PokerTips Blog

Limit Hold'em:
1. Longhand Limit
2. Shorthand Limit
3. Adv. Shorthand

No-Limit Hold'em:
1. Intro to NL
2. Advanced NL
3. Who Pays Off
4. Stack Sizes

Omaha:
1. Intro to Omaha
2. Low Limit Omaha
3. Intro to PLO
4. Omaha Hi/Lo

Tournaments:
1. Tourney Overview
2. Single-Table NL
3. Advanced NL STTs
4. Multi-Table NL
5. Multi-Table Limit
6. Tourney Variants

Money Management:
1. Moving Limits
2. When to Quit
3. Short/Long Run

Other:
1. Intermediate Mistakes
2. Utilizing Promotions

Welcome to the

PokerTips Blog!

November 20th, 2009 by Cory Albertson

If you haven’t heard (or seen) already, Joe Cada was on the Late Show with David Letterman earlier this week to discuss his win at the 2009 WSOP Main Event. You can watch the video here:

I thought Cada did a good job and seemed pretty composed and relaxed for a 21 year old. It’s unfortunate that Letterman was too busy joking about poker being shady business to give Cada more opportunities to speak. But I suppose mediocre mainstream poker exposure is better than no mainstream poker exposure.

Nice work, Joe!

Posted in Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

November 17th, 2009 by Lord Mushroom

Figuring out when your are ready to move up to the next buy-in is one of many challenges poker players face. The advice on this area can vary a lot, but here is how I think it should be handled.

First of all, you have to believe you would be more profitable at the next buy-in. Some players move up whenever they think they are profitable at their current buy-in, but that strategy will lead to being break-even at best. To move up, your winrate, whether it be ROI (Return On Investment) in tournaments or BB/100 (“Big Bets” per hundred hands) in cash-games, has to be big enough that the inevitable decrease in winrate due to tougher competition on the higher buy-in still results in a higher hourly rate (in terms of dollars). It is, for example, profitable to move up if the buy-in is twice as high, and the ROI or BB/100 is expected to be reduced by less than 50%.

How much of the ROI and BB/100 do you lose from moving up a level? It depends on a lot of things, but I would say the ROI drops on average 2-3 percentage-points in Single-Table Tournaments per buy-in. You would have to ask other people for figures for cash-games and Multi-Table Tournaments, as I don’t have much experience with those.

The problem is knowing how profitable you are at your current buy-in, though, because without knowing that you can’t know how you would do on the next buy-in. Some say you need to have played thousands of STTs or MTTs and tens of thousands of hands in cash-games for the luck to have evened out, and the results to be representative of your true edge in these games. And they are right, but if you were to play that many hours per buy-in you would never get anywhere. You just have to make a qualified guess as to what your winrate is, and this can be hard to do since many players tend to overestimate how good they are.

Then there is the matter of how big of a bankroll (the amount of money you have set aside to play poker with divided by the size of the buy-in) you need to play at a certain buy-in. You can be the best player in the world, but if you move up so many levels that you are playing STTs with a 5 buy-in bankroll, there is a big chance you will lose it all from a little bad luck.

A rule of thumb is that you need 30 buy-ins to play STTs, 100 buy-ins to play MTTs and 20 buy-ins to play NL cash-games. These figures are considered big enough to ride out bad luck spells, so you can keep on playing on that buy-in because the luck will at some time change. A very scary scenario using this bankroll strategy is in cases where you have overestimated your skills, and you are in fact a losing player at this buy-in. If that is the case, you will slowly but steadily lose your entire buy-in.

I think it is wiser to have less strict bankroll-requirements and a more flexible approach. Say buy-ins of 20, 50 and 12, and instead drop down if it sinks below say 12, 30 and 8. This lets you move up in buy-ins faster early in your poker-career where it often is the bankroll and not the skills which limits how high buy-in you can play.

Posted in Poker Strategy | No Comments »

November 12th, 2009 by Lord Mushroom

You hear all the time how nice it is to have a large stack in tournaments. Many also say that when you play cash-games you should always buy in for the maximum because then your stack-size isnt as limiting in how big pots you can take part of, and the bigger the pots are, the more you can win.

And to some extent this is true. Most cash-game players should play with a full buy-in, but the reason for this would be that they are good at making the tactical changes you need to make when your stack is big. If the reason for playing with a full buy-in was just in order to make the pots big, you could just have moved up a level, where the pots are much bigger (in terms of dollars) and the competition only slightly tougher.

