2.50 to get 10 is actually 4/1, I think that may be where people get confused. So even calling 3 would be 3 for 10.50 or 3.5/1 to call, in either case making it mathematically correct to call.

I think my math is right, I don't have my Barry Greenstein book "Ace on the River" to reference my math against but oh well...

VPIP and PFR debate in Poker Calculators

Phaedrus, JP and Mattywein debate some new features that extrapolate deeper VPIP and aggression measurements in poker calculators.

I note your enthusiasm for this feature Matty. If I understand it correctly, you would like a 20 percent, or 30 percent hand range broken down into probable holdings and your hole cards matched up against say the average of that range.

Its a nice idea but I really think it will create too much techo reliance and lead to some pretty bad reads. For example the program would need to take into account position and action in front, Mzone probably ICM the looseness
, tightness and stack sizes of the players behind just to name a few variables. By the time you had reliable data with all these variables your opponent will most likely have died of old age.

Mostly I think of VPIP this way.

A sub 20 percent range is incredibly tight. The are playing big pairs and big cards and maybe most pocket pairs. The may play some suited connectors but not many. These guys are easy to read post flop and its great to be in pots with them because you won't lose much.

A 25 to 35 percent range is much more dangerous. These guys are playing quality cards with just enough suited connectors in the mix that any flop can help them.

Over 35 percent is still dangerous to play against. The individual player is playing too many hands and will most likely be a losing player over time. But they can have pretty much anything in their hand and so its very hard to read them correctly, particularly if they are also aggressive. Best approach is mostly to trap the before the flop or on the flop.

But notwithstanding all of that, you need to be mindful, especially in sit and go tournaments about what blind pressure is doing to players ranges. This is why this particular program feature would not be helpful to my game. Tight players know to loosen up when the pressure is on and their game will change dramatically

If you tracked me over a SnG you would find I am a rock or TAG at the start and a maniac at the end....virtually every tournament.

In an multi-table poker tournament online you will quite often track me as a maniac or calling station at the start and then Tag in the middle, maniac at the end. Or depending on stack sizes, maybe a rock at the end. Its all situation dependent.

A much more reliable read of peoples ranges is their stack size at the time. Small stack almost always = big range. Big stack can mean different things though.

One other observation is that I use Poker Office for my cash games at Pacific. The HU display put numbers all over the screen (quite distracting really) I can select which numbers I want to see from a massive list of indicators. But at the end of the day, VPIP, pre flop raise percentage, post flop aggression, went to showdown and win at showdown together tell a very accurate and complete story. I really don't care about how often someone steals blinds or how well they defend their blinds. Blinds are minuscule compared to stacks. I'd rather have the info that allows me to make the best decision for a 100 big blind bet than a poultry 1.5BBs

In tournaments blind steal and defense stats are also pretty meaningless. It all depends on the size of the blinds and the size of the stacks. most all players are thieves when under pressure and you soon learn how well the guys on your left defend without needing a calculator.

-----

I disagree with this. I think those stats are valuable and when reviewed in combination with other stats and the current situation can reveal a lot about the player and what they may be doing in that situation.

For just one example "defense", not sure what number you look at for that but I look at PFRR (pre flop re raise) AND combine it with pfrr-W$SD which means IF they pfrr then they W$SD If they don't win at showdown often when they pfrr then it tells me they pfrr too much and are more likely to defend with a weak hand so their re raise to me has a high probability of being a defensive re steal. Granted, EVERYTHING else about that hand, that player, the actions leading to that moment, stack sizes, the hands leading up to this etc... will ALL play a role in what happens and the decision making process. But stats, when used correctly, are a tremendous aid to a player in order to "play the player" when you can't simply play your cards. (how often they fold to steal bets in bb and sb are main defense stats but they don't play a part in this particular example unless they have high fold but this time are re raising and they have low re raise or hi win if pfrr. Then I fold)

-----

I hear what you are saying JP and agree with it at a theoretical level. The problem for me in practice is that there is a pretty small window in a tournament when blind steals and defense are either not a waste of time (ie. blinds are too small) or not pot committing (i.e blinds are so large any raise pot commits you and your opponents reaction is irrelevant).

I have had quite a few players tell me I am a blind thief at the table. When I tell them I have just had a run of good cards, several have then told me about my Poker Edge or Crusher stats. Apparently these must show I raise a lot from steal positions (which I do)

The problem is that this is not necessarily stealing, it is just correct position play. I play a wider range in late position and I typically open raise. But I almost always am playing solid hands for my position. So I really don't know whether that qualifies as stealing...to me is just seems more like pressurizing aggressive play

-----

Phaedrus I totally agree with you on this point, BUT

This statement sort of misses the point I was making. You are still relying on the 2 figures to make your judgment and you have to compensate due to other players inflection points and M values. The figure I'm after would give BEGINNERS a better understanding of where they would be in the hand and what the odds would be against the players range. You're still relying on a figure either way and making a judgment on that and all the other factors mentioned.

I do think this would be difficult to implement though, but only because a pro's 30% range would be a lot different to a beginners, Plus the math would probably be mind blowing. Confused Confused...

Using a new Poker Calculator for Omaha

As you can see, here, I limped in with what Omaha indicator calls a premium hand, with 27 Hutchison points. The reason why this is not a top 10 hand is because of that eight being a suit of its own, and really offering no strength at all for the low or a possible straight. So in this hand, I leave you really playing for the nut low, because I have two of the deuces, seriously reducing the likeliness of another player at the table also holding Ace deuce. So in that case, again, there's absolutely no reason to raise as you really want as many people in the pot with a hand like this as you can muster.

The flop is somewhat reasonable for me, although there are no diamonds I only need one card for the low end and as you can see in Omaha odds calculator indicator I have 20 low outs. One player bets 90, I call, one player folds, and another calls, making the pot 435 with three players left in the pot.

The turn brings to three of clubs, which gives me the nut low and a reasonable expectation that I will not be sharing it. When you are in the spotlight this against two opponents holding the nut low, you do not want to be pushing either of your opponents out of the pot, because they are likely splitting the high or at the least fighting for it. So to have them both continue contributing to the pot is your main objective, which is the only reason I simply called phantoms that of 360 chips. Unfortunately cubsfan did fold, leaving a pot of 1155 chips, for me and Phantom to fight over.

The river brings a jack of hearts filling out a flush and a possible straight. Phantom checks to me and I checked down as well. There are a lot of players here who would bet in my position, simply because they have the nut low and feel they have nothing to lose by adding more of the pot. That is a huge mistake in this situation because as you can see, I have no chance of winning the high side of this pot, and Phantom could possibly have a share in the low side of this pot, and me betting out here might just result in a reraise, so there is absolutely no point in adding to the pot at this stage.

As it turns out he was afraid of the flush as well, but his set of nines easily took the high side, and he wisely checked it to me after the river which critically devalued his high hand.

Poker Tracker 3 and Calculatem Pro

You may also find this of interest if you do like the program and would like to purchase it.

