Cigital, a software security and consulting firm based out of Virginia, released the findings of a study this week that gives poker supporters some statistical data in their efforts to convince skeptics that poker is a game of skill. The report analyzed 103 million hands that were played in cash games at minimum stakes of $0.10-$0.20 on PokerStars in December 2008 and the first two days of January 2009.

The school of thought on pot odds ranges from those who advocate going with the odds 100 percent of the time to Phil Hellmuth's famous declaration that "pot odds are for suckers." While I think that pot odds are definitely a factor and should always be taken into account, I don't necessarily think that they should be the controlling factor. In this column, I'm going to try to make the case against pot odds as the sole determining factor in no-limit hold'em tournaments. The analysis presented is limited to those situations in which you are contemplating calling a significant portion, or all, of your chip stack because you have favorable pot odds in a tournament. (I think the justification for pot odds in cash games is more compelling. Also, using pot odds to price your opponent out of a call - or make it a mistake for him to do so - is solid poker.)

Finish the Story

The "Gap Concept," coined by poker author David Sklansky, refers to the idea that it takes a stronger hand to call a raise preflop than it does to make the original raise. Like most other paradigms in poker, the Gap Concept took the poker world by storm through its relative ease of understanding. In simple terms, the Gap Concept told players to reraise with a tighter range of hands than they would open-raise. This significantly tightened most players' preflop three-betting ranges. However, in today's high-stakes online poker tournaments, the Gap Concept has undergone a noticeable metamorphosis. Preflop strategy has evolved significantly over the past few years.

 Finish the Story

When a state legislature committee hearing is taken over by poker players, the game of skill argument, and general poker lingo, a good day for the game can be logged in the books. But an official committee vote next week will determine whether that is indeed a true statement.

The March 25th hearing in the Texas House Licensing and Administrative Procedures Committee set aside an afternoon time to listen to testimony regarding House Bill 222. The bill, also known as the Poker Gaming Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Jose Menendez (D-San Antonio) in November 2008 is one that intends to make poker legal, regulated, and taxed in Texas. The legislation is also intended to create a safe playing environment for those who simply want to play cards rather than risk their lives, as has been the case with a recent rash of armed robberies of private games.

Finish the Story

"You sure did that ass-backwards," I said to myself. I was in the small blind with the 6D 5D, two players limped in, and a local doctor raised from late position. Playing $30-$60 limit hold'em, it was an easy call, as I was one-third in already and had three opponents, four if the big blind came. The big blind folded, and the early-position limper, a young player, reraised. I had seen him make this same play from early position previously in the session. The way that hand had played, I read him for having a big pair, even though it hadn't been shown down. The middle-position limper called, and the doc made it four bets. I called the additional two bets, and it was capped by Mr. Young Player. We all called, ready to take the flop off four-handed for $150 each.

 Finish the Story

One of the most discussed and debated issues in the poker world is the topic of pre-flop bet sizing. There are typically three concepts that are discussed in this debate. Some argue that you should always keep your pre-flop bets consistent so as to not give away any information on the strength of your hand. I happen to lean a bit on this side of the fence. Others including Dan Harrington and Chris ‘Jesus’ Ferguson believe in varying your bet based on position and randomness. In Harrington’s books he suggests having a standard raise but varying that amount a fixed percentage of times to keep opponents guessing. Other players advocate varying your raises based upon the strength of their hand. Which side is correct? As is usually the case in poker, there really is no right answer. This article is going to look at each of these in more depth. From there you can make up your own mind as to which is better suited for your game.

 Finish the Story

I’m playing in a fairly normal $ 1/$ 2 no-limit cash game with a restricted buy-in of $200. Most of the players seem to have about $ 200 and nobody seems to be that good or that bad – like I said, it’s a pretty normal day at the casino. Two players limp in and then a player groans and flips his J-2 face up in disgust, saying ‘I’ve had this exact hand three times in a row.’ Another player limps and then the player in the cut-off raises it up to $ 75! I squeeze my cards hoping to see Aces or Kings. Instead I find A-3 and muck my cards, as does everyone else. Mr Overbet rakes in the $ 9 pot and shows pocket Jacks. He then proclaims that he had to ‘protect’ his hand. Not only does he hate Jacks but one was exposed, so he didn’t want anyone to call. He achieved that goal and unless there was a maniac at the table, nobody was going to call him unless he was crushed.

 Finish the Story

As the excitement heated up on ESPN’s coverage of the Main Event, a situation arose that garnered quite a bit of controversy. In a $12 million pot between Scott Montgomery and Paul Snead, Snead was put to the test after Montgomery moved all in with nothing but ace-high. Snead, who had flopped top pair with a weak kicker, stood up and began to deliberate making the call. After some time passed, Tiffany Michelle, who was at the table, decided to call the clock on Snead, who was astonished that even though it was within her rights, she would make that call. So, was she out of line? We posed the question of calling the clock to a number of pros, and here is what they had to say.

 Finish the Story