|
|
The Weekend
Thursday, May 31, 2007 I got to the final four tables of another online tournament this Sunday. Of course, this time it was UltimateBet, and the event had almost 10,000 fewer players than the Stars event from the Sunday before, but I made a deep run nonetheless. It was the same story, of course. I ran dreadfully in showdowns once we got to the money, and thus couldn't muster up enough chips to have a shot at the final table. I'm going away with Ivy for a few days before the long trek out to World Series of Poker (which I will make next Friday), but I may try to squeeze in some online HORSE hands sometime before Vegas. I'm looking forward to WSOP, for now. I know the structures are bad, and that last year everything was run terribly, but I'm forcing myself to be cautiously optimistic. This is my best money-making opportunity of the year, and I'm going in with an appropriate attitude. Best of luck to everyone playing tomorrow's opening event at WSOP. Delayed Sunday Report Tuesday, May 22, 2007 My weekend tournament report is coming a few days late because I wanted my Open Letter to remain the most recent for a few more days. That, and I'm lazy. I played another new tournament this weekend--The PokerStars Warm-Up. Stars added $100,000 to the Warm-Up Prize Pool, and $250,000 to their normal event prize pool, making both extremely hard to pass up. Throw in the FTOPS main event, and it was a really great weekend to be playing online poker. I whiffed on Bodog, UB, FTP, and Stars-Warm Up. I did, however, make a very deep run in the Stars Sunday Million, finishing 31st out of 10,894 freaking people. I certainly had a decent amount of luck, as is required to get that far in an event so large. My luck finally ran out with five tables left when I ran AKs into AA. At that point, AKs is basically the nuts. Unfortunately, it's not literally the nuts. I managed a mini-comeback even after losing that hand, but I lost one final showdown when I moved in with J7s and got called by ATo (a good call from my opponent, by the way) and that was that. I earned $4,600, or 23 buy-ins, for my trouble. The 31st place finisher in the main event of last year's WSOP won 33 buy-ins, and that event had fewer players and no added money. Now, I understand this is not a perfect comparison for several reasons. 1) The payout structure is always flatter online than in brick-and-mortar tournaments. 2) PokerStars was experimenting with an even flatter than usual structure for this particular event, and it seems they are back to a more normal structure next week. 3) The flat structure draws a lot of players to the tournament, and there might not have been close to 10,894 people without the high percentage of cashing players. 4) PokerStars put up a quarter of a million dollars, which pretty much allows them to dictate the structure however they see fit. So, I'm not complaining. Having said that, it was certainly unfortunate that I only got 23 buy-ins for defeating 99.7% of the field. Don't get me wrong, it was a good Sunday, and it's given me some momentum heading into the World Series of Poker, which is suddenly right around the corner. My first event will be Event 16 -- $2,500 HORSE. I need to get some practice in the stud games before then... An Open Letter to Steve Lipscomb Friday, May 18, 2007 I promised I'd find something to write about this week, and that something fell in my lap when I received an email yesterday entitled "An Open Letter regarding Final Table Structure from WPT Founder Steven Lipscomb." I like Steve Lipscomb. I've met him several times, and he's been nothing but gracious. In an effort to have a frank and productive discussion about the World Poker Tour's final table structures, I responded to the points Steve made in his Open Letter with an Open Letter of my own. This letter appears in the forum section of WorldPokerTour.com. As it is an Open Letter, feel free to link to it, and/or forward it to anyone you deem appropriate. Dear Steve, Thank you for beginning a dialogue about the final table structure for WPT events. I assure you, this topic is quite important for many of the top players on the tournament circuit. As you know, I've long been a friend of the WPT. I've played in many WPT events, appeared on one final table, and I've cowritten a book published through the WPT. As a friend of the WPT, I'd like to present my views on the points you made in your recent Open Letter regarding Final Table Structure. I use quotes where quoting from that letter. "The structure we currently use at the final table was designed for us by players (Howard Lederer - in consultation with Jack McClelland, Chris