Poker News and Poker Events

Layne Flack’s reputation precedes him. The World Poker Tour describes Layne as “poker’s party boy” and “a dynamo in action.” The Travel Channel says he “plays an ultra-aggressive brand of poker.” Phil Hellmuth describes Layne as a “no-limit poker genius.”

One only need observe Layne for a moment to instantly witness an effervescent, chatty, intelligent, and refreshingly honest young man. Nearly everyone is aware of Layne’s nickname, “Back-to-Back Flack,” for his amazing feat of winning two coveted World Series of Poker bracelets back-to-back in no-limit hold’em events in 2002. He won the tournament’s first two no-limit hold’em events that year, topping fields of 449 and 528 players. The guy is relentless.

“In 1993, I met a girl and we moved to Reno..."

Collusion and soft-playing occurs. Some incidents are minor and may be subconscious, but some occur with undisputed malice. I see no problem in people putting other players in tournaments. After all, the bankroll needed to play all of the high-profile $10,000 tournaments is so high that anyone could go broke due to the standard deviation.

A sound approach is to get a sponsor or backer if you have that opportunity. For this to work, though, the business has to be fully transparent. All pride has to be set aside for the health of the game. This is not a matter of secrecy, but a matter of morals and hygiene.

At registration for every tournament, should you have to reveal your sponsor/backer and the deal. “No f------ way,” you might say. “It will never become a reality!” But remember, that is what we said about smoking, too. You can never get away from the fact that some players are good friends with each other outside of poker. As long as they don’t have any economic interest in one another at the tables, this is something with which we have to live.

Getting exposure on national TV broadcasts is paramount for any Internet site today. Players receive almost ridiculous amounts of money for wearing a logo at a final table. Of course, speculation of hidden agendas is inevitable. Rumors of a player getting there “at any price” (including collusion) will not benefit the industry. If we at some point want sponsorships from major companies in poker, I think you understand how important this is.

First, let's consider what most would view as a typical "bad beat" -- a lower pocket pair winning against a higher pocket pair in hold 'em, such as KK beating AA. When those hands share one suit, the chance of the worse hand winning is about 18%. The chance of the lower pair winning twice -- that is, the next two times that such hands happen to go against each other -- is about 3%. If in one session of play, a lower pocket pair beat a higher pocket pair twice, that might seem a little, well, weird to some players.

Let's take a look at my call on the turn. I held Ad Td; my opponent held Kd Kc. The board was Qd 9d 7h Jc. With my opponent's actual holding, I had 16 outs to win the pot on the river, making me a 1.75 to 1 underdog. Of course, it could have been worse for me against other holdings, but even the worst case for me would have been to be up against K-T (a made straight), and then I would have been only a 3 to 1 underdog.

After my bet and the opponent's all in-raise, I was getting pot odds of 3.7 to 1 to call, so the call is clearly correct. But it seemed to my opponent -- and to at least one observer -- that I made a bad call, and that my winning with a 36% chance to do so when I called was a bad beat for my opponent.

The moral of this story: While "bad beats" (low-probability events) do occur, sometimes a closer examination of a poker hand can change first impressions and allow you to continue to play with a cooler, clearer head.

You should almost never bring in for a completion in Stud Hi, except in very rare tournament situations. There are a number of reasons for this, including the need to conceal the strength of your hand and the desire to keep your options open later in the round.

If you make it a habit only to bring in for a completion when you have a good hand, an astute player will pick up on this and will steal from you every time you don't complete the bring-in. Conversely, if you always complete the bet, you are throwing away money when you are forced in, which is usually when you have a bad hand since you already have the lowest up card.

Furthermore, bringing in for a completion limits your betting options. If you bring in for the minimum and someone else completes the bet, you can raise back for a full bet, whereas your opponent can only complete for a partial bet. You can also decide to slow play your hand if someone completes. Completing the bet exposes you to being raised back a full bet. By always bringing in for the minimum, you do not give away the strength of your hand and leave your options open on third street.

When playing in a live ring game, I will seldom even look at my down cards when I am the bring-in. Whether or not you look at your cards first is a matter of personal preference, but by not looking, you can't give a tell. However, one of the important aspects of stud is being aware of what cards have already been dealt out to your opponents. If you decide not to look at your hole cards, you should still peruse the table and take inventory of what cards are already out.