Poker Tracker

Basically people who have bought pokertracker2 and PA HUD will be getting a discount applied to their PT3 purchase. Although as far as I know they are planning on having the commercial release of PT3 somewhere around the end of this month. Keep in mind the release date has been changed a number of times now so that date may not be firm.

I purchased an odds calculating program a while back and from my own experience it was a waste of money. Calculatem Pro I think it cost around $100 and I used it for about a week before I ditched it. It does suggest what actions you might want to take, but as BNS has mentioned it is kind of bot like if you plan on doing exactly what it says. I also don't think it's suggestions are all that profitable...mind you it might be good in limit, I tried it out in NL which was probably a mistake in itself.

Poker Calculator for Omaha?

Sure it is a small market compared NL holdem, but with all the big pros like Gus Hansen and Phil Ivey playing omaha and omaha HL for hundreds of thousands of dollars most nights on Full Tilt, you would think that such a poker calculator would be successful.

It isn't like there haven't been attempts, but sadly they don't even rate good enough to well, rate. Mostly becuase you have to plug in your own numbers while the game is in play.... Yukkk.

But wait - word is that a new product from the makers of tournament indicator are on top of things again. A self reading, poker calculator designed specifically for Omaha and Omaha HL.... stay tuned - it should be good.

The Math of the Deal.

Several years ago, a computer engineering team (can't remember the exact school they were from) decided to beat the slot machines. They managed to shell out the cash to buy an old model that was still widely used in their state's casinos. They reverse engineered the source code, and found that the slot machine's programmers had poorly implemented a common random number generator: they intended to make it simpler to work with the slot machine's limited computational capabilities, but without that key piece of code, the RNG's output was almost completely predictable based on its last few outputs. The team made over a million dollars playing these machines before they were caught and tried.

It's a fascinating story, but I can't find it at the moment.

However, the points are this: 1) you'd need to know the exact RNG and shuffling algorithms used by the individual poker site, and 2) the algorithms would need to be very poorly implemented. There would be no 'catch-all' solution. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that the majority of poker sites use hardware RNGs as the source of their random bits, against which this attack would be completely irrelevant.

There's also the fact that a decent, well-implemented RNG would never (again, by "never" I mean "never in the lifespan of the universe") shuffle a deck of cards the same way twice. There are 52! (52 factorial) ways to shuffle a deck of cards. That's roughly 8 followed by 67 zeroes. If you can beat odds of that number to one, you don't need to play poker. Just go ahead and win a few lotteries.

So the database these people are compiling is useless. (Assuming they are even compiling anything, and not just spitting out random answers.)


I asked about this topic on PokerEdge forums under "fuzzy math". I was told that FT runs a reshuffle after hole cards, then flop then each street therafter to defeat any possible reverse rng program from working. The main one advertised states that it will show at least one other players hole cards and 3 cards that will hit the board by the river. I asked if this reshuffling would effect winning odds ie 2-1 of completing 4 flush by river ect. I was told that since it's the same number of remaining cards, that the odds did not change. I asked this after having, as most of you probably have too, my allin flop bet on trips or flopped straight being beat by AXs sucking out a runner runner flush on me.

I've also been card dead (Sklansky group Cool for 30- 50 hands and saw one section of the table getting a high concentration of group 3 and above.
But those suck outs are beyond my control. ie, some donk calling my AA allin push with J4s and flushing me out. When I actually get ITM in a STT, I still place first more than anything else. (20 finishes ITM 11 wins)

The most advanced poker calculator yet....

Ok I think it would be quite advantageous to have this kind of skill at the poker table. This could be the most advanced poker calculator on earth!

At least I was favored!!

A few random hands where my poker calculator shows I am a huge favorite to win, but things just didn't work out.

TI Profile ebook.

There is a free ebook at SitandGoCertified.com that deals with the traditional profile grid as explained by Dr. Alan Schhonmaker AND the profile icons that Tournament Indicator use when it profiles your opponents at the table. I think it is useful to combine the two to show where those icons are actually situated on the grid, and why.

Even if you don't use Tournament Indicator, a lot of poker calculators use the same or similar profile icons so this ebook - which includes 4 videos btw - should prove useful nonetheless.

Poker Crusher sucks, or no?

Some forum members are debating about Poker Crusher and its accuracy:

You are using a "free lookup" and as such it is just a hodgepodge data collection. It is the SUM TOTAL of every game type, cash or tournament, any buy in level, full table or short table, no limit and fixed limit ALL added together then analyzed.

Raz is more uniform or narrow in game types, therefore his "analysis" is going to be a bit more accurate as there are fewer fringe numbers added in to skew the result.

Since you have a lot of FL games in there and you also have short table games in there, you have a larger portion of looser style play numbers added in to the sum total. You do not play the same starters short in FL as you do NL and your positions you play are also different. Likewise if you are short table and HU you play different. You may have vp of 50+ for straight HU play, 25-30 for 5 or 6 way play, 10 for early stages, etc...

That analysis rating is everything thrown together and not a good barometer. It's there to entice you to look deeper. Now if you strip things out and filter them properly...

I've edited and generalized so as not to put specifics out but:

Sun137 FT poker, Full table tourney play, NLHE, Shark, TAG.
VP-(removed exact number but it's under 20)
PFR (Again removed exact but it's under 12)
W$SD (Over 50% is all I'll say Very Happy )

JP's profile summary: Alpha-T - If he raises, reraises or goes all in preflop, fold unless you have AA-KK-QQ as he is more likely to win the hand if it goes to showdown historically. Laughing

Now this is ONLY for a tournament of no limit hold em and a full table of 7-9 players on full tilt only.

Now, if I add in ALL the data from the cash games FL and NL the numbers shift upwards in all cases but one which is a hair downward by comparison. So you see, it's not an accurate portrait of a player as there are too many unknowns in the the matrix. That website is useless for profiling, but the program is not as you can filter out exactly what you want.

Just like poker tracker, it's usless to know you played 224,899 hands, you have to sort it out with various criteria to make is useful to us. AA had it 180 times means nothing as it's just the sum total of how often you had it. But filter it and sort by position, amounts won, hands played etc... and it starts to take on meaning that we can do something with.

It can also vary from site to site! On stars, I am tighter than Sun, on FT Sun is Tighter than me yet we seem to have similar playing style as in a tight aggressive play for NLHE.

But it is entertaining to look at and if you play MOSTLY one type of game, the profile can be close.

69% win odds so I decide to go for it!

Phaedrus75 did a better job of describing my own video, than I did myself.



I have only just gotten around to watching this, and I thought it warranted forum discussion.

In the video Marty shows 2 hands, the first being an all-in with middle pair and a flush draw (K8s) and the second is folding pocket kings to board with 2 Aces and a flush draw.

The two hands are diametrically opposite in terms of risk tolerance, but IMO were both perfectly played.

The K8s hand, Marty has an M of 24.5. He has a lowish table Q and I would expect that his tournament Q is probably pretty low as well.

He gets to see a free flop from the BB with K8s and flops middle pair and a flush draw.

In the video, Marty describes how he was feeling, it was late at night, he had a mindset of double up or go to bed and chose to ignore GCI and let it ride with this hand (which has to be said is a very strong hand on the flop).

