Stuart "easypickings" Rutter : In the well

[easypickings]

Hi Stuart.

Enjoying this so far.

I recently played with you at luton recently and was impressed. I noticed tho that you spent the first two hours playing very little, not even at the table then after the break decided you were going to open raise most hands and call most raises that got there before you.

Was this a pre-planned strategy or just your observations on the rest of the table, that they would pretty much sit back & let you do this til they found something to play back at you with.

cheers

vinny.

It definitely does fit with my strategy, but have to admit also that the main reason for wondering around is that I just can't stop nattering. One of my biggest goals in poker is to one day sit next to Jonathan Butters for the whole day, and natter so much that he drinks himself into oblivion before the end of the ninth level. I came close in Thanet, but we only had the Butters-Rutter combo for the last two levels, and time was not on my side.

But yes, for all the opinions people have about the right gear to take, I think it's undeniable that the right way strategy for the first level of a big tournament is to play pretty tight. The way people process information is unbalaned, so that they will always give far too much weighting to the first things they see. This is why it is true in other walks of life that first impressions are so important. In my opinion, the ideal image to have at the table is that of a tight player, particularly if the truth is something different!

Changing gears is something that everyone cites as being important, but something that people don't think about enough. You see, changing gears is such a simple idea that it's easy for anyone to be reasonably good at it. It really is an artform, however, and so it's something that is incredibly difficult to perfect. That day, I did not change gears well, as once I hit the reckless gear I decided to stay in it for a while. It was a shame that our table broke before things got interesting. The tightrope-like challenge of changing gears is to judge for each different player at the table exactly when they have had enough. The great challenge is that you cannot be wrong even by a single hand, as one mistake can cost so much in poker.

In my opinion, there are two levels to changing gears. One style which depends heavily on it is to be the player who intermittently hits the dangerous fifth gear. He has to know exactly when he has lost the patience of the table, and has to revert back to the ABC seond gear.

 The second style is the player whose default gear is to play fairly tight, but who likes to use the reputation that this develops to risk a few bluffs and fancy plays. This player has to know exactly how long he can hit the surface before he has lost enough credibility that he has to dive back below, and build up an image all over again. This style becomes interesting if it is engineered perfectly by always escaping just before that crucial point. A player can actually play all day with a tight image, despite for a good number of brief periods of time this really not being the case! This pattern is really difficult to perfect, and the best example I have seen of it was playing with Javed Abrahams in the first day of the GUKPT Grand Final. I realised at the end of the day that, by using exactly the correct timing, he had managed to appear quite tight all day, but could still count a good number of sick bluffs he had pulled.

[easypickings]

Hi Stu,

Is it dark down there?

Yes. And I'm getting thirsty, I just wish I had something to drink.

[easypickings]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

It's always surprised that there is any debate as to whether live or online players are the better players. As I see it, in terms of understanding and reading the game, there is no longer any argument that online players are anything but vastly superior. There are of course other skills involved in 'live' poker, but I feel that anyone who has mastered the skills needed to beat the online game must have the potential to master the additional skills like reading tellls. (Incidentally, I go against the majority by thinking that the whole area of tells is actually much underrated. The scary thing is that it's importance will always be very well disguised, as anyone that is using tells to their big advantage is very unlikely to be sharing their secret.)

An ego massage? That's difficult to go with in a game where there are far more opportunties to look stupid than there are to look clever, and more often than not you will be left nursing your bruises and blaming yourself. However, if a player was good enough to be able to beat both the online and live game and was only interested in financial measures, they would be foolish to ever put down their mouse, and to start looking for Thanet on the map.

So, why is it that we bother to travel around everywhere, and even you sometimes briefly show your pretty face? It's simply that the game was not invented to be played trying to click a mouse better than someone the other side of the world; it was invented to have someone able to look into your eyes every time you make a bet. The feeling of a raking in a big pot is unbeatable, and nowhere near matched by a number on a screen just getting bigger whilst you say to yourself "loldonkament" or some nonsense. The crushing disappointment of doing everything right and having your adventure ended by the turn of one card is something that epitomises 'live' poker; if you lose a buy-in online, there is barely time to mutter the word "variance" before you turn to click on the next screen.

Basically, 'live' poker will always be the real deal; it's the challenge of the game, the excitement and the emotions that make it different to anything else. A basketball player likes to practice by shooting hoops one after another, but really he can't wait for get to the court for the next game. Some of the hoop shooters like you can shoot into 12 different baskets at the same time, and would undeniably make great basketball players. But now it's time to have some fun, and show up to the court.

