Thursday, January 25, 2024

Winning at Low-stakes Poker

 

Overview

This post will be about beating low-stakes no limit hold’em, both generally and specific to the games I play (0.5/1 home games, 1/3 cardroom games).

Why would I share advice, if it’s any good? While it could be self-defeating – making my opponents better players if they follow it, I think the benefits are myriad:

  •     Sharpening my own thoughts and theories to make me a better player
  •     Developing follow-up threads to share thoughts amongst readers
  •     Be remembered / recognized as someone that helped even one person increase their profits, would mean a lot to me.

I’m sharing this as free content – but if you take some part of the advice below and feel that you have profited from it, please let me know, and (seriously) Venmo me a token amount as thanks!

If you’re like most recreational poker players, you like to play for fun – whether cash games or tournaments. Cash game players enjoy the camaraderie of a regular home game or of chatting with familiar faces at their local cardroom. Tournament players like the added component of a structured event, limiting their exposure to the buyin amount and building up tension as the blinds go up and relative stack sizes compress.

So, if you could continue with your hobby and get better at it with minimal investment, why would you not do so? If you were a tennis or golf player and I gave you a single piece of advice that would increase your win rate by 10%, would you take it? This is what I’m going to try to do here.

Why me?

First, let’s get one thing out of the way. What qualifies me to dispense advice to fellow players? Am I really better (or as good as you) in this crazy game? For starters, I’m not a coach and I don’t have life changing money wins in my past (my Hendon mob entry for published tournament winnings will show virtually zero). I guess my best answer is that over the past year or so, I’ve made some changes in my game that I believe have yielded very good results. Sharing some of those insights may benefit you, and they may also help you beat me! I say, bring it on, because when I see you improving then I’ll have to adjust and improve some more!!

Common (Unforced) Errors

Let’s look at a few of the most common and (borrowing from tennis) “unforced” errors I see at every level. As you go up in stakes (say to 2/5 or 5/10 cash games, larger tournament buyins), these errors although still existent, diminish somewhat. All of the examples below relate to a full-ring table with 9 players, 200 big blinds deep ($200 at 0.5/1 with no rake, similar to our home games).

Open limping

You are the first to act (under the gun). You look down at a hand like Q9 offsuit or J7 suited and decide to limp (call the blind amount). Your reasoning is that your hand doesn’t feel strong enough to raise, but you would like to see a flop with it and potentially stack a better starting hand that has raised you preflop.

The problem with this thought process is that although you will occasionally flop well, over any decent sample size you will lose money with this action. If your table is passive and everyone limps after you then sure, you’ve just won the lottery – you’ll get to see a flop for almost free. But if there is at least one raise after you, you will now have to call another 2-3 blinds just to see a flop which you will most likely have to check/fold. That’s called lighting money on fire.

Some of the more advanced players have developed what they call a “balanced open limping range” including monsters like AA-JJ that will limp-reraise preflop. One problem with this strategy is that when players in position see a limp-reraise they understand what it means. Another is that when you removed monsters from your open-raising range of hands, that weakens it unnecessarily, making it hard to balance multiple ranges.

Over-limping

You are in 5th position from the blinds, one to the right of the button (aka cutoff). There have been 3 limps to you and you look down at A3 offsuit or Q7 suited. You proceed to just call, hoping to see a flop.

This is less of an error than limping first to act, because it is less likely you will face raises from the remaining positions – button, small blind and big blind. However, you are still investing in a pot where if you flop top pair and face action, you will most often be dominated. If you are really good at knowing “where you are” and folding such hands (like when the board is Q-T-4-3 and you are raised on the turn by a tight player), then you will minimize your losses. However, the reason that the preflop charts advocate folding these hands is again – over a large sample size they are negative EV (expected value).

A footnote to this pattern is that over-limping the button with speculative hands is not (usually) a large error, especially when the blinds don’t often raise. You get to see a pot in position with a hand that may make the nuts (like 65 suited) and that didn’t want to bloat it preflop.

Opening and calling too many hands

This is an error common to most players, closely related to the limping errors. You get bored folding and want to see flops (as a smart man said: “The hand only starts on the flop”). You are playing more hands than “theoretically correct” and inevitably, over time, lose money as a result. Take a look at this App to determine which hands you can open at which stack sizes and positions : https://app.floptimal.com/

Examples at 100BB cash games, 8 players:

  •      AT offsuit is mostly a fold in first position
  •      JT offsuit is a fold up to 4th position
  •      22 is a fold up to 5th position

Varying open bet sizings

You are in middle position (say 3rd from the blinds), and looking down at 77 or AK suited, decide to open bet 6 big blinds. While your “standard” open bet sizing is 3 big blinds, you decide to make it bigger here, to discourage calls and allow you to pick up the pot without (or with less) resistance.

The problem with this strategy is that it is unbalanced. Your opponents quickly learn that there is a portion of holdings you want to “protect” more than another, and will adapt accordingly (bonus: what are the correct adaptations here?).

When I expressed this line of thought to a friend, he responded that he likes to “mix things up” to confuse opponents and doesn’t necessarily bunch one category of hands into a larger bet sizing. While this seems to make sense on the surface, to me this rationale doesn’t really add up. It would seem that the best way to “confuse opponents” would be to keep the bet sizings identical with both strong and speculative holdings.

There is an argument to be made for varying open bet sizings based on position. So, in early position I will open smaller (say, 2-2.5 big blinds) and in later position will open a bit larger (2.5-3 blinds). But it should never be a function of my hole cards. Why smaller in early position? Because it is the harder position to play post-flop and we have less incentive to bloat the pot preflop.

Incorrect sizing adaptations

Another common error I see, is not adapting the open bet sizing appropriately to prior action. Two examples come to mind:

A. Two players in early position have limped. In middle position, you look down at AKo and raise to your standard, 3 big blind sizing.

B. The first player to act has limped and second player has raised to 5 big blinds. In late position, you look down at JJ and raise to 12 big blinds.

In both cases, you have failed to adjust your raise size to prior actions; in the AKo case, you’ll want to raise to your normal sizing plus the number of limps (e.g. 3+2). Some pros advocate going even larger, say adding 2 big blinds for each limper to something like 7 BB.

In the JJ case, someone has opened to 5 BB over a limper. That already indicates a strong holding. In fact, the product I train with (PokerSnowie) will fold JJ in that spot!!


But, given we are not playing against an AI bot but rather against a human who will be unbalanced with his/her raises, I will most often want to 3bet this hand in order to either take it down now or get heads-up with them with a top 3% hand (JJ). I will raise to something like 3X the original raise plus limp, 16 BB. The extra 4 BB gives opponents worse odds to call with hands like KQo, ATo that will be doing not too badly against our JJ should they just call. Should opponent then 4Bet, in our games we will know (most likely) that they either have JJ dominated with AA-QQ or are flipping with AK and can get away from our hand. By the way, in “PokerSnowie land”, hands like KQo and ATo are never raising to 5BB second to act and that helps explain the JJ fold.