Ferguson and others)." It was and is commendable that you asked players to devise the structure that has been in place for the past four years. That said, your statement is somewhat misleading. You instructed Howard to devise a structure that would have the final table completed within six hours--4.5 hours if you don't count TV breaks. This was discussed quite a bit at the time, and anyone who likes can read about it here. I grant you that Howard did a fine job within the confines he was limited to, but most players' issue with the structure is that 4.5 hours of play at the final table is not enough. "1) Six Players: The final table structure is applied to the final six players only (the TV final table). If you measured the time it takes to get from 9 or 10 players to a winner, the current structure normally produces 9 to 18 hours of play at each final table." Unfortunately, this isn't true. As you know, pokerwire.com provides updates of WPT events. Reports from the last 12 WPT events can still be found in their archives. In none of these events did it take anywhere near 18 hours to get from 10 players to a winner. The longest I can find is the Bay 101, which took just under 12 hours. The Borgata tournament in January took 6 hours and 40 minutes to get from 10 players to one. The most recent World Poker Finals at Foxwoods took 4 hours 59 minutes. It would be far more accurate to say that the current structure normally produces between 5 and 12 hours of play at the final table, with most final tables coming in on the lower side of that spectrum. "2) Watchable Television: For the benefit of everyone who plays in WPT events, the television needs to work. If the final table structure makes bad TV and people stop watching, we all lose." Exactly. When the WPT began, it revolutionized televised poker through the use of the hole card camera. But many other shows have caught up. From a strictly poker perspective, there is far more interesting poker on TV today than can be found on the WPT; and that is a direct result of the blind structure at WPT final tables. To reclaim its place as the best poker on television, WPT needs to add more play to the current structure. "a) WPT shows are two hours long. That translates into roughly 65 to 70 minutes of poker on air (out of 88 minutes of programming time). "b) WPT shows play as 'live fiction' - one of the essential innovations that drives the WPT format that created renewed interest in televised poker in 2003. This is very difficult to do when too much time passes between television hands (because chip stacks swing wildly, levels jump randomly and strategy becomes incoherent). One of the things we pride ourselves on is telling the story that actually happened at the table – for the benefit of the players skilled enough to make it to a WPT final table and the audience that wants to watch and learn more about the game from the best in the game." I completely understand your concern about this. Here are a few suggestions I have. I hope some are plausible. - Break each event into two episodes, doubling the amount of time you have to tell the story of each tournament. - If necessary, edit out the first few eliminations and start your coverage with fewer players left. The story is in the climax. If you need to cut the story for space reasons, cut the stuff at the beginning. The rest of the tournament is cut already, it does no harm to cut it further. - If necessary, dispense with some of the biographical information and/or Poker Corner segments. The poker shows featuring the most interesting poker have virtually none of these "away from the table" pieces. "c) The current structure was designed to give roughly 5 to 8 (and at the outside 10) hours of play to the final six players in each tournament. And, to the credit of the architects, it has done that." First, the current structure was not designed to give that much play, as mentioned in the Howard Lederer posts cited above. Second, the current structure has not given that much play. Over the last 12 WPT events, the average final table took 5 hours and 21 minutes. Half of them took less than four hours and 15 minutes. Only one (Bay 101) took more than seven hours. The current structure was designed to give six hours of play, including breaks. That it has done. We need more. "3) Important Design Goals of Current Structure: I think anyone who takes a crack at helping us in this process should look hard at the current structure: a) Designed to give every player a shot at the final table: Based on a formula that takes into account the number of chips in play and the average chip stack prior to beginning the TV final table