I think the most important discussion point in this decision is not so much about green Mzone IMHO, but about poker tournament equity.

Despite his green M, the field is starting to get away from him at this point. The next blind increase will leave him with a yellow stack. He will have then lost the opportunity to play many potential double up type hands such as suited connectors and small pocket pairs. He must then wait for big pairs and AK / AQ type hands or potentially a few re-shoves over limpers.

When he plays these hands from a yellow M, he would be aiming to playing for his whole stack. He therefore MUST win those hands and must not get sucked out on. He must also leave it to pure chance that he will get a playable hand in yellow M before his stack dwindles further and the rest of the field pulls further ahead.

In terms of tournament equity, this situation is not very encouraging. Sure, he may come back sometimes, but to reach a stack size equivalent of what he would win by shoving the K8s hand (and to have that stack size match what his Q would have been by winning the K8s hand) he needs a mini-miracle. Certainly I would estimate that the chances of the come back happening are way less than 50/50.

So instead of waiting for that to occur, Marty takes a 50/50 poker odds chance with his still viable stack. IMO shoving (or in this case calling) the draw was significantly better in terms of tournament equity, than folding to live on to fight another day.

Marty says it was uncharacteristically LAG play which made him get all his chips in with a draw. Maybe it is a bit loose, but when you consider his standing in the poker tournament at the time the hand occurred, versus if he wins this coin flip (and and lets not forget coin flip was about the worst case) then IMHO it is an insta-push or insta call every time (not just late at night).

I have been toying around with the idea that Mzone needs some adjustment for on-line tournaments to account for the speed of the blinds (even in non-turbo MTTs) as well as loose players.

Mzone has been a concept which has been around for decades. It was first given a name by Paul Magriel of backgammon fame in the 1970s I think and since then, has been applied to all tournament situations.

However when the Mzones were first developed (and I don't know if Harrington was the first to do this, but rather suspect the first to publish it), then it stands to reason that most of the Mzone theory is based on bricks and mortar tournaments (and tournaments which were being played before the Danish HLAG brand was injected into the game).

Whilst I don't think radical transformation is required for on-line, there are a couple of differences. Firstly, fast blinds and relatively shallow starting stacks typically mean that in the early middle stage, you are not that comfortable with an M of say 22. Secondly, lots of LAG on-line poker players at the start of MTTs tend to accumulate monster stacks very quickly. Unless you keep up with them to the extent that you have fold equity over them later, these are the guys who will in the later stages run over the top of you and/or suckout when you finally do get AA.

Accordingly, at about the same stage of the tournament Marty is at with the AKs hand, I have tended to be thinking of a 25-30M stack (in the early/middle stages) as boarderline yellow, meaning I can still play suited connectors and small pocket pairs in the right circumstances, but I am pretty happy to play for my whole stack with way less than the nuts.

The KK hand, was of course an excellent laydown in the face of what seemed very likely to be a bluff by a big stack. However tournament equity was now much higher and the big green stack again needs to be treated with divine reverence.

These are just my thoughts on the video and I'd be interested to hear what others say.

Polaris Computer defeats Stox Team

Stox Poker could not duplicate the win Phil Laak had over Polaris in season 1.

"This year we were down with two matches to go," said Michael Bowling, leader of the university's computer poker research group. "We were just shaking our heads, wondering how we'd gotten so far down."

But when the numbers from the last matches were on the screen, it became clear that Polaris had caught up and was ensured a win.

"It's hard to describe how good that felt," said Bowling. "As a group, we may not all be great poker players, but all of us really, really want to win."

After last year's loss, the U of A team made some changes to bring their program up to snuff. Of course, when training for any competition, practice is the key. To get ready for the match, Polaris played eight billion games of poker-against itself.

"Polaris has a more sophisticated learning component this year," said Bowling. "It identifies a set of styles of playing that it thinks are effective poker strategies and it can decide which strategy will counter the styles of its opponent. As the games progressed, we were seeing different sides of Polaris. Players watching one match might assume that Polaris plays a certain way, and then they'd face a completely different strategy when they sat down to play."

Polaris faced a number of opponents, including Stoxpoker.com coaches Nick Grudzien and IJay Palansky, as well as contributor Matt Hawrilenko, each of whom can boast more than $1 million USD in lifetime winnings. This year's match ran concurrently with the 2008 World Series of Poker as part of the 2008 Gaming Life Expo at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino.

The program played the professional players in a game of limit Texas Hold'em poker. Each match consisted of 500 hands, with the cards dealt in duplicate, meaning that Polaris received the same cards in one room that the professional received in the other room and vise versa. The duplicate system was employed to balance out the luck of the cards and emphasize the capabilities of the participants.

"It's possible, given enough computing power, for computers to play 'perfectly,' where over a long enough match, the program cannot lose money," said Bowling. "Humans will always make some mistakes, meaning the program will have an advantage."

The competition wasn't all fun and games, however. Progress in developing artificial intelligence that can excel at poker can lead to some real-world solutions, says Bowling.

"Other games that have been solved by computers, like checkers or chess, are 'perfect information' games, meaning there is a limited number of possible moves and outcomes to be calculated, and each opponent has the same amount of information about those possibilities," he said. "When you look at games where players are asked to make decisions with different amounts of information, missing information, poker is the quintessential game.

"In general, problems in the real world are going to be more like poker than chess. You're not always going to have all the information."

While they are taking time to savour the victory, Polaris' programmers aren't about to rest on their laurels.

"This was really the simplest form of poker," said Bowling. "There's a lot more we can look at, such as playing without betting limits, or playing with more than two opponents. One of the reasons I got excited about this line of research is that it's not just a one-off. It's a really challenging path of research."

The department of computing science at the University of Alberta is one of the foremost institutions in the world to study artificial intelligence. The university's computer poker research group consists of 15 researchers and graduate and undergraduate students whose primary focus is artificial intelligence.

Source: University of Alberta

poker calculator for tournaments proves helpful...

	Great videos!
Date:	3 days ago
Message:	HI TK. I've been playing poker for 3 years now, and it's nice to see more players addressing the online poker world more extensively. I'm a (broke) college student, so I haven't been playing as much poker lately as I would like. That will change once my GI Bill money starts rolling in and I can set aside $100 or so a month for playing poker and building a bankroll. I see that you are a strong endorser of Tournament Indicator. I downloaded it for the 48 hour trial verson, and I cashed in 8 out of 10 tournaments, including a final table! I didn't really attribute it to the calculator until the trial was over and I was back to normal. I was amazed when I realized what an effect it had on my game. When I have the money, Tournament indicator will be the first thing I get. I did have a question though; do you know if they allow you to buy the software without signing up for a new account with a poker room? I have accounts on Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars, and I really don't intend on using any other poker rooms? Anyways, I love the videos and am now a subsciber. I look forward to more great videos. Brent

Skill building with your poker calculator.

fjxsMost everybody emulates at least one poker pro and wishes they could play as good as them and have a winning record like they have. That may include tournament cashes, cash games, trophies and bracelets.

