In the premier episode of our new show, "FullTiltPoker.Net Presents Learn from the Pros" broadcast on FOX Sports Net, five of our pros engaged in a roundtable discussion about stepping up in limits.

Everyone agreed that one of the best ways to improve your game is to play against better players. Jennifer Harman said she faced more tough decisions at her first table with Doyle Brunson than she'd faced in all her previous years of playing poker. Layne Flack and Howard Lederer agreed that the constant pressure can be a good thing, forcing you to weigh each decision more carefully and rethink old habits and patterns. Chris "Jesus" Ferguson said his best learning opportunities come at World Series final tables, and Phil Ivey remarked that, with time, you start to look forward to playing out of your comfort zone. Perhaps the adrenaline helps keep you focused.

But maybe there's a corollary to this; the idea that being a first-timer relieves you of the pressure that can only come from having already had a taste of victory.

It's true that you see a lot of the same names winning tournaments, but some newcomers have had some incredible finishes, and many of today's pros started out with very early success. Erik Seidel finished second to Johnny Chan in his very first World Series of Poker Main Event. Andy Bloch won the first No-Limit Hold 'em event he ever entered. Phil Gordon finished fourth in his first WSOP Big Dance. And Howard Lederer has made the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event just once - the first year he entered the event. When Howard survived to Day 4 in 2003, he made this observation:

I am playing for more money than I ever have, and this kind of chance at the WSOP will probably only come up for me a few more times in my life. But, for some reason, I am only thinking about this table, this hand, this moment. I have read some Zen Buddhism in the last few years and it is really helping me now.

In particular "Zen and the Art of Archery", a short little book, has everything you need to know about staying in the moment. Thinking about the recent past or the possible future at moments like these can only hurt your ability to make the plays necessary to win. And, those thoughts can actually make it impossible to win. I have started to think that players like Varkonyi and Moneymaker have an advantage over experienced tournament players. Yes they would like to win, and they know this is an important tournament, but they don't feel that importance deep in their bones like a seasoned pro who has been trying to win the WSOP for years. It frees them up to play their best when it matters. My best finish was in my first try. It wasn't real to me. I remember having a great time, and not feeling a lot of pressure.

Getting back to the roundtable... everyone agreed that tournaments are a good way to get out of your comfort zone without risking your bankroll. Try to let inexperience work for you, not against you. If you're at your first final table and you see enough bracelets to fill a Tiffany display window, use it as a learning opportunity. Also use it as a chance to enjoy the moment and focus on the here and now. You don't yet have a past, and living in the moment is the best way to ensure you have a future.

 

You are in the big blind with Ts-8s against a player who smooth-called pre-flop. The flop comes K-X-X with two spades. What do you do?

You would like to make your flush, and you don't want to pay too much to get there. Instinctively, you think checking is the best way to get a free card, and you're right.

In fact, checking is the only way to get a free card, but it may not give you the best opportunity to make your hand, nor will it pay you maximum value when you make the flush.

Suppose your opponent bets the pot. Now you're getting 2-1 to call for a 4-1 chance of making your hand. You don't even get to see the turn card. You've been priced out.

What happens if you lead out with a small bet? If you're against a player who likes to slow play or a player who will bluff you out with a big bet, a small bet gives you the best chance of seeing the turn.

How small is a small bet? Try betting between 1/3 and 1/4 of the pot. If there is $300 in the pot and you bet $100, you are now getting the right price to make your flush. If you bet $75, you are now getting better than pot odds, and this doesn't account for your implied odds, which take into account the amount of money your opponent will bet or call on the turn and river. If you make your flush on the turn, and your opponent is willing to call your $400 bet, you are getting implied odds of $300 (current pot size on the flop) + $400 (expected amount your opponent will call on the turn) = $700 to $100 (your bet on the flop), or 7-1.

This is an even better play when your drawing hand is less obvious. Suppose the flop is Q-9-6. Now you are drawing to the double gut shot straight, where a 7 or a J makes your hand. While an 8 or a K is an obvious scare card, a 7 looks like a card unlikely to have helped anyone. (The risk factor here is that the J might give you the "idiot end" of the straight against an opponent holding K-J, and your 1/4 pot bet is exactly the right price for him to call.)

In a tournament, this type of drawing strategy can become a riskier and less profitable play, especially early on. Because you start with a limited number of chips in tournament play, your odds need to be closer to 5-1 or even 6-1 before you should consider risking them on a draw, and potentially leaving yourself short stacked.

The important thing when drawing is to be the aggressor. Losing initiative leaves you vulnerable to being priced out of the pot, whether it's by a made hand or a bluff. If you want to see another card at the right price, your best bet is to be the bettor.

 

In the premier episode of our new show, "FullTiltPoker.Net Presents Learn from the Pros" broadcast on FOX Sports Net, five of our pros engaged in a roundtable discussion about stepping up in limits.