There is actually a good argument for keeping your stack small as well, but you don´t hear about it much. On a table of only small stacks, the optimal preflop strategy is to play hands which have a high chance of winning on a showdown. Medium and high pairs and high cards do well against other hands on a showdown.

On a table of only big stacks, on the other hand, the chance a hand has of winning on a showdown is still important, but it is also important to consider if that hand could easily be dominated (KT for example could easily be dominated by hands like AT or KQ). KT could be just as easily dominated on a small stack table of course, but on a big stack table you could lose much more because the pot can get bigger. If you hit top pair on the flop, and someone has the same pair with a better kicker, you could easily lose 100 big blinds, as opposed to say 30 big blinds on a small stack table.

Just like you can lose a lot from having a good, but not good enough, hand on a big stack table, you can also win a lot when an opponent has a good hand and yours is better. That´s why players around a big stack table should replace the weakest of the “high chance of winning at showdown” hands with speculative hands. Speculative hands are hands, which don´t win too often on showdown, but make great hands more frequently than other hands. Pocket pairs often become a set or better, connected cards (like 98 or 54) often becomes a straight and suited cards often become a flush. When you hit a set, straight or flush (or better), and an opponent has a good, but not that good hand, it is gonna be more than worth it for the times when those pocket cards didn’t hit the board well.

Now imagine a table where half the players are small stacks and half the players are big stacks. What type of hands should the small stacks play? Their stacks still limit how much they can lose when they get a good, but not good enough hand, even when involved in pots against big stacks. So they should play as if they table was all small stacks.

The big stacks, however, have a problem. A big stack wants to play “showdown-hands” against small stacks, because the pot will be limited against small stacks. And he wants to play speculative hands to a greater extent against big stacks. So what he has to do is play something in between. He has to play some of the risky “showdown-hands” and some of the speculative hands.

Imagine yourself being a small stack playing on a table where some of the players have that strategy. You have a big advantage. Your pure, clean-cut and dare I say a little sadistic “showdown-hands”-strategy is superior to the wishy-washy “neither here nor there”-strategy of those players because your weakest high-cards have a higher chance of winning on a showdown than speculative hands. If your opponents were as good as you, you would still do better because of your strategic decision to play with a small stack.

There are problems with playing with a small stack, though. Whenever your stack gets big, you have to switch to another table in order to buy in with a small stack again. Small stack play is also very boring to play. But some take advantage of this tactical advantage. They are called ratholers or “short-stackers”, and they are unsurprisingly hated among big stack sharks.

Posted in Poker Strategy | No Comments »

November 8th, 2009 by Cory Albertson

For anyone interested, Bluff Magazine is hosting live audio commentary of the WSOP. They’ve had kind of a rotating group of commentators except for David “TheMaven” Chicotsky who seems to be always in the booth. He’s a little bit on the self-absorbed side which can be annoying since he keeps talking about himself, but otherwise it’s a hell of a lot better than reading live updates.

Other commentators have been Annie Duke (surprisingly good), Phil Hellmuth (always entertaining to listen to), Justin Bonomo (nerdy and overly-technical, but not terrible to listen to), and quite a few others.

Play is down to 7 at the moment after Akenhead and Schaffel busted. Odds are it will take several more hours before they’re down to heads-up.

Posted in Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

October 28th, 2009 by Cory Albertson

In sports-betting, a bubble will occasionally materialize that presents savvy bettors with an opportunity to make some cash. In the 2007 NFL season, the New England Patriots became the first team to go 16-0 in the regular season. There’s no question that the Patriots were very good – the best in the league for sure – but over-enthusiasm for them on the betting market created an interesting opportunity. At the start of the playoffs, the New York Giants were listed at 70:1 to win the Super Bowl. Seventy to one even after they had already secured a playoff spot!

This author put a c-note on that line and enjoyed the Super Bowl of a lifetime after deciding against hedging the wager. Our resident TwoGun bet quite a great deal more than that and also neglected to hedge. Everyone knows the rest of the story: David Tyree makes the greatest catch in Super Bowl history which helps lead the Giants to a thrilling victory thereby spoiling the Patriots near-perfect season.

