Ruff Poker Blog
Learn Train Dominate Poker

10 Poker books you MUST read: Ace on the River

When I began playing poker choosing a ‘primer’ –as poker strategy books are often called-was a fairly simple process, since there were typically only a handful of books on the particular topic in print! And no, I’m not 75 years-old, I began playing poker a few years before the nuclear bomb known as Chris Moneymaker went off in 2003.

Nowadays, the process is a lot more complex for the sheer fact that there are hundreds of ‘primers’ to choose from, so with that in mind I have devised the following list of the 10 poker books you MUST read, and honestly I am loathe to include any ‘primers’ on my list; although a couple of more theoretical tomes seem to have found their way onto it, as well as two general poker ‘primers’!

• 1. Ace on the River, by Barry Greenstein
• 2. Cowboys Full, by James McManus
• 3. Positively 5^th Street, by James McManus
• 4. Zen and the Art of Poker, by Larry W. Phillips
• 5. Biggest Game in Town, by Al Alvarez
• 6. Education of a Poker Player, by Herbert O’Yardley
• 7. Big Deal, by Anthony Holden
• 8. Theory of Poker, by David Sklansky
• 9. Mathematics of Poker, by Bill Chen and Jerod Ankenman
• 10. One of a Kind, by Nolan Dalla and Peter Alson

So without further adieu, here is the first poker book you MUST read:

Ace on the River, by Barry Greenstein

Ace on the River is a tough book not to like; it’s combination of advice, warning, and humor gives the reader an inside look at what it actually means to be a professional poker player. Ace on the River is a ‘primer’, without really being a ‘primer’, and Greenstein does a magnificent job of detailing his life’s story -without glossing over any embarrassing moments-while at the same time explaining what it takes to be a professional poker player.

The target audience for this book is anyone who takes poker seriously -which seems to be EVERYONE in today’s poker world-and the people who will benefit the most from reading Ace on the River are the ones  who curse out other players for bad plays, tilt rather easily, or have problems with self-control.

The reason I call Ace on the River a MUST read poker book is simple: This is the only poker book I know of that talks about intangibles, and doesn’t focus on the mathematical strategies of starting hand selection or any of the other concepts that are repeated ad-nauseam in typical poker ‘primers’ -which are also 10-times more boring and difficult to even read in some cases.

In Ace on the River Greenstein outlines the mentality you need to possess to make it in what is a cut-throat world: Even the most competitive sales jobs don’t have the same ruthlessness you see exhibited at a poker table, and for this reason a poker pro needs to constantly be on his or her toes, and cannot let their guard down in any part of their life; which seems to be the central theme of Ace on the River. Or, perhaps the theme of Ace on the River can best be summed up by something Benny Binion once said, “Trust everyone, but always cut the cards.”

Last week WickedChops Poker posted a two-part series on the Ultimate Bet Poker Super-User scandal. Throughout the in depth articles many mentions were made to “sources” but few were named, that is until UB spokesman and poker pro Joe Sebok outed himself on his PokerRoad blog as one of the sources who supplied information and helped in the investigation.

So, while many on the online poker forums brushed off the WCP investigation, citing what appeared to be jumping to conclusions, it turns out to be perhaps the most accurate portrayal of how the Super-User scandal unfolded on Ultimate Bet.

Sebok’s lengthy blog post was aimed to clear up any loose ends regarding the scandal, and also UB’s internal handling of the process, and he also implied that until [if] further information comes to light this is basically the end of the road, and he has no more answers to give.

Sebok started his blog entry with the following paragraph:

“Roughly one  year ago I signed with UB, and pledged to put in as much effort as was possible to do three things; 1) get the account names involved in the super-user scandal released, 2) get all the hand histories out to those who requested them during the cheating scandal, and 3) attempt to get out the physical names of the actual cheaters, and those who helped them cheat, released to the public…”

From here he went on to outline exactly what the investigation has found -that everything revolved around Russ Hamilton, and the other people’s roles in the cheating are mostly unclear-and the problems, and roadblocks, that have come up along the way. Going as far as admitting that point #3 is likely to never be fully uncovered, and further down making the case that the extent with which certain individuals were involved -or there precise role/knowledge– is unable to be proven.