Post-flop: Donk betting

The action that to me most marks an opponent as a “fish” is frequently donk-betting flops. Example: you limped in early position with QT offsuit. Button raised to 3.5 BB and you called. The flop is Q73 rainbow. You lead out for 5 BB. Case 1: button folds. Case 2: button reraises to 18 BB.

Outcome: In both cases you have torched money.

In Case 1, when you check then button will often Cbet because a Q high board favors his range. You can then just-call and decide how to proceed on future streets, based on the board runout and opponent actions. While your QT is quite literally a bluff catcher in this spot, it will still be profitable to call down on many boards. However, when you lead out and opponent has whiffed the flop (say, holding A5 suited), you have just let them off the hook. You lose any cBet that they would have made, plus any follow-up betting that you could have picked bluffs from on turn or river.

In Case 2, you have bet into a strong range with a middle strength holding and have been reraised. You can’t continue and have to fold a decent hand that could have called one or two “normal” bets.

When smart opponents see what you are doing, they will put you into a lot of Case 2 spots, even with bluffs and you may find yourself facing an all-in bet on the river with absolutely no idea what to do, all because of that silly donk bet.

Caveat: there are boards favoring the preflop caller in early position, and donk-betting is sometimes warranted on them. For example, a 654 board greatly favors the callers’ range and he can donk lead there with hands like sets, two-pairs, gutshots, combo draws etc. This is a bit more of an advanced topic and the subject of “solver study” to determine which hands fit best into donk leading ranges.

Caveat 2: When you call a raise in position, it checks to you on the flop and you bet, that is not "donk betting". The preflop raiser, by not continuation betting, has indicated that the board does not favor their hand and/or range, and now betting in position by you is natural. I try not to take this concept too far, because the preflop raiser may simply be trapping the other players with a monster or overpair that s/he will re-raise over any bet. See next paragraph on cBetting too frequently.

Post-flop: cBetting too frequently

This is one element of my game that when improved, changed my results dramatically. My early theoretical poker study, taught me that when I am the preflop aggressor, I should almost always cBet the flop. This, regardless of stack sizes, number of opponents in the pot, board texture etc. The logic behind that advice was simple: when I raise preflop and get called, me and my opponents will most often not make pairs or better on the flop. When I cBet, I am denying them the opportunity to continue on these missed flops and will be printing money. In theoretical terms this is called equity denial.

If you are a fan of 2000’s era poker shows like Poker After Dark and the old-school tournament series, you’ll see this pattern in action a lot. Aggression (and counter-aggression) seemed to be the driving passion of most players and viewers loved to watch Phil Ivey putting opponents to the test with hands like 52o that whiffed the board.

As GTO solvers and related technologies became popular, it became clear that post-flop play has to adapt to all of the elements : stack-to-pot ratios, board texture (card rankings and dynamism). In fact, multi-player poker isn’t fully solved and the AI example I can extract from PokerSnowie’s Scenarios tool are mere approximations – relying on millions of hands played against itself.

This is a long-winded way of saying that before betting a flop, take a look at the board and the number of players in the hand. The worse the board for your range and / or the more number of players in the hand, the less likely you should be to cBet.

There’s another side benefit to this approach: when you are out of position (usually early position) post-flop, you want to depress the number of cBets as a natural function of your position. And that opens the door for highly profitable check-raises by you.

Example: sitting at the cardroom yesterday playing 1-3 with a $300 max bet limit, I held AA in early position. I opened to $10 preflop and got 3 callers. The flop came Q77 and I checked. A player in late position, playing a stack of about $150, bet $50. I put him all in, he called and lost (mucked his hand on the river). If I had cBet this flop, I would have won $140 less.

Tuesday, November 14, 2023

End Game

As of this writing, the world seems to have gone mad. Russia v Ukraine, Hamas v Israel and God knows what else history (or maybe China?) has in store for us. This piece attempts to put some sort of narrative together to interpret the Israel/Hamas conflict and to outline what the future may bring. 

The pain of 239 innocent hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza for over a month, including children, elderly people and even a pregnant woman who has given birth in captivity, should be in the minds of anyone thinking of or discussing this issue. It is unprecedented in civilized humanity and is truly medieval in its cruelty and savagery.

Disclaimer

I’m a Canadian/Israeli living in the USA since 2005. I am not a Middle-East expert, journalist, researcher or anything similar. The observations and opinions below are my own and are subject to revision given that we live in a rapidly changing world where it seems that we absorb new information daily. Also, whether you are an Israel-supporter or Israel-basher the content herein may be of interest to you, but if you are of the latter group, I consider you an adversary (if not outright enemy). I'll be distributing this article to a limited list of people, but if you're one of the recipients, please feel free to remark or correct anything in it.

Where We Are

At the time of writing (Nov 19, 2023), Israel is in the midst of a military ground operation in Gaza, aimed at dismantling the Hamas organization and/or its military capability. This, in wake of the horrific 10/7 massacre (aka "Black Saturday") carried out by the Hamas terrorists in quasi-ISIS/Nazi style acts. If you classify Hamas as “militants”, meaning that these are an oppressed people in a resistance struggle, then you are one of the “useful idiots” serving the purposes of the world’s Evil Axis. More on the Evil Axis below.

While we don’t yet know the outcome of this operation, it was clear from the onset that it was going to be a very tough one. It’s really hard to uproot a quasi-military organization from within a civilian population, more so when it’s entrenched in a very large tunnel system including underground bases.  The resulting Gazan civilian casualty count is tragically high, some due directly to military operations and others indirectly due to the humanitarian crisis (lack of basic supplies, food and medical care). The fact that Hamas operates from within civilian buildings and installations is the main cause of this tragedy, since Israel does not intentionally target civilians. It is also notable that while Hamas has ample supplies of food, water and fuel in its underground tunnels, the hospitals and population above those tunnels are not given any of them (as far as we know).

Israel is also facing an escalation from the Lebanese, Iran-driven Hezbollah terror group in the North. It has over 100,000 missiles pointed at all parts of Israel (some guided and accurate), and that threat with the low-intensity fighting has so far been effective in driving most of the Northern Israeli population out of the border towns.

How Did We Get Here and What To Do?

A deep understanding the history of the Israel / Palestine conflict its various turning points and the strategies (both successful and failed) of the parties, is beyond the purview of this piece. I suggest Jack Carr's Interview with Jonathan Schanzer as a good starting point for the history of terror organizations in this part of the world.

