by Adam "STUDSTOOD" Roberts

This past year, I have been blogging on many different topics and aspects of overall poker play, including bankroll requirements (both per session and for the long term), game selection (based on limit of game, type of game- especially with regards to your own ability), money management (also both per session and long term), table persona, table demeanor, game preparedness, getting staked, cash play vs. tournament play, etc.

I feel that those, as well as other topics, were necessary to discuss prior to delving into specific hand strategy. Based on the e-mails and phone calls I've received, you have seemed to appreciate this decision, and I have appreciated your feedback, questions, suggestions and comments.

But now it's time to get ready to move on to specific hand strategy.

Since my consulting responsibilities here at PokerStars include playing in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz, as well as their corresponding weekly $215 buy-in tournaments, I will try to focus my strategy specifically on those limits, and the ante structures which coincide with them.

There are many different ways to be a successful poker player. I will just try to help you along by giving you my opinions, but I want to make clear that my thoughts and recommendations are not necessarily those of anyone else at PokerStars.

There are "many different ways to skin a cat" with regards to the strategy used to play a specific hand, based on instinct and the table environment/situation (i.e., how you are doing in the game, how you are doing vs. your opponent, knowing your opponent's tendencies, etc.), plus there are the "cut and dried" mathematics of the hand, which should be learned and consistently incorporated into other aspects of your hand strategy in order to achieve long term success.

The phrase "long term success" in itself is quite ambiguous, since there is no specific number of hands, hours, days or sessions to accurately define the phrase. In a previous blog, I suggested using 2000 hours playing in a specific type of game and limit, playing against the same players, for you to try and accurately assess how much your hourly earn (or loss) will be for that particular limit and game.

The hand situation strategy I will be suggesting to you will be even more ambiguous with regards to how long it will take for accurate results to be determined for any given hand.
For instance, in Stud high, I recommend not to play a split underpair with an unrelated kicker on Third Street, in a heads-up situation when your opponent raises (or re-raises you) with a higher door card. Let's say you disagree with my assessment of that particular strategy, and decide to go against it. You may win your first few hands or even many of the hands you play, going against my recommended strategy, and you may even profit. This may go on for a substantial (also a very ambiguous word when it comes to poker) period of time. You might even come to feel that my advice is completely wrong.

One of the toughest parts of playing poker successfully is evaluating the significance of short-term experiences. Even if I am "in the ballpark" with regards to using a minimum of 2000 hours as a guideline to determine your results in a particular limit and game, how many specific hand results will you need to use along the way for you to determine whether a certain hand strategy is correct? I cannot give you a specific answer to that. All I will attempt to do here is give you the accurate mathematics for a specific hand, as well as various other opinions of how, when and why to incorporate certain other variables into your strategy.

Many software packages will give you the mathematics to a given hand at every point or "street" in that hand. Poker Probe and other similar programs give useful information on specific situations. Although I would be a fool to dispute those findings (which are mathematically sound), it's only part of the picture. There are far too many other variables to a specific hand to be able to solely use the software findings for success.
Among the variables you will need to consider are real odds (what the math is in a given hand at that time or "street"), implied odds (what the odds will be for you as the hand progresses), and pot odds (what odds the pot is offering). Although it is not always possible to predict those odds, especially implied odds, you must be able to at least be "in the ballpark" more often than not to truly understand when and why to correctly employ your hand strategy. Predicting how your opponents will act is a key poker skill that is extremely hard to master.

The key is to start thinking about hands on a higher level. While the math of a hand may dictate a certain action, how will that action affect the remainder of the hand? How will my opponents react to that action? Are there ways to get them to act incorrectly, making the hand more profitable to me?

All Stud games (Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz) have one more round of betting than flop games. All forms of Stud are also primarily played at "Limit" stakes, as opposed to various other games which are also played at "No Limit" stakes. This means that it's much less likely for the action to be completed early in the hand. These "extra" betting rounds in Stud complicate accurately assessing your implied and pot odds, because there are more potential future actions to consider.

As I have also done in previous blogs, I gave different scenarios in cash game play as opposed to tournament play. Although "real odds" (hand versus hand percentages at a given moment) do not change in those two different venues, your assessment of implied odds might change based on your opponent's different styles of play in cash games vs. tournaments, and/or his/her chip stack and/or the stage in a tournament at the time of your hand. In tournament play, you should consider these aforementioned factors prior to making your specific hand decisions.

