"Lucky seats" at poker tables

[Alan Mendelson]

I've been playing live poker for a while. And often there is one seat -- or two -- at a nine or ten handed table that seems to win more hands, more big hands, and the player has more chips.

Is it because the player is better, or the seat is luckier and gets the better cards? Is there such a thing as a lucky seat?

Personally I don't believe in "lucky seats" but I am often amazed how when a "big stack" decides to leave several players will try for vacated seat.

And sometimes, when a player gets that vacated seat, the winning cards continue.

Coincidence? Selective memory? Mass hysteria?? LOL

[Count Room]

Would sitting to the immediate right of the lucky seat be the worst seat? (Vulnerable to raises, etc.)

[Alan Mendelson]

Would sitting to the immediate right of the lucky seat be the worst seat? (Vulnerable to raises, etc.)

Good observation, Count Room.

But, never mind sitting to the right of the "lucky seat" -- a bigger problem is sitting to the right of an aggressive player who makes big raises. It's a bad place to be -- and I've been there too many times. often you have to play a very tight game and play only big pairs because you are always afraid that the aggressive player to your left will push all-in. Rarely do you call an all-in with just a draw such as suited connectors or even with a small pair. All-in calls are reserved for AA and KK and QQ and perhaps JJ. I know many players (and I'm one of them) who will not call an all in with AK suited because they know even a pair of deuces can beat them.

Unfortunately "lucky seat players" also become a self fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. Once they have big stack they can use the big stack to force other players out of hands and they can continue to accumulate chips even without seeing the flop or going to the river.

[Count Room]

Alan:

I consider myself a humble neophyte at table poker, but I have to agree with you on the not calling an all-in (with one other single player) on a draw hand like AK. Hands like AK, AQ, etc. seem to prefer a larger number of callers for better pot odds...so your strategy makes sense to me there.

Trying to figure out when to call or raise against a big bullying stack would make for an interesting academic study all on its own. One could always leave the table in a cash game unless 'craving more action' (yes, pun intended in light of what Rob said in other threads). If you have no choice because you're in a tournament it would have to be some careful measure of how many antes and blinds can you afford to keep sacrificing before wanting the pain to end by calling out the big-stack bully? There are actually some game theory studies on matters similar to this...but I would suspect you'd have to loosen your starting hand requirements by varying amounts depending on the exact situation.

I know that you know that I know that you know these are fascinating considerations ;-)

[Alan Mendelson]

One of the reasons why I have stopped playing tournaments is that I didn't like the pressure of having to play hands that I wouldn't normally play. In tournaments when the blinds and antes are high you are almost forced to call raises when you already have a big percentage of your chips in the pot because you are a blind.

In cash games you always have the "luxury" of sacrificing your blinds -- and at worst -- you can always rebuy in a cash game. You often hear of players who fold QQ or JJ when two or more players go all-in before it is their turn to act. And experienced players have even been known to fold KK or AA when five or more players are in a hand because the value of AA and KK drop dramatically as the number of players in a hand increases.

I have a great story to tell about this: about a year ago at The Commerce I was the big blind (last to act) at a $100 buy-in table. It was the first hand at this new table -- all players at the table had the same $100 stack. And one by one, each and every player went all in. The action came to me and I looked down and saw 8-3 off suit, and said to myself "what the heck, pot odds -- and it's only $100." So I called. And the flop came 333 and I had quads. When the dealer asked for the players to show, sure enough one player had AA, another KK and another JJ. And this isn't the only time something like this happened.

Just last week at Hollywood Park I was at a $200 game with JJ. I was in early position and raised the BB which was $5 to $25. I got three callers and then a fourth player raised to $50. When the action came to me, I pushed all in with my JJ. I got only one caller. It turned out that was a mistake -- but of course I didn't know it when I pushed.

It was a mistake because on the flop there was a Jack which gave me a set, and on the turn was the case jack for quads. I might have won several hundred dollars more had I only called the raise to $50 and let the action continue. But how could I even dream of hitting quads?

Doyle Brunson's book -- while many criticize it for being "old poker" -- is still an excellent guide for basic strategy. When I play live poker, I often ask myself WWDD?? What Would Doyle Do?? I pretty much follow him to a "T" even congratulating another player when they crack my aces (which is in fact something he says to do). Doyle would have pushed with JJ as I did. And had he lost he would have congratulated the winner.

[Count Room]

At this juncture I can only read Alan's stories with a bit of wonderment because my own table experience is extremely limited. I do understand most of the basic concepts of various live poker games, yet I feel like I have SO much to learn about it. And yes, quad 3's with so many all-ins would have made for a hilarious evening for me there.

AA/KK with five callers being less valuable: I'm sure you're right on this, but would this weakness be mitigated a bit if you determined the overall table to be a "loose" one? I think Mike Caro said this can be a great table to select for playing against, too...