Below is an attempt to summarize in brief, the positions and “narratives” of the various stakeholders / parties / media outlets both international and local. 

The Outside View

Mainstream Media (MM)

The Mainstream Media comprises of CNN, BBC, other liberal/democratic media in the Western world. Their narrative (simplified) has been :

  • Hamas conducted horrific, barbaric attacks on Israel on Black Saturday.
  • Israel responded with disproportionate brutality, causing the deaths of thousands of civilians (and "militants" - Hamas doesn't distinguish between them in its body counts).
  • Although Israel has “the right to defend itself”, it should agree to cease fires with Hamas so that humanitarian concerns can be addressed in Gaza. Better still, if Israel would cease all fire indefinitely so that Hamas can re-arm for the next round of hostilities. CNN and BBC differ in this regard, the former presenting a more balanced perspective and the latter being more hostile to the Israeli position and repeating Hamas lies without adequate fact-checking (ex: the false "Hospital bombing" report).
  • The fact that Hamas holds 239 hostages in Gaza and could be pressured by an extended military campaign to release them, is reported but is not connected to the need to continue and put military pressure on Hamas for their release.
  • Although Hamas was out of line, the Palestinian resistance movement writ large can be justified by Israel’s generation-long occupation of the West Bank and refusal to engage in a meaningful peace process. They call Hamas members “militants” as opposed to “terrorists”.
  • The poor Gazans have been living in an open-air prison for decades. They conveniently ignore the history that Gaza was vacated by Israel in 2005, followed by a violent overthrow of the Fatah movement in Gaza by Hamas, after which it started attacking Israel with rocket fire on repeated occasions.
  • They have lots of ideas for Israel and what it should and shouldn’t be doing vis-à-vis Hamas. Notably, the mostly-friendly Thomas Friedman (NY Times) seems to think he acts as a proxy for the Biden administration’s messaging about Israel’s way forward in this conflict, claiming that ultimately, Israel must now concede that a two-state solution remains the only viable long-term solution for the Israelis and Palestinians.

The Woke Campus Left / Social Media Influencers and Celebrities

The Woke Campus Left mainly resides in Ivy league and liberal arts educational institutions in the Western world. During my lifetime, they have bought into a Marxist vision that views the world as “Oppressed” and “Oppressor” peoples and nations. There is a mountain of literature that elaborates on this point, but for the purposes of this article, it will suffice. Their messages are:

  • Israel was born from oppression, as a colonialist creation. It is now a de-facto Apartheid state.
  • The Palestinians have been systematically oppressed since the creation of Israel.
  • No matter what we see on our screens, Israel is always in the wrong and should be the subject of sanctions.
  • We show our virtue by joining the Palestinians in their demonstrations against Israel worldwide.
  • We show no sympathy to the Israeli hostages held by Hamas. We only show sympathy to the Gazan civilians who are being “butchered” by Israel (ignoring / denying their use as human shields by Hamas).
  • Going forward, Israel should either disappear or become one merged Jewish/Arab country, details of which are murky. It should trust the Palestinians to then cease hostilities against Jews. 
  • More on the moral decrepitude of the Woke Campus Left at Atlantic Article by Tom Nichols.  
  • A funny Israeli Satire video about the Columbia U students.
The Social Media landscape also trends towards the Palestinian position, influencing the younger Western demographic successfully to the point that in a survey published on 11/19, a majority of below-30 Americans prefer the Palestinian to the Israeli position. Notable Hollywood and sports celebrities have also dived into the controversy, usually to their discredit.

The Conservative Media and Silent Majority

Countering the Mainstream Media and Campus Left voices, is a silent (or not too vocal) majority of folks who see things otherwise. Media standouts of this group have been Piers Morgan (UK) and Bret Stephens (USA). Their view is that:

  • Terror organizations like Al Qaida, Taliban, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah all drink from the poison well of state-sponsors like Iran, Russia, and sometimes less-known actors like North Korea, Yemen, Qatar etc.
  • The appeasement of these organizations leads to all sorts of trouble and mayhem worldwide.
  • Israel has tried time and again to negotiate peace deals with the Palestinians. The result – every time – has been rejection, hostility and war.
  • Israel should clean house (its internal business) and deal with its terrorist enemies. It should be helped in any reasonable way, including and up to deploying USA carrier groups in the East Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. 
  • Going forward, it isn’t clear that there should be a two-state solution – it should be up to the parties to negotiate but only after the terror groups are disarmed. 
  • A sampling of Piers Morgan tearing into a person proud of removing hostage posters in LA. Also his interview of Dr. Jordan Peterson.

The Inside View

The Israeli Right

The Israeli Right wing comprises of the parties that together, assembled the most Right-wing / Religious coalition government in Israel’s history.

Their views – derived from social media posts and conversations (including family members):

  • Hamas with this attack, has not only shown its hand, but has also revealed what the vast majority of Palestinians desire – the total annihilation of Israel and genocide of its Jewish population. Or in other words, a realization of the Nazi vision 78 years after the end of WWII. In fact, copies of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” were found in Hamas classrooms during the current operation. Hamas has 80% popular support in the West Bank and Gaza.
  • Black Saturday is attributed to the failed “left wing” policies of pursuing a peace process and appeasement – despite right-wing governments being in power for most of the past 2.5 decades. There is a bit of interesting rationale around this – the key premise being that the Israeli elite – via its Supreme court system, military and supporting media – have hindered the right from realizing its agenda (sounds a bit far-fetched given the steady progress of settlement activity and the recent “judicial reform” initiative, but that’s their opinion).
  • Israel must fight its enemies to the death. Civilian casualties – collateral damage – while not an operational objective, are not that terrible since the Gazan children are taught hatred from their mothers and are the future terrorists we’ll have to deal with.
  • The Israeli parties and individuals calling for Bibi Netanyahu’s resignation are hurting the war effort and playing into Hamas’ and Iran’s hands. After the war, there will be an inquiry and he may have to resign, but internal strife on this point is counter-productive right now.
  • Going forward, there isn’t a viable “partner for peace” – the PA itself is no better than Hamas, not having condemned its acts and failing to shut down Hamas’ operations in the West Bank (Israel having to do this by itself). The best we can hope for is to create deterrence by destroying the terror groups, have an Israeli military presence in both West Bank and Gaza, and offer the Palestinians who choose to live in peace, a peaceful existence while running their affairs internally without a state apparatus.
  • Fundamentally, Israel has a right to sovereignty over the entire land (Eretz Israel) - both from the Bible and from a reading of ancient Jewish history. The West Bank is disputed territory and there never has been an indigenous Palestinian nation. Israel should continue settling the entire land and opposition be damned. That is also the way to project power to our neighbors so that they will live with us civilly.