So, after reading Sebok’s blog entry, I decided to go back and re-read the Wicked Chops; this time around giving more credence to the conclusions they have formed, and the involvement of the prime players in the affair. As far as I can tell this is the first time the actual method of the cheating was revealed -there were actually two ways Hamilton was cheating: By challenging big pros he could contact to heads-up play, and by creating numerous accounts to cheat the other big players on UB at the time.

The revelation of at least Sebok as a source also makes WCP’s conclusion of how and why the Super-User -known as God mode-was created much more credible, and flies against the commonly held belief that this tool was in place from the get-go.

Part 1 of the Wicked Chops Story

Part 2 of the Wicked Chops Story

Joe Sebok’s blog entry on Poker Road

The new calmer version of Tony G is one of the most popular poker players in the world, both with fans, and with his top-level opposition. Fans love Tony G (Real name Antanus Gouga) for his comical table talk, and incessant needling of the other players -especially if Phil Hellmuth happens to be anywhere near him. The pros love Tony for his willingness to gamble with large amounts of money, and even Tony G admits he’s not at the same level as most of his competition.

This week Tony made his second appearance on The PokerStars.net Big Game, and got clobbered after a few small losses, followed by two very dramatic hands; the first against Vanessa Rousso, and the second against Scott Seiver:

In the first hand Tony raised the innocuous 5-6 from the small blind, only to have Rousso wake-up with pocket Aces in the big blind and re-raise. Fortunately for Tony he took the lead when the flop came 5-6-J. His lead didn’t last very long as Vanessa turned one of her five-outs, catching an Ace, and to add insult to injury a second 5 hit the board on the river, virtually ensuring Tony G would get stacked-off in the hand.

After some hemming and hawing Tony eventually accepted Daniel Negreanu’s offer of a $100,000 loan, but he was noticeably tilted, which showed in a hand against ultra-rock Todd Brunson, where Tony made some really loose calls with middle pair against Todd’s top-set. It didn’t take long after this before another big all-in confrontation came up involving Tony G:

The second critical hand wasn’t quite the bad-beat/cooler of the first hand, instead Tony found himself All-in on the flop against Scott Seiver’s top two-pair, with both flush and straight draws -Tony Held A-J with a club against Scott’s K-2, and the board was Q-K-2 all clubs. Tony picked up 4 more outs on the Turn when a Jack hit -which would be a total of 16 outs, but 3 of those outs were dead from other players’ hands– but a brick on the river sealed his fate, and he left the game down over $275,000. Which led Daniel to remark how Tony never makes a hand -of course Tony is usually drawing, but he has missed some really big draws over his two appearances on the show. For instance, in the all-in hand against Scott, Tony was only a 60/40 dog when the money went in, and roughly the same when he picked up more outs on the Turn.

Daniel also explained how Tony G is good for a game even though he is a good player, because of willingness to play pots and put his money in the middle: This type of action usually loosens up the entire table, and makes for what I call “A good gambling atmosphere”.

Ah, the age-old poker question of where to sit? When it comes to a maniac the general wisdom is to pull up a chair to the players immediate left, which will give you the opportunity to isolate him in pots with raises. However, this shouldn’t be your only consideration when there is a maniac in the game, especially when there are a lot of loose players also in the game.

First let me define my ‘Maniac’: A typical maniac plays about 50% to 75% of the hands they are dealt, and brings-it-in for a raise at least ½ of the time.

Advantages of having a ‘Maniac’ on your right

As I said, having a maniac on your right gives you prime control of the table: When you have a premium hand you can re-raise to get the pot heads-up, and when you have a good multi-way hand you can simply call his raise to invite more players to the party.

By isolating the maniac you are creating a nice heads-up pot where you have position, and are likely ahead in the hand.

This strategy is very effective when the table is loaded with tight players who are willing to let you control the action throughout. But more often than not the other players will quickly adjust to your strategy and start putting you to the test as well.

One other consideration is the maniac. Maniacs might be overly aggressive, but this doesn’t mean they are insane -although you will encounter some players who fit this descriptive as well-and they will often fold to any sizeable bet without a good hand. Furthermore, when they do wake up with a premium hand -yes, maniac’s get dealt good cards too-it’s you who are trapped in the pot.