In the world of Internet poker however, such thing as don't come as easy as it seems on television. Can you really make the bold kind of plays that Gus Hansen makes with hands like 35 suited? Can you really and down came the king in a multi-table tournament like Phil Hellmuth does? Across the table at your opponent and tell him what his hand is, like Daniel Negreanu?

Sounds easy. Looks easy. It's not easy. Even at a five dollar stake level online. If you want to make those types of moves and make them successful for you, while then you are looking at thousands and thousands and thousands of hands of practice, patients and skill building awareness.

Skill building awareness in online poker comes from looking at your own game and those controversial situations and asking yourself did you really make the right move, and if it was a tournament was this your best opportunity for such a move. One of the best ways for answering these types of tough questions and scenarios that come up game after game is to imagine that one of the professional players mentioned above is looking over your shoulder and acting as your coach. If you're a big enough fan of this game you may very well have very good idea of what they are going to say in regards to how you played your hand.

Can you justify what you did in the hand to one of these world class poker players? Maybe you can. Maybe you can justify the fact that this was the time for aggression, stack play, or fighting back on the maniacal player.

When you execute poker skill building awareness, step out of your own situation and analyze it like you would if you were actually one of your favorite players. You may very well be surprised how quickly you are going to recognize your own errors realizing that you may actually be embarrassed to describe your reasoning for some of the plays.

Bad beats are good... well sometimes.

You see it all the time online. A bad beat or and horrific bad beat send somebody to the rail prematurely. Usually that player was well ahead in the hand, when the chips when in the middle. The next thing you know, the chat box is a rattling with more profanity than you can find on late-night television.

Most new players cannot control their anger when this happens to them. And because the frequency of it seems higher in online poker, frustration is often the mood of the day. Then, anyone at the table can be subject to verbal abuse by the frustrated player, who simply knows no better. The worse the beat, the more likely there is to be an exchange of a heated nature.

A lot of this activity really boils down to experience. The more experienced a player has, the less likely he is to flip out after a bad beat. This is partly because of his understanding of the game, but as well because of his proper bankroll management. In other words, anyone would be more likely to freak out if they lose a pot when they are playing with 50% of their bankroll as opposed to 2% of their bankroll. Think about that. If you know that you cannot realistically avoid bad beats, and that they are truly part of the game that you know and understand, then bankroll management should in fact, prevent any type of bad beats from hurting your emotions too much.

Understanding the backbone of finances and mathematics in online poker can assure in any newfound depth in dealing with losses at the table. No longer should you be emotionally drained to suck outs the way your opponents are, and in fact, you may then find yourself past a point of cosmic return and be able to turn those horrible plays of your opponents into cash in your poker account.

So the next time you are the victim of a bad beat, try and look at it in the way that you got your opponent to do exactly what you wanted them to do. They made a big mistake, you were way ahead, and they won the pot. That is very likely a positive EV play that you've executed perfectly, and even though you did not win it this time, you have actually won.

When you get to the point where you can laugh off the biggest bad beats that goal against you, you are very likely on your way to poker freedom.

Monitoring balance and streak indicators to find a player on tilt.

I'm doing another sit and go demonstration here with tournament indicator, but I wanted to focus on a couple of key indicators in the poker calculator software program, which I don't talk about often enough and that is the balance and street features and those in those two features together can help in determining when a player is on tilt and basically that.

And found that even though she is a solid player. She was on tilt. So that's rather significant, given some of the plays that followed in the tournament where I notice that given her statistical record on SharkScope her record wasn't consistent.

In other words, the styles didn't match as you see in the video. After only 16 hands TI has labeled her gambler. And that's generally not a style of play that wins you as many single tournaments that she has one especially for the early stages. You can see the VPIP here is 38% pre-flop raising 25% aggression factor is infinite - that means she bets out at the flop. Every single time she's in a hand. However, the balance and streak features, well I just wanted to focus on those because they show how many because for instance, if you take the balance indicator that shows how many chips that you and your opponents have lost or gained over the last 10 hands. Now, it's only 10 hands because now although you can just now, although you can adjust the range of hands that you want the balance streak to monitor.

I like to keep it at 10 hands because, really in tournaments, this goes to the premise of knowing what your opponent is feeling at that particular time and place as you know, lying and anti-structures of the tournament and payouts can have a huge effect on the way a player place, because emotions often get in the way. So keeping an eye on the balance indicator may help you make a decision when you are in a confrontational hand with that player, in spite of pot odds that may not normal be considered favorable. In this video you will see an exact example of what I am suggesting.

You can easily envision it yourself. The kind of frustration when you might've been in eight or 10 hands in a row and you just can't do anything you know, you just feel like you're burning chips and that gets frustrating. No doubt about it. My pot odds really dictate that I should fold this, but I'm NOT going to fold it against his player. She's on tilt on SharkScope, and I've been watching her stats here in this tournament - and she's on tilt here, right now. Balance indicates so, streak indicates so, player profiling indicates so, VPIP indicates so, pre-flop or raising indicates that as well. Her aggression factor is infinite so her betting is out of control too.

I call with what is normally a dominated hand, but I am sure I am ahead and my risk is rather limited since I have her way out-stacked too.

calculating a Push strategy from Orange MZone

From gadget in the forum:

I don't know if it's good poker math or strategically correct to do so, but I usually push before I'm red mzone. I will wait under certain conditions, but rarely, I want it to hurt as I've mentioned before, so I'm pushing around 12 down to 9 M. Most times I'm only red from embarrassment at not taking my chance earlier and I'm only grey after a stroke.
I agree about Ax though, event hough I don't like it, sometimes it's just the way it goes and from the cut-off onwards it's auto-push.

Has anyone any thoughts about my earlier than 'standard' pushing strategy?
My plan is to get back in with a chance of winning the game or get myself out. My cards become immaterial and I could put my hand over the screen if I wanted to - and sometimes wished I had!. I have found I can steal 2 or 3 times without resistance sometimes. The table dynamic is important here of course; no good doing it on a table of nutters and noobs; and position and previous action, etc etc.

Another thing is that later on players are watching and expect a push from the shorties, so pushing a bit earlier gives them more of a decision, as it reps a bigger hand from a previously tight player. There's lot's more to it of course, but it's been working well for me, especially NTM or just before. However, this is only over a few months, so I'm not stuck to it and of course results are not the point.

PT/HUD for tournaments not that useful.

From 2+2 below... My feelings exactly in regards to MTT play... but use TI to do the observation for you, esp if multi-tabling.

Re: How many successful MTT players use HUD's/PT in realtime
I used PT/PAHUD a lot. But I don't have the feeling that it helped me that much.

Usually in those large field MTTs you are rarely running into the same players twice. Also, once you have some stats on them, the table breaks.

The other thing I dislike about PT/PAHUD in tournaments is the dynamic of the table. People play differently when they have a bigstack/smallstack. If I have a nice stack and there are no super-shortstacks at my table, I raise like hell.
If half the table has 10xBB or less I even tighten up with a bigstack.

There is also M, Q, streak, tilt factor etc. you could be watching to make this a very useable amount of information from a poker calculator like Tournament Indicator.