Everyone agreed that one of the best ways to improve your game is to play against better players. Jennifer Harman said she faced more tough decisions at her first table with Doyle Brunson than she'd faced in all her previous years of playing poker. Layne Flack and Howard Lederer agreed that the constant pressure can be a good thing, forcing you to weigh each decision more carefully and rethink old habits and patterns. Chris "Jesus" Ferguson said his best learning opportunities come at World Series final tables, and Phil Ivey remarked that, with time, you start to look forward to playing out of your comfort zone. Perhaps the adrenaline helps keep you focused.

But maybe there's a corollary to this; the idea that being a first-timer relieves you of the pressure that can only come from having already had a taste of victory.

It's true that you see a lot of the same names winning tournaments, but some newcomers have had some incredible finishes, and many of today's pros started out with very early success. Erik Seidel finished second to Johnny Chan in his very first World Series of Poker Main Event. Andy Bloch won the first No-Limit Hold 'em event he ever entered. Phil Gordon finished fourth in his first WSOP Big Dance. And Howard Lederer has made the final table of the World Series of Poker Main Event just once - the first year he entered the event. When Howard survived to Day 4 in 2003, he made this observation:

I am playing for more money than I ever have, and this kind of chance at the WSOP will probably only come up for me a few more times in my life. But, for some reason, I am only thinking about this table, this hand, this moment. I have read some Zen Buddhism in the last few years and it is really helping me now.

In particular "Zen and the Art of Archery", a short little book, has everything you need to know about staying in the moment. Thinking about the recent past or the possible future at moments like these can only hurt your ability to make the plays necessary to win. And, those thoughts can actually make it impossible to win. I have started to think that players like Varkonyi and Moneymaker have an advantage over experienced tournament players. Yes they would like to win, and they know this is an important tournament, but they don't feel that importance deep in their bones like a seasoned pro who has been trying to win the WSOP for years. It frees them up to play their best when it matters. My best finish was in my first try. It wasn't real to me. I remember having a great time, and not feeling a lot of pressure.

Getting back to the roundtable... everyone agreed that tournaments are a good way to get out of your comfort zone without risking your bankroll. Try to let inexperience work for you, not against you. If you're at your first final table and you see enough bracelets to fill a Tiffany display window, use it as a learning opportunity. Also use it as a chance to enjoy the moment and focus on the here and now. You don't yet have a past, and living in the moment is the best way to ensure you have a future.

 

When I'm thinking about my actions after the flop or turn, I look to the "texture" of the board - i.e., what cards are in play, and how might they interact with my opponent's likely starting hands - to help determine if and how much I will bet.

My normal post-flop betting range is one third of the pot to the full size of the pot. The texture of the board dictates where in that range I choose to bet, and I determine that based on the following four factors:

1. How strong is my hand with respect to all of the likely hands for my opponent?

If I have a very strong hand with respect to all of the likely starting hands for my opponent, I'll usually go for the lower end of the spectrum, betting around 1/3 of the pot. I want my opponent to call.

If I have a moderate strength hand with respect to all of the likely starting hands for my opponent, I'll likely bet 2/3 of the pot. I want my opponents to fold some hands that are better than my hand and call with some hands that are worse than my hand.

If I have a weak hand with respect to all of the likely starting hands for my opponent and I want to bet, I'll bet the pot. I want my opponents to fold hands that are better than my hand.

2. How likely is my hand to improve?

If my hand is unlikely to improve, I tend to bet more than 2/3 of the pot. I want to take this pot now.

If my hand is somewhat likely to improve, say about 15% to 20% of the time, I am more apt to bet 2/3 of the pot.

If my hand is very likely to improve (about 34% of the time or more), I am more apt to bet 1/2 of the pot.

3. How likely is my opponent to have "hit the flop" and have a pair or better?

If my opponent is unlikely to have hit the flop and have top pair or better, I tend to bet 1/3 of the pot whether I think I have the best hand or not.

If my opponent is likely to have flopped exactly one pair, and I think I have the best hand, I tend to bet 2/3 of the pot.

If my opponent is likely to have flopped two pair or better and I think I have the best hand, I tend to bet the size of the pot. If I don't think I have the best hand, I'll almost never bet.

4. How likely is my opponent to have a primary draw? (That is, a draw to the best possible hand on the board, like a straight or a flush.)

If I think my opponent is likely to have a primary draw and I think I have the best hand, I'm likely to bet the size of the pot.

If I think my opponent has a primary draw and there is a good chance I don't have the best hand, I'll almost never bet.

When the four factors above lead to different conclusions about how much to bet, I average the recommendations and bet that amount.

Over time, you'll develop a more immediate sense of the "texture" of the board, and the amount to bet based on that will become almost automatic. Then, you can spend less time calculating your actions and more time observing your opponents.

