blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 08:00:00 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Poker Forums
| |-+  The Rail
| | |-+  Best of blonde
| | | |-+  Stuart "easypickings" Rutter : In the well
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Stuart "easypickings" Rutter : In the well  (Read 81558 times)
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: December 31, 2008, 03:59:09 PM »

Right anyway back to the well


Stu

1)Most overrated player you have played with?

2)Most underrated player you have played with?

3)Your fave tournament venue in mainland europe?

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

5)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?

1) Tough question to answer. I'm going to wimp out slightly, but I think that whoever has been on the best run in recent tournaments typically becomes the most overrated player.

2) Easier.  Karl Mahrenlohz never fails to completely own me, I was really impressed with Javed Abrahams, and some kid called Tom Rutter plays a great game. That guy Dubai is a lovely lad; he hasn't had the rub of the green in live tournaments, but he shouldn't less this get him down and be so shy about coming back.
I also feel  that if anyone were to rate Neil Channing as anything other than clearly best tournament player in England is probably underrating the man.

3) I really like the GUKPTS in England, the events are more fun than any other. Tallinn in Estonia is the most fun I've ever had at a poker tournament, well worth a visit.

The Aviation in Paris is clearly the worst. Sitting in a pokey, smoke-filled casino trying not to tilt that the staff are the rudest people you have ever met and that you are in France, whilst you wait for someone to say "tapis" and end your pain, is a fate I would wish on nobody.

In my opinion, San Remo is a massively overrated town as an EPT location, Prague and Dortmund are the best.

4) To be honest, I worry that in the future we'll look back at the situation over the last couple of years, and realise how good we had it. It was only inevitable that, after the poker boom, there would be enough people willing to apply themselves to the game to make things change dramatically. I would strongly advise anyone thinking of making poker into a job to either not to, or have a very clear back-up plan.

One effect that we could see if the standard continues to increase like it has is that live poker, with its added extra expenses, is no longer viable as a good profit making exercise. Am I alone in thinking that the standard in the GUKPT increased quite alot this year?

I also feel that sponsorship may continue down the road it is taking, and sponsors will realise that they are better to hope that a sports star or averagely pretty girl becomes a half-decent player than they are to take on the most talented players.

5) Completely the wrong end of the stick mate. As we went into town, I was just taking in the rules of the game that the front seat passenger has to pay the taxi fare when I was foiled by a surprising change of pace from Colchester Kev, and found myself well behind the three of you. After the embarassment not only of going to a gay bar but failing to get in (Kev was worried that by wearing his Blondepoker "Colchester Kev" t-shirt people might know who he was and where he came from), I was pumped for the way back.

I got off to a good start, but with the pressure Colchester breathing down my neck, I rembered only that the game had something to do with taxis and a front seat, and found myself jumping athletically into the front seat. In the space of half an hour, I had spent £13.60 to try and fail to get into a gay bar. gg nh
« Last Edit: December 31, 2008, 05:30:10 PM by easypickings » Logged
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2008, 04:18:35 PM »

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?

Hey Mantis, good to put a name to a face! How are things going mate?

I think this situation was very different because it was a self deal game. Whoever volunteers to pull the short straw of haivng to deal whilst playing and then having all the people who refused to deal correct his every move, deserves the benefit of any doubt. Your cards were barely in the muck, and it was only right that we got them back.

So, what if it wasn't a self-deal game, and someone had thrown their cards towards the muck, thinking the other player had passed?

(It's a side point, but I feel the one problem with dealers in this country it that they are a little scared to take the initiative in a situation like this. It's by far the most difficult part of the job, but they need to be trained to either state their ruling and be final about it, or call the floor without looking completely petrified, and clearly state what has happened without allowing the players butting in.)

I think if there is any confusion, it falls to the potential fluky benefactor to decide whether to play fair, if it is obvious what has happened. I guess there is no obligation at all for them to be generous, but I think alot of players would much rather try to win with their skill than their opponent's own goal.

There is only one exception to this that bothers me, so let me fire the question back at you. The situation is something like this. You make a good call with      on a board of    Two Diamonds. The other player looks frustrated, flahses  , and pushes his cards face down over the line. He has not realised, and neither has anyone else, that it should be a split pot. Do you play fair and say, or do you take the view that one of the skills of the game (though fairly simple) is reading your hand correctly, and accept the benefit from your opponent's mistake?
Logged
MANTIS01
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6730


What kind of fuckery is this?


