A Reply to "Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission"
orge Fernandez has recently written an article, "Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission" which has been incorporated into the TrueOrigin website, at http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp. The theme of Mr. Fernandez's argument appears to be that the Talk.Origins archive, by failing to present his perspective on various arguments, commits deception through omission.
Rather than get bogged down in a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. Fernandez's article, I am going to restrict my reply. Although it might seem to be a bit unusual, I don't see any need to directly address anything more than his conclusions, for reasons which I hope will become clear by the time I am done. I will reproduce each of the paragraphs of his conclusion in full, in indented text, with my own comments following each paragraph.
At the beginning of this article I had stated that "the full, unbiased disclosure of truth is what is essential here and TO is not even close to providing this". Aside from the obvious fact that complete, unbiased information is always better than partial or distorted information, it is infinitely more so in this arena than in any other. Why?
The Talk.Origins Archive provides, on its main homepage, a full disclosure of its purpose, which is "to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins." Although Mr. Fernandez might wish it were otherwise, the accepted scientific view is that biodiversity -- the wide range of organisms which live on the earth -- is the result of a process of common descent, or biological evolution. This view of life is accepted by virtually every scientist working in the field now, and has been generally accepted since not long after the first publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. It has been longer still -- over two centuries -- since the young-earth creationist perspective has had any claim at being part of mainstream science.
"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"
The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.
The current list of links is available by clicking directly on a hyperlink in the above paragraph (at http://talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html). Efforts have been made to list all the major creationist websites, and a form has been provided to allow readers to suggest other links. In addition, efforts are also made to include links to relevant creationist material within many of the individual FAQ pages. By linking to creationist sites instead of attempting to incorporate their material, the potential for inadvertently misunderstanding or misrepresenting their positions is eliminated.
To summarize, if Mr. Fernandez is accusing the Talk.Origins Archive of pretending to represent both sides in the debate, he is clearly mistaken. The Archive does not now claim, nor has it ever claimed, to present anything other than the mainstream scientific perspective. Mr. Fernandez's wishes notwithstanding, his young-earth viewpoint does not fall into that category. If, on the other hand, he believes that any website participating in a discussion of evolution needs to present all the views, one is forced to wonder how his article found its way to the True.Origin site. The True.Origin site presents no articles favoring evolution, and its links page contains no sites favoring evolution.
It is not clear to me that the majority of the volunteers who work on the Archive are in fact atheists or agnostics. In fact, I do not know what their beliefs are -- it's not a topic which comes up much. In the area of religious beliefs, or lack thereof, I can only speak for myself, and I am neither an atheist nor an agnostic. I am a Roman Catholic. Although Mr. Fernandez might wish otherwise, there is no shortage of Christians or of Christian denominations which feel that there is no compelling theological reason to cling to a Young-Earth view of earth history. There is also no shortage of Christians who find no compelling theological reason to object to an evolutionary view of the history of life. I would advise Mr. Fernandez to read the God and Evolution FAQ.
To those that visit the TO site in search of answers- people that may be undecided and seeking unbiased information-to these people TO owes the courtesy of behaving in an informative capacity and not as an indoctrination site.
Apparently, however, Mr. Fernandez does not feel that True.Origin -- or any other creationist website -- owes its visitors that same "courtesy". He expresses dismay that we do not directly present the arguments of creationists on the Archive, but is apparently unconcerned by the failure of websites such as those of the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, or even the True.Origin Archive, to present any pro-evolution arguments at all. Mr. Fernandez fails to provide any reason why only those websites (such as the Talk.Origins Archive) which present the views of mainstream science should be obligated to present alternative views.
But it goes far beyond being just courteous or professional. It is morally irresponsible to misguide people through omission into any position that has eternal consequences-yes, eternal consequences. That last statement may sound religiously biased but is actually a logical result since, regardless of who is right or wrong in this matter, the ultimate end is of eternal consequences (whether an eternity in the grave, or an eternity in heaven or hell).
That statement sounds religiously biased because it is religiously biased. Some Christians, such as Mr. Fernandez, might believe that there are "eternal consequences" if the human body was created via a process of descent with modification from an ape-like ancestor; others, such as the Pope, disagree, stressing that it is the creation of the mind or soul that required the direct intervention, not the body. Mr. Fernandez again should refer to the God and Evolution FAQ before assuming that all Christians feel that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.
This, then, is my strongest criticism of TO. If TO is going to educate, then educate they should! To educate means to present all sides in truth and completeness and accuracy. Education is the antithesis of indoctrination. In this article I have presented but a small sample of the many cases where TO is guilty of being nowhere near complete, accurate or truthful. In some cases this may have been through their ignorance, and in other cases through deliberate intent-I'll not pretend to know which of the two is the case.
The purpose of the Talk.Origins archive, as I have already pointed out, is to present the mainstream scientific perspective on earth history and evolution. That is, to educate people on what is accepted science, and why. As I have pointed out, we do also make an effort to provide links to opposing arguments when appropriate, in the interest of presenting other views. We do not, however, attempt to present all views ourselves. That is not a necessary part of education. If it were, we would be teaching geocentrism in astronomy class, Holocaust denial in history, and both Judeo-Christian and Hindu creationism in biology.
1. A clearly stated disclaimer at their website indicating that their goal is about promoting the theory of evolution-to the point of demanding 'special' interpretations of the Bible-and, more generally, about promoting a naturalistic, materialistic view of the universe (a la Carl Sagan).
The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity.
Our goal is to provide the mainstream scientific perspective on the history of the earth and the history of life. We make no secret of that, and we do state that in multiple places very clearly.
Whether or not accepting the mainstream scientific perspective demands acceptance of a "special" interpretation of the bible is a theological question, not a scientific one, and not one which the Archive takes a stand on, since we advocate no particular religious or philosophical position. Mr. Fernandez might feel that the position that Genesis is written in figurative rather than scientifically accurate language is a "special" interpretation; others might think that uncritically accepting Genesis as a description of historical events, without considering when the book was first written, or the literary forms commonly used at that time is a "special" interpretation. Mr. Fernandez appears to assume here that his interpretation of Genesis is the only one generally accepted by Christians. This is simply incorrect, as the Various Interpretations of Genesis FAQ demonstrates.
Since the Talk.Origin archive does not seek to promote any specific religion or philosophy, naturalistic or otherwise, it would be inappropriate for us to alter our disclaimer to that suggested by Mr. Fernandez. In fact, it would be downright dishonest for us to do so.
2. A truthful, accurate and complete presentation of views other than evolution or naturalism (e.g., intelligent design theory) alongside their own preferred views. If they are unclear as to what these other views are, then they should conduct a serious, scholarly inquiry and not simply post some incomplete or distorted version of what they believe the other side has to say on the matter.
It is in the interests of not presenting an inaccurate or distorted view that we provide links to websites presenting opposing views, rather than attempting to present them ourselves. In addition, Mr. Fernandez's choice of host detracts from his argument here. It is difficult to accept that this is a sincere request, when it is presented on a site that does not attempt to meet those standards.
I cannot see how Talk.Origins will be able to acquire a status of objectivity and truthfulness without adding at least one of these attributes to their site. As it stands, Talk.Origins is an affront to the ideal of intellectual integrity, scholarly pursuit and moral responsibility.
Let's talk about intellectual integrity and moral responsibility for a second here, with the focus on Mr. Fernandez's own work. His post quotes extensively from, and purports to identify deception through omission in, the FAQ page at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html. This page is a sort of meta-FAQ, which provides a list of questions, with very brief (one to two sentence) answers, and a link to the pages which contain more detailed responses.
Mr. Fernandez's article analyzes seven of the 24 questions and answers presented on that page, and purports to identify deception by omission in each of those seven responses. Yet, when the quotes from Mr. Fernandez's article are compared to the original page, a real pattern of omission becomes clear.
Q: "Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?"
A: "No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity."
Q. Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
A. No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
Q: "No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?"
A: "Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true."
Q. No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true?
A. Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.
By omitting without acknowledgement the sentence with the links to the in-depth responses, Fernandez makes it appear that he is addressing the entire Talk.Origins response to each question. In fact, his entire claim that the Archive responses dishonestly omit material rests on the assumption that he is addressing the entire Archive response. Mr. Fernandez's behavior, not that of the Archive, demonstrates deception by omission in its purest form.
For Mr. Fernandez to engage in such conduct, and then claim that the Talk.Origins Archive is an "affront to the ideal of intellectual integrity, scholarly pursuit and moral responsibility" takes hypocrisy to a new level. It takes a great deal of chutzpah, and a complete lack of integrity, to use deliberate omissions of context as a basis for accusing someone else of deception by omission.
In the very first sentence on the True.Origin homepage, the founder and administrator of the site, Tim Wallace, gives the purpose of his site. He states that, "This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism's proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the 'Talk.Origins' newsgroup and website)." If Mr. Wallace wishes to maintain any claim to intellectual honesty, he should immediately withdraw Mr. Fernandez's article from his site, and issue an apology to the Talk.Origins Archive for his negligence in publishing such a blatantly dishonest article.


text:
US hosts global meeting to fight ransomware, without the world's number one culprit
0 0 Friday, October 15, 2021 Edit this post
WASHINGTON – When the White House summoned 30 countries this week to formulate strategies to combat ransomware, one country was intentio...
WASHINGTON – When the White House summoned 30 countries this week to formulate strategies to combat ransomware, one country was intentionally left out: Russia, the biggest source of the problem.
It's not that President Biden is excluding the country from the discussion. Since Mr. Biden's summit with President Vladimir V. Putin in Geneva in June, White House officials tested Moscow's willingness to crack down on the ransomware gangs that wreaked havoc in the United States last spring, closure of a critical gasoline and jet fuel pipeline and crippling a major meat producer. In recent weeks, US officials have said they have started passing intelligence on to Russians about specific hackers that the United States says are causing threats to businesses, cities and infrastructure. Officials say the Russians have appeared cooperative, but have yet to make any arrests.