Advantages of having a ‘Maniac’ on your left

However, there is another school of thought that having the maniac act immediately after you is the best way to go. When employing this strategy your goal is to limp with your premium cards, let the maniac raise, and hopefully get a couple callers to come along. Since the maniac is more likely to get “Action” than you when he raises you increase the likelihood other players will come along. By doing this you can now re-raise, which either wins a good size pot without any effort, or possibly get heads-up with the maniac -a good situation since you are more than likely out ahead-with a nice bit of extra “Dead-Money” in the pot already!

Here is an example: For the sake of the example suppose this is $5/$10 No Limit Holdem game where every player has $1,000. You limp in with KK and the ‘Maniac’ raises to $40, two players call and so does the Big Blind creating a pot of $175 when the action gets back to you. Now you can raise to $250 which will either see everyone fold, or perhaps the maniac come along for the ride -the other players are likely to fold since their hand wasn’t good enough to raise in the first place.

Do you see what happens in these situations? By sitting to the right of the maniac you have effectively put yourself in last position, since the action revolves around the maniac -this is especially true in post-flop situations where players almost without fail ‘check to the raiser’.

Suppose the maniac moves in with AQ, now you’re in a dominating situation getting OVER 1-to-1 on your money, thanks to the extra $125 in the pot in dead money.

You can also employ this strategy with your multi-way hands like small pairs, suited Aces, big suited cards and suited connectors. If the action were to go the same as above, you would have invested $40 pre-flop, to win a pot of $205. Even in the scenarios where another player re-raises -and after you accomplish your check-raise move once or twice they will be less inclined to re-raise the maniac when you are lurking in the background– you have only invested $10 in the pot so it becomes easy to fold.

When it comes to misunderstood poker concepts perhaps none is more misunderstood than the rake and how it impacts a poker game. The rake is a predetermined amount of money that is taken from the pot -usually 5-10% up to maximum of $3-$4-as a house collection. In this article I’m going to look at some of the ways the rake can change a game of poker, and how you should adjust your game accordingly.

Slight winner, or slight loser?

The first aspect of the rake I will discuss is how the rake can turn what seems like a +EV situation, or hand, into a losing proposition. This is especially important for players who have chosen to employ a looser style, pushing any small edge they can.

Here is an example: Suppose you play in a $50 online No Limit Holdem game where the average pot is $20. Now suppose you have run some simulations and determined that 56s can be played against a specific opponent type with a profit of $.40/hand. Seems like a good proposition, no? The problem is that you are going to paying $1-$2 in rake for each win! So if you’re expecting to win $40 per 100 hands this calculation does not include the rake. Therefore, if you’re winning 25% of the time you play this hand you’re going to be paying $25-$50 in rake per 100 hands, which makes this hand a possible loser in high-rake games!

The point here is that if you are playing marginal hands you need to make sure that the rake isn’t so much that it offsets the winning potential of the hand. This is even more important when playing live, where tipping also comes into play, since you could be shelling out an extra $1+ per win.

Loose or Tight?

This concept is a bit easier to wrap your head around: Would you rather win one $800 pot, or ten $80 pots? Both scenarios seem to have the same end result, but when you add the rake to the equation the situation changes quite dramatically.

In the first example you would lose $3 to the rake, for a total pot of $797. In the second scenario you are paying $3 X 10 wins, or $30 in rake, for a total of just $770! Now throw in tip money as well -for you live players-and the situation becomes even bleaker. Furthermore, the higher the rake -it’s not uncommon to find card-rooms with $5 rakes-the worse this scenario becomes. Think about it; if you play in a card-room with a $5 rake, and a normal tip of $1 per win, you’re looking at $60 for those ten wins, compared to $6 for the one win. That’s the difference between walking away with $794 or $740!

Basically the higher the rake, the tighter you should be playing, since a loose/aggressive strategy is based on winning numerous small to medium pots. This is why players who prefer to employ a loose/aggressive strategy prefer a time collection over a raked game, since everyone pays the same amount regardless of how active they are in time collection games.