Random analogy's that make no sense ftw!!!



So basically you play live for a buzz rather than a challenge, may i suggest cocaine, its less time consuming.

Having said all that i will be playing Brighton so hope to see you down there where we can sit around playing 25hands/hr against players so bad that after 1 level we will want to kill ourselves because reading 'heat' would be more of a challenge.

P.S. Might have a SNG in my flat to decide who the best player is, only the cream can play super deep structure, far more relevant than the winner of the GPT!

Maybe we could set ourselves the challenge of reading our copy of Heat for the whole first day?  We could even do it for charity.

Great idea. It's really good of you to use the flat to have this challenge for the best players. What's the plan? You deal the cards, and Dubai prepares the tea? I hope you won't both get bored.

Can we play some basketball too?

[easypickings]

Good answers.

1. Which football team do you support?

2. Fave pizza?

3. What the fk is eggnog?

1) Wednesday (strangely, for someone who lives in Birmingham). I used to go all the time, but poker has put a stop to that. I went to see us get beaten at Coventry on Sunday, however, and am now regretting that fact a lot less.

2) Did somebody order me a regular cheese?

3) No idea? It's probably the way of saying £200 in London.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Me, Barry Neville, Trigg, Red Dog and now even Mr Rutter, the Owls really are the poker players football team.


Just not the football players football team.

Good man Mr Carter. There's only one guarantee in life, and it's this. A random person asks you who you support, and you say "Wednesday." Depending on how nice they are as a person, they will do something ranging from looking incredibly sympathetic to laughing in your face. However, the guarantee is that they will then recover and say, "Oh, a guy I know from school/work/the pub.. who supports Wednesday. Try it, it never ever fails.

I'm using what looks like a break in the poker calendar to organise a road trip to the Ipswich match on the 10th Jan. Any of these fans out there, llet me know if you're interested!

[easypickings]

Is it true you fist pumped Mickey Wernick at Manchester GUKPT 07 after knocking him out?

Little can of worms you've opened there Mr Carter. Yes and no, basically.

I won a big pot against Mickey half way into the second day. I was just so relieved when my kings held up that I stood up from my seat and pumped my fist. It wasn't the worst thing in the world, but it wasn' t pretty, and I'll always be grateful to Matt Tyler for helping me out by putting me right on it.

What then followed was the greatest game of Chinese whispers that poker has ever seen. The last ear in the game, that of Barry Neville, heard a story of events that some kid had knocked out Mickey, spun a couple of cartwheels in screaming delight, and danced a merry jig around the Legend all the way to the car park. Poker is a sick game, and so it was only fitting that ten mintues later Bazza would get moved to that kid's table. Perhaps undertstandably, he seemed to want to bite me to a very slow death. This luckily didn't transpire as there was a poker game to focus on, but what he did manage was to knock me out of the tournament in a 240k pot, and this was probably more painful.

Anyway, Barry's a great guy and I'm good friends with him now, so all's well. It's always important to me to be part of a good, friendly atmosphere at the table, so I'm still a bit gutted about what happened.

[Dry em]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

lol your small obsession with everything internet poker related does make me chuckle sometimes. If live players are so bad (and the general standard is poorer) then surely we can afford ourselves some shots at some bumper prize pools against these "live idiots". I know you play lots and lots of online mtt's but not sure why you chastise ppl for playing live so much

[JungleCat03]

Great read, you've got a gift for expressing yourself Stu. Keep writing.

My question.

When we chatted recently you bowled me over by telling me you hardly ever play any live cash, whilst you pretty much make a living on online cash tables, and conversely you hardly ever play online tournaments.

That seems a little strange!

You must have a taste for tournaments given you turn up to lots of the big live ones, so why no online tournaments?

Wouldn't this be useful practice, given you can bank so many more hands online than live in key tournament situations, the bubble, final table etc and take this experience into live tournaments?

Interested in your thoughts.

[JungleCat03]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

lol your small obsession with everything internet poker related does make me chuckle sometimes. If live players are so bad (and the general standard is poorer) then surely we can afford ourselves some shots at some bumper prize pools against these "live idiots". I know you play lots and lots of online mtt's but not sure why you chastise ppl for playing live so much

You've no idea of the perils of live poker for someone like flushy.