with six players, the current structure moves the blinds and antes back in nearly every tournament we film. The concept was to insure that all players (big and short stacks) had a couple of hours without much pressure on their stacks – giving them a chance to maneuver and use their skill." I think this goal is flawed. Coming to the final table with an inferior stack size should not be rewarded, especially if that reward comes at the expense of the skill factor during three-handed and heads-up play, when far more money is at stake. The goal should be fairness to all players. It is more fair, in my opinion, to continue blind escalation than to roll back the blinds for the final six. The short stacks already had their chance to get enough chips for the final table. It is not fair to give them new life. "b) No doubling of the blinds: Another characteristic of the current structure is that it never doubles the blinds, but rather, gradually moves up each level. This is made possible because the structure is based on hour levels (with half hour levels heads up after the 3rd level). Longer levels would require bigger jumps in blinds to have the same result. It was our understanding that the slower blind progression would be preferred by players." Blinds should NEVER double after the first two levels of a major tournament, and they almost never do. The fact that blinds don't double at WPT final tables should go without saying. I'm sorry to say this, but one-hour levels at the final table, followed by half-hour levels during the heads-up portion, is a joke. Given the amount of money on the line, the levels should be at least as long as they've been throughout the tournament, and the blinds should escalate at a similar rate to how they've been escalating (again, I assure you, there is virtually never a doubling of the blinds late in a major tournament). "4) Costs: As a public company, our revenues and costs are transparent. "a) Today: Under the current structure, it costs the WPT roughly $300,000 to make each WPT episode. That number does not include any costs (corporate, marketing, overhead or otherwise) that are not directly attributed to making the shows. The GSN deal that we just signed for Season VI pays us a license fee of $300,000 per episode. "b) Cost per hour at the final table: Every hour beyond 6 hours of play at the TV final table costs the WPT roughly an extra $5,000. At the 8th hour of play, that number escalates to $11,000 per hour. So, if all twenty-three WPT final tables lasted 12 hours instead of our current 6 hour average the additional cost to WPT would be roughly $1,242,000 per season." I've never been the CEO of anything, so I defer to your expertise here. Having said that, I certainly think it's possible that improving the quality of WPT programs enough so that WPT regains its place as the most-watched poker show could generate more than $1 million in new revenue per season. "c) WPT does not take any percentage out of the prize pool or participate in any 'juice' paid by players to enter WPT tournaments." This is another one that should go without saying. Only the casinos take juice, and that's true pretty much everywhere. "d) Total Financial Picture for WPT Enterprises: The Company is currently losing money as it invests in the businesses that it hopes will generate profits for shareholders in the future - specifically, international online gaming and online non-gaming in the domestic market." All of us, players, WPT owners and shareholders alike, want very much for the WPT to succeed. That's why I'm so appreciative that we're having this discussion. I hope eventually WPT events will be better for all parties involved. Sincerely, Matt Matros Foxwoods Report (Coming Sooner Than I Would Have Liked) Thursday, May 10, 2007 Well, I managed to get rid of 30,000 chips in less than three hours. Nice job, me! Since this one was so quick and so recent, I might be able to relate every significant pot I played. Level One, 25/50 30k starting stacks. I open for 150 from mid position with 66. The button and both blinds call. Flop comes T22. Checked around. Turn king. Checked to me, I bet 400. Button reluctantly calls, blinds fold. River ace. I bet 800. Button calls immediately with K3s. I played this one well (sarcasm). One limper for 50. I make it 175 with QQ. One cold caller, and the limper calls. Flop, KTx. Checked to me, I bet 350. Next player calls, limper folds. Turn ace. I check and fold. (OK, as I write this, it's clear I don't remember every significant pot, but I'll give you most of them.) Level Two, 50/100 UTG+1 opens for 400. I make it 1200 from the SB with AKs. UTG+1 calls. Flop 