And again, not to be redundant, it is important for you to play with the proper and comfortable bankroll in a cash game setting to enable you to make the "correct" play without fear. I have seen players unable to "pull the trigger" because they were playing on "short money" or even get "all-in" in a hand which prevented them from making the correct play. I feel that this is very important to understand and consider when choosing the table limit which is right for you.

Beginning next blog, I will begin covering specific hand strategy in Stud high, Stud Hi/Lo and Razz. Each week, I will discuss a different hand scenario, switching among those games.

In addition to hoping that you continue emailing me with your ideas, questions, and suggestions, feel free to present me with your own hand scenario and if it's appropriate I will discuss it in a future blog.

Until next time, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!

by Adam "STUDSTOOD" Roberts

Another topic I want to cover for tournaments is getting staked or "pieced out."

Being that tournaments have such a high short term luck factor, many players prefer not using their own money for buy-ins. This is all well and good, but if you are one of those players, you will have to be able to find sponsorship in one form or another in order to enter these events.

There are different ways to do this, but it is usually only possible after you have "made a name for yourself," whether in cash games or having already done well in tournament play with your own money. I did not get staked until I had already done well in high limit cash games for a few years.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I like getting staked in both cash games and tournaments, especially if the deal is fair and with someone who can be trusted to act with honesty and integrity, as well as not "micromanaging."

Some backers prefer staking players in tournaments as opposed to cash games. Their reasoning is that there is much bigger potential for a big one-time payoff, as well as the fact that they do not have to deal with the daily record keeping associated with regular cash game play. Also, when a backer stakes a player in live cash games, he/she may feel that there is a chance for "incorrect" records to be kept by the player. This cannot happen in tournaments, live or online, since the results are public knowledge. Nor can it realistically happen in online cash games since play histories are available from the site.

Personally, if I were a backer, I would look to stake someone trustworthy in daily cash games and use my share of the winnings to enter my player in various pre-determined tournaments throughout the year. As a backer, though, I would also have the option to enter my player in those tournaments even if he did not produce enough winnings to cover the cost.

There are many different options with regards to what type of deal I would agree to, whether the backer or the player.

Although I have never been in this situation as a backer, I have been in it as a player. Generally, the standard staking deal is to get fully staked (which includes buy-ins and associated expenses, i.e., airfare, rental car, hotel room, etc.) for a 50% split of the profits, with "make-up".

Here's how that would usually work.

Let's say there are three $1500 events your backer wants you to enter. He/she would give you $4500 for the buy-ins, plus money for agreed expenses, say $1000 for the three weeks. If you do not cash in any of these events, your backer would have laid out $5500. The amount the backer has paid so far is called "make-up," and before you reap any profits that money must be paid back.

That is, assuming the backer wants to continue doing business with you. If he/she does not, then your agreement is terminated, and you owe the backer nothing. Should you decide to resume backing in the future, you would then have to discuss up front whether the old make-up applies in the new arrangement.

In a typical long-term backing relationship, if you do cash in an event, you have to give back all the money that your backer has already put up before collecting the 50% profit due to you. Also, other expenses may need to be paid back first, like tipping, meals, travel expenses, etc. The particulars of a backing deal can vary wildly.

There can be numerous creative variations to these types of deals, and there are too many to mention. Some of the variations might be:

I cannot advise you on how to handle this issue, but I strongly recommend discussing it with a qualified CPA (familiar with these types of transactions) prior to making these deals with a backer.

In my personal experiences with this particular issue, most of my backers wanted to remain "silent," where I was responsible for 100% of the taxes even though I only reaped 50% of the profit. Although this may seem unfair, I did not think it was. After all, I was getting my expenses and buy-ins fully paid for, and 50% of the winnings. Although there was make-up involved, I thought that it was a fair deal for me to be responsible for 100% of the taxes on my gross tournament winnings. I just made sure I retained a quality accountant familiar with gaming tax law.

On the flip side, one of my backers, who is a well known high-limit player, requested that I give him a signed and notarized document stating how much his share of the profits were. I've also heard of arrangements where the player received a more than half of the profits as compensation for taking on the tax liability.

While poker players tend to be trustworthy, I do recommend signing and notarizing whatever deals you and your backer end up agreeing on, and that applies to both live and online, as well as for cash games and tournaments. There are plenty of stories of good partnerships that turn into a war when the player makes a big score. I have (briefly, lol) dealt with backers who tried to micromanage, "nickel and dime" me, "string me along" and go back on their word. Those can be expensive lessons.

