(PN) Rumors have begun circulating that the much anticipated “60 Minutes” piece offering a look at the Absolute Poker and UltimateBet online cheating scandals will not air this Sunday, as widely reported. Instead, this highly anticipated segment has been rumored to have been bumped to November 9th. The airing of this segment will literally occur, if the new word being spread is correct, right in the middle of the resumption of the World Series of Poker final table as the field is trimmed down from nine players to two. However, industry watchers are also wondering — given that it’s the first Sunday after the Presidential election — if the Nov. 9 air date will stay solid.

While the episode segment is of widespread interest to the poker world, its importance to a mainstream audience may be rather less, explaining its possible shuffling down in the “60 Minutes” pecking order. Among those industry notables reported to have been interviewed for the piece are Mike Sexton, Greg Raymer, Linda Johnson, Gary Wise, and online poker-forum participants Serge Ravitch, Michael Josem and Todd Witteles, who were involved in varying degrees in bringing forth certain aspects of what began as a player investigation into unusual circumstances. It is, of course, unknown as to which if any of the above (or any other) poker notables will appear in the segment when it airs in its final form.

In addition, other rumors of a lengthy feature article on the same topic, to appear in a major American newspaper, appear to be true. Our sources tell us that the Washington Post will publish a detailed piece on online poker, possibly accompanied by a call for regulation, on that same November 9th date.

Well, I’ve hit the 150 game point, and decided it was time to see how profitable of a venture the double or nothings have been so far for me. Basically having played 30 games a day for five days, here is what I have so far:

First things first, although I expected a lower roi than heads up sngs (lower edge per game), I think 9% can be much improved upon. I’m pretty convinced I should be somewhere in the 11-12% roi once I get the hang of these things, and also once the cards start evening out more (I had one REALLY bad day where nothing at all went right). Ever since that day, I’ve only had maybe 1-2 losing “sets of 6″ and have played a fair amount of games. This is still a really small sample, so I’ll have to wait until around the 1,000 game mark to know where I truly stand. I like where I’m headed thus far, though.

Here is what the graph looks like:

As you can see, around the 30 game point, I experienced a pretty bad stretch of games, but was able to pull it together and stay pretty consistent from there on out. I feel a lot more controlled and have narrowed my ranges down more accurately, both calling and shoving. I wasn’t completely sure what kind of hands warranted shoves/calls at that time, but I feel like I’ve got a firm grip on it now. I will continue to play these, and keep you guys updated as well.

In other news, the tenth tutorial will be released Monday October, 27th (”Tough Situations”). Good luck guys!

I will make a seperate post with my overall results tomorrow. For now, I just want to focus on some observations with this little experiment of mine. The first thing I want to say is that as tight as people have played so far, you’d think they were playing on the bubble in the WSOP main event. When there’s 6 people left, I’d be willing to bet that if it isn’t AK or a pocket pair, then you’re not getting called if you shove into someone who you have covered.

This leak in many players games will enable you and I to make good money in these things. That is, until they figure the error of their ways (which may never happen). Here are some other random observations about the Double or Nothing’s on Stars over the last 4-5 days:

• There is no limping, except in the very first round of blinds.
• Regulars will you double you up easier than fish will. They understand how tight people play, and think they can push any two without getting called (which they usually can), but don’t be afraid to call a regular with mid range hands like 89, 910, J10, JQ+. Usually, it’s 60/40 and a good portion of the time you’re ahead. However, that’s only in the higher blinds. Not smart to mess with regulars in the early blind levels - they usually have a hand then.
• There is so much stupidity in these things. It takes a special kind of incompetence to be the big stack (4,000+), have 400 invested in the big blind, everyone folds around to the small blind who shoves his stack of 440 into the middle (with antes) and to FOLD. This happened on the bubble with 6 people left. If people don’t understand why this is bad, I’m not sure there is any hope for them in the future.
• Haven’t really had a problem with people “working together” yet, but I’m sure I’ll run into it my fair share of times given that this kind of sng is sort of a “team effort” at times.
• People overvalue A10 and AJ too much. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen someone all in and dominated with those two hands in the last few days.
• It’s important to stay calm when you lose your first 1-2 matches while you’re playing 6 or so at a time. The only way for a match to be over quick is if you lost, and if you still have four going it’s probably because you’ve doubled up in at least 2 of them.
• 3,000 chips seems to be the “safe” point for folding your way to victory. If you have around 2,000-2,500 it’s probably not going to last you until there’s 5 people left. Stay active even with 2,000+ chips.
• Playing extremely selfish is going to be the demise of many poker players in this type of game. While teamwork isn’t allowed, it’s painfully obvious that when the last person goes all in for 200 chips, and everyone is sitting at 2,000+ chips, there’s absolutely no excuse for anyone to be folding.