992. I bet 1500. UTG+1 calls. Turn 4. I check if he has TT-QQ, he'll probably fold if I bet the turn and river. But I can't rule out KK/AA, and I also could be wrong about his folding to the third barrel with lesser hands. I check, he checks. River 4. I check, he checks. His jacks are good. Another one I played well (sarcasm #2). Level Three, 100/200 Cutoff opens for 625. Button calls. I make it 2800 in the SB with Ac9s. BB folds, cutoff thinks for a while and folds. Button thinks for a long while, triple checks his hand, clearly hates his hand, and finally calls. He has 10k left. Flop comes 875 with two hearts. I set him in, he mucks instantly. One limper for 200. I make it 700 on the button with Ac9s (this is not a typo). Everyone else folds, limper calls. Flop Q98. Check, Check. Turn 6. He bets 1k, I call. River 7. Check, check. His KQ is good. At least I didn't waste another barrel on the river, as I'm sure (now, after watching him a while longer) that this guy was calling. Level Four, 100/200, 25 ante I open from UTG+2 with Ah4h for 500. The blinds calls. The flop comes AQT with one heart. Checked to me, I bet 1k. SB raises to 3k. BB folds. I decide to call. Turn is the jack of hearts. SB leads out for 6k. I have 20k left. This sort of looks like a good spot for a semibluff because he can't call without a king, and I have outs even if he has a king. I am almost sure, however, that he has a king, and that by putting in 20k all I would do was get a ton of money in the pot in a bad spot. I reluctantly fold. Two limpers, I complete from the SB with J3o. BB checks. Flop comes 554. Checked around. Turn 2. I take a stab and bet 700. BB folds, first limper calls, next limper folds. River T. I bet 1300. He looks me up with A2. Zero for 2 on river bluffs. Folds to me in the cutoff and I open for 650 with AKo. Button makes it 1850. Blinds fold, I jam for 17k. Button (my friend Feming Chan, who is almost surely the chip leader by now, as this ends up being the third big pot he's won already) calls with KK and I don't improve. My sarcasm aside, I'm pretty OK with how I played all these hands. Sometimes you just run bad. I'm not playing the online stuff this weekend, as instead I'm celebrating my 30th birthday. But I'll come up with something to post about next week, I promise. Expanding Horizons Monday, May 07, 2007 I added UB to my Sunday schedule, meaning I played in a total of four multi-table tournaments this weekend. Zero for four. The only really interesting hand I can remember is the one that crippled me on FTP. With blinds of 80 and 160, it folded to me on the button and I opened for 480 with Kc8c. Mike Matusow called me from the big blind. The flop came 3d 7c Qc. Mike had 6k left at this point, and I had him covered by a couple hundred. Mike checked and I bet 650. If Mike raised to 1800 or 2k I was planning on reraising him all-in. Unfortunately, Mike beat me to the punch and moved all-in himself. Now I had a real decision. I certainly wasn't giving Mike credit for a big hand here. I thought either a flush draw, a queen, or a seven were the most likely hands, in that order. I would be way ahead of a lot of the flush draws, even money against most queens, and way behind a few of his flush draws (although I thought AcJc and AcTc weren't very likely based on the lack of a preflop reraise). Getting 1.44-1 on my money in a spot where I could easily be ahead and would rarely be far behind, I thought calling was the best option. Unfortunately, Mike had my worst-case scenario hand--AcJc, and neither of us improved. And then, in the chat... Mike Matusow: dream spot for me Sure was. Nice hand, sir. A few readers have asked if I have an RSS feed. I absolutely do! Either click on the "XML" button on the button of this page, or subscribe to www.mattmatros.com/journal.htm via Bloglines or whatever RSS aggregator you prefer. Best of luck with your card-playing this week. My next report will be from Foxwoods. Not a Post About Hands Tuesday, May 01, 2007 Thanks to everyone who responded to my inquiry about non-poker-related posts. I was pleasantly surprised to see that I retained so many readers throughout my hiatus (or at least, that so many readers came back once I started posting again). The overwhelming majority of you encouraged me to write about whatever I wanted to in this blog. But there was definitely a dissenting opinion, an opinion of which I'm highly respectful, that said, "too many poker bloggers write far too much about their lives." I couldn't agree more, and that's one of the main reasons I've never much mentioned my personal life in this space. Don't worry, I will never be writing about