Right now in poker, there are some similar betting opportunities that involve fading a dominant entity. Phil Ivey’s presence at the 2009 Main Event final table has created these opportunities. What happened in the NFL in 2007 is that bettors were piling on the Patriots so much that sports-books were forced to list teams like the Giants with very long odds in order to entice action away from the Patriots. Ivey’s presence at the final table has created an identical scenario.

Take a look at the WSOP betting odds at Pinnacle Sports. You’ll see that Ivey is currently +504 (risk $100 to win $504) to win the Main Event. With roughly 5% of the chips in play, he should be a +1900 longshot to win the tournament if he were viewed as having an average skill-set. But Ivey isn’t viewed as having an average skill-set. He is viewed as having a super-human, unbeatable, best-player-in-the-world set of skills. For that reason, his odds of winning have increased all the way to +504.

While it’s true that Ivey is probably the best poker player in the world, there is way too much optimism regarding his chances of winning this tournament. Remember, the other eight players at the table aren’t total slouches. They navigated through a field of 6,494 to get to where they are and have now enjoyed four months to polish their play for the final table. The over-optimism regarding Ivey’s chances has resulted in some great value in placing a wager on others at the table.

For example, I made a bet that 21 year-old Joe Cada will win the event at odds of +1537 (which moved the line to its current listing of +1300). Cada has about 50% more chips than Ivey but was considered nearly three times less likely to win the tournament! Preposterous, I said.

The youngster Cada has been crushing poker since before he was supposed to be playing it (not unlike Ivey as a young man) and has booked a six-figure victory in an online poker tournament during the break before the Main Event final table. Cada was one of the chip leaders after day one of this tournament and essentially went wire-to-wire with a formidable stack to make this final table.

At odds of +1537, Cada was being given a 6% chance to win the tournament despite having a little more than 7% of the chips in play!. That’s the Ivey factor for you. Normally on a proposition of this nature, the vigorish taken by the sports-book would make it nearly impossible to find any shred of value, but thanks to Ivey, great players like Cada are graded at having less of a chance to win than the percentage of chips they possess.

Other players with similarly good betting value are Kevin Schaffel (who showed he’s no fluke by finishing 2nd in a WPT event in August) at +1558 and chip-leader Darvin Moon at +381. Moon has 30.2% of the chips in play but is being given just a 20.8% chance of winning the tournament at those odds.

Bubbles like this don’t come around often. At the start of last year’s NFL playoffs, the longshot team was the Arizona Cardinals at 40:1. During the Patriots bubble from the year before, no less than five teams had longer odds than that.

Posted in Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

October 23rd, 2009 by TwoGun

A lot of noise in the poker world was made this week when Anurag Dikshit sold off the majority of his stake in Party Gaming, the company that owns Party Poker. Dikshit said he plans on donating the proceeds of the sale to his charity, the Kusuma Trust, which helps at-risk children in India, the United Kingdom, and Gibraltar (where Party Poker is based and he lives).

Dikshit has been giving away hundreds of millions of his fortune lately. Earlier this year, he plead guilty to violating US gambling laws and agreed to a fine of $300 million. Remember, he’s not pleading guilty to violating the UIGEA here…this was a plea to gambling laws prior to the enactment of the UIGEA. Party Gaming agreed to settle with the DOJ last year for around $100 million. In other words, Dikshit, who owned 28% of Party Gaming, paid three times as much as the company itself. Nice negotiating skills, Dikshit.

Many were perplexed why Dikshit agreed to pay such a huge fine. He basically said he just wanted to get that era behind him and move on with his life. Now, he’s selling off the rest of his stake in Party Gaming to donate to charity. I’ve got two rants I have to get off my chest:

Rant #1: The media and the poker world need to stop acting like this is good for Party Poker and poker in general. This sale doesn’t matter.

Some have suggested that by selling his stake to the public, Dikshit will no longer listed as a beneficial owner/director. Since he plead guilty and technically has a criminal record in the United States, his removal from Party Gaming means Party Gaming will no longer be ‘blemished’ and can somehow re-enter the US market easier when the UIGEA repeals.

There’s a lot of if’s here. This line of logic is similar to me thinking: I’ve heard that Britney Sears does not like to use condoms and doesn’t use birth control. Therefore, I should get a vasectomy. If I get a vasectomy, I can enter Britney Spears without me worrying about a baby.