These are just some of many observations. Personally, I love them so far. I will do a full report on my results so far tomorrow complete with graphs and analysis.

Not quite.

But here’s what I do know: the double or nothing’s on Stars definitely have their perks, and could possibly (in theory) unseat heads up sngs as the lowest variance form of poker. Double or nothing sit n gos are 10 seated sit n gos where half the field doubles up, and the other half makes nothing. The 1:1 payout structure of the tournament gives the game a very similar feel to a heads up sng. However, a totally different skill set is required to play these. While I don’t have any “documented” strategy that I can show you guys (at the moment), I am experimenting with this niche, and if all things go well, might have to change our tagline from “Heads Up Sit-N-Go Community for All” to “Your source for 1:1 payout NLHE strategy”.

Here are some of the perks of the double or nothings:

• Can play a lot more of them at a time than heads up sngs
• As a result of the above, the limits you play don’t have to be as high
• Low risk, probable reward
• Lower rake (4% for the turbos compared to 5% for regular husngs)
  
• Fields are soft (as of now)
• Gives people a chance who are good at push/fold but not heads up a chance to convert their skill to a 1:1 (lower variance) format
• Generate more FPPs because of the ability to handle more volume

The jury is still out on whether this will become my game of choice, but to be honest I would never totally give up heads up sngs. My edge is too huge, and on top of that I’d probably miss it too much. If you can crush heads up sngs, I firmly believe you can crush anything (if you put your mind to it). Heads up poker is no limit holdem in it’s purest form, and I’m not the first person to say that.

I get asked this question all the time: “Can I make a living playing the 20s? 30s? 50s? What is the lowest limit I can possibly quit my job and make a living on?” Of course, first and foremost I’m going to tell you that it’s all completely relative, and it depends on what your cost of living is. If you drive a Lexus or a Mercedes, then you probably better start at the $200s, and put in a lot of volume daily. If you drive a used Toyota Corolla, then you perhaps have a better shot at making it in the $20s, $30s, or $50s. Point being, how you choose to live your lifestyle has a direct effect on how much money you need to come in. Generally in poker, it’s a good idea to have at least 6 months worth of bills paid in advance before you even think of becoming a “professional”.

The reality is that most people don’t follow that rule, and on the whole we are a whole lot closer to having to get a job than we’d like. The whole idea of a bankroll is to provide you with a cushion so large that no downswing could possibly cause you to go broke. No single night of poker, provided all the games you play are a product of you following strict bankroll management, should ever cause you to lose more than 10% of your bankroll. How many of you can say that you live by that rule, and have never broken it? Really? Didn’t think there were that many.

For those of you responsible enough to adhere to strict rules and guidelines, and are experts at money management, doing this for a living is far more a reality for you than it is perhaps with someone twice as talented as yourself but lacking the same money management skills.

In general though, let’s establish “the lowest stakes you can expect to make a living on”:

For the sake of argument, we will call our player wishing to become pro “Nick”. Nick is 24 years old, and is burned out with college, and does not feel like flipping burgers or doing manual labor for $10/hr. Nick is really talented at playing cards, and drives a white 2003 Toyota Tacoma. Here is a list of all Nick’s monthly bills:

• Car note: $175
• Insurance: $215
• Cell Phone: $75
• Credit Card Note: $85 minimum payment ($1,400 left to pay on original $1,500 credit line)
• Student Loan Repayment: $140
• Gas: $120
• Food: $400
• Cable Bill: $100
• Rent: $1,000
• Electric Note: $150

After adding all of that up, we see Nick will need to bring in a total of $2,460 a month in income before he can even break even and pay his bills on time. Breaking this down weekly, we see that he needs to make $615 in STEADY income just to put food on the table and make sure the lights are on. This is a big responsibility, and choosing a limit and volume to support this lifestyle is going to be hard.

There’s two ways he can go about doing this. First thing we need to know is his average profit/game. Nick has an average profit per game of $5. This was done at the $50 level, which means he has approx. a 10% ROI. If he needs to make $615 a week, then he will need to play [615 / 5] games/wk in order to survive. When you do the math, it breaks down into 24.6 games/day at the $50 level. Playing 24 games a day can take anywhere from 5-10 hours, depending on if you play 1, 2 or 3 tables at a time. Assuming he plays two at a time, it would take approx 7 hours to complete daily.