What if you play the rebuy hour with a player and 2 weeks later you meet him at the final table only to label him as a maniac according to his stats?

When it comes to MTTs I've changed my opinion from PT/PAHUD to simply being observant and taking notes. I'm looking for players that call down light or can't be bluffed. I take notes about what players limp / min-raise from EP/UTG, if they are calling raises light. What kind of hands do they openshove from EP-MP for 20+ BBs or overshove the flop for 3+ times the pot.

When it comes to cash games there is nothing better than PT/PAHUD. Blinds stay the same, people play (almost always) the same, there is no bubble where people play completely different and so on...

ICM Calculations in Poker Tournaments

Thoughts from the forum in calculating ICM and what to do about it in sit and go tournaments and multi-table tournaments. Phadraeus writes:

Firstly, I have learned that push/fold is not an easy formula. Rather it is a question of judgement and feel, based on the following factors:

M;
Q;
ICM and tournament equity;
Position;
Profiling
tournament type (MTT v STT)
and blind speed (turbo or regular)

A yellow M and very low Q with fast blinds might justify pushing from an M of 12. However mostly, I would think that pushing with that large a stack will be premature.

Mzone is basically a system of risk management. The lower your M, the wider your risk window needs to be opened...that's pretty straight forward...

Now, in a STT (S&G) you also need to balance Mzone with ICM (Independent Chip Model). *Most* STTs involve most or all players being in orange and red Mzone at the end of the tournament. If you are pushing a wide range from yellow M when most of the other players have similar stack sizes, then IMHO you are probably not playing a correct ICM strategy.

In STTs, the push fold mode is partly about M, and partly about what leverage you will have for flop play (and the two are very much inter-related). However, a low M does not necessarily mean that your tournament equity is low. Low M and high tournament equity (i.e on the bubble with 4 players having similar stack sizes) is a time for more conservative play than pure Mzone strategy would suggest. In this case there are two ways of cashing. One by doubling up with the best hand and, Two, by allowing someone else to make a fatal mistake.

Remember that part of ICM strategy is that you profit by staying out of hands where your opponents are playing too loose. This is just another calculation in poker you must keep in mind.

The other functional aspect of the M strategy is post flop play flexibility. With an M of 12, you mostly have enough chips to make a 3xBB raise, manuevre post flop, make meaningful plays and/or get out of the hand and wait for a better spot.

However, with an M of say 5, any pre-flop raise is mostly going to leave you pot committed and/or having not enough chips after you pre-flop raise to put to any meaningful use. Accordingly, you are better off shoving and getting the maximum leverage possible from your stack.

My personal preference for this range in a STT (normal blind speed) is when my M gets to 6.

If blinds are say 100/200 then a 6M stack is 1800. If I raise pre-flop I will be raising 600 (3XBB). If there is a caller to put me into flop play, then the pot will be 1500 compared to my remaining stack of 1200. I therefore do not have enough chips to manoeuvre with relative to the pot size and since the pot is larger than my stack I am pretty well committed to it. Thirdly, if I fold post flop I will be down to an M of 4, where after I have considerable less fold equity for future shoves.

If I double up from an M of 6, I am mostly in the top 3 in a STT (unless I got to an M of 6 due to an early large loss). If I double up from an M of 4 comfort levels are not nearly so great.

So for all those reasons, an M of 6 is my preferred trigger point for STT normal blind speed.

Now, between and M of 6 (my pushing trigger) and an M of 9, there are more than 2 blind levels of folding time. That means if instead of pushing at an M of 9, if you played very tight and folded, waiting for a big hand, you would see between 20 and 30 additional hands before you pulled the trigger. Given that there are 1326 possible hands, seeing an additional 25 hands gives you opportunity to improve your pushing range by around 2%. Might not sound like much, but since a double up from an M of 6 will still put you back in contention for a win, it is pretty well a free 2% (2% is also the margin by which a PP beats over-cards - so it is frequently a percentage that we rely on).

However if you are playing turbos, then instead of 20 to 30 additional hands, you may only see 10 to 15. Now your percentage edge gained by folding is not as great. Also, because turbos force looser play and more frequent all-in moves, you need a larger stack than normal to retain any meaningful fold equity.

Accordingly, pushing with a much higher Mzone strategy seems appropriate for turbo STTs (M=9 to 12) would seem appropriate to me.

Now, for MTTs....

Here, things change quite alot, mostly due to the antes. Before the antes, I tends to adopte the same push/fold approach as Sit and gos (i.e M of 6 = trigger time). (and again, this is also Q dependent - very low table Q an M of 8 may mean you may have very little fold equity depending on stack sizes around you)

However after the antes start, your M drops considerably without a corresponding drop in stack size. This means that you retain significant fold equity well into the red Mzone. Consequently, you can afford to be more selective with your pushes in MTTs and I generally start pulling the trigger with an M of 5 or less. A higher M than that actually gives you opportunity for a significantly greater range of plays, including re-shoves, stop and goes and all-in continuation bets.

I also mentioned position above. This is a difficult and curly part of the whole equation. According to Harrington HOH v2 (which is really mostly applicable to MTTs) position does not matter much for inflection point play (i.e pushing from red Mzone). The reason is that in EP, you are under more deparation to make a move before the blinds swallow a big chunk of your stack. So you are pushing a similar range from EP and LP, just for different reasons.

However in STTs, position is a much more significant factor. First in Vigorish is still king, however ICM considerations demand that position is properly played. Again, because chip values are non-linear near the bubble, ICM is critical. Fundamental to ICM is the fact that if your oponent plays too loose, they hurt themselves, but they hurt you too. The players who benefit (with +ve EV) are the ones sitting back and watching the all-in clash.

In my experience, most players do not play the bubble correctly. When blind pressure is high, most people call a shove with way too wide a range. The sklansky gap concept seems to go out the window and all-in shoves frequently get called by Ax suited, A9+ off-suit, KQ, KJ, QT and any pocket pair. Because of all of that loose play, I tend to prefer to push through as few oponents as possible, meaning I still want genuine strength to push from EP on the bubble, irrespective of M (provided I have meaningful tournament equity in ICM terms).

Lastly, I mentioned profiling. The nightmare situation here is when you have a moster stack loose player on your left. Now you have very little fold equity and pushing from an M of 6 or 12 is not the issue. Rather this issue is that you need solid hand strength to push because you player profiling means you have negligable fold equity.

Similarly, pushing and re-shoving into medium sized stacks is much more important than M trigger points alone. For example, I might re-shove a marginal hand into a medium stack from an M of 12, but I would not push the same hand into a monster stack from an M of 7.

So, that turned into a pretty long post. That is just my thoughts on it anyway. Hope it assists and I'm sure others will have clearer insights...

(Calling out for a post from Raziel on this because his turbo ICM play is probably the best of the forum)

Understanding Poker Odds

I was in a hand in a 5/10 limit poker game a few years ago and I called from the button with J9os about after 5 players had limped. Then of course the big blind decides to be clever and min raises. Everyone, including me calls again. 14 bets, $72 in the pot to start the hand in the pot! The flop comes Q84 rainbow.