This lesson is from Phil Gordon's Little Green Book: Lessons and Teachings in No Limit Texas Hold'em , published by Simon Spotlight Entertainment.

 

I was at my first World Series of Poker in 2002, talking to a player who had made the final table the year before. He told me something I've never forgotten, and it's helped me ever since.

I had raised pre-flop with A-K and he called from the button. The flop came all small cards. I checked and he fired a pot-sized bet. I looked at him and said, "You must have a good hand." His reply caught me off guard; "It doesn't matter what cards I have if I know what cards you have."

At first I thought I might have a tell – maybe I hummed when I missed the flop, or I looked away from my chips. It was later that I realized I did have a tell, but it had nothing to do with my physical demeanor. It was the way I played my cards.

Poker is often not so much about the cards you have, but knowing the way your opponent plays. Keeping track of which hands your opponent raises with - and the position from which he raises with them - is a large part of the game.

In a live game, it is hard to remember exactly what cards your opponent has raised with over the years and, if they're good players, those hands will change from time to time. But many poker players are creatures of habit, playing the style they are most familiar with. Online, there is no excuse not to have this knowledge at your fingertips.

While playing on Full Tilt Poker, I get to write notes on players and it is a great help. I am always referencing my notes, and they will often tell me which hands an opponent has played in the past. The color-coding makes it even easier for me. I use one color to mark the players who only bet when they have a strong hand, and another color to mark the action players.

When I see a player marked with a certain color, I can safely assume that he's going to overplay his hands. This is a guy I am more willing to call with a hand that might be a little weaker, or a drawing hand after the flop. Why? Because I know that if I hit my hand, he's going to pay me off; I have implied odds to call. With another player, I'll play a little tighter because not getting paid off means my implied odds aren't there. This one bit of information has both increased my winnings and minimized my losses.

Self-awareness is an important part of any endeavor. But in poker, knowing your opponent is just as important as knowing yourself.

 

While playing on Full Tilt Poker, I have said that there are three topics I won't discuss in table chat; politics, religion, and whether online poker is rigged. That's because many people's opinions on those topics are hardened and not amenable to friendly or productive discussion.

Away from the table, I'll venture a couple of comments about improbable events in poker. While not direct instruction in the tactics and strategy of play, these comments may help you take "bad beats" in stride -- and that, in turn, is an essential part of poker maturity.

First, let's consider what most would view as a typical "bad beat" -- a lower pocket pair winning against a higher pocket pair in hold 'em, such as KK beating AA. When those hands share one suit, the chance of the worse hand winning is about 18%. The chance of the lower pair winning twice -- that is, the next two times that such hands happen to go against each other -- is about 3%. If in one session of play, a lower pocket pair beat a higher pocket pair twice, that might seem a little, well, weird to some players.

Consider another situation involving chance. When two dice are thrown, the chance of rolling "snake eyes" (1-1) is about 3% -- about the same as a lower pocket pair beating a higher pocket pair twice.

Suppose there were 600 craps tables using standard, unaltered dice with nine players around each table -- a total of 5,400 players -- and these tables operated for a three-hour "session." How many players would observe snake eyes being thrown at least once? The statistical expectation result is not important. The point is that it's easy to intuitively see that a large number of players would.

Further, do you think some players might see snake eyes thrown several times in an evening -- say, three or four times? (That is equivalent to six or eight poker "bad beats.") And if some of those players would be inclined to report their observation on forums and in chat, then it might seem to some as if the dice were "fixed."

Let's go back to poker. Recently, I played a hand of No-Limit Hold 'Em on Full Tilt Poker. An opponent four seats in front of the button open-raised pre-flop. It was folded around to me in the big blind, and I called. I semi-bluff check-raised the flop, continued with a semi-bluff bet on the turn, was raised all-in, and called the raise. I made my draw on the river. After the hand my opponent chatted:

opponent: ur horrible steve
opponent: why the [****] did u call that?
opponent: horrible that this site rewards that

(Confidential to opponent: I know these comments were made in the heat of the moment after a big loss and don't necessarily reflect your considered view.)

Let's take a look at my call on the turn. I held Ad Td; my opponent held Kd Kc. The board was Qd 9d 7h Jc.

With my opponent's actual holding, I had 16 outs to win the pot on the river, making me a 1.75 to 1 underdog. Of course, it could have been worse for me against other holdings, but even the worst case for me would have been to be up against K-T (a made straight), and then I would have been only a 3 to 1 underdog.

After my bet and the opponent's all in-raise, I was getting pot odds of 3.7 to 1 to call, so the call is clearly correct. But it seemed to my opponent -- and to at least one observer -- that I made a bad call, and that my winning with a 36% chance to do so when I called was a bad beat for my opponent.

The moral of this story: While "bad beats" (low-probability events) do occur, sometimes a closer examination of a poker hand can change first impressions and allow you to continue to play with a cooler, clearer head.