touchy-feely, Matt Matros-as-a-social-animal type stuff here. I was just thinking of adding posts about other things I'm interested in, like movies, books, sports, or possibly politics (though I understand politics turns a lot of people off). The most convincing argument I got for writing on other topics was that my writing will only be of interest to others if it's of interest to me. Since I don't find poker writing as interesting as I used to (and I save most of the interesting stuff for CardPlayer), I think it will be easier for me to stay interested in posting here, and my readership will remain interested in reading, if I occasionally post about non-poker topics. I do plenty of writing outside of this blog, as most of my readers know, but every once in a while I'll come across an idea that doesn't fit anywhere else. Those ideas will end up here. This post, believe it or not, is about poker. As I've mentioned a few times in this space, I'll be playing a $3,000 buy-in event at Foxwoods next week. This will be only my third tournament with a four-figure buy-in this year. I thought I'd explain why that was, lest anyone think I was broke (although anyone who equates "entering a big poker tournament" with "not being broke" doesn't really understand the poker world). Obviously, I'm not broke. I have basically the same amount of money I had when I was playing tournaments much more frequently. Poker tournaments are just not as fun and interesting for me as they once were. The next question then, is why play them at all? The short answer, of course, is for the money. To me, "for the money" is still not a good enough reason to play most poker tournaments. When the games at Party were stlil good, I could easily match my EV from almost any tournament by putting in a few hard days' work online. If I didn't enjoy playing the tournaments, then why pay the travel expenses and suffer the inconveniences of hotel living for them? Nowadays, online games have gotten tougher, and brick-and-mortar tournaments are becoming a somewhat more attractive option in terms of EV. Still, the associated costs of live tournaments are much, much higher than the costs associated with playing online (which are basically $0). In addition, I very rarely take backing for poker tournaments. I really like having 100 percent of myself. To me, if I can't have 100 percent of myself, then I'm REALLY better off staying home and playing online and/or working on other things. But I'm also pretty conservative with my bankroll, so I only buy into a couple of $10k events per year, unless things are going really well. As a result of these philosophies, I don't end up in the WPT or WSOP circuit events very often. There are, however, other reasons to play tournaments that are not strictly related to EV and bankroll. If I travel to a tournament, I'm pretty much forced to play as much as I can, and I get some solid playing time in spite of myself. At home, I often procrastinate. On the road, with tournaments that start at a certain specific hour, I can't procrastinate. Another reason is that I do still enjoy deep stack tournaments. I don't love them the way I used to, and I don't think my EV/enjoyment of them is enough to justify the massive expenses associated with playing the tour, but once a true deep stack tournament starts, I do generally enjoy it (assuming I'm not suffering some form of massive poker burnout at the time, which sometimes happens towards the end of poker trips). Finally, there is a third reason. It may not be a great reason, but it's a reason nonetheless. I want another crack at a major final table. I was a totally different player, at a totally different stage of my playing career when I won the money that changed my life at Bellagio. I'd love to play for the big stakes again knowing what I know now. Again, this desire is not enough to get me to blow all my money playing every event on the tour, just hoping to get my face on TV. But this desire is enough so that I will probably continuing travelling to a couple major tournaments a year, until that next shot comes. And of course, the thought of the potentially millions of dollars that could come with it helps as well. So that's my story. I still play tournaments, just not that many, and it's because I 1) play my own money, 2) don't like to travel, but 3) want to (eventually) hit something big again. Make sense? Good luck playing whatever you're playing this week and weekend.  September 2004 | October 2004 | December 2004 | January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | October 2007 | January 2008 | |
Poll
|
Copyright
© 2004-2006 by Matt Matros | All Rights Reserved |