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: December 31, 2008, 04:55:56 PM »

In that example I am happy to take the pot because matey hasn't tabled a hand. If he did table a hand thinking I won and the dealer pushed me the pot I would push it back and explain the error. If you want the pot or any part of it you gotta show the hand down. Flashing your cards and not tabling a hand gives you no claim to the pot imo.

More importantly, the fact you know about the Aces hand from years ago means your bro told you about it and it stuck in your mind. This means it was a big deal and he was upset. I feel worse now. Could you ask him if he knows anything about the four flat tyres on my car that night? Smiley

Anyway, on to my serious question. How did you get into poker journalism? Is it financially rewarding or just creatively satisfying? Are there many opportunities in this field, and do you see it as something you will be pursuiting long term? Enjoyed the thread thus far with really comprehensive answers. And would ask other Blondes to appreciate my posts are not all that long really.
Logged

Tikay - "He has a proven track record in business, he is articulate, intelligent, & presents his cases well"

Claw75 - "Mantis is not only a blonde legend he's also very easy on the eye"

Outragous76 - "a really nice certainly intelligent guy"

taximan007 & Girgy85 & Celtic & Laxie - <3 Mantis
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: December 31, 2008, 04:59:55 PM »

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 Cheesy

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*

Never mind doing the well, you do a great job of asking the most awkward questions!

Maybe I am when I get going, but the important thing is to know to get yourself away if your game starts to drop for whatever reason, and I've always been OK at that one. I think I've always preferred the style of maybe not plaiyng for a week or two, and then pulling a big session.

My top three weaknesses-

- I get quite emotional about live poker, and there is a danger this makes me too results orientated. Before my crap run came to an end, I lost a bit of confidence, if only in my luck. I started to second guess bluffs, imaganing the ways it could go wrong far more than the ways it could go right. After a few cold decks against me, I started to find every board a terryfying thing, which maybe has led me to misisng value in some spots. (One of my big mistakes in the Grand Final came after I hit gin with my   on the   turn against Erik Svanes. I checked the turn  behind with a safe hand to trap, but only flat called his 25k bet on a   river with 35k behind. He looked a little bemused, and showed an ace)

- A drop in confidence exaggerated a problem that I probably have anyway, which is that I am too unwilling to take a gamble for my stack. I am pretty averse to 50-50% situations, even if it is becoming the inevitable only option. (A mistake that still haunts me from the Grand Final is a gamble I failed to take. I had raised to 6k with   , and Pab had 3-bet to 18k from the small blind. I would have 60k behind if I flat-called. The gamble in this spot is of course to not move all-in, and everything about this situation indicated that this line would be right. I would have position, 60k is the perfect stack size to get into a 38k pot, and Pab would know that I do not have the balls to 4-bet all-in with nothing. I second guessed myself, however, and took the simple option of moving all-in. Pab had a lengthy dwell, but made a goos pass.

- When it comes to internet poker, I've always been useless about the extra bits. I've never used much game selection, as that would mean waiting to play, and waiting has always seemed silly. I didn't get PokerTracker until about 3 months ago. It is a useful tool, but it's a shame that it makes the game more about collecting numbers and less about using your instinct.  I think any site that was able to completely ban this software would breathe new life into the game.
Logged
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: December 31, 2008, 05:28:07 PM »

In that example I am happy to take the pot because matey hasn't tabled a hand. If he did table a hand thinking I won and the dealer pushed me the pot I would push it back and explain the error. If you want the pot or any part of it you gotta show the hand down. Flashing your cards and not tabling a hand gives you no claim to the pot imo.

More importantly, the fact you know about the Aces hand from years ago means your bro told you about it and it stuck in your mind. This means it was a big deal and he was upset. I feel worse now. Could you ask him if he knows anything about the four flat tyres on my car that night? Smiley

Anyway, on to my serious question. How did you get into poker journalism? Is it financially rewarding or just creatively satisfying? Are there many opportunities in this field, and do you see it as something you will be pursuiting long term? Enjoyed the thread thus far with really comprehensive answers. And would ask other Blondes to appreciate my posts are not all that long really.

No no, I only remember as I was on the same table. An older brother's for nothing if not to be proud, and so I remember how he played fair without even thinking about it.