Gut shot. Man would I fell better if I was at least open-ended. Stupid to be in this hand I thought, bent on my tight aggressive style working out eventually. The small blind puts out a bet. Then 5 consecutive calls when it gets to me. Just another $5 to call... I should do it. I did it, now swelling the pot now $114. All I remember at that point was wondering what the hell they ALL had and how could so many players be that dumb.

It was painful to see the “brick-like” turn card of the 2 of clubs rounding out all four suits on the board. It didn’t stop the under-the-gun wanker from betting $10 now and sure enough NOBODY had folded when it came to me. That added $60 to the pot making it $174 while I pondered what to do. I have a gut shot draw to the nuts with no chance of an opponent outdrawing me to a flush. I needed a 10, but what are the odds of me hitting hit?

One community card left to show, 46 unseen cards, 4 unseen tens. Approximately a 9% chance of hitting the nuts or 11:1. I decided to fold, because I didn’t want to waste any more money and the session was going poorly for me so far, so I didn’t want it get worse here. The odds were so far fetched that my 10 would come, I figured I would just save it for a better spot.

Uhhh..... big mistake.

Of course, the river was a ten as I am sure you figured it out, but my mistake wasn’t because a ten did fall, my mistake was not properly assessing the odds situation. It really did NOT matter what came on the river, I should have been in the hand to see it regardless. My mistake was not fully understanding real poker odds.

It is $10 to call (with no chance of a re-raise behind me) a pot of $174. This is real math, from a real poker hand, using real poker probabilities and had I better understood at the time, I would have realized that sometimes it pays to draw to an inside straight.

The underlying benefit of seeing that huge pot go elsewhere due to my error, forced me to learn the odds of the game and re-evaluate my overall strategy. I can honestly say now, thanks in part to using poker calculators, whether tournament, ring or cash games, I am no longer ignorant of the odds in poker.

Poker Calculators for Bankrolling management

When Chris Ferguson blogged his Start from Zero Bankrolling Quest, he proved that it could be done. You can start an online poker bankroll from ZERO dollars. The fact that a Full Tilt pro with the reputation of Chris toiling in the penny tables went through the whole process not once, but twice building an account surplus of Ten grand shows that with due diligence and dedication to the task, you can probably do it too.

But only with a lot of self control that is. When playing online poker especially at a site like Full Tilt, that skill far more rare than you might think. Listen, if 75% of online players lose money, then not many of them know how to manage a poker bankroll. Itès not like the information isnèt out there either because it is.

So many players though end up playing above their skill level and even worse, above their bankroll that inevitably, these are the players that end up in that 75% cluster of money losing fish. Yes you are essentially a fish by playing above your bankroll. Chris Ferguson didn’t build his bankroll with magnificent bluffing, power all-in betting, and underground intimidation tactics. Are you kidding me? Have you ever played in the $1 sit and go tournaments? Strategies like thatare sure-fire ways to be searching for reload bonuses.

Chris Jesus Ferguson merely used fundamental poker skills to win as much as he could, but more importantly executed exceptional bankroll management with a strict set of rules that determined what his games of choice would be, and how far he would go in a hand or drawing situaiton.

Bankroll management is then, utterly important to your success online, and now there are software choices to help you keep track of that very aspect of your game. Personal Poker Pal is the latest in this market that with a variety of graphs, reports, and analysis tools can help keep your game moving up and build your bankroll the very best way – using OPM or other people’s money.

What a poker bankroll calculator can do for you is keep your skill set evenly matched with your bankroll. As your knowledge and understanding of the game improves, so then are you rewarded in your bankroll. It’s simple math really. If you jump too far up, you are penalized (eventually) for playing above your head and you take a hit.

However it is impossible to be consistently successful in the modern game without a detailed analysis of performance, highlighting the reasons for success or failure either in particular hands or over a session, with the aim of improving future results. There are many software tools on the market to assist the poker player, but at a price many players are unable (or unwilling) to pay.

You manage money everywhere else in your life don’t you? Unless you are just out having fun and you really don’t care about how much you spend on entertaining yourself playing online poker, then you need to start managing your poker bankroll, just like the pros.

Can I use My Poker Calculator On More Than One table at a Time?

Multi-tabling is one of the major issues when playing on the internet. It is definitely a skill in that it requires 100% concentration. Poker calculators fit very well with multi-tabling because they do a lot of the ground work for you in profiling and odds displays so that you are able to make quicker decisions which keep the flow of the table going while improving your hourly rate as well.

If you are planning to get a poker calculator for multi-tabling though you need one that you know can handle the task because many poker calculators simply cannot monitor more than one table because of something called screen scraper technology. Magic Holdem, Holdem Genius, Calculatem Pro all come to mind as poker calculators that are limited to one table only, because they are based on outdated software programming.

What this means is that the software you choose may very well not be what you are looking for. If you like to play at least two tables at a time, you need holdem indicator or tournament indicator both of which will automatically attach to all your open poker tables, while adding the further benefit of resizing to match your table or mini-sizing so that you can open it whenever you want a more full description of the statistics collected.

Most of the major poker sites allow for resizing now along with cascading or tiling instantly just by clicking a button. Since they are widely offering it, you know that a lot of players are multi-tabling then as then. I might caution you here though that it still takes a lot of skill and knowledge of the game. The more tables you play simultaneously, the more small edges you may have to give up to the table, playing more tight than normal.

In his book titled "Online Ace" Scott Fishman describes multi-tabling as part of the online rounder's game in that it evens out those bad beats you take. He invokes the bad beat variance as simply a part of the game and one of the best ways to get over it, is just open another table or tournament and start again. He regularly has 6, 8 and 10 tables going at one time, across multiple sites and several monitors.

If you think you are up to the challenge you can try a free poker calculator to help with your understanding of odds in poker.

Cake poker and Tournament Indicator.

The tournament poker calculator, Tournament Indicator can be used on Cake Poker which is an available alternative for US players and that is good news given how many sites still don't allow them. Here is a strategy video for a turbo sit and go tournament at Cake Poker.

MTT change-up.

So you have doubled up a few times and are running good. Several weak players at your table have literally handed you free chips and you have a couple maniacs who you have just up so perfectly where all you need is a medium strength hand to let them have it. You can already envision a good payout in this tournament nearing the bubble when all of a sudden.... table change.

Just when you have reached a complete understanding of your table and knew instinctively what to do in each situation, the announcement comes to let you know, “We are re-balancing tables.... you have been moved”. Gee thanks.

In multi-table tournaments this is the norm, so you really do have to get used to it, but the randomness of it happening can sometime throw you off guard in an unsettling way. Even tilting some players into poor judgment plays as soon as they move.

Well if you are using Tournament Indicator there are some things you can do to alleviate such a stressful occurrence besides of course, taking extra precaution in each hand at your new table.

The first thing you should know is that Tournament Indicator has a history function that can store previous profiles of opponents for up to two years. So when you do change tables make sure you have the history button selected as those tracked opponents will show up with stats from this tournament or any other you may have been in with that player.