Party Gaming (and everyone else in the poker world) should count on the UIGEA being repealed about as much as I should count on sleeping with Britney Spears. There is the chance of states allowing online poker (gambling is primarily a state law in the US). If online poker came back in the US and was fully legal, it would be on a state by state basis. Nonetheless, let’s wait and let that happen first and see how the states implement it before we cheer about some random dude selling his stock shares. OK people?

Rant #2: I’m sick of Dikshit giving away all his money

A lot of people applaud billionaires when they give away all of their money to charity. I suppose it is honorable to do so. But there’s something that just doesn’t quite sit right with me. What’s the point of these billionaires going through all the hoops to create these businesses in tax shelters if they’re just going to give all that money away later?

Can one of these billionaires that gives away all their money do something different for once? Everyone feeds the children and gives money towards disease pandemics. Yes, good causes I know.

But cmon Dikshit, if you feel so guilty about all the money you made from gambling, maybe give the money to Gambler’s Anonymous and other groups that help problem gambling. Maybe track down some people that lost a lot of money on Party Poker and have one huge bad beat jackpot for them. How about you give some of that money to the company that made you rich in the first place? Party is now 4th place in terms of poker traffic. It’s not even the #1 non-US site anymore.

Or at the very least, go on one huge coke and hooker binge. If none of this sounds appealing, why be a youngish billionaire? You’re just making the case that the government should tax those with huge windfalls (i.e. $30 million+) at 75% or whatever.

Posted in Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

October 16th, 2009 by TwoGun

When talking about EV and variance, many poker players prefer to play ring games since the variance is much lower than tournaments and they can grind out a solid profit over time. Back when I was playing poker on a professional/near-professoinal basis, I played ring games the majority of the time, and rarely had a month where I lost money.

Times have changed though and games are much tougher than in the past. There aren’t $15-$30 fixed-limit games where players will just cold-call a raise with A7 offsuit preflop. Rake has gone up, not down. A higher percentage of players playing poker have been playing for at least few years, and the number of new players as a percentage of online players in general is much lower.

For these and other reasons, ring games have gotten tougher. But one thing to remember about ring games is that even if you are an average player at the table, the game is very -EV. The rake at a ring game is about 5% of the pot (it’s lower at higher stakes since the max rake kicks in, but these games are also shark filled). If you are an entirely neutral player, this means the game has a 5% edge. That’s slot machine type play. You need to be significantly better than the other players at the table. This means you can’t just be good, you need to be confident that everyone else is terrible.

Tournaments are a bit different. While technically the vigorish is around 9-10% for a tournament, you get many, many hands in a tournament, so the vigorish per hand played is much lower. In other words, when factoring in skill, luck, and vigorish paid, when you pay the 5% vigorish in a ring game, the skill you use to make up for that vigorish lasts that one hand only. In a tournament, you have dozens of hands where you can employ skill to overcome the 10% vigorish.

Also, in a tournament, the lottery-aspect of the tournament will continue to bring in the fish. Tournaments also offer better value for skill-neutral players. If you play a $100+$10 tournament for 2 hours, and let’s say you are exactly an average-skilled player, you are paying $10 in EV for 2 hours of entertainment. That’s still pretty cheap entertainment.

In comparison, a ring game where $2 in rake is taken on average a hand, with about 50 hands per hour and 8 players, amounts to about $12 in rake paid. That’s quite a bit more per hour going to the casino, which makes it that much harder for you to turn a profit.

What to make all of this? Well, quite frankly, if you are playing ring games a lot, and your numbers are looking bad, then it may be time and suck it up and admit they are -EV for you. They probably are for 90% or more of most players out there. If you still want to play poker, try low buy-in tournaments. At the very least, the variance is so horrible that if you continuously wash out, you can trick yourself for years into thinking you’re a +EV player.

Posted in Online Poker Information, Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

October 7th, 2009 by Cory Albertson

It’s an exciting feeling: you’re in a multi-table tournament and you pick up pocket Aces or pocket Kings. A player in front of you raises the pot to 3 big blinds. Now… what do you do?

In this situation, you have two choices, call or re-raise. In this article, I’m going to go over some of the things that should determine your decision. Consider the following to be something of a textual flow chart:

1. How Big is Your Stack?

A. 15 big blinds or less. With this short of a stack, I don’t think you can make much of an argument to flat-call the raise. Since your stack is so short, you’ll get called a pretty large percentage of the time when you re-raise all-in since your opponent will feel he has the pot odds to make the call. Additionally, you completely mask the strength of your hand by re-raising all-in, whereas a flat-call will look really powerful to anyone with a knack for tournaments.