It's funny; I stumbled into it really, but I'm glad that I did. Just over a year ago, I had a conundrum. I loved poker and wanted to keep on playing, but definitely didn't want to rely on it to make a living. I decided to take my chance, and sent off emails to every site or magazine I could think of asking if there were any opportunities avaliable to write. 95% didn't reply, but I then pursued the ones that did. I got really lucky with timing along the way. Just after I had written to Mel Lofthouse, she was frantically searching for someone to interview Dave Colclough, and asked if I lived at all close to him. She was probably fairly surprised when I answered "yes, two minutes down the road."

I turned up to Dave's feeling slightly terrified, thought things were going OK as I scribbled down the answers, but then realised when I got home that I couldn't read a thing I had written. It worked out somehow though; I started to take on other things with PokerNews, and was lucky to find that my wishes fitted exactly with those of 32Red, for someone to promote their site based around writing a blog for it. After a while, I had even made enough money to buy a dictaphone.

So yes, I think there are very good opportunities to get into it, especially if you are willing to take on whatever you are given at first. The bad news is that it's definitely not a particularly financially rewarding job, but it's good fun, fits very well with going to 'live' tournaments, and helps you to think about the game.

- Your posts are always interesting and definitely not too long. Just remember that you will lose the love of some if you haven't asserted the crapness of live poker before the end of the second sentence.
Logged
Bad Beat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1187


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2008, 06:19:15 PM »



   I also feel  that if anyone were to rate Neil Channing as anything other than clearly best tournament player in England is probably underrating the man.



 Always had you down as a good judge. If you've got time for a beer in Galway I'd like to talk to you about something.
Logged
Royal Flush
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22972


Booooccccceeeeeee


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: December 31, 2008, 06:38:04 PM »

If you've got time for a beer in Galway I'd like to talk to you about something.




Come here little boy

Logged

[19:44:40] Oracle: WE'RE ALL GOING ON A SPANISH HOLIDAY! TRIGGS STABLES SHIT!
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: January 01, 2009, 04:12:41 PM »



   I also feel  that if anyone were to rate Neil Channing as anything other than clearly best tournament player in England is probably underrating the man.



 Always had you down as a good judge. If you've got time for a beer in Galway I'd like to talk to you about something.

Sounds good. My favorite times to bust out are either within the first 15 minutes or last 15 mintues of the day. Bear it in mind, I'll see you around.
Logged
lucky_scrote
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3531



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: January 01, 2009, 04:53:49 PM »

Why do you never pick up the phone? At least you got rid of that ringtone where you sang the song:

"This is stu-ey singin at the phone, please leave ya message after the tone!"


Why do you only play mid stakes now? You told me once you used to play pretty high. I've dropped down to 5/10nl for reasons other than money but I want to hear what you say.
Logged

<3 ENSUING
stato_1 said, "banoffee pie i reckon"
stato_1 said, "this is delicious"
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2009, 11:32:48 PM »

Why do you never pick up the phone? At least you got rid of that ringtone where you sang the song:

"This is stu-ey singin at the phone, please leave ya message after the tone!"


Why do you only play mid stakes now? You told me once you used to play pretty high. I've dropped down to 5/10nl for reasons other than money but I want to hear what you say.

How can I answer my phone when I'm down a well? No, I'm back around now, so give me a ring if you can. Are you still off to Bahamas?

Yeah, I'd be interested to know what you think, so I'll go first.

It's maybe a small part because the standard has improved so much, but the main word to sum it up would be "variance:"

- It's always tilted me a little when people mention poker in the same breath as gambling. By multi-tabling at a lower level, it's easier to steadily build a good roll rather than rely that a high-stakes graph has more massive ups than it does big downs. I find it a bit sick when players more talented than me have massive leaks by tilting in the big games or playing the table games. I would be far more interested in a poker that offers a gamble-free way of building a good bankroll rather than a journey between the excitment of winning big bucks and despair of going broke.

- It's really important to me to enjoy my poker and for it to be a positive part of life, and I think that's tough sometimes for even the best players who have to contend with big losing sessions. By playing lower and making sure I get myself away if I'm not playing well, I never really find the game stressful. 

-I save my emotions for live poker; as you know, when I go out of even a £100 side-event I am probably more gutted than a kid whose rabbit just died on Christmas Day. I've become a much more enthusiastic live player, and so using the internet to build a bankroll rather than thrill seek fits well with playing the big buy-in events, epecially when I am on a roll of not cashing!