There is an all too often occurrence at the poker tables nowadays, and it doesn’t matter whether you play online poker or partake in the game at a brick & mortar card-room; the problem I speak of is dealing with an “Expert”. We all know the “Expert”, they dissect the most innocuous hands of poker like a 10^th grade biology student cutting up a frog, or they decide to point out the other players’ shortcomings for all to hear.

The worst part of the “Expert” is that typically they have no idea what they are talking about! Furthermore, the smaller the stakes of the game, the more likely you are to hear the expert’s mating call -think Screech from Saved by the Bell. Perhaps the most peculiar part of the “Expert’s” verbal assaults is that they love to call out winning players as fish -like I said they really don’t know what they are talking about.

Now typically you don’t want to tap the glass, but unfortunately the “Expert” is tapping the glass with a sledgehammer, so the best way to deal with them is to point out their flawed logic, even if this marks you as a good player. It’s important for the other players to know that the obnoxious bully know-it-all is simply a bad player that is just frustrated at losing.

Here is a real-world example of the “Expert” in action: The game is shallow-stack, small-stakes PLO, and just about every player has roughly 50BB. Yours truly has a fairly nice holding with 7s-8s-Tc-Jh and I bring it in for a 3x the blind raise -my standard opening size. The action goes re-raise, and re-raise before getting back to me, and I just call even though I have only about 20BB left, because I know all three players are going to be all-in regardless of the flop, and I’m not folding a mid-run getting 2-to-1 on my money. The Expert, who was the initial re-raiser, pushes and it’s a 3-handed all-in to the flop. The other player scoops the pot and the “Expert” starts in on me for calling!

Now as far as I can tell my play was pretty standard, and even if it was slightly -EV  based on the particular matchups, which I can’t imagine to be the case, it’s by no means a horrible mistake. So the “Expert” keeps on yapping about everyone’s play, and how terrible I am playing 78TJ after two raises. Obviously our “Expert” doesn’t get the idea of equity: my calculations have me with about 35% equity against AAxx and KKxx if my flush is live and 31% if it’s not. Furthermore, if they both have AAxx I’m over 40%, so calling 47BB to win 104BB’s seems a no brainer to me. And like I said, even if my calculations are off a bit my call is never horrendous.

So, I finally asked the “Expert” if he is in the habit of folding mid-runs getting over 2-to-1 on his money? His response was: “2 to 1??? Whatever, you’re up against Aces!” Ah, the rationale of the poker Expert, you have to love them!

During Season 6 of the PokerStars.net European Poker Tour, EPT officials announced the creation of seven poker awards that would be given out to the tour’s top performing players, including the coveted Player of the Year award. In addition to a trophy, each Season 7 award winner will receive a prize package for the first EPT poker tournament of the Season 8.

After some player feedback -which is a nice way of saying complaints-PokerStars decided to tweak the points system they put in place during Season 6. As Neil Johnson, EPT event host and player liaison, said: “Because the system was new, obviously there were going to be tweaks to make it fair for everyone… There is some kind of dissatisfaction with every system out there… We picked one that was best for the EPT.”

Points are awarded for both Championship Events and Preliminary Events, but unlike last year the field size will play a role in the number of points awarded -the buy-in amount is still not a factor so long as the Championship Tournament crosses the €1,000 buy-in threshold. During Season 6 players were awarded the same number of points for winning a Championship Event regardless of the size of the field; this has been changed for Season 7 to the following:

• Players will receive 1,200 points for winning an event with over 1,000 entrants
• Players will receive 1,000 points for winning an event with between 500 and 1,000 entrants
• Players will receive 800 points for winning an event with fewer than 500 entrants

Preliminary Events are now weighted in a similar manner as well: Winning an event with 16-40 players will earn a player 400 points; winning an event with 40-250 players will earn a player 500 points; and winning an event with over 250 players is worth 600 points. Events that draw fewer than 16 players will not be counted in the EPT Awards ranking system.