B. 50 big blinds or more. With a larger stack, I like making a re-raise with your big pocket pair. When the stacks are somewhat deep, players will three-bet with a wider range of hands which means the strength of your hand will still be fairly well concealed notwithstanding your raise. An instance where a flat-call might be better than a raise is if your table is really crazy and you’re confident the pot will be re-raised by someone yet to act. However, I would want to be fairly sure this will happen before just smooth calling.

C. 20 to 45 big blinds. If your stack size falls into this range, proceed to the next step.

2. What Position Are You In?

A. Early Position. This is the most favorable scenario in which to consider just flat-calling the raise. Since someone in early position raised the pot, that’s probably going to look fairly strong to most players. By re-raising, you’re effectively announcing that you have a very big hand. After all, who is re-raising an early position raisor from early position with a marginal holding? Flat-call and hope to see something favorable to happen like a shorter stack who moves all-in thinking they might pick up an already nice sized pot before the flop.

B. Middle Position. I believe this is the trickiest position at the table to determine what to do. Proceed to the next step.

C. Late Postion/Blinds. A re-raise is a favorable move from late position or the blinds, but for different reasons. You can re-raise in late position since players typically will do so with a somewhat wider range of hands which thereby conceals your hand strength a little. In the blinds, I like a re-raise to simplify your decision-making for the remainder of the hand. Since you’re out of position, it’s a good idea to take control of the hand and get as many chips into the pot as possible to prevent having to make complicated post-flop decisions. However, a call can be an interesting play from the blinds since your hand strength is concealed incredibly well.

3. What Are Some Table Dynamics?

If you’ve made it past question #1 and question #2 and still don’t have a good idea one way or the other as to whether you should flat-call or re-raise, you’re going to have to examine some more subtle factors to make a confident decision. Here are some things to look for:

What are the stacks like behind you? If everyone yet to act has a lot of chips in front of them, it would make me inclined to re-raise. However, if there are a couple of short-stacks, a flat-call becomes more appealing. The reason is, when a short stack sees a raise and a call in front of them, they might be inclined to gamble and shove all-in with a fairly weak hand hoping both players fold. This move has additional value since the original raisor might call the all-in allowing you to shove over the top and either a.) double-up to a very big stack or b.) induce a fold leaving a ton of dead money in the pot.

What are the players like behind you? What’s your feeling on the players yet to act in the pot? Are there any crazy-aggressive players or is there anyone on tilt? If so, this would make me more likely to flat-call the raise in hopes that the crazy player traps himself by making a re-raise. Conversely, if the players behind you are tight and playing pretty straightforward, it would make me lean towards a re-raise since I’m not expecting to see any action induced from a flat-call.

Of course if you’re still not sure what to do after progressing through these questions, you can always let random chance determine your course of action. Flip a coin or let the second-hand on your timepiece determine your move!

Posted in Poker Strategy | No Comments »

October 4th, 2009 by Cory Albertson

Anyone with an interest in poker should check out this Washington Post article on Main Event chip-leader Darvin Moon. How can you not root for this guy?! Some highlights from the article:

Moon has been playing poker semi-seriously for just a few years. He has never read a single page of a strategy book. He doesn’t play cards online, where nascent players can quickly flatten the learning curve. (Actually, Moon says he doesn’t spend any time online. Also doesn’t use a credit card.)

“I ain’t no different than you or anybody else,” he says. “My business is my business. People are driving me crazy with their questions. Their favorite one is, ‘What’d you do with your money?’ My favorite answer is, ‘What’d you do with your paycheck last week?’ “

Moon, who turns 46 at the end of October, has gone back to his job cutting pines. “I’ve gotta get up and go to work every day,” he says. “I’m not rich.”

Of the 6,494 players who entered the Main Event, Moon figures “there were 6,300 that were better than me.”

Moon says: “I really believe all eight of my opponents are better than I am. How can’t I believe that? They all have more experience than I do. I play three nights every two weeks at little tournaments.”

So Moon flew to Vegas in July (the first time he’d ever been on a commercial jet) and crushed the field with, he admits, an insanely lucky run of cards. “I got incredible cards for eight days,” he says, almost apologetically. “No matter what I did, it seemed like it worked.”

