Counting My Outs

We online poker players have had a few Congressmen and Senators who want to take away our ability to play online poker. One of our worst protagonists is and has been is Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona.

Recently, I stumbled upon quite a write up of one person’s opinion on who Senator Kyl is and why he has been on this crusade for a decade running. This write up is definitely a case where a 1,000 words is worth a picture:

Click Here To Read The Write Up

Search for the best places to play poker online such as at the top us online poker sites where you can receive a deposit bonus using offers like a Poker Stars Marketing Code that select sites on the internet will be able to offer you. Alternatively there may be a or a Full Tilt Poker Code Referral available for use at poker rooms like Full Tilt Poker, which is a leading online poker room.

No, that’s not my opinion.

For some reason, if you type into Google the phrase “impossible to win at low limit internet Hold’em”, my humble little blog will come up first in the Google rankings.

Is this some type of Freudian slip that I have made at some point?

I also noticed that Gus Hansen has discovered my immense low limit Hold’em talent. He has a site called ThePlayr and I noticed that I have been listed under the links section under other poker blogs with the description as a “highly theoretical blog by a low limit player”. Maybe Gus saw a post where I played small suited connectors. Anyway, it seems like a pretty nice site.

I guess that’s all my 15 minutes of fame.

The joys of loose-passive opponents:

Poker Stars $2/$4 Limit Hold’em - 9 players

The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: Michael is BB with 4 K

LoosePassive1 calls, 2 folds, callis99 calls, 2 folds, LoosePassive2 calls, 1 fold, Michael checks

Flop: (4.5 SB) K J 9 (4 players)

Michael bets, LoosePassive1 calls, callis99 folds, LoosePassive2 calls

Turn: (3.75 BB) Q (3 players)

Michael bets, LoosePassive1 folds, LoosePassive2 calls

River: (5.75 BB) 3 (2 players)

Michael bets, LoosePassive2 calls

Final Pot: 7.75 BB

LoosePassive2 mucks 2d Qd

Michael shows 4s Kh (a pair of Kings)

Michael wins 7.5 BB

(Rake: $1.00)

You gotta love loose passive opponents. Because they will only raise with the goods, you can bet top pair & no kicker on a board with 4 cards to a potential straight and know exactly where you stand. When LoosePassive2 did not raise either the flop or the turn, I know that I am not beat on the turn, despite 4 cards to a potential straight.

The river is a total brick and I have seen way too many times where a loose-passive opponent had a gutshot on the flop, calls a bet and calls the turn because he paired his larger card, with the hopes of making 2 pair or trips on the river. Loose players will also call the river bet with a single, non-top pair, hoping that I was bluffing all the way. I know exactly what he has (one pair, no kicker) and I know that the river didn’t help him, unless he paired his kicker. Even then, he won’t raise the river.

Thin value bets? Not really…

Most of the time when I have a good hand run down, I’ll chuckle or smirk to myself. However, there are certain hands that will get on my nerves. They always include a tight and not-so-aggressive opponent that pulls one of these on me:

Poker Stars $1/$2 Limit Hold’em - 9 players

The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: Michael is MP1 with K K

3 folds, Michael raises, 3 folds, SB calls, 1 fold

Flop: (5 SB) 9 3 4 (2 players)

SB bets, Michael raises, SB calls

Turn: (4.5 BB) 2 (2 players)

SB checks, Michael bets, SB calls

River: (6.5 BB) 5 (2 players)

SB checks, Michael checks

Final Pot: 6.5 BB

Michael shows Kc Kd (a pair of Kings)

SB shows Kh Ad (a straight, Ace to Five)

SB wins 6.25 BB

(Rake: $0.50)

No 3-bet preflop, bet into me and get raised on the flop and call down, go runner runner, then don’t bet the river. Nice. How do you not bet the river here?

Calling stations, loose and over-aggressives and good players. Getting beat by any of them, doesn’t faze me a bit. If a weak-tightie that does it, now that’s a different story.

