If you missed the Alamo Bowl last night between Missouri and Northwestern, then you certainly don’t know Chase Daniel’s family as well as the rest of us. Someone made the massive mistake of giving up the location of Chase’s family to ESPN, which then had its cameras focused on his kin all night. This was like restraining order levels of infatuation. Without exaggeration, ESPN probably showed the Daniels somewhere around 35 times. Here’s just a taste, which contain Chase’s sister losing her mind followed by his mother crying after Mizzou stopped Northwestern in OT to win the game:

That’s some genuine excitement right there for their brother/son who just played in, and won, his last game ever with the Tigers. But, according to Jason Whitlock, the Daniel family and all of Missouri should be ashamed of themselves for celebrating a victory:

The Tigers danced across the Alamodome as if they’d beaten Kansas or won the Big 12 title.

When he was handed the microphone at the Alamo Bowl trophy ceremony, Gary Pinkel shrieked: “How ’bout dem Tigers?!?”

I wondered what game I’d just watched.

The one I watched was an embarrassment for the Tigers. An inferior opponent had outplayed them for most of the night, settled for a moral victory in the fourth quarter and gave up in overtime.

With that, I believe Whitlock has just invented a new category of victory: an embarrassing win. I’ve heard of winning ugly or lucky or whatever, but since when is winning a game — you know, the ultimate objective of sports competition — something to be ashamed of? It’s embarrassing for the Tigers because they didn’t cover the spread? Or because the season, as a whole, didn’t meet expectations? They won the freakin’ game. For many of them, including Daniel, it was their last game ever. Let them celebrate however the hell they want.

While we’re here, I’m also looking in your general direction, Matt Hayes, for raining on Florida State’s parade. Really, we’ve reached curmudgeon levels so epic that we’re scolding 18-22 year old kids for being overjoyed after winning a bowl game? Outrage comes awfully cheap these days.

I’ve mentioned it before but it definitely bears repeating, and that’s the fact that when it comes to instructional poker, there’s really nothing that can stand up against learning from the pros in person, such as at a poker clinic. Words from a book can be misinterpreted and most poker DVD’s focus on the basic fundamentals of poker, leaving more experienced players unsatisfied. And when it comes to cash games, the list of good non-clinic methods of learning drops to almost non-existent levels. Worry not however, as the WSOP has just recently announced a new series of cash game based academies for 2009 designed to help those that don’t put 100% of their time and effort into tournament play.

The Cash Game Academies will include live-play workshops, seminars, hands-on instruction, and will end with cash game competition. Topics taught at the event will cover different aspects of the game such as making the transition from tournament play to cash games, bankroll management, and ID’ing opponent hand ranges. Students will even be treated to video analyses of cash games, with instructors breaking down hands at each stage and discussing different strategies.

The first WSOP Cash Game Academy will be held at Harrah’s in Atlantic City from January 24th-25th, with a stop at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas just two weeks later on February 7th-8th. Professional poker players Mark Seif, Paul Wasicka and Alex Outhred are among those scheduled to teach at the Atlantic City event, with Seif and Outhred meeting up with Michael Gracz two weeks later to instruct students at the 2nd stop at Caesars Palace.

Entry fee, as is the case with many high-end poker schools, is fairly expensive for the casual player, with each event carrying a price tag of $1,899. Still, for those who make their living at the tables, the benefits of such a course could in return bring a substantial gain in money made during further sessions.

I wouldn’t recommend such an intense course for a hobbyist poker player, but those that view poker as more of a lifestyle and profit center should strongly consider sitting down at a WSOP Cash Game Academy. You can find more info at www.wsopacademy.com

One of the key leaks in weak players games is that they bluff for very obvious reasons.

The most obvious of these is desperation, usually in situations where their hand has missed and the only real option that they have to win the hand is to bluff - regardless of what signals of strength have been given off by their opponents.

This kind bluff nearly always occurs on the river, when they have missed their hand, and are basically thinking along the lines of ‘Well I’m at the river, my hand can’t win at showdown, I was hoping to hit my gutshot/flushdraw/straightdraw/over cards/whatever, and now my only option left is to bluff’. This is not their only option of course, as they could fold or check fold, saving themselves a great deal of money over the long run.

The main reason for these situations occurring with bad players is they usually have not planned the hand in advance. They have fired on flop and turn, built a large pot out of position, and are now left in a horrible spot on the river. If you can plan your actions for multiple streets you can avoid ever getting in these situations.

Once you have taken these sorts of plays out of yoru game, you can start taking advantage of other players making them. These bluffs are nearly always the same, in that the line taken by the player makes no sense considering their normal style of play. Much of this is up to the read on the player, but typically they happen on boards that just don’t fit the story that you are being told.

A typical example of this is when an opponent raises pre flop, you defend on the button with a suited connector, flop middle pair and call a flop bet. Both players check a low turn, and then the pre flop raiser fires out a big bet on another low river. This nearly always indicates a desperate attempt to win with their two high cards (God forbid a bad player should ever lose a pot where they started with ace king), as they would have usually bet the turn with any hand that was made.