The Seven Awards that will be handed out by the EPT include

• EPT Player of the Year
• EPT Omaha Player of the Year
• EPT Mixed Games Player of the Year
• EPT Heads-Up Player of the Year
• Best EPT Online Qualifier of the Year
• Best EPT Country Award
• EPT Players Choice of the Year (voted by players)
• Best EPT Achievement of the Year (voted by players)

Personally I love the addition of the more Awards, since it puts poker more in line with sports like Baseball, Basketball, and so on, which will only help poker’s credibility in the long-run, and I fully expect the other poker tours’ to follow the EPT’s lead and create their own Poker Awards. One award I would like to see added in the future is a Rookie of the Year Award.

In a previous entry I talked about the early stages of poker tournaments and the numerous opportunities these stages present for savvy poker players. In this installment I’m going to explain what happens when the early stages of a poker tournament ends, and the adjustments you’ll need to make in order to stay afloat.

The best example I can think of for the slow-stage of a poker tournament occurs in Sit and Go tournaments, and the change happens when the typical 3x-4x the big blind raise reaches about 10% of your starting chip stack.

Take the Full Tilt Poker structure for example: players begin with 1,500 chips and blinds at 15/30. This structure almost completely eliminates the early stage play I spoke about in my previous article, since a typical raise is between 90 and 120 chips; almost 10% of your stack in level 1! If there is a re-raise you can forget about implied odds, since you’re calling 300+ chips.

On the other hand you have a structure like UB Poker where players begin with 1,500 chips, but the starting blinds are 5/10. In this case a raise to 30 or 40 chips represents less than 3% of your stack -even a re-raise only brings the call to 120 chips; the same as the first raise on Full Tilt.

But, back to the slow-stage: Once you are faced with a raise that is around 10% of your starting chip-stack all of your implied odds are diminished -basically you would have to stack the person almost every time to get the right implied odds to call with a pocket pair. During these stages of the tournament it’s best to sit back and wait, since the blinds aren’t really worth attacking yet, and your implied odds have been drastically reduced.

I like to call this the donkey stage, because it’s the donkeys that are making standard raises to 150 with 25/50 blinds, or worse, calling these raises. Stealing the blinds only adds 75 chips to your stack of 1,500, which is 5% –not exactly peanuts, but nothing to write home about either. The difference between a 1,500 chip-stack and 1,575 is pretty infinitesimal. Like I said, your best course of action is to sit back and wait while players knock each other out, and at the same time you cultivate a tight image that can be used during the next stage of the tournament, when the blinds and antes have reached a point where they are worth fighting for.

So, what should you do if you get a premium hand during this phase? What I like to do with a standard stack is over-bet pre-flop by making it 250-300 to go in the 25/50 level. This effectively eliminates my opponents’ implied odds, and also makes the pot worth fighting for post-flop, increasing the likelihood of your opponent calling with a hand like TPWK or middle-pair.

In the next installment of this series I’ll look at the phase when the blinds and antes reach a point that blind-stealing becomes a relevant strategy.

Money attracts greed, and while the vast majority of poker players are trustworthy individuals there is a small subset of people who would like nothing more than to take advantage of an all too trusting individual, whether it’s for $20 or $20,000. In this installment I’ll look at a common online poker forum scam many people have attempted, but few have put in the time and effort of our case study: Nick L. Gaskin.  It truly amazes me the lengths people will go to steal a few thousand dollars.

The Crime

The scam employed was a very basic one, but one that takes some form of reputation in the poker world to pull off. Basically, the scammer photoshop’s their poker account to make it appear as if they have more money/more FPP’s than they really do. The scammer then offers to purchase high-end items from the online poker site’s store in exchange for cash. Obviously, few people are going to ship someone $700 or more on their word, so the scammer must have some type of credibility.

The Setup

Nick Gaskin, who used the handle ngaskin at online poker forums, probably spent more time and effort building up a false persona on the Internet than anyone I have ever seen. Ngaskin arrived at a few of the major poker forums in 2008, and quickly set about being a prolific poster, and absolutely incredible at slinging the BS, as myself and a few other posters at one forum were quick to realize. My contact with Nick on the poker forums was minimal, since I never cared for, or believed, his over the top posts and comments, and I went so far as to question the veracity of one such claim [click here to read the thread] and was 99% certain it was a lie based on his answers to my questions.