As an astute poker player and businessman, you should be able to fairly quickly spot when you should "cut bait' with these types of people. It may be disappointing in the short term, but, trust me, you will be better off in the long run, even if it means struggling on your own for a while, not being able to play in either cash games or tournaments for as high stakes as you'd like.

Some backers may not want anything in writing, but as the player you should at least show "good faith" by offering. Remember, regardless of how well you think you may play, how much success you have already had or how many accolades have been bestowed upon you, it is your backer who is still putting up his/her money, which means it is his/her risk. You should feel honored and flattered that someone is willing to do that, which means that you should make that person (or people) as comfortable as possible.

If you are truly a good enough player, and show honesty, integrity and a quality work ethic, your time will come.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!

by Adam STUDSTOOD Roberts

Now that the annual WSOP has begun, I am going to continue on with tournament strategy.

Although having a "game plan" is usually harder to do in tournaments than cash games, I think you should have one.

Among the items to think about is which events to play in - this applies whether it is over a specific tournament series (i.e. the WSOP, or PokerStars annual WCOOP and SCOOP), or over a whole year of events throughout the poker world. Money (for both buy-ins and other tournament related expenses) and time should be specifically put aside for your plans. If you can't afford the high buy-ins at the WSOP, should you even make the effort to go to Las Vegas then? Or would you be better off travelling to a smaller, less expensive series?

Also think about whether you should you play in cash games during the tournaments. This will apply both before, during (online), and after a given event you plan on playing. Some people can handle playing continuous poker, switching between tournaments and cash games with no problems, but others find that playing cash games between or during tournaments hurts their overall results. You need to make an honest assessment of what's best for you.

These questions will be hard enough to decide, but you need to stick to your guns, especially when faced with many different options once you are actually out there playing. You may show up at the WSOP vowing to only enter events if you win a satellite, but can you honestly resist and not play major events anyway?

On another level, you need to make decisions regarding how you want to play. What is your "game plan" with regards to overall hand strategy in a given event? (Are you intending to play a loose trapping game, or a tight-aggressive game, for example?)
Are you just "looking to cash," or is your focus solely on winning the event?

I think that these last few questions should not be over-analyzed. As I mentioned in previous blogs, I try not to change my overall strategy from cash games to tournaments, although I notice that some players do. For most people, the plan is to play your regular poker game, but adapt to the circumstances you face at each table, in each phase of the event.

With regards to looking to cash versus trying to actually win an event, again, I think that should not be a pre-determined issue. Personally, I always enter an event with anticipation and hope of winning, as should you. However, there have been events where I did change my hand strategy because I was close to "the bubble," and felt, given the circumstances (chips, players, etc.), it was more important for me to cash, even if it meant having a slightly lower chance of winning the event. On the flip side, there were also situations where I decided to "gamble" a bit more because I felt that I needed to get myself in a more favorable position to win, and was willing to risk finishing lower to hopefully reach that goal.

The same factors apply when you have the opportunity to consider making a deal with your remaining opponent(s). Factors like:

Another issue that you may want to take into consideration is how much you are willing to let your "ego" get involved. For me, the money is my main concern. That's more important to me than any accolades (or jewelry/trophies) that go along with getting first place in a given event.

There is no "right or wrong" in these decisions. They should be based on your personal priorities at the time. That said, though, I do not feel that your ego should get in the way of making a sound decision.

Although you will be in the "heat of battle", and very focused on your play, your opponents' play, and all the surrounding circumstances and factors, once you get down to either being close to or in the money, you will have time during breaks to think about these "meta" decisions. I feel that it is prudent to try and "step back" and honestly evaluate all factors involved, so you can make the best decisions possible for you and your family. In fact, if your family is there, you may want to include them (and maybe close friends as well) in these important decisions.

You should also give thought as to whether you want your family or friends to be watching you! Remember, this is gambling, and you will be making split-second decisions involving a lot of money. Will your ability to make correct decisions change if there are people watching who are close to you?

Personally, I like having my close friends (and backer, if applicable) watching me. It "pumps me up" and I like hearing their opinions during the breaks. But some people find that they "freeze" when they're being watched this way. As with most other topics we have covered here, these should be personal decisions for you.

Hopefully you'll be facing these decisions on the biggest poker stage - the World Series of Poker!

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!

by Adam STUDSTOOD Roberts

With the annual World Series of Poker (WSOP) just around the corner, I thought that I would continue discussing various aspects of tournaments.

This blog will concentrate more on aspects of "deal making" in tournaments, as opposed to actual hand strategy or deciding which events to enter. Making deals towards the end of a specific event is sometimes controversial, but it's nothing new. It has been going on for many years.