Secondly, if the tournament is down to just a few tables, maybe even 5 or 6 and you know you have a stack that is going to take you deeper, why not open all those tables? Tournament Indicator will quickly attach to them and you can be then be collecting important information just like you were at each table. When table do collapse, the players which survived will all be in your history file so sitting at the same table with them isn’t going to be so foreign.

Finally, with your new tables first hand underway, Tournament Indicator automatically displays that player’s current mzone using clear color indicators. Now how is that profiling at a new table? Well tournament conditions can often override someone’s normal playing style, so if your opponent happens to be in red or orange mzone the likeliness of him being aggressive is already more plausible.

Using a poker calculator like Tournament Indicator to its fullest will provide you with critical information that hopefully translates to better decisions. That part is all up to you though.

Controversial hand in tournament play.

http://www.pokerhand.org/?2581482

I felt the re-raise from the button was weak, but I don't get why this guy is calling with 56 suited, his looking at a raise, a re-raise and an all in. how can 56 suited possibly look like a decent hand here?

was pushing the right move here? I'm definitely not folding here and I don't really like calling because chances are I'm going to miss the flop and someone is going to stab it.

______________________________________________________

Well pushing AK as a yellow MZone could be a viable play especially if you know who you are pushing into, but it is an aggressive strategy to be sure and you are letting the community cards decide the outcome.

AJ was a bigger mistake to me than the 56s but all three of you were playing the clock. I noticed the blind levels put you imminently close to the first break which is kind of turning point in tournaments for those with the attitude of getting big or getting out. They are abundant in a 5 buck tournament. Gridline seems to be resigned to letting it ride in a big pot, and if he actually did analyze that you two were playing off each other, he stands a good chance of winning... even odds probably!

I am not saying it was a good move no, but once he started calling out of position, I could just hear him saying oh what the fck... I gotta go to sleep anyhow.

As a short stack (none of you were really short though) I would have been in this pot with connectors if my poker odds and position were wonderful using critical analysis, not impatience at getting to bed. So it may be easy to discard what appears to be a weak hand, but sometimes that kind of play is actually a result of a little experience as well.

It is a wonderful thing these low limit buy-ins, and although you let it ride with a strong hand - you still let it ride. You would have lost with AA here too, but shoving it ahead on a GCI hand is where your strategy, not theirs, needs further comprehension.

his is one of those hands where you cannot be faulted, but neither applauded. In that sense I am really not saying you were right or wrong, as I am sure on many occasions I would have done the same thing... but not always.

I think the bigger question is here, why are you asking? I do not mean that in a sarcastic way either, but more were you able to comprehend all of the dynamics that went into the hand AND are you good with it?

As I referred to above, some of your opponents (many actually) are not playing optimally and your reraise/shove commits 2 opponents to the hand at a GCI moment.

Do you really understand that you were shoving into a spot where you were likely behind a pocket pair?

Were you aware of the break/blinds and the effect they have on other yellow/orange stacks?

Did you KNOW both of your opponents?

Did you consider your bankroll and payout structure?

Just some things that may make you think... maybe not.

Another point I might offer is that getting it all in with the best - preflop - is only justification for certain scenarios. I think a lot of players walk away busted from the table deceiving themselves they played great, or at least better than their opponents because they were ahead when all the chips went in.

Now change this hand into another tournament dynamic in that you paid a much larger buy-in like $100, $200 or $1,000 even. Would you be so fast to to make this a GCI hand and say you did the right thing? I am not sure, but you should be. Certainly then, there is reason to contemplate a call, then fold to flop pressure.

Coop replied: I don't think your bankroll should play a role in this decision. First because you should have at least 50 buy-ins for any MTT you play (though 100 is much better and safer) so losing the buy-in will not hurt you, and second because you are still pretty far away from the money. Until then you will have to double up some times and much better opportunities don't come around that often!

You are actually making the case FOR a bankroll decision here Coop, which when building should NEVER be ignored. If he is playing with a good sized roll, then its probably an easier decision to push, if he isnt, he should be thinking how likely it is he can make the money by folding.

I get the impression that he is NOT playing with a bulging bankroll, and you cant just lay that 50 or 100 buy-ins on everyone who plays poker because in a 5 buck tournament, the MAJORITY of players are actually playing over their head if you go by that rule Coop. Not everyone enjoys a bountiful bankroll sir and your book may be right for you, but not others plugging away at the 5 buckers, with 60 bucks in their account!

I also feel thats the real reason why this hand showed up here, and it is one of those defining guidelines about learning the game and making the money and building your poker bankroll tight-ass style, rather than looking for small edges to toss it all in the middle. That in my opinion, is a negative recipe for a growing skill-set.

I think this hand has a lot more to do with his personal comfort level at being this aggressive at this stage. I think there is reason to support a call, OR raise OR fold play here, where other factors, rather than hand strength are more important than most would realize.

I would have likely done the same thing most times, strictly as a result of having no bankroll concern whatsoever, but I dont see this hand a right or wrong play - definitively.

Your Bankrolling Odds in Poker

I played a full slate of sit and go games over the weekend at Full Tilt, Poker Stars, and Cake Poker. I am happy to report that I made upward trends in the bankroll at each website, but not without the usual frustrating bad beats and random coolers getting in the way on occasion.

The good thing about bad beats is that someone has made an error playing against you, so really, they are bound to give their winning back simply because of indisputable laws of poker math. Poor decisions will result, over time, in losing money. However, the poor decisions do not necessarily start at the table. As I found while playing this weekend, table buy-in and competition is your first big decision.

You can view the lobby of a sit and go tournament while it is filling up, so when I play the $20 and $30 buy-ins I sharkscope my opponents before I commit. There was one 9 seated $30 table that had 4 players patiently waiting for 5 more entries. I scoped each one of those players to find they were all sharks with rounder style graphs reaching for the sky – all four of them I am not kidding. Even when I play my best, these guys know how to adapt and exploit my weaknesses to the point it made no sense for me to join that table. In fact, I think at least two of them should have reconsidered playing that sit and go. I mean why seek out the toughest competition? So that was a good decision for me.

In joining other games that day at these levels however, the above example was actually rare. I researched every opponent I had that day and found that the majority of players were playing above their bankroll. How do I know this? Well sharkscope does offer information like ROI%, but it also shows total profit and from there it’s easily discernable that a player sitting down at a 30 buck sit and go table with a lifetime earnings negative $338 simply shouldn’t be there.

At $20 and $30 sit and go tournaments your bankroll should be at least $500, To me a $1,000 is probably more like it, especially if your skills aren’t up to par with a bankroll you may have padded with a “fortunate” win.

Here are some other observations of random players I saw at these tables:

Total profit of $112 over 2,354 games.

Total profit of (negative) -$3,225 over 1,821 games.

Total profit of (negative) -$1,003 over 231 games.

It went on and on. Is it any wonder then that the majority of players lose money playing online poker? You simply are not giving yourself a chance to win in the long run, by playing tables higher than your bankroll allows. Astoundingly, at least 4 of every 9 players at at each table I searched over the weekend were there above their bankroll and long term losers at sit and go tournaments.