People think he's really aggressive at the table.

"Oh look flushy's all-in again."

But he's not.

The truth is that every time he leans forward to check the flop, his moobs knock his stack into the middle and he has to pretend he meant to move in.

It's torture for the lad. He pretty much had to write an essay to justify moving in on the river with 5 high and no fold equity in a hand in brighton. All because of the moobs.

[Rod Paradise]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

lol your small obsession with everything internet poker related does make me chuckle sometimes. If live players are so bad (and the general standard is poorer) then surely we can afford ourselves some shots at some bumper prize pools against these "live idiots". I know you play lots and lots of online mtt's but not sure why you chastise ppl for playing live so much

You've no idea of the perils of live poker for someone like flushy.

People think he's really aggressive at the table.

"Oh look flushy's all-in again."

But he's not.

The truth is that every time he leans forward to check the flop, his moobs knock his stack into the middle and he has to pretend he meant to move in.

It's torture for the lad. He pretty much had to write an essay to justify moving in on the river with 5 high and no fold equity in a hand in brighton. All because of the moobs.

 

[Royal Flush]

I feel that the standard of play on the internet has increased sharply over the last year, and even will continue to do so. That should be of real concern to an internet grinder, and I genuinely think it could reach a saturation point one day where it is difficult to beat the games by much more than the rake. I would advise any friend pretty heavily against internet play as a way of reliable way of making money.

Poker for me is all about the challenge of the game; 'live' poker is the real deal for me, and I see internet as no more than a practice ground for the true challenge.

So the practice is harder than the real thing?

Does this mean what you actually seek is an ego massage and adulation from your peers rather than playing with and beating the best?

lol your small obsession with everything internet poker related does make me chuckle sometimes. If live players are so bad (and the general standard is poorer) then surely we can afford ourselves some shots at some bumper prize pools against these "live idiots". I know you play lots and lots of online mtt's but not sure why you chastise ppl for playing live so much

Yeah i totally agree about occasionally going off to play a live comp to take a shot but i can't justify it as a profit making expense to go 1/2 way across the country to spend 4 days playing a 300/500/1k event because i would only turnover 1800 in buyins in that time when online i could easily do 6k 3 times as much with no expenses and no hassle of driving to some place i would never visit if it didnt have a casino.

Stu by his own admission doesn't play online tournaments, he makes good money from online cash, more so than i would imagine he makes from live tournaments. So why would you go traipsing around the country to play tournaments where the buyin is less than a cash game buyin?

Only reasons i can think are:

Social interaction with like minded people.
The hope that u win 2 or 3 comps in quick succession so people with no clue about poker start saying 'your the best'

and the most likely reason

You heard Barry is going to be at the event so you were hoping to collect....




Damn you JC this is the actual truth:

You've no idea of the perils of live poker for someone like flushy.

People think he's really aggressive at the table.

"Oh look flushy's all-in again."

But he's not.

The truth is that every time he leans forward to check the flop, his moobs knock his stack into the middle and he has to pretend he meant to move in.

It's torture for the lad. He pretty much had to write an essay to justify moving in on the river with 5 high and no fold equity in a hand in brighton. All because of the moobs.

[Royal Flush]

Right anyway back to the well


Stu

Most overrated player you have played with?

Most underrated player you have played with?

Your fave tournament venue in mainland europe?

Where do you see poker in 2yrs and 5yrs time and where do you see yourself in 2+5 yrs?

If you were the leanest and fittest person out of a group of 4 people and you were all rushing to get a taxi together, which seat would you go for?

[MANTIS01]

A few years ago I was playing a big pot with your brother in a self deal tournament at Walsall. I was the dealer. Your bro raised and I re-raised with Aces. He went all-in and I called. I then looked down to find I somehow had mucked my Aces. I went through that muck, got them Aces back, and knocked him out. Is this ok? See I felt really bad afterwards but your bro was fine with it cos he's a nice guy. Should he have been fine with it? You see I did not want to deal but they forced me to. Your brother was the most vocal about me dealing as well...so really it's ok cos the dealer says so right?

[lucky_scrote]

Just like to say you are doing a good job in the well. When I did the well, I think I gave one line answers back to everyone, you are putting in some effort

Stu, I am sure you don't mind me picking on you because we are great friends but would you say you are addicted to internet poker? You put in some monster sessions. Or is it just determination. You are deffo the least laziest poker player I have ever met, actually making good money at private math lessons for young students and writing more articles than anyone I know.