The Israeli Center

The Israeli Center mainly comprises of centrist parties led by Benny Ganz, Yair Lapid, Avigdor Lieberman and Labour. The Ganz party has joined the government in a national emergency coalition, for the duration of the current war.

Its positions (with minor variations between the parties) are:

  • The failure of Israel to protect its citizens on 10/7 was both military and political. Netanyahu failed in his job and should admit his failure and resign when the campaign is over. Numerous intelligence reports coming from field operatives and scouts passed up to the higher echelons, were ignored. More to come when the full inquiry is conducted.
  • The timing of Black Saturday was driven by an imminent Saudi / USA / Israel deal. Hamas since the 1990’s has consistently strived – with some success – to blow up peace initiatives. Iran is operating behind the scenes here.
  • They are on board with eliminating Hamas and Hezbollah. In fact, Hezbollah is the greater mid-term threat. We should always keep in mind the fate of our hostages while doing so, and be willing to negotiate for their release, including accepting humanitarian pauses and temporary cease fires.
  • Most of the Arab world, and a minority of the Palestinians, privately want Hamas to be eliminated. They won’t speak up for fear of being murdered – and Hamas / Islamic Jihad have always been brutal in quieting dissenting voices. We should still seek out friendly, non-violent parties from within the Palestinians, for a dialog on security and civil matters.
  • The claim by the right wing that criticism of its government and is playing into the enemy’s hands is clearly ridiculous. The Israeli military includes people from all walks of life and opinions, and political discourse won’t impact its operations. From a PR aspect, the right wing has pretty much done all in its power to destroy Israel’s reputation abroad – not least by appointing incompetent people to official PR positions.
  • Going forward, Gaza should not be ruled by Israel and ideally, a reformed PA (Palestinian Authority) or an international entity could take responsibility for its civilian affairs – much like Area B of the West Bank where Israel is allowed to operate militarily when required. 
  • They believe should co-operate with the USA in mapping out a future for the post-Hamas war, inasmuch as it doesn't curtail Israel's ability to disable Hamas and (in the future) strike out at the Hezbollah / Iran Axis of Evil.

The Israeli Left

There are some remnants of the Israeli left wing parties, amongst them Arab-majority parties focused on Arab-Israeli affairs. Ra’am (led by the widely respected Mansour Abbas) was a member of the previous Israeli government and is a standout in that it is also considered conservative in civil matters.

  • While I haven’t been closely following the discourse on this part of the political map, it’s safe to say that many in the Israeli left are disappointed by the worldwide reaction to the conflict and in particular the Campus Left. Some of the murdered and captured Israelis on Black Saturday, residents of the villages on the Gaza border, were peace movement members who interacted with Gaza residents including providing transportation to and from local hospitals for medical treatment.
  • Going forward, the Left will mainly align with the Center in attempting to remove Bibi from office and in trying to steer the country towards more pragmatic positions.
  • It also is likely that it invest less energy into pro-Palestinian initiatives – perhaps aside from members of the Israeli-Arab Muslim community who will tend to sympathize with them. 
  • On the whole, the Left sides with the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank/Gaza and views the current conflict as an outgrowth of a failed strategy to expand West Bank settlements, not provide the Palestinians with a political future and generally provoke them to hostility (e.g. by walking onto the Temple Mount, seen as a threat to the integrity of the Al Aksa mosque).

My View?

I’m an interested observer who is also emotionally involved in this story. A dispassionate view now is difficult, but perhaps useful as both a coping mechanism and as a means of providing hope for the future.

  • Until 10/7 I was (and am still) generally aligned with the Israeli Center (see above for their positions). However, that Center is shifting to the point of no longer supporting a two-state solution in the near term. A recent intra-Palestinian survey by AWRAD (Arab World for Research & Development), puts support for 10/7 and Hamas at 76%. It now appears that there will be no political resolution in the foreseeable future, and that Israel will be fighting on multiple fronts against Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, requiring a military presence in both Gaza and potentially, Southern Lebanon.
  • I’m appalled by the Woke Campus Left – nothing new there, I never really liked them, but I as many of my fellow Jews did not expect this level of vitriol from them. As a consequence, I will now tend to ignore their noise, demonstrations and messaging. Many of them are good old Anti-Semites in “Woke” disguise – a noxious potion. 
  • I’m disappointed with the Mainstream Media reaction on the whole – with some exceptions. I’ve cancelled my Seattle Times subscription, after they systematically avoided any editorial defense of Israel and leaned too heavily towards critical reporting (much of it based on Hamas lies).
  • I dislike the positions of the Israeli right - in my opinion they have the wrong idea. Isolationism and Messianism do not equal nation-building and my hope is that they will be in the minority in a future election (unlikely given the Israeli demographics). It also does not help Israel's position when prominent cabinet members deny that there is a humanitarian issue in Gaza and/or that civilian deaths are not Israel's concern.
  • There is an alarming rise in provocations in the West Bank by settlers against Palestinians, sometimes even to the point of shooting at innocents. This must be stopped and the perpetrators arrested and brought to trial. Nevertheless, the vast majority of West Bank hostilities are carried out daily by both Fatah and Hamas and just random Palestinians, towards the settlers. The West Bank should be cleansed of Hamas - which IDF is currently doing.
  • While a peaceful two-state solution looks impossible now, there will need to be some sort of negotiated settlement both in Gaza and the West Bank, at least at the civilian level. I recommend following the Israel Policy Forum for great content, podcast, lectures and educational seminars on that topic.

Questions and Answers


Q. Why do you side with Israel continuing its war with Hamas and causing so many civilian casualties? Wouldn't a cease fire be the right thing to do now given the severe humanitarian crisis Gazans are under?

A. Since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and its subsequent violent coup by Hamas, they have developed a playbook for successive attacks on Israel. It starts with shelling Israeli cities, prompting an Israeli response and then when there is sufficient damage to civilian assets and a mounting casualty count, calling for a cease fire. When fire is ceased, they re-arm and increase their capabilities towards the next round. A significant round was in 2014, when they kidnapped and killed 3 Israeli teenagers, resulting in a short-lived Israeli ground incursion into Gaza. This time, while they have outdone themselves with the Black Saturday massacre, their playbook remains the same. After suffering a significant destruction of Northern Gaza and Gaza city and precipitating a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, they are relying on their "useful idiot" partners in the official Western media and unofficial social media channels, to call for a cease fire so that they can regroup and come back for another round of hostilities. It's clear that Israel, if it seeks survival, can't agree to this, although temporary pauses for hostage releases can be useful.