There is evidence that the pressure exerted by Mr Biden in Geneva has made modest progress: spectacular attacks on critical infrastructure have waned, although there is a constant rate of requests for ransomware. Yet when asked how often he thought the United States would face such attacks in five years, General Paul M. Nakasone, director of the National Security Agency and commander of the United States Cyber Command , said: "Every day. "
The purpose of the meeting, said Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden's national security adviser, was to try to change that future by engaging allies to join the United States in what he called "an integrated effort to disrupt the 'ransomware ecosystem'. So, for two days, in groups led by Australia, Britain, Germany and India, government experts sought to agree on how they could prevent the groups from using anonymous cryptocurrencies, which facilitate ransom payments, or harden the infrastructure to make it less likely that a ransomware attack would freeze critical operations, as was done in May with Colonial Pipeline, a fuel distributor in the North-east.
The conference was convened by Anne Neuberger, a longtime National Security Agency official, who is now Sullivan's assistant for cyber and emerging technologies. Ms Neuberger also led the low-key exchange with Russia, which officials won't discuss in detail. She described the meeting as an "anti-ransomware initiative" that would focus on "cryptocurrency, resilience, disruption and diplomacy."
A foreign diplomat who attended the two-day closed-door meeting said it reminded him of "the early days of the fight against terrorism," when the White House tried to engage key players to join the effort to deprive terrorist groups of the space to operate. "But in this case, we left the Pakistanis in the room and treated them as if they were part of the solution," he said. "No one was prepared to do this with Russia."
White House officials said there was little debate on whether to exclude Russia, although they publicly said Moscow could be invited to future sessions. The administration decided that it was better, for the first session, to try to demonstrate in Moscow that the tolerance of ransomware groups operating on Russian territory – some of which are suspected of occasionally tendering agencies of Russian intelligence – would poison any real discussion of joint initiatives, and that Moscow would do everything possible to sabotage any modest measures on which the 30 countries could agree.
Yet even the Biden administration has discovered limits to the strength with which it can push for major changes. Although he has imposed cybersecurity standards on government contractors and created a series of "sprints" for government agencies to harden their systems, his efforts to crack down on the use of cyber currencies encountered some objections among major investors and users of these currencies.
While Ms Neuberger has advocated for 'know your customer' rules similar to those governing banks to combat money laundering, major cryptocurrency investors have opposed transaction disclosure requirements, claiming that anonymity is crucial for the growing market.
Some of the country's biggest companies are fighting legislation in Congress it would force them to report when attacked – a corporate embarrassment that could drive investors or customers away. Companies frequently try to hide the amount of ransom they pay, as Colonial Pipeline did this year. (Some of the millions he paid were recovered later.)
"Most violations go unreported to law enforcement," Lisa O. Monaco, the deputy attorney general, who has worked extensively on cybersecurity issues as the former president's internal security adviser Barack Obama, wrote recently. "The current gap in reporting hampers the government's ability to tackle not only the threat of ransomware, but all cybercrime activity as well. "
The final communiqué avoided mentioning the mandatory declaration. He called for "enhanced cooperation to inhibit, trace and indict ransomware payment flows, in accordance with national laws and regulations," with the final sentence acknowledging that many countries – not just tax havens – would resist efforts to facilitate user identification. cryptocurrencies.
Mr. Sullivan acknowledged the differences at the opening of the virtual meeting, the only part that took place in public. "Our governments may have different approaches when it comes to what tools we think are the best to counter ransomware," he said, "everything from how to secure our networks, to taking advantage of diplomatic tools and even the most effective means of combating illicit financing ". But he insisted they were united in a bid to stop attacks that can lock down a company's data or prevent nations from distributing water or keeping bridges open.
"This is not a meeting in the United States," Sullivan insisted, noting how widespread ransomware attacks have disrupted critical infrastructure around the world. a attack on a water distribution system in Israel, for example, rocked the leaders of the American public services, and one on one petrochemical plant in Saudi Arabia revealed the vulnerability of its oil production.
But at the meeting, the United States noted several of its latest measures, including using a Civil War-era law – the False Claims Act – to allow whistleblowers to reveal when government contractors did not meet basic cybersecurity standards. (The law was enacted in March 1863 to clamp down on businesses selling defective weapons and supplies to the Union Army.)
"For too long, companies have chosen silence in the mistaken belief that it is less risky to hide a violation than to highlight it and report it," Monaco said last week. "Well that's changing today."
But no similar international initiative had been announced at the end of the conference. Ms. Neuberger said the meeting was "a start" and the key was for the United States to build a loose alliance of like-minded nations to tackle ransomware attacks. "This will not be the last meeting," she said.
Newsrust - US Top News: US hosts global meeting to fight ransomware, without the world's number one culprit
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/10/14/us/politics/14dc-ransomware-2/14dc-ransomware-2-facebookJumbo.jpg
https://www.newsrust.com/2021/10/us-hosts-global-meeting-to-fight.html

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
New Information Centre to Entice Visitors to The Mackay Region
From Sunday, visitors travelling north will be greeted in the region by the new, state-of-the-art Mackay Region Visitor Information Centre. Located in the newly refurbished Sarina Field of Dreams Parklands, this centre has been designed to encourage visitors to continue travelling through to Mackay and explore the surrounding region.
The Mackay Region Visitor Information Centre may be based in the original 1950's Railway Station, but inside it features the latest technology, making it one of the most advanced information centres in Australia.
Amongst the many technological features, designed to inform and inspire visitors, is the new interactive touch table. Featuring multi-user compatibility, the touch table will enable visitors to find, research and book tours, and accommodation from across the region, all at their fingertips.
Mayor Greg Williamson said northbound visitors would be instantly impressed with the Mackay region, following the opening of the new Visitor Information Centre.
"The $3.45 million investment in the Mackay Region Visitor Information Centre and Sarina Field of Dreams Parklands is the latest in a series of commitments made by Mackay Regional Council to grow tourism in our region."
Cr Williamson said council had partnered with Mackay Tourism and the State Government to turn the Sarina Field of Dreams Parklands into the gateway to the Mackay Region.
"By dazzling northbound travelers with what our region has to offer at Sarina, our region will tap into a greater segment of the drive market and ultimately provide an on-going boost to the local economy," he said.
Mackay Tourism General Manager Tas Webber, explained the strategy behind the new Visitor Information Centre in Sarina.
"With construction of the Mackay Ring Road underway, Mackay Tourism, in partnership with Mackay Regional Council, made the decision to invest in a new Visitor Information Centre on the highway at Sarina, south of the ring road turnoff"
Mr Webber continued, "without a presence in Sarina, a significant proportion of the important northbound drive market were at risk of bypassing Mackay and missing out on the abundance of attractions the region has to offer".
Mr Webber was quick to point out that the existing Mackay Visitor Information at 320 Nebo Road would remain open, to service any southbound travellers or visitors arriving at the Mackay Airport.
Mr Webber called on locals, passionate about tourism and our region to volunteer in one of these Visitor Information Centres.
"With two information centres for Mackay and Sarina, there's double the information available to inspire visitors to stay longer. With two centres however, there's also the need for more volunteers".
"I encourage those passionate about tourism in The Mackay Region to put their hand up and volunteer at Mackay, Sarina or with our Mobile VIC. Volunteering is a great way to meet people from all over the world, and help share the love you have for your region" explained Mr Webber.
Daniel Brown - Communications Officer


text:
Pakistan allocates $4.5ml to launch snow leopard protection programme
September 27, 2017 admin	0 Comments
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has allocated an amount of 4.5 million dollars to launch multi-year snow leopard protection programme in Gilgit-Baltistan region next year.
"An amount of 4.5 million dollars had been approved for a multi-year snow leopard protection and the programme would be launched next year in Gilgit-Baltistan region," said an official of Ministry of Climate Change while talking to reporter.
He said that the snow leopard conservation efforts in Pakistan dated back to the early 70's with the government endorsement of provincial wildlife acts.
The efforts further picked up in 1990's when the Snow Leopard Trust initiated its interventions in the country, he added.
He also recalled that Pakistani government also supported and endorsed the Snow Leopard Conservation Strategic Plan in 2007 as part of the implementation of the Snow Leopard Survival Strategy.
Since then many wildlife conservation organisations in Pakistan had been implementing the snow leopard conservation action plans, respectively, in the country by working with the local communities and government departments, he added.
The Landscape Management Plan of the Karakoram-Pamir Landscape, which is one of the largest snow leopard landscapes in the world, is in its final stage and would be endorsed after review by the GSLEP Secretariat in a few week's time.
As a part of efforts to mitigate human-snow leopard conflict, several measures have been undertaken in the country, such as: construction of predator-proof corrals and compensation programmes in the form of livestock insurance schemes initiated by the provincial governments in collaboration of non-governmental organisations.
Snow leopard range in Pakistan spreads across 80,000 square kilometers in the Hindu Kush, Pamir, Karakoram and Himalayan Mountain Ranges of northern Pakistan.
An estimated 200-420 snow leopards exist in Pakistan's northern mountains across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Gilgit-Baltistan (GB), and Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK).
However, he said, without slowing down global warming to stabilise glacial-melt in 20 snow leopard range countries including Pakistan, habitats of the snow leopard cannot be protected.
Snow leopards habitats in Pakistan's north are at a serious risk of vanishing as glaciers are rapidly melting because of global warming-induced climate change impacts.
He said, snow leopard today was fighting for his survival while glaciers that provide with habitat for him are vanishing because of climate change.
He said, "With rapidly receding glaciers due to global warming, the habitat of the snow leopard is fast vanishing, posing a grave danger to the very survival of this snow leopard, which is reflection of God's beauty in the mountains."
He was of the view that global efforts for tackling global warming have suffered a serious blow with America's pullout from the historic global climate change accord.
The agreement, reached at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is an historic accord negotiated in December 2015 by 190 countries including United States to limit global temperature increases to no more than 2øC above preindustrial levels.