- I've always felt that the high stakes games bear less resemblence to any other form of poker, particualrly 'live' tournaments. A massive part of doing well at live poker is understanding the tendencies of the weaker players and trying to make sense of their illogical thinking, and so a high-stakes game where you are trying to outwit great brains is not really good practice.

- Maybe it's just that I'm getting boring. I must be getting old, I've even started calling younger players 'kids'. I started off a bankroll from scratch, so when I was younger, almost treated money as nothing more than points and didn't mind some big ups and downs. That's changed now though. Even though I try to earn my living away from poker, there definitely is a big difference in the way you view the game when you start to think about things like a mortgage.
Logged
snoopy1239
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 33034



View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 02, 2009, 01:13:48 AM »

My God. A conversation between Stuart and Mantis is like reading War and Peace.  Grin

My questions:

(1) What makes you such a successful online cash game player?

(2) How have you adapted to the recent importance of three-betting in 6-handed cash games?

(3) Is it okay to open limp in tournaments?

(4) Why was he called a Chief Master?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 01:16:04 AM by snoopy1239 » Logged
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: January 02, 2009, 02:21:18 AM »

My God. A conversation between Stuart and Mantis is like reading War and Peace.  Grin

My questions:

(1) What makes you such a successful online cash game player?

(2) How have you adapted to the recent importance of three-betting in 6-handed cash games?

(3) Is it okay to open limp in tournaments?

(4) Why was he called a Chief Master?

1) Not much. I think I've done one thing from the start, which is probably the best thing every poker player could do. I've realised that I am probably a bit crap; even if I am now less crap than before, I still realise that each time I play, there is much I could have done better, and so much to learn from.

There are two things I have always found fairly easy, that are a massive help. In online play, I am not in the slightest bit results orientated. This means I don't waste any time worrying about luck (If you think about it, alot of poker players waste so much of their time thinking about luck in one form or another.)

I also just never tilt. It should be so easy; if a player thinks about the game at all, they should realise just how crucial it is to not tilt, and this in itself should be determination enough not to.

To sum up, I don't think it's one skill that will determine whether a player will do well, but far more so their attitude towards the game.

2) - Most important adaption by far is making sure your opening raising range is as tight as it should be. If you're raising too many hands, it's just too exploitable by the observant players.

- It's this dimension of the game that made me realise I had to evenutally give in and get Poker Tracker. It's useful only for specific things, but knowing a player's 3-betting percentage becomes pretty crucial.

- The most common mistake people make is try to defend against a player who 3-bets with high frequency by calling alot more of the time. This is typically done with hands like low pairs or suited connectors, and then inevitably followed by a "fit or fold" strategy on the flop. This is definitely not the time you should be trying to trap, as if you do hit the big flop, you have far less chance of stacking a player with a weak, wide range. Instead, the right strategy against a frequent 3-bettor is to add some 4-bet bluffs when the stack sizes and timing is right, and to consider the following....

- The move that has gained most effect with the recent changes in the game is call the 3-bet, and to re-bluff the 3-bettor on a suitable flop. If a player is 3-betting a wide range and c-betting a high frequency, just have a think about what a small part of his range he will feel comfortable contuining with on the flop if you re-raise him.

This situation I have described above is the one most worth working on at the moment in 6-max cash games. However, in a game that changes so much, once you have a good defence, people will find a good defence to the defence. The next major change in the game should logically be that good players start giving far less respect to this move of re-raising the flop after calling the 3-bet, and so you will have to be ready to adapt at any point.

3) I don't know, it's never come up.

Seriously, I think the crucial thing on this one is that open limping should be a crap, exploitable strategy, but that there are alot of situations in poker where people confuse what should be a good strategy with what actually is in practice a good strategy.

Some people give far too much respect to the limp, and let you see the flop and take it away most of the time.

I think there is a decent psychological explanation for this. A good live player should be most worried when you have the kind of range that includes only strong hands and cannot contain the marginal hands. However, most live players are not good, and so the range they get scared off is a subtely different one. It is the percieved range of the open-limper, which is a whole bunch of more marginal hands, but a bigger chance of ACES. It is this word ACES that is the crucial one, because ACES mean elimination, and live players are far too scared of elimination. They have confused minds, at the front of which are the very few occasions where someone did limp with ACES and busted a player who himself sulked off, embarassed that it should have been so obvious. Embarassment is another thing that live players are too eager to avoid, and so they get scared and play far too passively against the open-limper.