There is nothing dishonest, cowardly, or underhanded about it. Deals are usually sanctioned by the Tournament Director, and agreed to by all of the players involved.
What usually happens is when 2-4 players are left in a given event, and their chips are somewhat equal, they may begin discussing how to split the prize money that is left in a percentage other than it is scheduled for in the prize payouts.

For discussion's sake, let's say that in a certain tournament, first place is worth $100K, second place is worth $75K, third place is worth $50K, and fourth place is worth $25K.
In theory, if we're going to make a deal, the simplest thing would be for everyone to have the same size chip stack, and be equally skilled. In that case, everyone could lay equal claim to ¼ of the prize pool, or $62.5K. Such a deal would be fair to each player, by any reasonable standard.

This is almost never the case. There will always be a disparity between one or more remaining players with regards to their chip stacks. If that happens to be the case, rarely will one of those remaining players with the higher percentage of chips want to make an even deal. And they would be correct, since their expected value is higher, based on the chips and probable cash outs in higher positions.

Players may choose to split evenly despite the chip disparity, but this is to the mathematical disadvantage of the bigger stacks.

Making a deal will usually depend on other factors. The things to consider may include:

I'd like to discuss how some of these factors played out in a situation from my personal experience.

In 2001, I got lucky enough to make a final table of an event at the WSOP. When it got down to three players, we all had similar amounts of chips, but I had the least out of the three of us.

My two opponents proposed that we chop equally. I refused, even though mathematically it was a fair deal for me. I said no because I felt that I was a better player than my two opponents in that situation, and that my situation was "worth more" as a result. I asked them to give me a bigger percentage, even though my chip count alone did not warrant my request. I didn't expect them to accept, and they didn't. Fortunately, for me, I won the tournament, but it did not have to turn out that way. Despite my feeling that I was the best player of the three, there is much short term luck involved in these types of settings. Late in events, the limits you are playing are so disproportionate compared to the amount of chips you have. It becomes almost a "crapshoot", with luck being as great (or greater) a factor than how much better you play. Every hand can drastically change the results.
I actually have been in situations where I had a prohibitive chip lead and did not win the event. In those events (yes, there were a few), even though I had a big chip lead I actually would have considered making an appropriate deal if I had been asked, because of the reasons I just mentioned. In these events, the prize money was far less than what you will reap in the WSOP or other big time events (live or online).

In this year's WSOP, most of their events will be three days in length, which means that the limits will go up in smaller increments than before, and perhaps the rounds will be longer. This is different than online events. As I mentioned in a previous blog, I personally have no strong preference as to how a given event is structured, but it might affect my decision to make a deal, if I get the opportunity. If I think skill is still at a premium, and I think I have an edge in skill, I will be more likely to want to play on than to make a deal.

If you have already played for three days, even with getting good rest, you may prefer making a deal, as opposed to continuing to play on. You will need to make a judgment as to whether your stamina will affect your ability to play effectively. I hope that this will not need to be factored into your decision too much. You should try to be mentally and physically prepared in that situation to play your best, no matter how long the event may take. But if you're not at your best, you might be better off taking a deal. What if you didn't sleep well in anticipation of the final table, and find yourself not playing your best? Or you discover that your opponents are significantly better players than you? In those situations, or other similar ones, you could be better off taking an advantageous deal.

I can certainly understand if your decision might be affected by the amount of prize money at stake, most specifically if the difference between the first four or so places is very large. Personally, I try not to let that affect my decision. I have chopped small tournaments when I felt that it was the most prudent thing to do (for various reasons), and I have gambled in bigger payout events. In bigger tournaments, it can be disconcerting to play heads-up for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially for low- or medium-stakes players. If first place in an event is worth $100K more than second place, and guaranteeing yourself an additional $40K or $50K will have a significant effect on your life (like paying off a mortgage, or you child's college tuition) then you have a big incentive to lock up that extra money.

I have made deals three times at the WSOP, in 1994, 1997 and 2001. My decisions in those events were based on many of the aforementioned factors, but more specifically I agreed to those deals because of the disparity in prize money between 1st and 2nd place, the fact that the amount of remaining chips my opponent had compared to mine was very close, and the fact that the limits were already very high (and getting higher) compared to the chips we had. Taking into account those factors, I felt the percentage deal we agreed to was in my favor. Although I did make these deals, I did so despite feeling that I was better than my opponent, and I do not regret it.
We will continue on this topic next week.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!

by Adam "STUDstood" Roberts

I hope all of you had an enjoyable SCOOP tournament, and congratulations to those of you who made a profit in the events.