After that round of the tournament, Moon and his wife of 15 years, Wendy — a CVS pharmacy technician — came home to their old 14-by-70 trailer (three bedrooms, two baths, no children) with a $1,263,602 check

And he still lives in that trailer!!!

While the other players try to elevate their games — Shulman, for instance, just hired 1989 champion Phil Hellmuth to coach him on his final-table play — Moon has been playing with Meat and Hunk, Mama and Ducky, Joey and Bubba and the other regulars at the Elks and the American Legion and over at the fire hall in Clarysville. Soon, he’s going into hiding.

“We’re leaving Oct. 7 to go to Wyoming for three weeks of mule deer hunting,” he says. “I’ll be out there in the mountains, in a little cabin with no electric, no water. Can’t wait.”

Seriously… I love this guy. I’ve got quite a bit of money on Joe Cada to win the tournament, but screw it. I’m rooting for Moon!

Posted in Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

September 30th, 2009 by Cory Albertson

About a year and a half ago, I won a package to the Irish Open. After busting out of the Main Event in Dublin, I joined a group of weary bustos in a €1,500 buy-in second chance event. A few levels into the tournament, I shoved ~12 big blinds or so with Ace-Seven. A young player in the small blind looked me up for about half of his stack with Ace-Jack. When I flopped a Seven, I felt pretty bad about it. I looked over at the young man and was surprised to see that he wasn’t even watching the flop! He was too busy talking to a friend that had just come up to the table. After the board bricked out and the pot was shipped my way, I offered some consolation to him, “ugh… sorry about that man,” as I shrugged my shoulders. He didn’t respond nor did he even seem to care.

“Who is this guy?!” I thought.

“That guy,” or to put it more appropriately, “that kid,” was Yevgeniy Timoshenko, who I later learned was the defending champion of that particular event.

Fast forward a year later, and it’s clear to me why Yevgeniy wasn’t sweating that Seven: he’s got mad skills. There is no one in tournament poker having a hotter 2009 than Yevgeniy. He is currently ranked #1 on the Card Player POY standings with a comfortable 800 point lead over Eric Baldwin.

How did he get there? Ohhh… just by winning the $25k buy-in WPT Championship in April ($2.15 million), and the $5k buy-in World Championships of Online Poker Main Event this month ($1.7 million) under the screenname “Jovial Gent”.

When Yevgeniy won the WCOOP Main Event, he had to hold off on the celebration for a while: he was one of the chip-leaders with 14 players remaining in a $1k buy-in event (that started with 277 players) at another site. A few hours later… yup… won that too for another $75k. **Yawn**

This week, the poker world’s fears that Yevgeniy might gobble up all of the money in the game began to mount as he was one of the chipleaders with 45 players remaining at the WSOP Europe Main Event. It was almost comforting to see him bust out in 25th place. I mean, no one can run that hot, right?!

For now, the 21 year old with already more than $6 million in lifetime winnings will have to wait another day to claim his first WSOP bracelet.

Posted in Poker World Commentary | No Comments »

PokerTips Blog Recent Posts

Joe Cada on Letterman

Cory Albertson

November 20

Moving Up Levels

Lord Mushroom

November 17

The Advantages of a Small Stack

Lord Mushroom

November 12

Listening to the WSOP Final Table Live

Cory Albertson

November 8

PokerTips Newsletter Sign-Up

Poker News

Inaugural EPT Vilamoura Event Starts Tomorrow

Jeffrey Pollack Resigns as WSOP Commissioner

Joe Cada Wins the 2009 WSOP

Joe Cada vs. Darvin Moon for the World Championship

The Weekly Shuffle

Random Thoughts, WSOP Final Table Edition

Infinite Deck Poker

The November Nine Ranked in Terms of Best to Worst for Poker

Interview: Marvin Sun

	play poker! forums exclusives The Weekly Shuffle Poker Videos Promotions PokerTips Blog tools Pot Odds Calculator Hand Simulator Check Your Bets reviews Movies DVD Books Online Poker Reviews Online Poker Bonuses reference Poker Rules Rules Variants WSOP TV Listings Glossary History of Poker english dansk deutsch españa français italiano nederlands norsk português suomeksi svenska ... ...
	news	poker rules	poker strategy	site reviews	bonus codes	forums