← Speakers term better focus, coordination key for successful implementation on SDGs
MCCI elects new body for 2017-18, Malik Israr new president →
Judiciary mandated to ensure fundamental rights of people: CJP
May 17, 2018 admin	0
Proceedings being conducted very cautiously in Jehangir Tareen case: CJP
October 20, 2017 admin	0
Shandur Polo Festival 2018 to be held from July 7


text:
Free Poker Money
Poker Babes
Playing Two or More Tables at Once - Erick Lindgren
Unknown February 26, 2009 0
Most players eventually realize that it's fun and fairly easy to play at multiple online tables at one time. Early in my career, I played as many as eight games at once on a daily basis. Here are some tips and instructions for playing multiple games:
1. Increase the resolution on your monitor. You can do this by right clicking on the desktop, then clicking on Properties, then clicking on Settings. You can then grab the arrow in the Screen Resolution area and move it to a smaller resolution.
If possible, use the 1,600 x 1,200 setting to get up to four games on one screen without overlap. In order to maximize your screen area, make sure your video card and monitor support higher resolution settings.
2. Once you get into playing more than one game, the best way for you to keep up with the action is to look for hands you can fold automatically. Use advance actions. That will help you pay more attention to the game you have a real hand in.
3. Play the same game at every table. It will help you avoid mistakes in reading and playing your hand, and you'll find it easier to get into a good rhythm.
4. Most importantly: Track who has raised the pot. Make sure you make a mental note of this since it is the key to how you will play your hand later. It sounds simple, but it is easy to get in a pot and not recall who raised when you're playing more than one game.
5. Make sure you take some breaks. When I used to play eight games, I was an animal. I would run to the bathroom and every screen would be beeping at me. Take a few breaks. The games will still be there when you get back.
Playing multiple games is a lot of fun and I hope to see you at the table. Or tables.
Free $100 Bankroll at Full Tilt Poker
Posted by Unknown at February 26, 2009 No comments:
Labels: Poker Tips
High Stakes Poker Season 5 Airing March 1st On GSN - Plus Sneak Preview
Televised Poker
The Much Anticipated High Stakes Poker Season 5 will air on March 1st, 9pm/8c on GSN. Season 5 will have a minimum buy-in of $200,000 which is the largest for an entire run of a television series.
Returning players are some of the world's best, including Doyle Brunson, Eli Elezra, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Laak and Antonio Esfandiari. They will be challenged by well known, but new to HIGH STAKES POKER players: Tom Dwan, Joe Hachem, Howard Lederer, Alan Meltzer, Peter Eastgate, Dario Minieri, David Peat, Ilari Sahamies and Sam Simon. Former New York gossip columnist turned author and television personality A.J. Benza will host with popular poker analyst Gabe Kaplan. Henry Orenstein of HSPR, L.L.C. and Mori Eskandani of Poker Productions serve as executive producers. The fifth season of HIGH STAKES POKER is filmed at the Golden Nugget Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, NV.
Host: A.J. Benza
AJ Benza returns for his fifth season as the host of television's only cash game no limit Texas hold 'em poker series, HIGH STAKES POKER. Benza, a New York native, has made several appearances on the big screen including: "Rocky Balboa," "Ransom," "Conspiracy Theory," "The Deli," "Not Even the Trees," "Chump Change" and "P.S. Your Cat Is Dead." The multi-talented Benza recently published his memoir, "Fame, Ain't It A Bitch," a highly-charged account of his rise to power and fall from grace as New York City's most controversial columnist of the 1990's. Benza is also a regular contributor to Playboy and has been published in many magazines including George, Cosmopolitan and Manhattan File. Benza first started in the industry as a sportswriter for Newsday in 1984. From there, he moved on to the New York Daily News and soon became the city's most celebrated and feared gossip columnist, writing and editing both the daily "Hot Copy" and "Downtown" columns.
Host: Gabe Kaplan
Kaplan returns for his fifth season as HIGH STAKES POKER's analyst. Kaplan's poker knowledge and ability to explain the nuances of the game have made him a viewer favorite. Kaplan is no stranger to high stakes games and tournaments. He has made the final table in six World Series of Poker events, won the Super Bowl of Poker twice and finished third in the WPT 2004 Mirage Poker Showdown. Best known for his starring role as the teacher and reformed "Sweathog" on the hit television series "Welcome Back Kotter," Kaplan has also appeared in theater productions, originating the role of "Groucho, A Life In Review," and starred in the national touring company of the Broadway comedy, "Doubles." Kaplan is an active stock market participant whose Wall Street investment strategies have been written about in several leading financial magazines. In addition to being on HIGH STAKES POKER, Kaplan performs as a stand-up comedian, speaking at corporate and civic events.
Labels: Poker News, Televised Poker
Phil Ivey Wins $1.1 Million In One Day, $900k From Durrrr
On Tuesday evening, Phil Ivey battled it out with some of the top pros on Full Tilt and won huge pots from Ziigmund, LarsLuzak and most notably, Durrrr.
At the end of the day, Phil was up $1.1 Million and had $1 Million at the table against Durrrr whom he won $900k from in the "Ivey Thunderdome" (Phil Ivey's Headsup Pot Limit Holdem $500/$1000 Room). Only 3 other players have ever reached $1 Million at the table; Phil "OMGClayAiken" Galfond, Ilari "Ziigmund" Sahamies and Tom "durrrr" Dwan.
The largest pot of the day was a $336,590 pot Ivey won against Durrrr in PLO. On the flop, Ivey had Aces, Durrrr had bottom 2 pair(10s and 8s) and open ended straight draw. On the turn, the board paired, giving Ivey a better 2 pair, a river was a blank and Ivey takes down the pot.
The Second Biggest Pot was a $328,790 between Ivey and Durrr; Ivey winning it. Ivey had a open ended straight draw on flop against Durrrr's pocket 10s. Ivey hits his straight on the turn and wins the pot.
In the last headsup hand between Ivey and Durrrr they played a $173,419 pot. They both went all in preflop, Ivey showing Aces with spades, Durrrr being double suited. Ivy hits a flush on the flop and Durrr is drawing dead. You can see a screenshot of the hand below.
A match between Ivey and Dwan for the Durrrr Challenge should be an entertaining one. Hopefully, Dwan doesn't lose too much money before playing with Ivey. Dwan has mentioned if he loses big twice in the first two Durrrr Challenges then he'll decline action from further opponents.
Labels: High Stakes News, Poker News
Poker006 Launches RakeBack Site - rakeback.poker006.com
Poker006 proudly presents our new rakeback site;
http://rakeback.poker006.com/
We have spent a lot of time getting you guys the BEST rates allowed out there on every room we represent. We already have lots of players getting rakeback through us, and now its time to offer you guys the same.
To mention some of the deals we are offering:
Ultimate Bet 30%
Poker4ever 35%
True Poker 27%
Action Poker 35%
Carbon Poker 30%
Minted Poker 46%
PKR Poker 30%
Poker Kings 30%
Absolute Poker 30%
Interpoker 30%
Poker Heaven 30%
Cake Poker 33%
Fat Bet Poker 50%
Poker Nordica 30%
Red Star Poker 33%
Full Tilt Poker 27%
You will have access to daily updated stats on all your rakeback deals, so you can see how much you are starting to earn by playing on rakeback rooms.
We also offer a GREAT 3-tiered refer-a-friend program, where you actually get a comission on your friends and their friends rake!!
Visit RakeBack Site
Labels: Rakeback
Durrrr Challenge - Dwan and Antonius Session #5
Session 5 started Monday 3:11 PM EST between Dwan and Antonius(Session 4 was only 4 hands, they had to cancel for some reason). Patrik started the day being up $56K but in 15 minutes, Durrrr won over $125K ($104K of it in one hand) to retake the lead in the match. Just before 4pm, they had this conversation;
durrrr: theres 2 500/1ks running
durrrr: u want to play here or there?
durrrr: 3 500/1k now
durrrr: id rather play there if u dont care
durrrr: but since ur stuck ill play here if u want
durrrr: ur call
Patrik Antonius: can u send me some $$$?
durrrr: 300 otw
Patrik Antonius: sounds good
durrrr: lets play here 15more minutes then 500/1k ok?
durrrr: that ok w/ u?
Patrik Antonius: k
Then Durrrr joined 2 other tables at 500/1k while still playing 4 headsup with Patrik! Dwan has mentioned if there is action at higher limits than he'll play there and put the Durrrr Challenge on hold. The only reason Dwan made the challenge was because there wasn't enough action at the high limits.
They quit after 3 hours 10 minutes with durrrr up $207K for the session, and up $150K overall for the match. Patrik lost 2 big pots in the last hour of play, a 167k and a 165k. In the 167k pot, Durrrr had a flush draw and Antonius flopped a set. Durrr got lucky and hit. The other big pot, Patrik tried to bluff on flop, turn and river. Unfortunately for him, Durrrr hit his straight on the turn.
durrrr: gg ima go lift
durrrr: ill try to wakeup @ a dece time tomorrow if yer awake, no promises tho
Current standings:
-durrrr's results: +$149,977.50
-Patrik Antonius's results: $-150,806.00
-Hands 3,952 of 50K
-Total Bet $22,062,217.00
-Total Sessions 5
-Time Played 12hours 37mins
-Hands/hour ~300
Labels: Durrrr Challenge, Poker News
Theo Jorgensen Defeats Gus Hansen in Boxing Match
Theo Jorgensen Defeats Gus Hansen via decision. Everyone labeling the fight "boring", "worst fight ever". I didn't think it was that bad, better than I thought it would be but would've been better with a knockout. Gus entered the the arena in a wheelchair with the song "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me?".
Mid way through the fight, Gus Hansen gets knocked down to the canvas but looks like just a slip. Judges score in favour of Theo Jorgensen and he wins $35,000 prop bet from Gus.
Gus Hansen Vs. Theo Jorgensen rematch?
Labels: Gus vs Theo Fight, Poker News
Update on Durrr's Challenge -Tom "Durrr" Dwan Vs.Patrik Antonius
Saturday - Session 2 and 3
Durrrr and Patrik played two sessions on Saturday.
First session - Durrrr up $171K total after a total of 1633 hands played.
Second session - Patrik wins $227K, pulling into the lead with $56K - 2921 hands played.
Cliff Notes by spadebidder from 2 + 2 Forums;
* durrrr and Patrik played two sessions on Saturday. After a short 30 minute session beginning at 1:54PM EST durrrr hit his highest lead so far in the challenge, up $171K after a total of 1633 challenge hands played.