Doubling Up in Multi-Table Tournaments

I've read a few people write about the importance of doubling up in MTTs (and quadrupling up in re-buys). This had got me thinking about how you go about doing that and still properly observing GCI (Game Critical Intersects).

I once saw Antonia Esfandiari get knocked out of a tournament early with JJ going all-in after two raises in front of him. he was interviewed after saying that you have double up early or get out. That was a cop-out to a seriously bad rookie error. There is no way Daniel or Chris Ferguson would do that. Even the wild guys like Gus prefer to play it small ball, than letting it ride for a double-up. It’s completely reckless in my opinion, even online, unless you have KK or AA.

Let’s assume that you stay in the yellow or green mzone through this whole process (and ignore triple ups for the time being). Every single time you "double-up", you must be getting all your chips in the middle against another equally or bigger stacked opponent.....and win! If you are only "allowed" to do that when you have "the nuts or close to it" how is it possible to be aiming at double ups without breaching GCI?

I don't think I get the nuts 9 times in a single tournament. Statistically if you are going to be doubling up, then you also need to have the nuts or close to it when an opponent also has a very strong hand....so you should need the nuts a lot more than 9 times. We all know this really just does not happen.

It’s when you get to the Orange MZone that you could, and should start looking to double up. Under an orange mzone condition, a good number of your opponents are going to have you substantially out-stacked. If you are using tournament indicator as your poker calculator, it will show you what mzone you are in throughout the whole tournament. Now that also means your Q, or stack average, is probably relatively low as well.

For example, a tournament I was playing. I was 41 of 64 remaining. I have been in all mzones so far. In Orange and Red I was aiming to double up and have done. In Green and Yellow I have been aiming to control the pot size to avoid getting all my chips in the middle (unless I have the nuts or close to it). But here my Q is getting low, and after a quick glance at the payout structure it’s really time now to look for a situation where I can participate in huge pot with live cards, or get heads up against a maniac with a slight edge. A hand like A5os or KQs might do the trick here.

Just keep in mind the GCI rule of thumb and as you experience in tournaments grows as a result of being so conscious about it, I am kind of thinking, that for those who subscribe to GCI as a governing factor in play choice, then GCI leads to small ball poker in green and yellow and long ball in orange and red. This will ease the stress of making big decision that would otherwise be rather risky.

Full Tilt with Poker Calculator Asisstance

This tournament went pretty well, I sucked out once, but lost two big hands which nearly crippled me, both suck outs for my opponents. I stuck with it, used Tournament Indicator to battle back while picking my spots and turned $2 buck into a $104 tournament win.

More Bankrolling

Using your poker calculator to learn the game is just as important as managing your bankroll to the extent that you simply want it it last as long as it can while getting in as many playable hours as you can. This is critical, while not paying too much attention to your overall profit, but more your overall education pf the game. I think Tournament Indicator and Holdem Indicator really go a long way to helping you pick up the nuances of correct timing and overall strategy.

When you have learned enough of poker, and moved up a few levels and are firmly using OPM, (other players' money) essentially playing free poker - then you can surely adapt an hourly rate strategy into your game, but until then your hourly rate should focus on what you learn, not what you earn.

Loose aggressive profiling with poker calculator

Had this one dude playing with me on 9 man sng at Poker Stars. He donked around enough to basically clear the table for me, then I cleared his dumb asz off the table to take first. But sometimes its not easy to fold in the early stages when you have a a marginal situation against wankers like this. Ceck his stats in the poker calculator while you watch this video.

Poker Spy 2 Review

Poker-Spy2

Poker-Spy has been around for longer than most other poker calculators and quietly ushered in the classification of empirical poker calculators. That being the type that offered you not only poker odds and drawing information while extracting the pertinent data from your poker screen, but also keeping track of you and your opponent’s profiles.

In fact, with Poker-Spy, profiling becomes the main thrust of this software along with hand history data to use during and after your game. While playing, Poker-Spy devised a readable hand history grid that progresses until all action for the most recent 17 hands are displayed with the winner and amount of the pot, while reminding you of your hole cards and those of any opponents that were revealed during play.

Within this grid, you can click on any of those hands (they are numbered for easy reference) that occurred for more detailed betting, position, and pot information. The cross grid panel illuminates by way of background color extra information too, offering up data showing which players were not in the hand, pre-flopped raised, or simply saw the flop. Now all of these grid sections and squares can be a little confusing at first, but I think Poker-Spy does a nice job here of making this data quite clear and understandable. In cash and ring games, it also classifies your opponent into the classic poker player profile grid first described by Dr. Alan Schoonmaker, in his book the Psychology of Poker – as in Loose-Passive and Tight-Aggressive etc.

While hand play is in progress at your table, Poker-Spy created the patent pending Alert System that with tiny, numbered and colored circles adjacent to the players name within the Poker-Spy tracking grid, you can quickly view what Poker-Spy has deemed “questionable” play from your opponents. These visual aids help you quickly discern plays such as blind plays, out-of-position moves, or re-raises perhaps. The extent that such plays are made numerous times is represented within those circles by a corresponding digit clearly visible.

The data itself is further transformed into a database of hand history analysis that you may find yourself poring over to find out things like, what hand you play that has won you the most money, or lost you’re the most money. What position at the table is most or least profitable for you? Your pre-flop and post-flop play is also measured statistically for your own benefit as well. These reports of you and opponents you have played against are managed in the hand summary report, the hand analysis report, and the player report.

In a substantial way, Poker-Spy`s value lays within these reports which have done well by this program in the growing days of online poker. I personally recommended this software nearly two years ago now, but let`s fast forward to Poker-Spy 2.0 which was recently updated with a few new features, albeit hard to find as they were.

I was rather enthused about the update when Poker-Spy contacted me for another review, but when playing with the software, I had to look really closely to actually find the improvements. One of the improvements is a new set of alert indicators that include possible river bluffs made by your opponents. This is a feature that could be useful to new players, although it doesn’t offer any clue as to what your opponent has, the make-up of the board and the tendency of your opponent contribute to this marker.

The other new feature in Poker-Spy is an addition to the extensive reports that includes pre-flop play in many different categories including position, raises and re-raises, and hole card strength.

Although Poker-Spy paved the way for some in-depth analysis of a poker player`s weaknesses, other programs have certainly tripled up on what seems to be a slow, but methodical progression to Poker-Spy. Truly I expected far more for a major update in terms of its poker calculator functions and its potential to work with other software simultaneously. In fact, I now fear that Poker-Spy is suffering from over-programming without sufficient poker-player input.

The designers at Poker-Spy have never really been aggressive marketers of the software and I think this inhibits some of the feedback that they might otherwise be getting from a field of affiliates more attuned to the game and the what the players are interested in - in terms of poker calculators. You can even get a sense for this lack of ambition in the presentation of the Poker-Spy website which really, in its present day mock-up, could be a grand relic of the waybackmachine.

With all that said, Poker-Spy2 has actually dropped to 2 of 4 aces in the Poker Calculator Report value ranking. Not because Poker-Spy2 isn`t better than the original Poker-Spy, but because it`s features and operating program are now clearly behind several other empirical poker calculator products and self analysis software programs.