With the recent advent of so many tournament events both live and online, it seems that every day or week there is a different casino in another city and country (in the live scenario) where you can find major tournament events to buy into, or try and win your way into via satellites. There are players who "chase" these events, with hope of turning enough of a profit every year to earn a living.

Most of these events are Hold'em, especially No Limit. But, as we discussed in a previous blog, there still are events offered in other types of games, at many different buy-ins.
To play so many different tournaments throughout the year, especially in live casinos, it would be very hard to have any type of conventional job as your main income source. This is because you would have to travel constantly.

However playing in online tournaments, regardless where you live, gives you more of an opportunity to work a regular job and play poker tournaments or cash games) as an additional income source. This is one of the reasons the "Weekend Majors", PokerStars' $215 weekend tournaments in various games, are so popular.

If you do want to play in only a select few live casino tournaments throughout the year, as well as keeping your regular job near where you live, you should plan ahead as best as possible for these trips. Schedules are posted online and are advertised well in advance in poker magazines. You can plan your vacations accordingly, and you can plan for the necessary costs that you will incur, which are not only for tournament buy-ins and satellites. You will have to book airfare, hotel rooms, rental cars, etc. It may cost you more to eat out while travelling than it does to eat at home. These items should be figured into your tournament bankroll.

One of the more difficult aspects of travelling for tournaments is that many of the basic expenses you face are twice as big as for someone who stays home. For example, you are not only paying rent or a mortgage for your home, you are also paying for hotels at the same time. For those of you looking to play poker for a living, you may want to consider not having a regular residence or owning a car (both which would save you money), since you will have the opportunity to travel consistently throughout the year, staying in hotels and renting cars if necessary.

Again, not only will you have to have a sufficient bankroll to make the appropriate buy-ins for actual events and corresponding satellites (if you choose to go that route), but you will also need to figure what the other costs will be. I've mentioned a few of those potential additional expenses, but you will have to keep track of what other expenses you will have.

As tournaments around the world (both live and online) have gotten more popular, we see poker players who are now trying to be strictly tournament pros, and virtually never play in cash games.

They prefer to use their poker abilities solely to compete in the tournament events which have the most value for them, i.e., using buy-in, amount of entrants, and game type (and possibly other factors) to enable them to decide which ones to play.

If you are going to attempt to "follow the tournament trail", I would strongly recommend deciding not only which events throughout the year you are going to compete in, but to also decide whether or not you are going to also play in cash games at these locations. This may or may not be feasible, because, as we have already discussed, tournament play is very grueling, and you really have to be prepared for it mentally, physically, emotionally and financially.

If you are playing in a lot of tournaments, it may be too much for you to also compete in cash games, even if playing in those cash games will not occur on the same days as the tournament you want to play in. This should be a personal decision that's made with care, remembering you will have to take your bankroll into consideration, as well as your rest and recuperation time needed between events that you will be playing.

Online, your approach may be a bit different, since you have the option to concurrently play in both cash games and tournaments, if you feel comfortable enough.

People have asked me if it is possible to make a living playing in tournaments year after year. I cannot definitively answer that question. My personal preference is to grind out a yearly income in cash games and hope to get lucky enough to turn an additional profit in the tournament events I play live and online.

I am only competing in Stud, Stud Hi/Lo, Razz and HORSE events. Those games are not offered as often in tournaments as Hold'em is, nor do they usually have as much prize money. So, unless you are playing in enough Hold'em (specifically No Limit ) events with enough prize money, it may be hard for you to make enough money in all the other games combined to make a living solely playing tournaments, especially once you figure in the other costs involved.

One nice thing about playing online (at least at PokerStars) is that it may also allow you to accumulate enough FPPs to enter various tournaments throughout the year. This may even be looked at as a "freeroll" to these events, since you are not going "out of pocket" to enter them using your already earned FPPs.

Managing your bankroll is critical to poker success, but managing your other associated expenses is very important too.

In the next few weeks, I will continue covering various tournament issues, among them, getting staked or sponsored, tax liability, and when and how to make deals at the final table.

In the meantime, you can find me in the $10/$20 and $30/$60 limit games in our Stud section, as well as in our weekend $215 buy-in tournaments for Stud games. Please check the starting times of each of those events under Tourney > Special in the PokerStars lobby.

Feel free to contact me with any questions, suggestions or thoughts at adamr@pokerstars.com.

See you at the tables!