* durrrr takes a lunch break and then plays some $500/$1000 HA with several other players. durrrr has told Patrik a couple times that when he can get action at the bigger tables then challenge play will just have to wait.
* Challenge play resumes at 4:50 PM. They stop for a 20 minute break to watch the Gus Hansen boxing match on gushansentv.com. This is Hansen's new poker TV web site, which is worth checking out. The boxing match was streamed live as a stunt to promote the new site. Right now Gus is replaying and narrating some of his recent high stakes play on Full Tilt, which is very cool.
* They play until 9PM, ending with a total of 2921 hands played and Patrik now up $56K. So Patrick won $227K in this four hour session, taking the lead again. This is the first time a session has ended with Patrick in the lead.
* They agree to meet again Sunday around noon.
Patrik Antonius: im done
durrrr: nice win, gg
durrrr: wanna try to play tomorrow?
Patrik Antonius: ty gg
Patrik Antonius: i'll sleep maybe 12 hours now
durrrr: im goin out tonight
Patrik Antonius: y i wanna play everyday when theres nothing else going on
durrrr: so probly wont wanna play until like idk noonish tomorrow
durrrr: 15hrs or w/e id guess
Patrik Antonius: cu tomorrow
durrrr: but if i drink too much
durrrr: then no game
durrrr: lol
Patrik Antonius: lol
durrrr: we'll c, cya
How To Win At Tournament Poker, Part 2 - Chris Ferguson
Last week I talked about not adjusting for tournament play, answered three specific tournament questions, and stressed that there is little difference between tournament strategy and ring game strategy. This week, I would like to expand on that by answering a fourth question, and address the two situations where it's right to deviate from simply playing your best game.
The fourth question: Surely the different payout structure between ring games and tournaments means something, doesn't it?
Yes, tournaments differ from live action in that you are rewarded for how long you last, rather than for how many chips you accumulate.
In ring game poker, the chips you save by folding are just as valuable as the chips you win by playing. In tournament play, the chips you save are actually more valuable.
Consider a typical $1,000 buy-in tournament with 100 players, where first place is worth $40,000 out of a total prize pool of $100,000.
At the beginning of the tournament everyone has 1,000 in chips with a value of $1,000. The eventual winner will have 100,000 in chips and, in live action, would be entitled to a prize of $100,000. In a tournament, that same $100,000 is worth only $40,000, meaning that, at the end, each 1,000 in chips is only worth $400. As your stack grows, the value of each additional chip decreases, which means you want to be slightly more averse to taking unnecessary risks in tournaments than you might be in live action. (And if you are at all averse to taking risks in live action, you're probably playing over your bankroll.) Don't overcompensate for tournament play. Most people would be better off making no changes at all, rather than the changes that they do make.
Having said all this, there are two cases where adjusting will help:
1. When you are just out of the money.
If you are short stacked, you need to be very careful when committing your chips, especially with a call.
If you have a large stack, look for opportunities to push the short and medium stacks around - especially the medium stacks. These players will be a lot less likely to want a confrontation with you, and it should be open season on their blinds and antes.
If you have a medium or small stack, you need to be a bit more careful. Remember, though, that the other players - even the larger stacks - don't want to tangle with you. They just want to steal from you without a fight. Be prepared to push them around a little, and even to push back occasionally when they try to bully you. This often turns into a game of Chicken between the bigger stacks to determine which large stack will let the other steal most of the blinds.
2. At the final table.
Very little adjustment is necessary until you are one player away from the final table. Here, again, you should tighten up slightly because this is the next point where the payout structure handsomely rewards outlasting other players.
Look for opportunities to push around the other players, and the smaller stacks in particular. This is good advice throughout the final table.
What about heads up?
There are no more tournament adjustments necessary. You are essentially playing a winner take all freeze-out for the difference between first and second place.
Remember: Tournament adjustments should be subtle. It is rare that your play would be dramatically different in a tournament. When in doubt, just play your best game. And if you never adjust from that, you've got a great shot of winning, no matter what game you're playing.
People often ask very specific questions about how to be a winning tournament player:
* How many chips am I supposed to have after the first two levels?
* Should I play a lot of hands early while the blinds are small, then tighten up later as the blinds increase?
* I seem to always finish on the bubble. Should I tighten up more as I get close to the money, or try to accumulate more chips early on?
Surprisingly, all three questions have the same answer:
Stop trying to force things to happen. Just concentrate on playing solid poker, and let the chips fall where they may.
In fact, that's the best answer for almost any specific tournament question. Here is a more useful question:
How much of a difference is there between ring game strategy and tournament strategy?
The answer: Not as much as you think.
Before you worry about adjusting for tournaments, concentrate on adjusting for the other players. The most important skill in poker is the ability to react to a wide range of opponents playing a wide range of styles. Players who can do this will thrive in both ring games and tournaments alike.
Many of the most costly tournament mistakes are the result of players over-adjusting for tournament play. Let's look at these questions again:
How many chips am I supposed to have after the first two levels?
The short answer is: As many as you can get.
Play your cards. Play your opponents. Do not try to force action simply because you think you "need" to have a certain number of chips to have a chance of winning. You should be thinking about accumulating more chips, while trying to conserve the chips you already have. The more chips you have, the better your chances of winning. The fewer chips you have, the worse your chances.
Forget about reaching some magical number. There is no amount below which you have no shot, nor is there any amount above which you can be guaranteed a victory. A chip and a chair is enough to win, and enough to beat you. Getting fixated on a specific number is a good way to ensure failure. Next question:
Should I play a lot of hands early while the blinds are small, and then tighten up later as the blinds increase?
Your play shouldn't change much as the tournament progresses. Gear your play to take maximum advantage of your opponents, irrespective of how far along the tournament is. Most players are too loose in the early stages of a tournament. Rather than become one of these players, adjust for their play instead:
* Attempt to steal the blinds less often
* Call more raises
* Re-raise more frequently
Likewise, when opponents typically tighten up later on, you should steal more often and be less inclined to get involved in opened pots. Again, this should be a reaction to the way your opponents are playing, not an action based on any particular stage of the tournament.
Last question: I seem to always finish on the bubble. Should I tighten up more as I get close to the money to avoid this, or try to accumulate more chips early on?
Usually the people asking this question are already tightening up too soon before reaching the money. In other words, they are over-adjusting to tournament play. Not only is it incorrect to tighten up considerably before you are two or three players from the money, doing so is the surest way to finish on or near the bubble. Just play your best, most aggressive game, and try not to let your stack dwindle to a point where you can't protect your hand with a pre-flop all-in raise. If you do, your opponents will be getting the right pot odds to call, even with weak hands. Look for opportunities to make a move before you let this happen, even if it means raising with less than desirable holdings.
Next week, I will address the two situations where adjusting your game will help.
Mike Matusow Speaks Out Against Alleged Super User Russ Hamilton - "100% Guilty"
Hardcore Poker Show talked to Mike Matusow about Russ Hamilton and the cheating that was going on at UltimateBet and Absolute Poker. Mike states Russ is "100% Guilty" and has evidence to prove it. You can listen to Mike Matusow in the video below;
Earlier evidence;
-Russ Hamilton was one of the previous owners of UB before Tokwiro Enterprises purchased it.
-The superuser account names nvtease/NoPaddles/sleepless were traced to an address in Nevada – the home address of Russell Hamilton.
Possible Russ Hamilton's Defense; A friend either purposefully or inadvertently set him up.
I'd like to hear what evidence Mike has. Unfortunately Mike cannot discuss details due to upcoming court case.
Free $100 Bankroll at Pokerstars
Labels: Poker News
Verdict: Guilty - For 5 Poker Players In South Carolina Poker Trial
Judge J. Lawrence Duffy in South Carolina Poker Trial makes his ruling;
"Texas hold'em is a game of skill. There was no doubt in his mind" Duffy said, but he found the Five men guilty of playing in a 'House of Gaming' based on 1802 Gambling Law.
The Defendants will likely appeal the verdict. Their main arguement being; a game that has more skill than luck should not be considered gambling.
The Defence Attorney thoughts;
"The judge's rationale for finding them guilty was a little puzzling, because he acknowledged that the legislature did not define 'house of gaming' and that there was no definition for that," said Phillips. "If the legislature did not define it and the court does not know what it means, how then could you expect my clients to know [what it meant]?"
Poker Player's Alliance Thoughts;
"We are humbled by Judge Duffy's thoughtful decision and applaud the effort put forth by the legal team defending these poker players," said John Pappas, the executive director of the PPA. "It's becoming quite clear the legal community agrees that this great American pastime is a game of predominant skill, not luck, and should not be considered gambling under the law."
Specialize At Your Peril - Howard Lederer
The recent poker explosion on TV and the Internet has created a flood of new players who are serious about developing their game. Sadly for them, television is sending a skewed message. No-Limit Hold 'em is the game of choice when the game is shown on TV, and it's easy to think there is only one game out there. While no one would argue that No-Limit makes for the most exciting television, there are many dangers associated with playing only one game.
First, you run the risk of getting bored, and boredom will lead to a stunting of your poker development. Enthusiasm is a critical ingredient for a successful poker career. When I spend time around the best poker players in the world, the one thing that they all share is a genuine love and passion for the game.
Next, you might be missing your true poker calling. As it happens, my best game isn't No-Limit Hold 'em - it's Limit Hold 'em. Had I not tried playing limit, I would never have found the game I am best at.
There are reasons why all the biggest casinos in the world feature multiple games. Stop by the big game at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and you're liable to see No-Limit and Limit, with games ranging from Seven-Card Stud to Deuce-to-Seven Draw. The best players in the world simply love to play poker. To deny themselves the pleasure of playing some of the best forms of the game would be unthinkable. They also know that if they play just one game, the specialists in a particular game (who are not nearly as good overall poker players) would be able to sit at their game and win. If you want to climb to the top of the poker world, you better become a great poker generalist. If you insist on limiting yourself to one game, you'll never make it.