Also, when the term "Israel causes civilian casualties" is used, that is at least partially false. Israel actively avoids civilian casualties to the extent possible, also by warning people before they attack a building. In this campaign however, due to the need to attack Hamas installations and headquarters in a timely manner, warnings were suspended and innocents were impacted. This is a tragic consequence of Hamas using civilians as human shields. Asking civilians to move to Southern Gaza was another tactic designed to minimize their casualty count, and not to "force relocate" them as reported in many media outlets. 

As Michael Oren points out in his interview with Jack Carr, there are 3 standards for civilian casualties in war: 1. Non-democratic nations like Syria (killing hundreds of thousands of its own citizens in the 1980s), Russia etc. 2. Democratic countries like USA in its Middle East campaigns 3. Israel. Israel gets its own standard due to anti-Semitism.  

Q. Aren't the Israeli West Bank settlements the primary cause of this war?

A. The call of "from the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be free" doesn't differentiate between West Bank settlements and the rest of Israel. The call (and Hamas' charter) is for the total destruction of Israel and the massacre of all its Jews. Black Saturday was a demonstration of that intent and a precursor to what will happen if Israel ever concedes to terror. The same is true for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Israel will have to deal with their threats and hostilities, much more significant than Hamas' and Iranian-backed.

Q. Should there not be a two-state solution? The world has recognized Palestinian self-determination. 

A. The Oslo peace process of the 1990's and early 2000's was directed at that solution. As recently as 2000, a full accord was proposed at Camp David with the participation of Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, including approximately 97% of West Bank and Gaza in Palestinian sovereignty and land swaps to accommodate some of the existing settlements. Arafat declined that deal and embarked on the second Intifada against Israel. Fast forward to the present, it does not appear that Palestinian sovereignty in either the West Bank or Gaza would be used for anything other than to attack it. Palestinian schools teach Jew-hatred and copies of Mein Kampf have been found in Gazan schools. So it now appears that the only respite Israel will have from violence, lies in combating terror and never allowing something akin to Black Saturday, to recur.

Q. What should be the role of USA?

A. Biden's initial strong support of Israel was very well received there. Moving Navy carrier groups into the East Mediterranean also discouraged Iran/Hezbollah from joining the fray in a significant way. 6 weeks later, mounting internal pressures on the White House to force a cease fire on Israel, may cause a rift in USA-Israel relations and that would be regrettable. Here too, "useful idiots" in the State Department and other Democrat-majority institutions are indirectly serving Hamas' and Hezbollah's objectives.

Also, USA should be ready to have its hand forced in the Middle East. Although it has a strong preference not to get involved in another ground operation there - If Iran, through Hezbollah, embarks on a major attack on Israel, it may not be enough for Israel to defend its Lebanese border, and the USA may need to commence operations in the Persian Gulf with the objective to defend against Iranian and Yemeni aggression there.

Q. What is the long game and plan for a post-Hamas reality? Quoting from a friend: Israel’s end game seems to be the complete eradication of Hamas. Okay, but then what?  Even if Hamas is completely obliterated tomorrow the end result of this current conflict is that for every one militant killed there will be 4 or 5 new ones to replace them. This short term conflict has to be part of a longer, broader plan. It doesn’t seem like it is.

A. This goes to the core of the problem and will be a point of contention between Israel, the USA and other interested parties. In minute 45 of Michael Oren's interview with Jack Carr, he explains (paraphrased) that unlike the US in Afghanistan or Iraq, if Israel picks up and leaves Gaza it can expect the terrorists to invade again, since they are on its doorstep. Hence there will need to be an Israeli military presence for now, but he doesn't envision Israel getting into a state-making venture. He would like to internationalize the problem - against Netanyahu's current opinion - and demilitarize the strip from terror groups. Then create a cordon of no-man's land about 2 miles deep (MN - I think this will be more like 1 kilometer, given the narrowness of Gaza). We can't get rid of the idea of Hamas, any more than the USA could get rid of the idea of Al-Qaeda and ISIS; but they were very much degraded so that they don't today represent the threat that they did. When you remove terrorists from state power, they can be degraded. Also, we are in a forever war, since we have nowhere else to go and that dictates our strategy.

Peace Out

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] In 1929, Hebron Palestinians murdered over 67 Jews – their peaceful neighbors - following rumors that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Tuesday, October 10, 2023

Washington State Live Poker Circa Oct-2023

Message sent to poker players on my home game invitation list, and some of their responses:

I'm soon interviewing for a poker podcast and would like to hear your insights about the state of liver poker in Washington state. Below are my observations but I'd be interested in your remarks so that I can consider them in my interview.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historically (up until about 2017-18), legal commercial live poker in WA was offered by both tribal casinos and non-tribal cardrooms, with the larger tribal casinos - Muckleshoot, Tulalip, and Emerald Queen Casino having large enough rooms to offer large sized tournament series. The cardrooms in the Puget sound area - Silver dollar, Caribbean, Hollywood, Red Dragon, Hideaway (anyone remember that one?) were small-sized and limited in their offerings. Many casual players preferred to play at the tribal casinos where they had a better game selection, food and beverage offerings, non-poker activities and great poker tournaments. 

In the 2018-19 period, Muckleshoot and Snoqualmie tribes shut down their poker rooms, inexplicably.

After the Covid pandemic, other tribal properties like Tulalip and EQC failed to re-open their poker rooms as well.

To fill the gap in the market, Fortune (Renton and Lacey), and Palace opened 15-table cardrooms and a few others expanded their rooms. Maverick gaming purchased and modernized a number of commercial cardrooms, includes Aces and Caribbean in the Seattle area.

However, tournament opportunities are still severely limited compared to a decade ago, and there is no indication from the Tribes of imminent re-openings or new investments in poker.

Mainly to blame for this sad state of affairs is the regulatory framework. While the commercial cardrooms fall under state legislation and the state gambling commission, tribal casinos have their own separate framework. Commercial cardrooms operate under the presumption of generating food and drink revenue, with card games as a secondary priority. Every time there is a proposal to raise gaming limits (the most recent being a proposal to go from $300 to $500 per bet), the tribes - although inactive in the commercial cardroom and poker economy - oppose the proposals with the argument that it would encourage "problem gambling". This is a sham and hypocritical, given that they are allowed $500 limits; so their true intent is likely to severely limit legal poker in WA state so that gaming revenue stops bleeding from their casinos to private cardrooms. This is also a short-sighted tactic, since they could just as well re-open their poker rooms and draw in the crowds - if run effectively. So the entire saga seems to be one of poor leadership by the tribes and their inability / lack of knowledge how to profitably run a poker room. Incidentally, the gaming commission eventually compromised and raised the betting limit to $400 effective 9/25/23.