If he can maintain the same ROI in the $100s, then his average profit would be $10/game, which means that he would have to do half the work (12 games instead of 24) in order to pay the bills. However, since Nick is not content with just “getting by”, he has two choices:

• Play more than 24 games/day at the $50 level
• Play 24 games/day at the $100 level

So there we have our answer. If your lifestyle is even remotely close to that of Nick’s, you’ll need to play a LOT of $50 husngs, or quite a few $100 heads up sngs if you want to get by. To flourish, you will have to step both of those up a notch and stay on the grind nearly 24/7. Nobody ever said it was easy, but if you’re doing this to pay the bills, it’s neccessary.

(PN) A Kentucky Circuit Court judge has dismissed all objections brought by representatives of as many as 141 Internet domain names subject to seizure and forfeiture to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, the result of an order issued by the same court late last month. Many of the domain names listed as being subject to seizure are connected with major US-facing poker sites, including PokerStars, Full Tilt, UltimateBet, Doyle’s Room, Absolute Poker and others.

The decision issued late on Thursday by the Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Wingate was delayed 24 hours because of “computer problems,” but when it was finally released, the judge dismissed all arguments brought by the domains’ legal counsel in an attempt to have the seizure nullified. Also opposing the state’s actions were representatives from entities including the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), the Poker Players Alliance, the Internet Commerce Association, and counsel for Network Solutions, Inc., a major California-based domain registrar servicing some but not all of the domains ordered forfeited to the state.

In his decision to affirm the forfeiture, Judge Wingate dismissed serious counterpoints about Kentucky’s jurisdictional reach while defining within his opinion that an Internet domain name is a “device” used in gambling, thereby making it illegal under Kentucky law. Similarly, the judge dismissed the PPA’s “friend of the court” argument that poker was predominantly a game of skill, rather than chance, and should not be treated collectively along with other Internet gambling cites. Judge Wingate dismissed that argument in its entirety, noting that the Kentucky statute dictates an element of chance without specific regard as to proportions.

A more serious challenge under Judge Wingate’s consideration was the matter of Kentucky’s jurisdictional reach, in seizing domain names that are neither housed nor serviced in Kentucky, yet remain generally accessible via the Internet. The judge dismissed the argument that a domain name’s presence has as its situs (a term defining a real-world locale of control for ephemeral entities, such as domain names) either where it is owned or housed. Defense lawyers brought up language in the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act to this effect, which Judge Wingate ruled did not apply because he did “not believe that Congress did not intend to foreclose other bases…,” in effect declaring that Internet domain disputes are states-rights matters in this case.

Judge Wingate went on to state that the maintenance of a website or Internet advertisement alone is not enough to establish presence in Kentucky, and that any websites which are providing information only would have the seizure order affecting them rescinded at a later date. However, he noted that for the vast majority of the sites in question, the domain names served as the focal points for the services provided, stating that “the domain name is indispensable in maintaining the player’s access to the virtual casinos….” Judge Wingate also declared that Internet geoblocking – the banning of all computers traced to Kentucky-based Internet service providers – was one way of bringing the sites into alignment with Kentucky law.

Judge Wingate also denied that any of the organizations involved in advancing the domain-name owners’ defense had standing in this matter. The PPA and ICA never claimed standing, but filed briefs as friends of the court, while Network Solutions was denied official standing in the case until such time as it openly identified its relationships with some of the impacted domain names (and thereby risk submitting itself to Kentucky jurisdiction in doing so). Both the Internet Commerce Association and iMEGA were also denied standing by Judge Wingate. iMEGA’s exclusion was curious in that the same organization had been granted associational standing in its federal case in seeking to have the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement ACT (UIGEA) overturned on the federal level. Judge Wingate ruled against iMEGA here based in part on the Commonwealth’s assertions that the domain owners could and should be present in the court to identify themselves, and that iMEGA, without identifying its own specific ownership and interests, could not stand in for the owners themselves in any part of this matter.

Nine affected domains sent representation to the hearings, described in Judge Wingate’s opinion as the “Group of 7″ and the “Group of 2.” Judge Wingate refused to grant their motions to dismiss on the grounds that they had not specifically identified the owners of the domains in question. The “Group of 7″ consisted of playersonly.com, pokerhost.com, sbglobal.com, sportsbook.com, sportsinteraction.com, mysportsbook.com and linesmaker.com. The “Group of 2″ consisted of goldenpalace.com and goldencasino.com. According to Judge Wingate’s decision, none of the other affected domains had direct legal counsel present at the proceedings.