I'm not arguing that the open limp is a great move, but I think there are some situations where it can be effective with a marginal hand. Try it on a bad table, as there is one guarantee. If someone has not muttered "oooh" as you limp, then by the time you take it down on the flop, at least one person will have inspired us all by saying something like "it was that guy's flat-call I was scared of."

4) Because he rode at the front of the K.E. bandwaggon, and brandished his whip at anyone who ever open-limped.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 02:24:07 AM by easypickings » Logged
AlexMartin
spewtards r us
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8045


rat+rabbiting society of herts- future champ


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 03, 2009, 01:52:19 PM »

You play the live uk circuit a lot stu. Do you ever consciously make the effort to balance your ranges?
Logged
George2Loose
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15214



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: January 03, 2009, 02:30:13 PM »

Hi Stu,

Played poker with Tom a few times but never yourself. We were playing cash at DTD and he was telling me how infuriated you were when the dealer miscounted your chips when you three bet Pab with AA. How much of a turning point do you think this was in the tourney? Following on from that do you believe in:

Hidden luck (as above if the dealer had counted it correctly maybe Pab would have had to call and we'd be crowning a different champ?) I think Harrington briefly mentions it in HOH

What annoys you about the live game as opposed to online and vice versa? Do you ever tilt when you have a particularly slow player?

Logged

Ole Ole Ole Ole!
easypickings
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3589



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: January 03, 2009, 07:02:54 PM »

You play the live uk circuit a lot stu. Do you ever consciously make the effort to balance your ranges?

I looked at this question for ages trying to work out what the pun was, but then realised it was serious! A great question it is too.

The short answer is no. The idea of balancing a range is to sacrifice a bit of equity in a one-situation, in order to avoid making your play exploitable in the long run. The kind of spots we would be talking about with regards to live poker are:

1) If we like to 3-bet with a range that is either very strong hands or junk (i.e. we decide not to give ourself the problem of re-raising the hands like AQ or 88), should we worry enough that people will pick up on this to cause us to merge this range?

2)If a big value bet on the river is far too likely to be at either end of the spectrum (i.e. nuts or air) should we worry that a) on very dry boards, we are not representing a wide enough range to be believed and b) on scary boards, we are indicating that we do not have the middle part of the range, and allowing good with strong hands opponents to make a good pass?

3) Are we opening ourselves to possible explotation by using pot control with the middle part of our range, thus cutting it out as a possiblity when continuation betting? For example, if we are continuing on a board of K22 with little other than a king or nothing, this is very exploitable to a check-raise by our opponent.

I think you have to worry far less about these type of spots in live poker. The number of times they will come up against a particular player is just so much less than it is with someone you play with even semi-regualrly online (and indeed, someone who has software to help them!)

If you are going to sacrifice a little equity in some spots to achieve a balanced range, you are assuming that your opponent is pretty observant, and this is just not true of a lot of live players. If we consider no 3), there are not too many players who will play back at you on the reasoning that this is a dry flop, and your range to be able to call a re-raise is very tight. If there are players who may have the nous to do this, you will probably be able to pick them out anyway, and this brings us onto the next point....

There is one crucial thing that I am sure you do that actually naturally balances your perceived range. Quite simply, you play differently against different players. Becuase of the greater range in talent,  there will be a far wider range in how you play than an online game where most opponents are solid players. This will mean that your ranges are merged quite well by treating spots differently according to the player.

If wethink about the value betting/bluffing examples in number 2), let's look at the "nuts" or "air" scenarios on a board like  Two Diamonds. Let's generalise completlely, and say that our read on our opponent is that they have something very weak in this spot, like two pair. I would be bluffing big against a bad player (I think they base their action mainly on their hand strength, and are more likely to fold under higher pressure), and bluffing small against a thinking player ( I represent a much wider range for them to worry about). The converse when I have the nuts is that I am value betting big against the thinking player and small against the weaker player. Already, the range in this spot is merged enough that it becomes more difficult for someone to see through it.
 
Of course some players are cunning enough to read not just into your range agaisnt the field, but specifically your range against them. However, with the limited amount of hands in live poker, I feel that there is a factor far more important than percieved ranges, and that is your history against that player. Therefore, if you are looking at  and wondering how strongly to play them against your opponent, it will not be influenced so much by how balanced your opponent considers your range to be, but whether rather against him you only have ever shown aces and kings, or did it last time and showed him  .



Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 13 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.394 seconds with 22 queries.