Even if your ultimate goal is to become an accomplished No-Limit Hold 'em player, I encourage you to at least play a lot of Limit Hold 'em. Too many No-Limit specialists get by with almost no post-flop skills. To get good at limit Hold 'em, you will be forced get more comfortable playing after the flop. Getting free cards on fourth street and making close value bets on fifth street are just two of the skills you'll be working on. And those skills are transferable. Developing these skills in limit Hold 'em will allow you to play your hands with all your options available. And your No-Limit results will improve dramatically.
Playing the other games will develop skills that will simply make you a better poker player. Skills that have subtle value in No-Limit Hold 'em are very important in the other games. Acquiring these skills will have profound effects on your No-Limit game, even though you might not even be aware of their importance now.
Playing Seven-Card Stud will definitely teach you the value of free cards. It is a fundamental skill necessary to succeed at the game. In Pot-Limit Omaha you will learn the power of position and the power of the semi-bluff. Seven-Card Stud 8/Better is a game where you need to learn how to narrow the field at the right time. The number of players in a pot can make a hand go from a fold to a raise. Razz? Well, if nothing else, it will teach you how important patience can be when things aren't going well.
The world of poker has a lot more to offer than No-Limit Hold 'em. And if you start to explore that world, I am confident you will enjoy the game more. Getting good at each game will take time, so start out small and read what you can. Have fun; a new world awaits.
Scotty Nguyen Wins $10,000 H.O.R.S.E. Event
Scotty Wins the $10,000 H.O.R.S.E. Event. He also won the $50,000 WSOP H.O.R.S.E. Event back in June. Scotty fought through a field of 96 players with total prize pool of $921,600. Rheem and Nguyen found themselves headsup after Rheem knocked out Jeff Madsen and Chris Tsiprailidis in 3rd and 4th place. Before headsup could get underway, Scotty and Rheem agreed to chop up the remaining prize money and declare Nguyen the champion.
Here are the results of the $10,000 H.O.R.S.E. Event;
Note: These are the official prize payouts and do not reflect the final deal between Nguyen and Rheem.
1. Scotty Nguyen - $339,743
2. David "Chino" Rheem - $181,227
3. Jeff Madsen - $122,573
4. Chris Tsiprailidis - $86,630
5. Matt Graham - $66,355
6. Bob Golick - $52,531
7. Amnon Filippi - $40,551
8. John Monnette - $29,941
9. Kenny Tran - $10,000
Here is an interview with Scotty after he won the $50,000 WSOP H.O.R.S.E. Event back in June. My favourite part is the song at 1:23.
Scotty Nguyen Addresses His Table Image at the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. on RawVegas.tv
"Scotty Nguyen was at the launch party for the Real Deal at the Venetian and talked to RawVegas' Dave Farra about his table image during the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. during the WSOP 2008. He won the event with a little liquid courage and it seems like he might still be drunk from that fateful night."
Gus Hansen's Weigh-In at EPT Copenhagen - Gus and Theo Weigh In For The Big Fight This Week.
Gus vs. Theo fight is approaching (Feb. 21st). They had their official weigh-ins today, Gus Hansen weighing in at 80.5 kilos (177 pounds) and Theo weighing in at 86 Kilos (189.5 pounds). Pokerstars.tv filmed the weigh ins and Hansen and Theo answering questions at the press conference. You can watch the video below;
EPT Copenhagen S5: Gus Hansen's Weigh In on PokerStars.tv
Bookmakers have decided Theo Jørgensen is the favourite over Gus Hansen with odds of 60-40. Theo has been training for the last year whereas Gus has only been training the last 6-7 weeks. Also, Gus just recently had knee surgery and was seen limping around poker tournaments.
The idea for the fight started when Gus Hansen and good friend Theo Jorgensen were playing their regular game of Squash. Gus continued to win and after every point Gus would do "shadow boxing". Theo didn't like that and challenged Gus to a boxing match. Gus accepted and decided it was a good way to promote his new website gushansentv.com. You can watch the live stream video of the boxing match free at 21:00 GMT+1, (3PM EST Time) on Saturday, 21/02/09 on Gus' new site.
If you are in Denmark, you can watch it live. Entry will cost 249 Dkr ~ $43, tickets still available I believe.
Common Mistakes - Phil Gordon
Everyone makes mistakes. The thing is, a good player will learn from them while a bad player will make the same mistake over and over again. And poker players that can exploit these mistakes will win.
Here are some of the most common mistakes that bad players make and my usual methods for exploiting them:
A player doesn't bluff enough. When these players bet or raise, I usually give them credit for a good hand. When they check, I will usually bet to try and take the pot.
A player overvalues top pair. The "average" winning hand in Hold 'em is two pair. Yet many players are willing to take tremendous risks with top pair. When I have a hand that can beat a player who overvalues his top pair, I will over-bet the pot and put them into a position to make a big mistake. I go out of my way to play small pocket pairs against these players because I know that if I flop a set, I'm likely to get paid off in a huge way.
A player under-bets the pot. It is incredibly important, especially in No Limit Hold 'em, to make bets large enough to punish opponents for their draws. When a player under-bets the pot and I have a draw, I take advantage of their mistake by just calling the small bet. When I think I have him beat, I'll make a raise.
A player calls too much. I will very rarely bluff against a "calling station." I will, however, make value bets throughout the hand.
A player tightens up under pressure. Most bad players "squeeze" too much in the middle stages of a tournament, or when they're on the bubble. They tighten up and wait for a huge hand. Against these players, I will play a lot looser, looking to steal a larger share of the blinds and antes.
A player telegraphs the strength of his hand with "tells." I am always observing these players, whether I am in the hand or not.
Playing perfect poker may be nearly impossible for most players but, by recognizing your own tendencies - and those of your opponents - you're much more likely to limit your mistakes and capitalize on the weaknesses of others at the table.
This lesson is from Phil Gordon's Little Green Book of No Limit Hold'em Simon Spotlight Entertainment, Sept 2005.
Labels: Phil Gordon, Poker Tips
Wrap - Glossary of Poker Terms
Poker Glossary
Wrap - In Omaha hold 'em, an open ended straight draw comprising two board cards and three or four cards from a player's hand. A player holding 345A with the board 67K has a "wrap", as any 3, 4, or 5, or 8 will make a straight. A hand of 4589 would also be a wrap draw, but would often be referred to as a "big wrap" because it has twenty outs rather than thirteen, and is not at the idiot end.
Labels: Poker Glossary
Tom "Durrr" Dwan and Patrik Antonius Finally Start Durrr's Million Dollar Challenge
Dwan and Antonius have started the 50,000 hand challenge with side bet of Dwan paying the challenger $1.5 million if they win and if the challenger wins, they pay Dwan $500k.
durrrr's results graph
They started the challenge Wednesday morning and played for nearly 5 hours (292 minutes). They played 4 tables of Omaha PL $200/$400, a total of 1541 hands played and durrr up 134K at the end.
The biggest hand they played was a $148k pot. Durrr flopped a set of 10s where Antonius flopped a wrap, open ended straight draw with a gut shot. Antonius missed his straight draws and Durrr won the $148k pot.
Full Tilt created 8 PLO tables just for this challenge. Why 8 tables you ask? So when one of their stakes gets too high they can move to the next table to drop back to 100BB each ($40K). We've heard 275BB and 250BB as being the amount they want to stay under.
Here is what Patrik Antonius had to say right before the match
Playing four heads-up tables will be tough, especially at pot-limit Omaha. PLO is a game of good calls, good value bets and good bluffs; you have a lot of tough decisions on the turn and river, that's for sure, so I will need plenty of focus. Thankfully I have played so many hands of PLO that I am able to respond to situations a bit quicker and I tend to take the same amount of time for every decision, so I do not give off any timing tells. Every now and then you get a hand where you have to use the time bank but Tom usually takes quite a bit of time to act, too, so we will play at the same pace." Patrik continued, "I've done quite well against durrrr playing two or three simultaneous tables, so I am pretty confident, although that fourth table does make a difference and how I adapt to that is the key. He has much more experience at playing four or more heads-up tables at the highest stakes; his brain seems to be programmed much better for that kind of thing.
-durrrr's results: +$134,911
-Patrik Antonius's results: -$135,209
Poker After Dark: Nets vs. Vets cash game - Eagerly Awaited Game Sure To Attract Viewers From All Age Groups
The first of seven weeks of cash games that will air on the 5th season of NBC's Poker After Dark takes place this week as three of poker's most successful online cash game players battle against three of poker's more seasoned veterans of live cash games. Putting up a minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $250,000 to begin play are Taylor "Green Plastic" Caby, Cole "CTS" South, and David "Raptor" Benefield, all instructors at the poker training site CardRunners.com, as well as long-time cash game players and fan favorites Doyle Brunson, Gabe Kaplan, and Eli Elezra.
Anticipation for this week's game has been building for some time among members of the Internet community. Caby, South, and Benefield have gained considerable recognition in the poker world for their success playing in cash games online, creating quite a fan base as a result. While Benefield has had some television time as he has played in more tournaments, this will be the first television appearance ever for both Caby and South, so it will be interesting to see how they all fare under the lights and with cameras scrutinizing their every move.
Brunson, Kaplan, and Elezra, of course, are used to all of the hoopla involved in playing on television, as they have done so many times in the past. All three participated in the cash game that took place during Week 37 of Poker After Dark, one in which Brunson continued his streak of never losing in a cash game played on television. Whether he can keep his record intact against this group should be only one of the reasons for fans to tune in this week and watch.
Brief profiles of all six players follow. The match will begin airing on NBC late night Monday at 2:05 a.m., February 16, and will continue for five consecutive nights in the same time slot. A special program called the "Director's Cut" will air late night Saturday, February 21, at 1:00 a.m., right after Saturday Night Live. This show will feature Leeann Tweeden with a behind-the-scenes look at the week with highlights and insightful player interviews. Viewers can also watch the match at www.nbcsports/msnbc.com/poker.
The game will start with blinds at $200/$400, but look for antes to be added and the stakes to be raised with the mutual consent of the players. Straddles will be prevalent, and the deuce/seven prop bet will also be introduced very early into the action. The table is cordial and friendly, and despite the large sums of money at stake, everyone clearly appears to be having a good time, making for an enjoyable as well as educational viewing experience.