Would you admit you have any weaknesses in your game? *cough game selection*

[easypickings]

Great read, you've got a gift for expressing yourself Stu. Keep writing.

My question.

When we chatted recently you bowled me over by telling me you hardly ever play any live cash, whilst you pretty much make a living on online cash tables, and conversely you hardly ever play online tournaments.

That seems a little strange!

You must have a taste for tournaments given you turn up to lots of the big live ones, so why no online tournaments?

Wouldn't this be useful practice, given you can bank so many more hands online than live in key tournament situations, the bubble, final table etc and take this experience into live tournaments?

Interested in your thoughts.

That was a very entertaining conversation, given that we were only getting out of the way for NoFlops to chat up some girl. He needs to work on his act for when everyone goes back into the room, of trying to pretend nothing has happened by innoundating us with nonsense questions!

I think you're absolutely right to say it would be useful practice. When it comes to timing and building a bankroll, grinding the steady online games around the uncertainty of big buy-in tournaments has worked well. However, it is easy to get trapped in the flow and mindset of online cash play when playing live tournaments. The styles of play have no massive differences, but so many small ones that playing an online cash style would produce many leaks in a live tournament.

There are situations later in a tournament where the style of play has to be different, but even in the deep-stacked early stages of a tournament which imitate a cash game, there are many differences in the expected style of play. There will be some massive generalisations here, but this is how I see it:

- In online cash, the preferred style depends on the idea of representing a range. The style generally is to value bet big to represent a narrow range, and to make small bluffs that represent a wide range. In 'live' play, the thinking is at least a level lower, and the average player will make his decisions too much on the strength of his hand. Therefore, it can often be right to make more measured value bets, and actually to bluff big to try to scare people off their hands.

- Three betting in position in 'live' poker works far better than it should do. (The only problem is that you can often struggle to find a spot where you can 3-bet pre flop and still be playing deep stacked after the flop). In good online games, your opponents will time 4-bets annoyingly well or be prepared counter attack on the flop, whereas 'live' players will believe you for a big hand, and be prepared to play "fit or fold" if they do call. The fact that "fit" is something which doesn't happen very often hands a big advantage to the 3-bettor.

- In the situation where you have fired two shells and are going to the river, I would say there is a big difference between online play and a large bulk of live players.  An online player will understand far better the stength of the thrid barrel and be prepared to risk his stack to pick it off, whereas the thinking live player tends far more towards concern about all the strong hands that you could be representing. There is far too much emphasis in live tournaments put on protecting the bottom of your stack. Though there is some extra value to your last few chips, I belive it is much more the (understandable) emotional factor of players wanting to stay in the tournament that makes profitable any situation where you can threaten your opponent's stack.

Oops, wittering again. So yes, I think I'm going to play more online tournaments to get used to the different style of play. Cash is always just so convenient though! I have meant a couple of times to play a tournament but forget to register, and don't they go on the whole night?

[easypickings]

Yeah i totally agree about occasionally going off to play a live comp to take a shot but i can't justify it as a profit making expense to go 1/2 way across the country to spend 4 days playing a 300/500/1k event because i would only turnover 1800 in buyins in that time when online i could easily do 6k 3 times as much with no expenses and no hassle of driving to some place i would never visit if it didnt have a casino.

Stu by his own admission doesn't play online tournaments, he makes good money from online cash, more so than i would imagine he makes from live tournaments. So why would you go traipsing around the country to play tournaments where the buyin is less than a cash game buyin?

Only reasons i can think are:

Social interaction with like minded people.
The hope that u win 2 or 3 comps in quick succession so people with no clue about poker start saying 'your the best'

and the most likely reason

You heard Barry is going to be at the event so you were hoping to collect....

Yeah, to be honest, internet grinding and going to a live tournament at the weekend are two completely different things. Internet poker is about the challenge of thinking against the best, building a good style, and building a bankroll as a ticket to donk off in a live tournament. A live tournament typically is about having a natter, trying to play your best, but typically making one stupid bluff that some muppet calls for the completely the wrong reasons, and then starting the fun all over again at the bar.

The challenges in live poker are different- finding your balls when you don't have a computer screen to hide behind, trying to get into the muddled thinking of the weaker players, and one that I find interesting but hasn't been mentioned- dealing with the frustrations and crushing disappointments of the game is character building, and a worthy challenge in itself.