Unfortunately, not every member of the online poker forum community was as quick to smell something rotten in Denmark with Nick’s posts.

With numerous “doctored” screenshots of bank-accounts, poker accounts, as well as a number of “brag” posts about big wins, Nick started building his reputation as a mid-stakes poker pro. Nick also created a nice back-story for himself: he was a top amateur golfer in Australia; he owned several properties including a multi-million dollar penthouse style apartment; and he was a something of a jet-setting Playboy travelling the globe and playing in poker tournaments.

The Execution

After the fact, people realized that the FPP scam was a backup plan, and Nick had bigger targets in mind when he started his Internet persona. There was a point where Nick came on the Internet forums stating that his accounts had been hacked, so if anyone had asked for money it wasn’t really him that was asking (which of course it turns out it was). Unfortunately, a straight up money transfer is often denied by most poker players, so Nick needed to quickly clean up his mess by clearing his name -which the hacking excuse did.

There are also a number of threads where Nick tried to execute a few 4-figure transfers, sold action in the Aussie Millions and more.

So, after a year and a half of lying, pulling off a small scam here and there -one player staked him some money in the Aussie Million poker tournament, and who knows how many others were bilked of a few hundred dollars or more-and building up his false identity, Nick realized that his master plan wasn’t going to happen, and settled on a few thousand dollars instead.

The title of the thread has changed, but this is the how it went down on the 2+2 Poker Forums [click here to read the thread]. Nick claimed to have 1.1 million FPP’s that he would sell for $3.50 per 1000 points (a total of $3,850). For complete details on what was actually stolen and how he was caught I highly suggest reading the thread, it will also give you an idea of the lengths this man went through to steal $3,850!

The Fallout

Unfortunately it’s unlikely the players who lost money will ever be compensated, but the ngaskin saga actually ends pretty well for the good guys. Reputation completely ruined -the first result of a Google search for Nick Gaskin brings up the Nick L. Gaskin is a scammer thread on 2+2–Nick was eventually brought up on charges in the UK -where he had relocated to-and later fled back to Australia; after missing his court date a bench warrant was served for his arrest. With a warrant out for his arrest, Nick Gaskin will constantly be looking over his shoulder and worrying about prosecution… Oh, and of course the possibility of someone he scammed spotting him!

I suppose cheating poker players out of $22 million -that’s just the total from Ultimate Bet-will keep a story going for quite some time, but the Super-User scandals that plagued first Absolute Poker and then Ultimate Bet have once again found center stage thanks to some more investigative work by the like of Haley Hintze, and 2+2 poster Mookman5.

Their tireless investigation into uncovering every responsible party and the complete timeline and specifics of the cheating led to a two-part piece over at WickedChops Poker that has brought the scandal back to the forefront.

So the story that refuses to die has a couple new wrinkles:

• 1. When and what did UB founder Greg Pierson know?
• 2. Who was involved in the scandal?

To the first point the WickedChops story seems to imply that Pierson was either complicit, or was basically clueless as to what was going on -think Kevin Pollack’s character in the movie Casino. The actual genesis of “God-Mode” is still up for debate with two camps: One stating it was a later addition by Hamilton, and the other side saying the “God-Mode” capability had been there since the outset.

The second point is starting to get a bit convoluted after a leaked list of names was released, which included a couple of well-known poker players who appear to have been used to funnel money through and nothing more; in addition to a number of fake names and addresses.

With so many players affected, and so much money being involved this story will likely never die down until every single aspect is uncovered, and the chances of that happening are slim to none. So, we are left with the likely prospect that the true extent of the cheating will never truly be known -and as we learned recently from the PokerStars response to the StoxTrader collusion allegations; the online poker sites are loathe to take any action without 100% certainty.

What the two incidents should do is cause online poker players to take pause and decide if the risks associated with playing ultra-high-stakes online poker are worth it: It’s a certainty that when millions of dollars are at stake there are a number of humans who will do just about anything to get it.

And now we have Super-User allegations being thrown at another online Poker Room, Cake Poker, but because of their restrictions to data-mining and allowance of frequent screen-name changes IF there was a Super-User on the site it would be virtually impossible to detect their activity without complete access to the site’s databases of information.