Caby, Taylor: (Seat 1)
· Also known as "Green Plastic," a name he took from the band Radiohead's semi-official fan website, GreenPlastic.com
· A 25 year-old native of Chicago, he graduated from the University of Illinois with a degree in finance is the founding member and a lead instructor for CardRunners.com
· After losing an initial $50 online deposit as a college freshman, he turned his next $35 deposit into six figures
· Rarely plays live tournaments, preferring instead to play in online NLHE cash games
· Once was invited to New York City by one of his online opponents who was impressed with his intelligence to serve as his apprentice for a prominent hedge fund
South, Cole: (Seat 2)
· Also known as "CTS" online and a 21 year-old native of Williamsburg, VA
· Is a member and lead instructor at CardRunners.com, and whose first instructional video was viewed 14,000 times on its first day of availability, a single day record
· Began playing poker online in 2005 and is recognized for his hyper-loose aggressive style of play, both in NLHE and Pot-Limit Omaha
· Frequent player in the highest stakes cash games online, competing regularly against the likes of Gus Hansen, Phil Ivey, and David Benyamine
· Purchased a $200,000 Bentley coupe with his online poker winnings, a small fraction of what he has amassed in ring game winnings
Kaplan, Gabe: (Seat 3)
· Long time actor and comedian best remembered for his role in the 1970's hit television sitcom Welcome Back Kotter
· Proficient in many games, and has played poker for more than 30 years
· Career tournament winnings in excess of $1.34 million
· In 1980, challenged 1978 World Champion Bobby Baldwin and 1979 World Champion Hal Fowler to $200,000 heads-up freezeouts, and defeated them both
· Oft-seen analyst on several poker television programs and highly regarded for his knowledge of the game and the humor he infuses into his commentary
Benefield, David: (Seat 4)
· Also known as "Raptor" online, and a 22 year-old native of Fort Worth, TX
· Became an instructor for CardRunners.com in April 2008, and now makes videos targeted at improving play in mid- and high-stakes NLHE cash games
· Lifetime tournament winnings in excess of $202,000
· Went deep in the 2008 WSOP Championship, finishing 77th, and was the chip leader at one point during Day 5
· Began playing poker online in 2004, and is known for an unorthodox playing style which has resulted in him winning a substantial amount of money
Brunson, Doyle: (Seat 5)
· At the age of 75, perhaps the greatest player of all time, and is the author of several books, including Super System and Super System II
· Back-to-back World Series of Poker Champion in 1976 and 1977
· Lifetime tournament winnings in excess of $5.55 million, and ranks 34th on the all-time money list
· Owner of 10 WSOP bracelets, tied for 2nd with Johnny Chan
· Had the WPT Five Diamond World Poker Classic renamed the Doyle Brunson Five Diamond World Poker Classic in his honor in 2007
Elezra, Eli: (Seat 6)
· A native of Israel, he served in the Israeli army in a commando unit similar to the Green Berets in the United States
· Won his first World Series bracelet in 2007 in 7-card stud hi/lo, and also owns one WPT title
· Lifetime tournament winnings in excess of $1.89 million
· Highly successful Las Vegas businessman and entrepreneur who owns several retail establishments on the Las Vegas Strip
· Frequent player in the "Big Game" at Bellagio, but considers poker just a hobby
By Dennis Oehring
Labels: Table Of Contents
Mike Sexton Testifies as Expert Witness at South Carolina Poker Trial
Mike Sexton testified for 5 Poker players who were arrested in 2006 for "playing a game of chance". There were nearly 20 men arrested but 5 of them, Bob Chimento, Scott Richards, Michael Williamson, Jeremy Brestel, and John Taylor Willis decided not to pay $250 fine and decided to take it to court.
Sexton was paid $5000 by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) for his testimonial but Sexton said "I'm doing it more for the love of the game than the fee."
The Final verdict is not yet determined. The judge's ruling is expected later today. Sexton said the judge found poker is indeed a game of skill but what was not determined was whether the these guys were operating a house of gaming or not.
PokerListings spoke with Sexton right after his court appearance to discuss his testimony;
PokerListings: Tell us about your testimony in the case.
Sexton: I was there to testify on whether or not poker was predominantly a game of skill or a game of chance. I think the testimony went well on our side because before the judge has even ruled on the case - he's going to write a ruling and have it out next Thursday - he was adamant and convinced that poker - No-Limit Hold'em specifically - was predominantly a game of skill rather than a game of chance.
PokerListings: So the judge was receptive to the testimony?
Sexton: He stated in court that there is no question about that. Now, in his mind there's still a question as to whether these guys were operating a house of gaming or not, and that's what he's going to rule on next week.
But as to the part of poker being predominantly a game of skill, there was no question in his mind. The ultimate ruling for us is if these guys get acquitted and he makes that the primary factor in his decision.
PokerListings: What was the prosecutor's position on this issue?
Sexton: The prosecutors were trying to put on a case that these guys were running a house of gaming. That nobody knew each other; that they were running a game for profit, etc. Our defense attorneys argued against that and we'll see how the court rules on that issue.
PokerListings: The judge might rule against the defendants regardless of the "skill issue" because the language of the statute only refers to any game of cards, correct?
Sexton: That's the way the pros is trying to get the judge to rule, that it says in the statute, any gambling on any game of cards consists of a house of gaming. We read the statute that if chance is the predominant factor, then it's gambling; if it's skill, then it's not.
PokerListings: Were you cross-examined by the prosecution? What were you asked?
Sexton: He asked certain questions about skill and chance in poker as well as a number of other questions. I thought it went really well. He asked, if players were of equal skill, what would be the determining factor then, which was actually a good question.
My answer was, I don't believe you're ever going to find two poker players who are of equal skill. Some do some things better than the other guy and they may be very close, but you're never going to find two players who are exactly equal in skill.
PokerListings: And even if the skill level is closely matched, in any one hand, one player may make a mistake.
Sexton: Correct. Even the best players make mistakes. Poker comes down to a very simple fact. You make enough correct decisions you'll be a winning player; if you make too many poor decisions you'll be a losing player. It's really just that simple.
PokerListings: Did the judge ask you any questions or just the attorneys?
Sexton: No, the judge did not ask any questions. He listened intently. And we had some nice video from the World Poker Tour that we put up there to show examples how cards don't matter. How the skill elements of poker, which [are] betting, calling and folding, show the actions the players are in total control of.
And when we demonstrated the fact that the cards didn't matter, that guys are winning pots with 9-5 when they're up against ace-king, we got our point across that skill is a deciding factor, the predominant factor when it comes to poker. It's not about the cards, it's about the skill elements and how the skill elements are applied.
PokerListings: What examples from the WPT did you show in court?
Sexton: There were a number of hands, some from Seasons 4, 5 and 6. There were a couple episodes involving Daniel Negreanu.
One where he slow-played aces and another where he made a great call in the pot where the guy bluffed with an 8-7 when the board was Q-Q-T-6 and Daniel had ace-king and called him for over a million dollars. Several hands like that demonstrating the skill aspects of poker.
PokerListings: In the Kentucky domain name case, the judge stated that poker was a game of chance because "the best hand at showdown won." What do you think of that claim?
Sexton: That certainly showed his lack of knowledge. As we explained in court today, over 70% of the hands don't go to showdown. The vast majority of hands never get to the river. In truth, if you were just playing showdown poker, where there was no betting, where everybody got two cards and there were five cards in the middle, [...] that's not how poker is played.
The skill elements, which are betting, calling, and folding, take precedence and determine 100% of the pot size and the vast majority of the pot outcomes as to who's going to win the pot - as to who applied those skill elements best in the hand.
That's the case we were trying to prove and obviously the judge quickly ruled that without question skill predominates in poker.
PokerListings: Did the prosecutor introduce any opposite testimony, that poker was a game of luck?
Sexton: I was hoping they [would]. They didn't even try to refute any of our expert testimony as far as poker being a game of skill. I give them credit for that.
PokerListings: How did you become involved in this case?
Sexton: I became involved because the Poker Players Alliance, an organization that fights for the rights of poker players and has over a million members nationwide and over 8,000 members in South Carolina.
They contacted me and asked me if I would be an expert witness and testify to the fact that skill was the predominant factor in poker. As a poker guy, I have a passion for the game and a passion for people who play in home games across the country and don't feel they should be arrested or criminalized for having a common interest with their friends in the game of poker.
I was honored to be here and was glad I could do it.
Don't Play a Big Pot Unless You Have a Big Hand - John Juanda
I'm at Foxwoods playing the $2,000 No Limit Hold 'em event. We all started with $3,000 and now I've got $15,000. At my table is Richard Tatalovitch, a player whom I've competed against many times.
I raise pre-flop from middle position with K-J offsuit and Richard calls from the big blind. The flop comes 9-6-4 with two diamonds on the board.
Richard hesitates for a moment before checking, and I put in a pot-sized bet. Richard thinks for a while and calls. All of a sudden, I don't like my hand -- so much.
Imagine my relief when a non-diamond J hits the turn. Now I have top pair and a pretty good kicker. Then Richard comes out betting. Uh-oh.
Now, let me back up a moment and mention that when someone hesitates before checking, it's usually a huge tell. But Richard is the king of delayed action, so I ignored his tell and bet the flop anyway. And his bet on the turn just screams, "Raise me! I dare you!"
I go into the tank and my thoughts go something like this:
1. He flopped a set. That explains the smooth call on the flop - he's trying to trap me into staying, hoping I'll bet the turn, too.
2. No. If he had a set, he'd have checked the turn and waited for me to hang myself right then and there, or let me catch something on the river. He can't have a set.
3. The jack helped him. I don't have the jack of diamonds. Maybe he does, and he called the flop with a jack-high flush draw. If so, I like my kicker and my hand.
4. He's betting on the come with a flush or straight draw and is hoping to buy the pot right there.
I run through these possibilities and reach no conclusion.
Normally, I would just call here. We both have a lot of chips, and I don't want to put them all in with nothing but top pair. Then, I have the misfortune to remember a hand from a month earlier at Bellagio:
Richard had been running bad and was complaining about a string of horrific beats. I saw him check and call with top boat because he was afraid of quads! A guy that afraid of monsters under the bed isn't going to check-call top set on the flop with a flush draw out there.