An offshoot of this situation is that illegal and gray-area games - from rake-based tournaments and large private games - are flourishing. No-rake low stake home games of our type are never a problem (aside from the odd Keith-style cheating event), but when people start raking them and large sums of money change hands, that creates inherent risks to the players including running into the commission's crosshairs. As well, the short sighted regulatory environment creates incentive for players to go online, where they are at risk of contravening state laws to the extent of facing felony charges.

All in all this is a sad state of affairs, which should be addressed in the future by a more modern-looking and less puritanical approach to gaming at the state legislative level. Refer to recent legislation in states like New Jersey, Michigan, Delaware to allow online poker and other states like Arizona, Florida, California to raise live betting levels to the extent where (e.g.) in California and Florida you can go all in for unlimited amounts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responses:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve:
I think the tribal casinos continue to be short sighted as you noted on at least two things:

- I think they keep investing in table games instead of poker because they think it's a zero-sum game of gamblers.  If there's no poker room, gamblers are going to have to play table games or slots.  However, I know many poker players that would never play table games (again) because they understand the odds favor the house (and frankly, table games just aren't fun).

- It's my understanding that the tribal casinos had heavily lobbied to make online poker a felony in WA state as they feared it would take players away from their (once existing) live games.  I think the WSOP in 2006 showed that online poker brought in MORE players to live games.  Some people start out online and then want to play live.  Certainly some live players may decide it's more convenient to play online, but live games and online games play very differently and appeal to different folks.  I still believe that legalizing online poker in WA would have brought in more live players over time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rory:
Super interesting stuff. I'm not sure the context of the podcast, but I do think more attention should be given to the other side of the argument to get the full picture. 

Is poker just inherently expensive to operate and as such not a great business for the casino's?

What other reasons do the casinos have for opposing other cardrooms/online poker in Washington State?

I think trying to fully understand the opposing point of views would be helpful and may, in fact make your "argument" stronger. 

If I were an unbiased party listening in, I would really want to understand the strongest points for both sides.

Mannes to Rory:
Good points Rory. Hard for me to think of motivations for lowering poker investment other than high operating costs, and perhaps the existing legislation hinders the tribes as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg:
Hideaway...on my paper route in Shoreline. Next door was Cliff's card room until 1986.
Great thoughts. Maybe throw in the rise of casual players after 1996 or so that mirrors the rise of wealthy tech-bros in the region (obviously Microsoft and Amazon but includes major a ton of Google, Oracle etc). There was/is nightly games inside a [company] cafeteria that would routinely have $50,000 on the table back in 2005 when I played.

Mannes to Greg:
Thanks Greg, good point to add. Don't think I'll mention [company] by name but just refer to the existence of these games until very recently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve:
I was part of the early [company] poker tournament and cash game scenes and although they aren't run anymore, would hate to get anyone in trouble by drawing attention to them.  When you have young employees that are single with lots of money and gamble in them, the games can get quite big.  We had legal approval of our home games on campus (generally in 2 cafeterias depending on who was hosting) because there was no rake.  At the peak, there were games every weeknight and sometimes a bigger buy-in deepstack tournament on the weekends.  Those were the days...

Mannes to Steve:
Thanks Steve - interesting that they were legal. I wish we had room somewhere for more tables and we could do this with $0 rake :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neven:
Thank you for sharing. This all sounds good and I want to learn more about this next time I see you.

The only note that I have here is that I would recommend to just be a bit careful when discussing tribal casinos. As we discussed at Rainier, I do believe that only way to relaxation of regulation goes through tribal gaming. One should try not to create enemies (even if everything you said is of course absolutely true).

Mannes to Neven:
Agree - I'll soft pedal and say that we don't have a full understanding of tribal considerations - also that we are all here courtesy of the tribes and not the other way around.
Wish we had someone from the tribal community who understands poker to talk to.

Neven:
And also, as you are probably aware, poker is still 300. Only house-banked games are 400 now (https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=230-15-135 and https://app.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=230-15-140 )

Mannes to Neven:
Uh oh. Looks like I misread the whole situation. I thought that "house banked games" also apply to  poker. Damn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh:
Mannes, I think your observations are accurate.  From what I've seen, the tribal casinos have filled poker room spaces with high-end slots, which produce a greater profit margin.  Most gaming decisions are designed for this purpose (like various blackjack side bets), so clearly they are bringing in more per day or week on slots than what could be obtained in table rakes minus staffing/overhead.  It's interesting why this has happened in Washington while casinos in other states still offer robust poker games + tournaments.  I was in Albuquerque a few months ago and the largest tribal casino had a huge, crowded room, including high limit tables.  And obviously Vegas has plenty of options too, although those casinos offer greater comp incentives to play more.

Another notable situation is the fact that only a few states allow online poker with real money exchanging hands, but Washington is completely at the other end by designating the activity as a felony.  And we might be the only state to do so.  I'm sure if Caesars or a similar large company backed it like they did with sports betting in tribal casinos (only, which is a whole other issue), then we'd see the law change.  Plenty for you to talk about!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott:
One more note about live local poker - I played a Vegas tournament this summer with a big poker producer and he mentioned that he’d love to do a big MTT series in the PNW but none of the current poker rooms can hold 600 players. They would handle the logistics and the dealers but they’d need the facility. Back in the day, the tribal casinos could have opened up a ballroom and a big series like this would fill hotel rooms. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talib: 

Tell them to make it no limit :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carla:

Hi Mannes. I've been bummed that most poker rooms in WA state have closed - most prior to the pandemic.  There are no attractive tournament options.  

A few months ago I decided to make my first trip to Vegas in years with the intent of spending 3 to 4 days playing tournaments and lower stakes no limit

Unfortunately I found most rooms in Vegas have closed as well. The ones that are open rarely run tournaments and those that do are funky structures. 

I realize that this may not be at all relevant to your comments about WA state poker but it's important to notice the trend. I spent a couple of weeks before my trip calling casinos to find out their poker room status and was disappointed day after day. I'd ask why they were closed but never really received answers.  

Just some observations my friend. 

Mannes to Carla:

Thanks Carla!

A bit surprised you didn't find enough variety in Vegas, but it's true that many of the older rooms with lower buyin structures have made place to newer ones (Wynn, Resorts World, Venetian, Aria, Caesar's) that run higher buying tournaments.

The app I use to find tournaments is Poker Atlas.

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

WSOP 2023 Hand Histories - Deepstack ($800)

 Event 2 - Deepstack, $800 buyin.

3,773 entries, $2.6M prize pool. Half-hour levels.
This is an 8-max event. I am Seat 6. Seat 7 to my left is a young Eastern European, 
Seat 5 to my right is 35-ish American; all others middle aged Americans. 

Level 1, 100/100 blinds with 100 BB ante, 40,000 chips (400 BB)

I didn't play any hands of note at this level.