I love raising preflop with middle pocket pairs (77-99) because of the concealed nature of my hand if I hit a set and also if I can get matched up with someone with an overpair to the flop. From today’s play:

Poker Stars $2/$4 Limit Hold’em - 10 players

The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: Hero is UTG+2 with 8 8

2 folds, Michael raises, 2 folds, MP3 3-bets, 2 folds, SB calls, 1 fold, Michael calls

Flop: (10 SB) 4 8 3 (3 players)

SB checks, Michael checks, MP3 bets, SB calls, Michael raises, MP3 3-bets, SB folds, Michael calls

Turn: (8.5 BB) 9 (2 players)

Michael checks, MP3 bets, Michael raises, MP3 calls

River: (12.5 BB) 3 (2 players)

Michael bets, MP3 raises, Michael 3-bets, MP3 calls

Final Pot: 18.5 BB

Michael shows 8h 8c (a full house, Eights full of Threes)
MP3 mucks Kd Ks
Hero wins 18 BB

When I got re-raised on the flop after the check-raise, it was obvious that he had at least Jacks. At that point I was certain to get in another turn check-raise. I briefly thought about going for the trifecta and check-raising the river, but decided to make sure I would get at least one bet from my opponent. He obliged me with a raise, which was marginal in my opinion with his KK, but he gave me the chance to go for three bets on the river, which I was more than happy to take him up on.

It’s official, ePassporte has made the decision to discontinue serving the online poker players in the U.S. Apparently, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is conducting a widespread investigation of internet gaming and that includes online poker. (Letter from ePassporte to an online poker site)

There has been a school of thought since the UIGEA went into law that the government really wasn’t going to go after online poker, just online sportsbetting and casinos. As long as the “status quo” kept, online poker would be safe.

In my opinion, this recent event with ePassporte shows that online poker isn’t safe anymore (if it really was at all). We need to take some action and let our congressmen how we feel about our rights to play online poker. Please take a moment and use the following link to send your congressmen a letter, it’s pretty simple to do:

Send a letter to your Congressmen and ask them to fight the UIGEA

What a day. First, some good news with Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank introducing legislation to thwart the UIGEA. Now, some apparently bad news, as it looks like ePassporte is pulling the plug on U.S. players:

Link to 2+2 Thread Regarding ePassporte Pull Out

It looks like it is the real deal.  The original poster in the 2+2 thread is very reputable.  Go to any poker site’s website that has accepted ePassporte (Stars, Full Tilt, etc.) and you won’t see ePassporte listed as a deposit method anymore.

As I warned a while back before the Neteller issue, if you have money in ePassporte, get it out ASAP.

Wonderful news that I just read on the PPA Forum::

Washington, DC — House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and senior Financial Services Committee member Ron Paul (R-TX) have introduced legislation to prohibit the federal government from issuing regulations called for in the called for in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The legislation, H.R. 5767, will forbid the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.

“These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact,” said Rep. Frank.

“The ban on Internet gambling infringes upon two freedoms that are important to many Americans: the ability to do with their money as they see fit, and the freedom from government interference with the Internet. The regulations and underlying bill also force financial institutions to act as law enforcement officers. This is another pernicious trend that has accelerated in the aftermath of the Patriot Act, the deputization of private businesses to perform intrusive enforcement and surveillance functions that the federal government is unwilling to perform on its own,” said Rep. Paul.

Specifically, at issue is the fact that the regulations, like the underlying legislation, fail to define the term “unlawful internet gambling,” leaving it to each financial institution to reconcile conflicting state and federal laws, court decisions and inconsistent Department of Justice interpretation, when determining whether to process a transaction. Furthermore, some of the information needed to make this determination would likely be unavailable to banks, either because customers or financial institutions in foreign jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to provide it. At the hearing, the regulators themselves admitted that there are substantial problems in crafting regulations to implement the UIGEA that does not have a substantial adverse effect on the efficiency of the nation’s payment system.

Chairman Frank and Congressman Paul opposed the UIGEA, and the two have been working on legislation, H.R. 2046 that would license and regulate online gaming. However, it was clear at the hearing that the regulations are unworkable for the financial services industry, and this bill would, therefore prohibit their implementation.

On Wednesday, April 2, the DIMP Subcommittee held a hearing “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden Without Benefit?” to examine the regulations issued last year by the Federal Reserve and Treasury on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which garnered more than 200 comment letters.