On the tournament play I respect your decision not to try them, but it would be cool to see "Alan Mendelson" on top of a major tournament placing just for fun publicity (sort of an apres du jour to a journalism career in terms of public exposure?).

I wouldn't mind trying tournaments myself, but I feel my experience to be too limited and I would be sure to make too many "donkey" plays at this time.
It's worth noting that truly great players like Phil Ivey do both cash games and tournaments to keep their brains sharp, adaptive, and to "mix up the game". From what I understand truly great poker players absolutely must stay adaptive and mix up their game often so as to not fall into some predictable long-term "groove" or "modus operandi" of play that opponents can pick up on. Tournament play could make for good practice for that adaptive mentality even if the lessons learned from that sort of setting cannot be directly carried over to cash games.

[Alan Mendelson]

Count Room: I've never played a "big money" tournament. My biggest tourney "buy in" was $335. I've won only two "daily tournaments" in the last four years but made many "final tables." And my biggest tourney "cash" was about $2,200. Unfortunately, because only 10% of the field gets paid in a tournament, I've lost more money than I've won in tournaments. Hence, my decision to play in cash games.

If you read about the big tournament players you will discover that many of the big tourney players earn their living playing cash games, and not from winning tourneys.

And then there are those big tournament winners who have lost it all playing other tournaments. And of course we have all heard the stories about WSOP bracelet winners who later had to pawn or sell their bracelets just to get money to keep playing. It's a rough business. Which is why $100 and $200 buy-in cash games suit me just fine, thank you.

[redietz]

The worst time I ever had in a poker tournament was playing against someone who didn't know anything at Planet Hollywood. You would think playing against a person who doesn't even have hand rankings memorized would be beneficial, but not when he's sitting to your immediate right! I had no idea what to do -- and never had enough time to debate it. It was a joke and a nightmare.

[Alan Mendelson]

Redietz I know exactly what you're talking about. Players who play "A2C" (any two cards) are very dangerous because at any time they could make two pair while you are holding only one big pair. For example, they play 8-2 off suit and you have QQ, and the flop come 8-2-6. Your QQ loses. It happens all the time.

Experience tells us, however, that those A2C players never last and eventually lose it all. But usually not before they do some damage to "good players."

[arcimede$]

Lucky seats????? Chuckle, chuckle.

[Alan Mendelson]

Arc you'd be surprised what people think. But I'm with you on this one.

[Count Room]

Nolan Dalla wrote an excellent article five years ago on the degeneracy in the tournament poker world. It's largely in line with what Alan talked about earlier in this thread:

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/dalla27.htm

[Alan Mendelson]

Thanks for posting that Count Room. Be sure you read Daniel Negreanu's comments which follow. The link is at the bottom of the page you posted. Note what he said about the cash players.

[Count Room]

Alan:

I read Negranu's response and paid special attention to the cash players part.
One question, though:

Daniel wrote that the truly great players are the ones we never hear of, but why is Mr. Negranu being so prolific himself? He is a bit of a household name among poker fans....just makes me wonder...

[Alan Mendelson]

Daniel is also a businessman and a promoter of certain online gaming sites. He has to be public.

If you want to find out about the real money, big cash players go to Bellagio, go to Commerce and see where the "big guys" are playing for buy ins of $10,000 or more. They play every day.

The other night when I was at that $200 table at Hollywood, there was a former (and I should emphasize "former") big money player who had been on a very bad streak... and now was playing $200 buy in games. He talked to me how he used to play at Bellagio in "Bobby's Room." See: http://www.bellagio.com/casino/bobbys-room.aspx

He was very upfront and honest about how he won big and then lost it all. He is now back in the construction business building custom homes instead of playing poker with fifty thousand or more at a time. He busted out to me that night on his final $200 buy in (he came with $1,000) when we were heads up -- he had AK and I had 99 and my pair held up.

You hear about the big celebrity tournament players all the time. You don't hear about the big, daily cash game players. When Commerce was on my TV show a couple of years ago, I got to shoot some video of one of the "big games" because we wanted to see big chips on the table. No private room there. It's just a table in the "higher limit" room which is huge. Bigger than anything you'd see in Vegas, which is why LA is the true capital of the poker world.

[jatki]

Alan: are LA poker rooms hurting the ones in Nevada? If so then why do so many people from LA still go to LV and play?

[Alan Mendelson]

I don't think the fact that California poker rooms are so big really has an impact on Vegas poker rooms. But the Nevada casino industry is very concerned about the growth of the Indian casinos in California. And about five years ago when legislation in California was on the ballot that would have allowed for an expansion of gaming --- slots in the card casinos, plus real craps and real roulette -- the Nevada casino industry poured a lot of money into California to campaign against the ballot initiative.

Make no mistake about it -- the Nevada gaming interests would be very happy if the California casinos closed up.