The decision by Judge Wingate gives the affected domains 30 days to institute geoblocking to be removed from the forfeiture portion of the case, with a final hearing set for November 17th, 2008. It is unknown at this time as to any plans for the affected domains regarding an appeal.

After a successful release of the ninth tutorial and re-launch of HFL, the tutorials will keep coming. The tenth tutorial will be a guide on how to play hands in tough situations. Examples of “tough situations” can be any of the following:

• Middle pair, weak kicker against a highly aggressive opponent.
• Top pair against a strong opponent who only shows down quality hands.
• A set with 4 to a straight or 4 to a flush on the board.
• A 10 high flush that got counterfeited when another card of your suit hit the board on the river.
• Small pocket pairs against aggressive opponents.
• Playing against people who constantly continuation bet.

I could go on all night, but that should give you the jist of the tutorial. I have hand picked a match with a number of these situations, and will outline how I usually combat these tough spots.

Also, the great news is that the tenth tutorial will be added to the package deal (currently all 9 tutorials for $34.99), and the price will NOT increase. That means you will be able to purchase all 10 tutorials for $34.99 and everyone who has already purchased the package deal will be able to download the 10th FREE of charge (contact me for details when the tutorial is released). The price on the package deal will not increase until further notice, as there may be a couple of more added to the package before the price changes.

Good luck to anyone playing a session today!

(P5) Due to computer issues, residents of Kentucky will need to wait at least one more day before the fate of internet gambling in the state is determined. The decision, which was scheduled to be made public by Judge Thomas Wingate on Wednesday, is now expected to be released on Thursday. Judge Wingate was in court for most of the day on Wednesday. After a decision had not been rendered at 5:00pm Eastern Time, his staff cited computer problems as the reason that the decision was delayed until tomorrow. Bluegrass Institute Policy Director Jim Waters confirmed the news to PocketFives.com. Waters and the rest of the industry will anxiously await the decision on Thursday.

One group that will be awaiting the decision on Thursday is the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA). The Washington, D.C.-based organization has been at the forefront of the fight, with its President, Ed Leyden, arguing fiercely that the actions by Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear to seize 141 internet gambling domain names violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. In a press release posted on iMEGA’s website, it questioned Beshear’s motivation: “But Kentucky is not trying to wage a moral battle. The governor is not claiming to protect the citizens of the commonwealth from ‘the evils of gambling.’ Instead, he is trying to have them all to himself. That is because Gov. Steve Beshear is a big supporter of gambling in Kentucky, and he wants to keep the money. So why not use his and the Kentucky courts’ power to take out the competition?”

One argument brought up by online gambling proponents centered around TwinSpires.com, a website that allows bets on horse racing. Although it’s licensed in Oregon, the site is owned by the parent company of racetrack Churchill Downs, which is based on Kentucky. TwinSpires.com is not among the 141 internet gambling domain names in question. In addition, the Kentucky Lottery has a second chance promotion which involves entering non-winning tickets online.

In addition to providing evidence that poker is a game of skill, an amicus brief filed by the Poker Players Alliance “concludes that given the state’s lack of evidence that poker as played on any of the websites in question is not a permitted game of skill under Kentucky law, there is ‘no reasonable chance of success on the underlying claim of illegality that would support its… basis for forfeiture of the domain names.’”

Almost certainly over the course of playing many heads up sngs, you have noticed that continuation betting is not only frequent, it’s rampant. It can be rather tough to deal with and the answer is not always clear cut. One way to combat continuation betting is by “floating” your opponent on the flop.

The float play is an advanced bluffing technique that is extended over two betting rounds. The principle role of the play is to make your opponent believe you have a stronger hand than theirs via the flop and turn betting rounds, and thus closing down the action and winning the pot on the turn. The float play essentially involves calling an opponent’s bet on the flop (floating the flop), and then betting after being checked to on the turn to win the hand before seeing the river card. It is possible to make a successful maneuver like this with any two cards, which typically makes it a good bluffing play.

Examples of times where it makes sense to float your opponent in heads up sngs may include any of the following situations:

• Opponent is constantly continuation betting
• Opponent shows a pattern of betting the flop and checking the turn
• Opponent doesn’t follow through with his bluffs
• You have detected a speed-bet tell, and your opponent has tipped himself off as not having a hand

Betting the flop and checking the turn is almost surely a sign of weakness, and it happens more often than you think if you really pay attention to this. Next time you see your opponent bet the flop and check the turn, consider floating them on the flop with air, only to take the pot away from them on the turn with a stiff bet (2/3 pot +). In addition, floating also frustrates opponents because they will eventually realize that you cannot be pushed around, and it takes them out of their element.