"All in!" I declared.
Oops. This is now a Big Pot. And rest assured, top pair doesn't even resemble a Big Hand.
In the four years I've been playing with him, I've never seen him call so fast. I am drawing dead to his perfectly-played 9-9.
Sometimes, we all forget that big cards don't always equal a big hand and that the smart move can be to play conservatively instead of going for the quick kill. As for Richard - he had the good sense to be in a Big Pot with a Big Hand, and the patience to make it pay off.
Vanessa Rousso's Photo in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue
Vanessa Rousso has taken a photoshoot with Sports Illustrated in January. At first, she was suppose to be the featured swimsuit model but SI decided that poker was not the direction they wanted to go in.
So, Pokerstars had to pay for Rousso to be in the sponsored section of the magazine. Nevertheless, she looks great.
Vanessa Rousso talks about the photoshoot;
Labels: Poker Babes, Poker News
Poker After Dark: Brilliant Minds (New Episodes) - Extraordinary Match Features Six of The Game's Top Mathematical Mindsets
This week on NBC's Poker After Dark viewers will witness six successful professional players highly regarded in the world of poker for their analytical thinking and mathematical prowess in a match which is being called "Brilliant Minds." The match brings together two familiar faces in Chris Ferguson and Andy Bloch, and four newcomers in Brandon Adams, Bill Chen, Jimmy Warren, and David Sklansky. Each will put up $20,000 and compete for the $120,000 winner-take-all first prize.
Ferguson and Bloch tangled in the finals of the 2008 National Heads-Up Poker Championship, with Ferguson taking home the title. Chris, who earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from UCLA, is 1-6 on PAD with a victory in Match 7. Andy, who is now being referred to by many as the best player in the world without a World Series bracelet, holds two electrical engineering degrees from M.I.T. and a law degree from Harvard. He is 0-3 on PAD, coming close in Match 25 before losing a heads-up battle with Gabe Kaplan.
Adams and Chen both lead double lives, splitting their time between playing poker and their chosen professions. Brandon holds Master's Degrees in Finance and Real Estate, and teaches Applied Game Theory at Harvard. Bill was the winner of two World Series of Poker bracelets in 2006, one of only two players that year to do so. He holds a Ph.D. in Mathematics from UC Berkeley, and his day job is developing mathematical models for an investment firm on the markets his company trades in. Both are also published authors.
Sklansky has won three World Series of Poker bracelets, but is probably best known for the many books he has written about gambling theory and poker. Though he does not hold an advanced degree, he is known as "The Mathematician" for his extensive knowledge of math and how it applies to the game. Warren may be the least known among this group, but he is well-known at the Las Vegas high-stakes cash game tables, where he has been making his living for many years. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from Brown University and worked as a research physicist before becoming a professional poker player.
Brief profiles of all six players follow. The match will begin airing on NBC late night Monday at 2:05 a.m., February 9, and will continue for five consecutive nights in the same time slot. A special program called the "Director's Cut" will air late night Saturday, February 14, at 1:00 a.m., right after Saturday Night Live. This show will feature Leeann Tweeden with a behind-the-scenes look at the week with highlights and insightful player interviews. Viewers can also watch the match at www.nbcsports/msnbc.com/poker.
The conversation in this match is very different from what has been heard during previous PAD matches, and those who are interested in mathematical aspects of the game will be fascinated by it. This week's players possess a level of intelligence that most people would envy, and as such this is a very unique matchup and one that viewers are sure to enjoy.
Adams, Brandon: (Seat 1)
· Born in New Orleans in 1978, and now resides in Cambridge, MA
· Semi-professional cash game player, playing NLHE as high as $200/$400, and appeared on the 4th season of GSN's High Stakes Poker
· Career tournament winnings in excess of $510,000
· A college graduate at the age of 19, holds Master's degrees in Finance and Real Estate, and now teaches Applied Game Theory at Harvard
· Has written 2 books, one entitled Broke: A Poker Novel
Ferguson, Chris: (Seat 2)
· Nicknamed "Jesus" and one of poker's most recognizable players
· World Series of Poker Champion in 2000 and owner of five WSOP bracelets
· Career tournament winnings in excess of $7.42 million, and ranks 18th on the all-time money list
· Runner-up in both the 2005 and 2006 National Heads-Up Poker Championship, and the winner in 2008, bringing his record in this event to an unprecedented 16-3
· Earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from UCLA in 1999, and is a former ballroom and swing dance instructor
Bloch, Andy: (Seat 3)
· Holds two electrical engineering degrees from MIT and a law degree from Harvard
· Finished 2nd to the late Chip Reese at the 2006 $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. event, and was runner-up to Chris Ferguson in the 2008 NHPC
· Former member of the MIT blackjack team, the subject of a book entitled Bringing Down the House
· Began wearing his unique hat full time to play poker about 2 years ago, but wore it prior from time to time as part of an Irish rock star costume
Chen, Bill: (Seat 4)
· Discovered he had a gift for mathematics at an early age, as he was a Rubik's Cube champion in junior high school and was studying calculus in the 7th grade
· Owns two WSOP bracelets, both in 2006, and was one of only two players that year to win more than one
· Earned a Ph.D. in Mathematics from UC Berkeley in 1999, and works for an investment firm that makes mathematical models on many of the markets his company trades in
· Along with Jerrod Ankenman, co-authored the book The Mathematics of Poker published in 2006
Warren, Jimmy: (Seat 5)
· Long-time successful professional cash game player, with emphasis on all forms of limit poker
· A Dartmouth College graduate, he earned a Ph.D. in Physics from Brown University and worked as a research physicist before moving to Las Vegas with girlfriend Jeannie in 1986
· Has derived 100% of his income from playing in cash games since then
· Profiled in Card Player magazine as one of the top ten 7-card stud players in the world
· One of the first pioneers to apply a scientific approach using mathematical and computer skills to winning professional poker
Sklansky, David: (Seat 6)
· Born in New Jersey to the father of a Colombia University math professor, which may help explain his keen interest in math and how he applies it to the game of poker
· Winner of three WSOP bracelets
· Is associated with the 2+2 Publishing empire, owned by Mason Malmuth
· Has authored or co-authored 13 books on gambling theory and poker, with The Theory of Poker, published in 1987, perhaps his most respected work
Ask And Ye Shall Receive Part 1 - Erick Lindgren
All Talk and No Action,
A Two-Part Lesson from Erick Lindgren
You can learn a lot by listening. You can learn almost as much by talking, if you ask the right questions.
The following occurred at a tournament at Bellagio in 2004.
I draw a very good first table and recognize only two faces. They are solid pros, neither of whom is very aggressive. I know I can take control of the table and quickly look around to find the best targets. I notice an older gentleman in a cowboy hat who's involved in too many pots and decide he's my mark. My plan is to bluff him at first opportunity and do anything I can to get under his skin. I want him to view me as a young hot-shot, with the hopes that he'll bully me later when I have the goods.
I chop away at some small pots and my $20K starting stack is now $43K when Cowboy and I finally get to lock horns. I've been raising a lot of hands and splashing my chips around a bit. In this case, the blinds are $200-$400, and I bring it in for $1,200 with pocket jacks. I get three callers, including Cowboy, in the big blind. The flop comes 7h 4c 4h and the small blind checks. It's Cowboy's turn, and he pushes all in. He looks proud, firing his $37K into a $5K pot.
I'm completely befuddled. What's going on? I can't make any sense of it. There's a player to act behind me, but he's only got $3K - he isn't going to matter at all in this hand. My best bet here is to get Cowboy to talk. "Why'd you bet so much?" I ask. He tells me to call and find out.
I make a list of his possible hands: A-x hearts for the nut flush draw. Pocket eights, maybe. Or a random berzerko bet with a pair of sevens. After a minute or two of deliberation, I call. He flips up T-7c for one pair! He fails to improve and I now have $80K, and am ready to roll.
It's important to know who your weaker players are. Concentrate on playing against them and finding ways to get them to make a big mistake. You can't count on the pros to make those mistakes. In this particular case, I knew he was getting tired, and through a few verbal jabs, I was able to make myself his target.
Next week, a similar question with a very different answer yields an equally large profit.
Ask And Ye Shall Receive Part II
VC Poker - King Of Poker Picture Gallery (Hot Poker Babes:)
Unknown February 12, 2009 62
Here are some pictures from a VC Poker Tournament. It is an old tournament but the girls are so hot I just had to post. It was a Maxim Party..I think Clonie did some shots for Maixim.
Posted by Unknown at February 12, 2009 62 comments:
Labels: Poker Babes
Former FBI Agent Joe Navarro Analyses The Russ Hamilton Video
Joe Navarro, an expert in non-verbal communication, takes a look at The Russ Hamilton Interview Video.
New Domain, Changed To Poker006.com!
Ya, so I finally got my own domain; Poker006.com. I've been looking in Domain auctions with no luck and every domain I thought of was already taken. Than I asked my friend and he said poker006 and we were surprised it wasn't taken. The number 006 is from "Agent 006"(picture on the right) from the James Bond Movie. But he is a villain and I think he dies so not that great for a theme lol.
I found another 006 Agent played by Clive Owen. He's a "good guy" and looks pretty cool.
Picture above is actually taken from the movie Croupier (1998). Later, Clive played Agent 006 in the movie Pink Panther (2006)..Check out this movie title below, Agent 006 Blond lol.
By the way, I set up a newsletter with Feedburner so you get an email with latest News and Bonuses; Poker006 Newsletter
Should I Stay Or Should I Go - Jennifer Harman
Being a winning player isn't only about playing good cards - it's also about making good decisions. And there is one important decision you face every time you sit down in a cash game: Should I quit, or should I keep playing?
When should you keep playing?
I see so many players playing short hours when they're winning, and long hours when they're losing. It should be the other way around.
When you are winning in the game, at least a few of the other players must be losing. And when your opponents are losing, they often aren't playing their best. But you are.
When you're winning, other players fear you; you have a good table image. And when you have a good table image, you can get away with things that you can't seem to when you're losing. For one thing, you can bluff more. Usually a losing player is scared to get involved with a winning player, so it's easier for you to pick up pots. You can represent more hands than you actually have because your opponents believe you're hitting every flop.