But let’s get back to the question at hand. There is, of course, no such thing as an absolute introvert or extrovert. If there were, the former would never be able to find his car, and the latter wouldn’t remember the name on his drivers license. The inclination to focus one’s attention inwardly or outwardly is a matter of extent; everyone does both, but the introvert’s awareness is directed primarily inward, while the extrovert is busier watching the world. Since success in poker, as in most things, can be achieved through different approaches, it follows that both psychological types bring respective strengths and weaknesses to their games.

Since the rational introvert tends to be quite self-aware, he possesses a great capacity to manage his own game. He is capable of developing techniques that aid him in avoiding emotional or psychological traps, and is also capable of summoning an ironclad self-discipline. On the downside, his self-possession can make it difficult at times to fathom that other people might think quite differently than he does, which in turn can lead to a fixation on what his opponents “should” be thinking instead of what they are thinking. The good news is that he has a redraw, for the same self-awareness that can lead him into this trouble helps him recognize his own shortcomings, which affords him the opportunity to adjust.

The extrovert, on the plus side, has no entourage of inner railbirds distracting him during the heat of battle. Since his attention is focused predominantly on what is happening around him, he tends to perceive situations with fewer preconceived biases. Thus, he brings a free-flowing creativity to the game that is spontaneous and natural; it doesn’t have to be manufactured. And although he might not manage himself quite as effectively as the introvert, he makes up for it by managing his opponents. The extrovert also tends to have an open, outgoing personality that makes his opponents feel at ease, which enables him to observe and study them without them feeling like they’re being observed and studied. On the downside, while many extroverts are disciplined enough not to tilt, I don’t believe they pick up the signs of semitilt as quickly as their more introverted counterparts. Tilt, after all, has degrees. We can be fully in command or tilting full-throttle, but most of the time we’re somewhere in between. Since self-control exists in a continuum, we sometimes lose control of it in tiny, incremental steps, and the loss can be virtually imperceptible.

Assuming that poker isn’t any different from other cognitive skills, it almost certainly draws on both general intelligence and on one or more specific aptitudes. Even for someone with high general intelligence, playing poker well may be a struggle if some of the more poker-specific aptitudes are lacking. So, we can already say with some confidence that poker is more than just (general) intelligence; it almost certainly depends on other kinds of intelligence, as well.

Another good place to look is suggested by a distinction first made by Raymond Cattell in 1936, between fluid and crystallized intelligence. Fluid intelligence, loosely speaking, is a kind of mental agility that tends to peak at around the age of 40 and decline thereafter. Crystallized intelligence is more akin to acquired abilities or knowledge. In poker terms, fluid intelligence is the ability to make the right decision by thinking it through at the table, while crystallized intelligence is the ability to make the right decision because you’ve seen similar situations many times and know the correct decision.

Some people are not natural poker players, but through hard work develop a foundation of knowledge to compensate for the lack of natural ability. It’s easy to imagine compensating even for personality factors that aren’t well-suited to poker. Even though you might be naturally risk-averse, if you know through years of study and experience that reraising in a certain situation with a draw is the right move, you may have little trouble circumventing your natural inclination to save your money for surer bets. Alas, while crystallized intelligence may sound like an aptitude due to its catchy name, it’s really more a measure of realized potential than aptitude. So, we’ll leave it off the list and just bear in mind that even if all of your other aptitudes fall short, you can still benefit from knowledge and experience.

While our pros all have poker books that they like, not all of them believe that reading about poker theory is essential to improving their play. In fact, a few of our pros expressed sentiments along these lines:

We’re not big fans of poker books. Once you get the basics down, is there something you can read that will drastically change your outlook on poker? Probably not. If there were a secret formula that would guarantee you'd always win, or one certain technique to win the most money, wouldn't everyone be playing that way already? The best teacher is experience. Choose a playing style and game mentality that fits your style, then get out there and actively think about the game. See what works for you and what doesn't. No book will be as effective as your own thought process.

Steve Brecher agrees with “Jesus” about Sklansky's Theory of Poker for its idea of the semi-bluff and its analysis of the concept of odds in poker. Sklansky's Hold 'em for the Advanced Player and the rest of the Advanced Player series are also solid reads.

Brecher also likes Doyle Brunson's chapter on No-Limit Hold 'em in his Super System for its emphasis on the importance of implied odds (although that's Sklansky's phrase, not Brunson's).

Being friendly with Phil Gordon, Perry Friedman has gotten to read an advance copy of Phil’s Little Green Book (due out in October), which he thinks provides the best example of how to teach people to think about the game. He adds that both of Dan Harrington's books are filled with incredible advice for tournament play.