The reason the float play is so effective is because two thirds of the time people don’t have enough heart to fire a second bullet without having connected with the board. In addition to this, only a select few will fire three bullets without a made hand. Floating them on the flop takes advantage of this timidness and will allow you exploit a huge hole in their passive game.

However, there are certain criteria that have to be met before being able to pull off a good float play. The first is that you should always have position on your opponent. It is actually possible to make a float play out of position, but this is far more difficult and it is not often recommended that you try to do so as it can become costly. By being in position you have the opportunity to spot any weakness on the turn from your opponent after calling their flop bet. If your opponent bets strongly again on the turn, you are able to comfortably fold knowing that they more than likely have the best hand. If they check however, you are in the perfect position to take down the pot.

Take all this into consideration in your next heads up sng. Try it a few times. Once you master the float play, you can add it to your “toolbox” of moves. This toolbox will only grow with time, and as it’s contents increases, so will the odds of you crushing your heads up sngs.

There’s been a lot of discussion lately on HFL about shoving/calling ranges with short stacks and big blinds. Here is a really useful article I found written by the great Daniel Skolovy about calling ranges in regards to short stack all ins. Generally, I have found people fold too much when people shove in large blinds with short stacks.

============

Everyone knows that the key to winning sit-and-gos is to play aggressively. However, that isn’t always going to be possible.

When you’re in the big blind and have a short-stack all-in in front of you, aggression isn’t going to help you. You either call or you fold.

So how do you decide which route to take?

Well, first of all, you can go by hand quality. If you have a great hand, it makes your decision fairly easy. If, however, your holdings are less than stellar, you have to judge by more than hand quality: you look at the odds.

Many players don’t take odds into account at all when deciding whether to call a short-stack shove. They think, “Oh, he’s all-in - he must have a hand. My T-8 must be no good.”

This is incorrect. Though your T-8 may indeed be a dog, you may be getting the required odds to call.

So what exactly are the “required odds?” There’s no way to determine the exact required odds, because you don’t know for sure what your opponent’s holding.

If you’re getting 2-1 or better, you’d better have a good reason for folding.

However, in my four-part sit-and-go article I advise, “If you are getting 2-1 or better, you’d better have a good reason for folding.” Meaning that unless this guy is the tightest player in the world, at those odds you should probably be calling.

If it is late in the tournament and the player is short-stacked, they’ll be shoving all-in with a very wide range of hands.

I’m not just talking about premium AA, A-K, JJ type hands. Instead, they’ll be pushing all sorts of hands, ones like 9-8, 44, J-Q and even the occasional super spazzy 5-3o.

No two unpaired cards are a huge favorite over two other live unpaired cards. So if you are getting 2-1 or better and have a decent stack, you should almost always be looking up short-stack shoves.

Let’s take a look at how some random hands stack up against other random hands:

As you can see by this small sampling, the only time you are really a dog is when you are dominated like in the T-8 versus A-T hand.

Other than that, you are almost always 35-40% to win. Thus it would be a huge mistake to fold getting 2-1 or better on a 40% shot.

Think of it this way: if you could bet on flipping a lopsided coin all day that would land heads 40% of the time and tails 60% of the time, and you would be paid out at 2-1 for every heads, you would be rich by the end of the day. So why pass up that same bet in a poker game?

Let’s take a look at an example:

$100/$200 blinds. You are in the big blind with $6,000. The small blind has $500 after posting. It’s a full table and there is a $25 ante. It’s folded around to the SB, who shoves all-in for a total of $600. You are in the BB with T7.

Should you call?

Let’s do a little light seventh-grade math.

Two trains leave New York. First one is going 60 km/h …

The SB is in for $600; there is $250 in from the antes, and you already have $200 in. That makes a total of $1,050. You have to call $400 more to win $1,050.

So should you call? Absolutely. This is almost an any-two-cards situation. Getting 3-1 makes folding almost completely out of the question.

Now of course in a perfect world, you would never have to call with a hand that’s behind your opponent’s range. You could just raise everyone else’s blinds and steal your way to victory.

But in reality, that won’t work. You are going to run into this situation.

And if you make a habit out of folding when you’re getting 2-1 odds or better against a shorty, you’re making a big error.