The only time to quit when you're winning is when you are tired, or when you start playing badly.
When should you call it a day?
Many players can't seem to quit when they are losing. You have to remember that there will always be another poker game -- if not tomorrow, then the day after, or the week after. I like to think of poker as one continuous game going on for my whole career. So, if I'm losing more than 30 big bets in the game, I usually quit.
There are a couple of reasons I do this: For one, if I lose a ton of money in one day, I don't feel so hot the next day. That means if I go in to play the next day, I might not be able to play my best game. I might actually have to take a few days off to get my head straight. Another reason is that when I'm losing more than 30 bets, I might not be playing that well. I might think I'm playing my "A" game, but in reality, I'm probably not. You can't be as objective about your play when you're losing. After all, we are not robots; we're just human beings.
Labels: Jennifer Harman, Poker Tips
Dwan and Antonius Are Set To Play Today - "Dwan's Million Dollar Challenge"
Dwan and Antonius were talking on Full Tilt yesterday and they decided to start Dwan's Million Dollar Challenge on Monday (Today). They have decided on 4 tables headsup of $200/$400 Pot Limit Omaha.
A lot of people thought the challenge may not happen after Dwan's downswing of $3.25 million dollar in January.
Here is the conversation they had;
durrrr: hey, when r we starting?
durrrr: u on good intnet yet?
Patrik Antonius: my connection is good now
durrrr: o nice
durrrr: k i'll call ya tomorrow @ some pt
durrrr: o didnt see big hand other tbl sry
Patrik Antonius: we can start soon
Patrik Antonius: we can start today if other games will dry out
Patrik Antonius: if u feel like it
durrrr: nah im tired, ill call ya tomorrow n we can start then
Patrik Antonius: ok
durrrr: wt stakes r we playing?
Patrik Antonius: 200 400 plo
durrrr: kk
And here are the rules of the challenge if you missed them;
1) 4 tables at stakes $200/$400 minimum (NL or PLO)
2) can change tables anytime if stacks are >250bb
3) have to reload when stacks are <75bb
4) Money won in the challenge is kept obviously + extra money (if Dwan wins $750k in poker, he gets that PLUS opponents $500k- if Dwan loses $750k in poker, oppnent gets that plus his $1.5M, so $2.25M total).
5) same stakes the whole time
6) not open to Phil Galfond
Labels: Durrrr Challenge, High Stakes News, Poker News
"Phil Ivey bets $1 Million on Super Bowl" - So did Phil Win or Lose?
Phil Ivey has a radio show called "Tuesdays With Ivey". Last Tuesday Ivey talked to Barry Greenstein about his bets on the Super Bowl. You can listen in below;
In the first half, Ivey bet on the Cardinals with +3.5 odds. Cardinals were down 10-7 with minutes to go in the half when they were just a couple yards from a touch down. Instead of getting a touchdown or field goal, they turn the ball over to Pittsburgh for 100-yard touchdown return.
Video of the touch down return;
So, Ivey loses 800k on that play instead of being up 800k. But Ivey mentions he had some other bets which he won and he apparently is up $800K after all is said and done.
Keep Your Toolbox Well Stocked - Chris Ferguson
I often get asked about my playing style. Rather than answer the question myself, I'm more interested in what my opponents say. And I've heard it all: "You're too tight." "You're too loose." "You're tight aggressive." "You're too passive."
Actually, I never hear that last one, but I've heard all the others, which makes me believe I must be doing something right. Loose, tight, aggressive - my style is that I'm all of the above, depending upon the circumstances.
One essential element of playing winning poker is forcing your opponents to make difficult decisions. That's why raising is almost always better than calling - because it forces an extra decision on your opponents. To take this a step further - you'll win more money by forcing your opponents to make decisions when they are out of their comfort zones.
Your opponent is on your left, playing too tight before the flop. You want to punish him for this. The best way to do that is to raise more often, and be more aggressive. Either you end up stealing a lot of blinds, or he adjusts his play.
If you get the blinds? Great! If he adjusts? Better! It's the best outcome you can hope for. If he starts playing more hands pre-flop, you now have a real edge. Anytime your opponent changes his pre-flop playing style, he's going to run into trouble later in the hand. A guy who usually plays nothing but very strong hands isn't going to know what to do with weaker holdings on the turn and river.
If a tight opponent raises in front of you, wait for a stronger hand to call. By playing tight when you are acting behind your opponent, you avoid losing money to his stronger hands. Again, if your opponent catches on, you're forcing him to play more hands up front, and you can outplay him after the flop.
What about the guy who plays too many hands? If you're acting first, you want better starting hands than normal. Most of the value of a marginal hand comes from the chance that your opponent will fold immediately. If your opponent has never seen suited cards he doesn't like, the value of your marginal hand decreases because it's unlikely he's going to lay his hand down. He may win more pots preflop, but this is more than offset by the extra money you're going to make when you do see a flop with your stronger hands.
If a loose opponent raises you, you can call -- or even raise -- with weaker hands, and raise with hands you'd ordinarily just call with. By taking control of the hand, you can pick up more pots later. Again, you are daring him to change his style. If he doesn't, you're getting the best of it. If he does, he's a fish out of water, prone to making mistakes later in the hand.
It's important to have a lot of tools in your arsenal. First, it's helpful in being able to adjust to your opponents and force them out of their comfort zones. Additionally, it will enable you to take advantage of your own table image when you have already been labeled as a tight or loose player, and to adjust accordingly.
For example, Gus Hansen and Phil Ivey are known as extremely aggressive players. The only way they have been able to survive with that image is by being able to adjust to different opponents and to slow down occasionally, when appropriate. I have seen this happen sometimes just before an opponent starts reacting to their aggression. They are somehow able to sense what is happening, and change their games accordingly. Other times, they won't adjust much, and force their opponents to try and beat them at an unfamiliar game.
To best take advantage of this, pay attention! To everything. All the time. Not just when you're in the hand, but especially when you're not in the hand. Every hand your opponent plays gives you valuable information about how he thinks, and how he's likely to play hands in the future.
If there's an expert at your table, watch how he plays. See what hands he expects to work, think about how he plays them, then try incorporating it yourself. See how he pushes weaker players out of their comfort zone. Paying attention is one of the best ways to learn, and a great way to move up the poker food chain.
David Bergeron is poker enthusiast and has made over $10k playing poker online, starting from $0. Although he enjoys working on his blog more than playing poker.
Phil Hellmuth Gets Aces Back to Back and Goes Broke
These 2 hands are from Poker Night in America $25/50 No-Limit Hold'em poker cash game, filmed LIVE on location at Thunder Valley Casin...
Here are some pictures from a VC Poker Tournament. It is an old tournament but the girls are so hot I just had to post. It was a Maxim Part...
Vanessa Rousso Is The New GoDaddy Girl!
Vanessa Rousso has signed a contract with GoDaddy.com and also starred in the latest GoDaddy commercial (Video below). She worked with the o...
Vanessa Rousso has taken a photoshoot with Sports Illustrated in January. At first, she was suppose to be the featured swimsuit model but SI...
Hellmuth, Negreanu, Nguyen and Harman Pose Nude For ESPN The Body Issue
ESPN is out with their new body Issue Magazine. In it, Daniel Negreanu, Phil Hellmuth, Scotty Nguyen and Jen Harman playing some cards, nake...
Viktor Blom & Hearthstone Streamers Thijs and Forsen Play Unibet Open London 9 handed Poker Tournament
Forsen with the big stack Poker Pro Viktor Blom, known for his aggressive play and playing at the highest stakes online, hearthstone stre...
10K Pokerstars Freeroll!!!
I totally forgot about the 10k Freeroll on Pokerstars . I just deposited in Pokerstars and just so happens if you deposit between like Feb ...
Free Poker Money Sites:
Poker Blog Poker News Poker Tips Poker Videos Pokerstars Pokerstars Challenge Free Poker Bankrolls Pokersavvy Plus High Stakes News Televised Poker Instructional Videos Durrrr Challenge Poll Archive Poker Babes Deposit Bonus Freerolls Poker Strategy Jennifer Harman Phil Gordon Gus vs Theo Fight Poker Books Rakeback Gavin Smith MDC Poker Articles Poker Glossary Rafe Furst 2M2MM Andy Bloch Barney Frank Evan Roberts Greg Mueller Howard Lederer Poker Gifts Poker Tools Chris Ferguson Daniel Negreanu David Grey G4 Holdem Manager Huckleberry Seed Jay Greenspan Keith Sexton Money Bookers News Paul Wolfe Pitbull Poker Poker Blogs Poker Odds Calculator Poker006 PokerStars Sunday Million Team Full Tilt Tony G Videos VC Poker $3K Challenge AK Suited vs. JJ Administration Fee Andrew Arnott Archives BankrollMob Ben Roberts BetMost Bill Kearney Boku87 Challenge 2 Cavemen Celeb Poker Compulsive Gambling David Sklansky Dormant Account Ebay Erica Schoenberg Full Tilt Poker Guaranteed Tournaments Gus Hansen Hearthstone Kristy Gazes Layne Flack Mike Matusow Music Pacific Poker Network Players Only Poker After Dark Poker Software Poker Sponsorship Poker Theory Poker770 PokerInside PokerOffice PokerSource Rebuy Tournament Rush Poker Sam Grizzle SunPoker Sunday Tournament TJ Cloutier Table Of Contents Tommy Miller UFC UIGEA WSOP Win a Porche
Why I Prefer Cash Games to Tournaments - Huckleberry Seed
I'm best known in the poker world for my tournament success. I've won four World Series of Poker bracelets, including the World Cham...
If there weren't luck involved, I would win every time. — Phil Hellmuth
PokerRoot 2008-2017. Powered by Blogger.
Hi, my name is David and Welcome to PokerRoot.com! I started this blog to share my poker experience and now, I've added Videos and Articles to help other poker players. I also list the best poker deals including Free Poker Bankrolls and Deposit Bonuses. I also blog about recent Poker News and even Poker Babes! (Read More)