Bad players actually bluff a great deal, they just tend to do it out of frustration and desperation more than for reasons to do with a certain player or a certain board. Always remember that bluffs have to form a coherent story that you are telling about your hand, and vice versa, and if you ever see that story start to breakdown, it is probably worth your while making a few thin calls.

Related Readings

Bluffing - How to pull the trigger - Marcus Bateman
Beating weak poker games - Marcus Bateman
Bluffing in PLO - Marcus Bateman

I was recently sitting say anything in the event that the players didn’t catch it. After another minute of consideration the opponent called the $500, and after a weak bet from Tim on the river, went all in to take the pot down. Tim was fuming and proceeded to at a 5/10 live game in Las Vegas. For the sake of this story, I have given some of the players fake names to make it easier to understand. Player Tim had gotten into a bit of an argument with Jill and her boyfriend about the mandatory straddle that was in place when the couple sat down. Jill didn’t want to do it, but the couple wouldn’t take the open seats on the other tables. A few hands later Tim was involved in a hand with someone across the table. Tim was a pretty aggressive player who was known to raise with any two cards. Preflop Tim raised $50. He had one caller to the flop. The flop came out 6s 7d 6h. Tim bets $100 and his opponent says, “You don’t want to lose all of your money on this hand. I call.” The turn comes a 7c. Tim bets $500, and his opponent goes into the think tank. It seemed pretty obvious to me that Tim was bluffing, but his opponent was really struggling with the decision. He began to run through the hand out loud and then stated, “I shouldn’t call this because I really think you have a 7.” From this Jill, who was not in the hand said, “Well there is only one way to find out.” EEeeeks! I immediately knew her comment was out of line, but didn’t chew Jill out for opening her mouth and influencing his opponent in the hand.

Of course, Tim was right to be upset because in the end Tim’s opponent confessed that he was thinking of folding on the turn. Jill’s comment influenced Tim’s opponent to make a decision that he probably wouldn’t have made on his own. Jill’s comment also influenced Tim’s play. Had Jill not said anything, Tim could have made a better betting decision on the river. However, the comment put Tim on tilt and caused him to be distracted from the hand. The moral of the story is: If you are not in a hand and there is one in progress don’t say anything regarding the hand or its players until the hand is over. I regularly run into the situation where a flop comes out 6 6 2 and someone says, “Oh man! I threw away a 6.” As disappointing as that might be, it is not ok to announce this to the table because it inhibits an involved player’s ability to bluff at the pot. It could also induce someone to call a bet, knowing the chances of a 6 in hand is slimmer, though in actuality they are calling into a set. For this reason, it is bad etiquette to comment on a hand when you are not involved and/or if it is a multi-way pot. When the chips are being pushed to the winner, it might be ok to open up about your hand or add commentary. Just remember that comments that you make about a hand might influence someone’s decision in the end, and you wouldn’t like it if you lost money because another player influenced your opponent.

If you’ve played tournaments, you’ve probably run into the situation where you are short stacked and have to make a move soon. In these situations, you are looking for any two big cards or a pocket pair. I’ve been in this situation a million times, just praying that my next hand will bring me pocket aces. Instead, I will look down at pocket 3’s and have to make a decision. My first instinct is always to push in. My thinking is, “Hey, at least I have a pair. If I get called, hopefully my opponent won’t hit his cards.” This is the wrong line of thinking, and I’ll tell you why…

In an all in situation for your tournament life, pocket pairs should be off limits. Excluding the situation where you are on the button and it folds around to you, and even then this play is subject to debate. I don’t like the play of going all in with your small pocket pairs because at best you are going to be in a 50/50 situation. Granted, when you are short stacked, you don’t always have the luxury of waiting for a better spot than 50/50, but I don’t view this as the best 50/50 situation to be in. By this I mean that your small pocket pair is extremely vulnerable. Technically you might be 50/50 against over cards, but in reality they have a better chance of their hand holding up. If you are called, it is most likely going to be by over cards or a bigger pocket pair. If you are called by over cards your opponent might be behind, but they have 6 outs against you preflop to hit a higher pair. This could increase to several more post flop, taking into account their draws.

Remember, your chances of hitting a set on the flop are roughly 11.76% on the flop, so you have to hope that your pocket pair holds up. For me, a better 50/50 situation is going all in with live cards or suited connectors if I don’t run into a big hand. Theoretically, with live cards you have just as good of a chance to win the hand by hitting a pair as your opponent does when they have a higher non-pocket paired hand. This being the case, why not put your money in with K 7 suited which gives you the chance to hit a K, 7, and gives you an opportunity at a flush draw. This hand has more possibilities than a pocket pair has. The reality of going all in is that at some point you are going to be called, and you will have to run the hand out. This being the case, I prefer to get my chips in with the hand that has the highest possibilities after the flop.