Level 2, 100/200 blinds with 200 BB ante, 40,200 chips (201 BB)

Seat 4 bust to seat2, QQ v AA 
New Seat 4 is 40-ish American lady, talkative
Seat 3 opens to 2,000, ridiculous sizings
I didn't play any hands of note at this level.

Level 3, 200/300 blinds with 300 BB ante, 41,000 chips (136 BB)

Hand1: KK
Position: UTG=
Under the gun (first Position)
I bet 700, late position calls, button calls, SB folds, BB calls (pot: 3300)
Flop Q X X (I use X when I don't remember, usually low cards)
I bet 2000, only late position calls (pot: 7300)
Turn T
I bet 4500, he calls (pot: 16300)
River is a third diamond
Checked around, I show and win vs J9

Notes: Nothing out of the ordinary here. I hope it's clear why my river check is correct.

Hand2: KK
Position: Middle position
UTG=first position (lady in seat 4) bets 600, Second position calls, I am in 3rd position and raise to 2400, first position calls, second position folds (pot: 6200)
Flop 6 2 X
UTG donks 2000, I call (pot: 10200)
Turn 9
UTG bets 4500, I call (pot: 19200)
River T
UTG bets 3000, I call, show and win, she mucks and says she had JJ.

Notes: Another example of bad-player donking a middle strength hand. I probably should have found flop and/or river raises.

Level 4, 200/400 blinds with 400 BB ante, 57,300 chips (143 BB)

Hand3: KK (not a typo)
Position: Button
Cutoff to my right open bets to 1200, I raise to 3500, BB jams to approx. 22,000, I call and beat 99. His jam of 99 with 52 BB over a 3Bet from a tight player was silly.

Level 5, 300/500 blinds with 500 BB ante, 81,000 chips (162 BB)

Hand4: AK 
Position: SB
Seat 1 new player (middle aged American) opens to 1200, I raise to 4000, he calls (pot: 8800)
Flop A 5 5 
I bet 3500 and he folds.

Level 6, 300/600 blinds with 600 BB ante, 89,800 chips (150 BB)

I didn't play any hands of note at this level.

Level 7, 400/800 blinds with 800 BB ante, 86,500 chips (110 BB)

Hand5: TT
Position: Highjack (two to the left of the button)
Seat 5 to my right jams 13,200, I call, Seat 7 Euro to my left jams and almost covers me, I fold, he had KK and eliminated Seat 5. I dodged a bullet.
New Seat 5 is an older Eastern European or Middle Eastern male.

Hand6: KQ offsuit
Position: Button
Folded to me, I bet 1800, Seat7 Euro in SB raises to 6,000, I think fold.

Note: Given positions, this is possibly a light 3Bet and I should either call and see a flop, or 4Bet. The merit of calling is that h
e hasn't been wild postflop and that should allow me to realize my equity in position. On the flipside, this is the first time he has 3Bet me and so I typically give a first-timer credit.

Level 8, 500/1000 blinds with 1000 BB ante, 69,700 chips (70 BB)

Hand7: JJ
Position: UTG=Under the gun (first Position)
I bet 2200, BB lady in Seat4 calls (pot: 5900)
Flop A 7 7 
Seat 4 donks 4000, I fold.

Note: Again the same lady donked into a much stronger range than hers. Folding is the correct exploit here. Terrible players like this are the reason pros love the WSOP.

Level 9, 600/1200 blinds with 1200 BB ante, 60,200 chips (50 BB)

Hand8: A6 spades
Position: Button
Folded to me, I bet 2600, BB calls (pot: 7000)
Flop 9 8 6
BB checks, I bet 2000, he calls (pot: 11,000)
Turn T
Checked around
River low card (3 or 4)
Checked around and I beat AJ offsuit.

Note: Little point in barreling turn/river here, I have 4th pair and want to get to showdown. 

After this hand, the weak lady in seat 4 busted and was replaced by a middle-aged American, good ole boy.

Hand9: Kd Qh 
Position: Middle position
I bet 2600, BB calls (pot: 7000)
Flop A X X two diamonds
BB donks 3000, I call (pot: 13000)
Turn Th
BB bets 20,000, I fold and he mutters that he flopped two pair and didn't want to get counterfeited (!)

Level 10, 800/1600 blinds with 1600 BB ante, 65,800 chips (41 BB)

Hand10: Ad Kh 
Position: UTG
I bet 3400, third position called, button called, blinds folded (pot: 14,200)
Flop 9d 8d X
I check, third position bet 4000, button folded, I folded.

Note: Depending on the third flop card which I don't recall , this can be a small cBet, especially with the Ad. Having checked, I should have called the 4K bet and seen a turn. 

Hand11: AT hearts
Position: UTG
Early position bet 3400, I called, SB called, BB folded (pot: 13400)
Flop Q 8 3 with two spades
Checked around
Turn non-spade Q
SB bet 3700, early Position called, I folded (pot: 20,800)
River low card
Checked around and SB with 77 beat EP with A4 spades

Level 11, 1000/2000 blinds with 2000 BB ante, 45,800 chips (23 BB)

Hand12: QJ hearts
Position: BB
Cutoff (one right of the button) bet 6000, I called (pot: 15,000)
Flop Ks Js 9x
I check, CO bet 5000, I called (pot: 25,000)
Turn 8x
Checked around
River brick
Checked around and I lose to AJ.

Note: I had a range disadvantage on the flop. When the turn checked, I could have found a river bluff, but people have been calling light at this table. Realizing my J decent kicker seemed correct.

Level 12, 1000/2500 blinds with 2500 BB ante, 26,800 chips (11 BB)

Hand13: KJ clubs
Position: SB
Middle position bet 5300, I jammed, he folded.

Hand14: JT offsuit
Position: Button
Folded to me, I jammed, blinds folded.

Level 13, 1500/3000 blinds with 3000 BB ante, 31,500 chips (10.5 BB)

Hand15: 33
Position: Early position
I jammed and everyone folded.

Hand16: A9 spades
Position: UTG
I jammed and everyone folded.

Hand17: A4 offsuit
Position: BB
Cutoff bet 6000, I called.
Flop missed me, I check/folded to a cBet.

Note: Short-stacked, calling a min-bet in the BB with a potentially strong hand I do not want to jam and get called with, is preferable I think. Cutoff was tight-passive, not a pro.

Hand18: AK offsuit
Position: Cutoff
Folded to me, I jam, BB calls and shows KT
Flop Q J 9
Turn X
River T to give me the nut straight and survive.

Level 14, 2000/4000 blinds with 4000 BB ante, 46,500 chips (11.5 BB)

Hand19: AA
Position: Button
Cutoff to my right 8500, I raise to 20,000 leaving 16K behind, he think-folded.

Note: I would have jammed hands like lower pairs, AJ+. AA is an exploitive just-raise against some players, but he was smart enough to find the fold.

Level 15, 2500/5000 blinds with 5000 BB ante, 47,000 chips (9 BB)

Hand20: KJ spades
Position: SB
Button to my right bet 11,000, I jam 32,000, he calls and shows K6 (!).
Board runout is 6 7 8 T X and I busted.

Note: Opening K6o and then calling off a 6.5BB Jam is splashy play and again one of the reasons the mid-buyin WSOP events are considered soft.


WSOP 2023 Hand Histories - Monster stack

Time for the 2023 WSOP summary. I'll skip most of the "Vegas story" other than to say that the experience gets worse every year. This time, the city streets are under reconstruction for the Formula 1 events in November, and that makes it hard to get around. Also, my wife's wallet was pickpocketed from her zipper-purse at a local Walmart, the staff security showed no interest in looking at camera evidence, and Las Vegas police department were closed for non-911 crime reports during their weekend siesta (and the online report doesn't allow reports of pickpocketing). We're happy to be back home and to civilization.

To the hand histories (tournaments only). I didn't bink the two WSOP bracelet events and will re-think future participation in them. My track record at the WSOP is 0/5 and since I am profitable in the cash games this year, my time may be better invested on the cash tables. 

Event 1 - Monster stack, $1,500 buyin.

8,317 entries, $11.1M prize pool. One-hour levels.

As I write this up, this event isn't quite over - the huge field ended up adding one more day to the event (Day 5), with 7 players still in the running. Joe Cada is 7th in chips.

Level 1, 100/200 blinds with 200 BB ante, 50,000 chips (250 BB)

Hand1: Kd Tc
Position: SB, 6 handed, BB is absent
Player in middle position opens 600, button calls, I call (pot: 2200)
Flop Qc 9c 8x
I check / MP bets 1000/ Button folds, I call (pot: 4400)
Turn Jc
Checked around. Note that the club completes a possible flush, and I have Tc.
River was a fourth low card club
Checked around and I win vs AA

Notes: The middle position player was a young Euro who ended up pushing the table around. His river check with AA was wise, given the runout. Being out of position, I felt that a river check / call was the plan with my T high flush.

Hand2: AQ offsuit
Position: button
Player in middle position (older, assumed tight) opens 600, I raise to 1500, he calls (pot: 3500)
Flop 552
Middle positions donks 1500, I raise to 4500, he calls (pot: 12500)
turn 7? (not sure)
Checked around
River A
Checked around and I show and he mucks.

Notes: I clearly missed a river bet here. MP never has 5X given his turn and river actions.

Hand3: JT spades
Position: BB
Early position same Euro from Hand 1 opens to 1000, SB tank calls, I call (pot: 3300)
Flop QJJ
Checked around
Turn 9
I bet 1200, Euro calls, SB folds (pot: 5500)
River 8
I bet 2500, he think folds.

Notes: my turn and river bets are targeting pair and two-pair hands. I'm not interested in getting stacks in vs possible full houses in Euro's range. 

Level 2, 200/300 blinds with 300 BB ante, 60,400 chips (201 BB)

Hand4: 33
Position: Button
Folded to me, I open to 800, BB calls (pot: 2100)
Flop is A X X (I use X for low cards that I don't remember)
BB checks, I bet 1000, he calls (pot: 4100)
Turn X brick
Checked around
River K
Checked around and I lose to 77

Hand5: 98 spades
Position: Under the gun (first position)
I open to 800, Euro in middle position calls, late position calls, blinds fold (pot: 3200)
Flop A Q X with two clubs
I bet 1500, both call (pot: 7700)
Turn is a third club
I check, Euro checks, late position bets 4500, we fold.

Notes: Opening 98 suited from first position is marginal. My flop bluff is bad against two players whom this board hits pretty well. 

Hand6: Ah Kd 
Position: Button
Middle and cutoff to my right limp 300, I raise to 1600, cutoff calls (pot: 4300)
Flop T X X
Cutoff donks 1200, I call (pot: 7700)
Turn is another low card
Cutoff bets 2000, I fold.

Notes: too many players stack off with AK disregarding the board. Cutoff is clearly a weak recreational player who is trying to protect what is clearly Tx or second pair and he won't fold to a single raise. I need to call and realize my equity. The turn has me drawing thin and so I think I stand by my fold. 

Hand7: AQ offsuit
Position: Cutoff (one to the left of the button)
Same guy from Hand6 to my right, opens to 1600, I call, blinds fold (pot: 4000)
Flop T 7 5 (not sure of the 7 5)
He bets 2000, I call (pot: 8000)
Turn 9
He bets 2200, I call (pot: 12400)
River is J 
He bets 2500, I raise to 11,000, he tank folds.

Notes: I decided to float this hand to realize my equity against this weak player, and the runout allowed me to bluff and represent a straight when he bet 1/5 pot on the river. He likely had KT or similar.

Level 3, 200/400 blinds with 400 BB ante, 57,300 chips (143 BB)

Hand8: QQ
Position: 
Under the gun (first position)
I open to 1000, old guy in cutoff calls, blinds fold (pot: 3000)
Flop K 7 7 
I bet 1000, he raises to 2000, I call (pot: 7000)
Turn 7
I check, he bets 3000, I call (pot (13000)
River J
I check, he bets 2000, I call and lose to KJ.

Notes: His turn and river bet sizes were pretty ridiculous, but when an OMC (old man coffee) bets multiple streets, it should be possible to find a fold even with a decent full house. I just wasn't good enough.

Hand9: 66
Position: 
Cutoff (one to the left of the button)
Folds to me, I open 1000, button is absent, SB and BB call (pot: 3400)
Flop Ks 6s 3x
Blinds check, I bet 1500, SB folds, BB calls. BB is Euro from earlier hands. (pot: 6400)
Turn 7x
A few seconds passed and thinking that Euro checked, I bet 5000. He said he hadn't acted and then checked. I left the 5000 as the bet. He raised to 11,000. I jammed for another approx. 42,000 and he snap called with 54 for a turned straight. I was drawing for the board to pair for a FH/Quads but the river was a 4 and I bust.

Notes: This was an unusual cooler hand. Although 54 suited should be in his BB calling range, there are more hands I beat that he could raise turn with: K7, K6, 76, 33. The only hand I really worried about (and that made sense) was 77. Against a tight player this might have been just a turn call but against Euro I think this was a mandatory jam. 

So, I bust after 3 hours of play, went back to my room, had a short rest and then went to play cash (2/5 at MGM Grand) for a few more hours and got lucky enough to make back my $1.5K buyin and then some more. Tournaments are overrated, meh.