Bart Hanson (pictured right) is an accomplished cash-game player and poker commentator who has lent his voice to such projects as Cash Plays,Live at the Bike, and Deuce Plays.

Recently, Hanson took a break from the side-games to focus on the L.A. Poker Classic main event wherein he went deep and finished in the money. Early on day 4, Hanson lost the minimum with pocket kings and correctly determined that he was beat in a big pot with Jamie Brown andEugene Katchalov.

Ironically, if Hanson hadn't made such a great read, he would have tripled up and been a strong force near the top of the leader board. In this interview, Hanson breaks down the hand and gives the reasoning behind his decisions.

Event	L.A. Poker Classic	Blinds	1,500-3,000 with a 500 ante
Players	Bart Hanson	Eugene Katchalov	Jamie Brown
Hands	K-K	Q-8	8-8
Chip Counts	150,000	235,000	191,500

The Hand

Bart Hanson raised to 7,000 from early position and was called by Jamie Brown in the cutoff. Eugene Katchalov called in the big blind, and the flop came down Q-8-4.

Katchalov decided to lead for 11,500, and Hanson called. Brown then raised to 28,000, and after some time in the tank, Katchalov reraised to 65,000.

Hanson folded, and Brown called. The turn was a 7, and Katchalov and Brown both got the rest of their stacks all in. Katchalov showed Q-8 for top two pair, but he was drawing slim to Brown's set of eights.

The river was a king, and Brown more than doubled up to over 400,000. Katchalov was crippled down to just over 40,000. Hanson, who folded kings and would've won the hand had he stayed in, was left with 131,000.

The Interview

Julio Rodriguez: Getting away from kings on that flop isn't easy. Can you talk about your thought process throughout the hand?

Bart Hanson: The board came out really dry — Q-8-4 complete rainbow — and Eugene led out at the pot. This tournament has such a great structure, and we were pretty deep, so I just think that's a spot where if I raise, he's going to be folding out a lot of hands, like Q-J, that I want to stick around. If I just call, I'll be winning more money the times that I'm ahead, and it also allows me to see what Jamie is going to do behind me.

JR: Jamie decided to raise behind you and then Eugene thought it over for a while before it got back to you.

BH: Yeah, it was a really small raise, and Eugene went into the tank for a bit. While he was doing that, I was thinking to myself that I wasn't sure what I was going to do if Eugene folded. On one hand, it's a great spot for Jamie just to make a play at this pot, simply because I decided to flat-call. So if he doesn't have much of a hand, I'm not going to get much more from him whether I raise now or on a later street. On the other hand, he could actually have a hand that has me drawing pretty slim.

Luckily for me, Eugene made things easy by three-betting to 65,000. I mean, I guess my hand might be good a very small percentage of the time, but I just don't think Eugene's getting out of line with a hand like A-Q or anything like that. Not to mention that he's a good player who will often lead with his big hands, so I just decided to fold.

JR: At that point, were you pretty sure of what your opponents were holding?

BH: I knew Eugene had me beat with a big hand, but I didn't know what to think of Jamie's hand until he flat-called. At that point, I knew the money was going to get in on the turn, which it did. It turns out both had me beat with two pair and a set, but I would have gotten lucky on the river when the king fell.

If I had made a bad read or a quick decision, I most likely would've tripled up. Instead, I'll just have to settle for the fact that I made a good decision at the time.

Try this strategy out in The PIT Poker League every Saturday for BIG CASH.  It is FREE!!  CLICK HERE

A direct descendant of Pancho Villa, amateur poker player and avid romance novel author Hansen Perkins, has quickly rose through the ranks of The PIT poker league as a ‘Rising Star‘.  A member of the Canary Cove poker team, Hansen has proven to be one of the most valuable member of the Yellow Bird clan.  Hansen strives to carry on his great uncle Pancho Villa’s legacy with him to each PIT Poker League Freeroll.  When not rowing on the open seas, Hansen can be found playing poker at Legends Burger House.  Though he has not quite cashed in any poker event ever, he is the first person to put forward the “deal train” and ask for a deal at any final table.  Whoot! Whoot!!

Hansen is looking to solidy his position on the PIT Poker League “Tournament of Champions” this Saturday.  He is currently ranked 9th, so he is on the bubble.  

Click Here to play with Hansen (WeaselPupp) and take down a “Rising Star” on the PIT Poker League!

Favorite Movie: Step It Up!!

Favorite Pastime: Karate and Carrie Underwood Handicapping

Favorite Sports Teams: Belize Parlay Club

Notable Poker Cashes:  TBA

Email: blogspot

Many online poker players watched with great interest when the House Financial Services committee held a hearing on March. 3 to discuss the merits and obstacles of a federally regulated online poker system. But when the hearing concluded without a vote, many people wondered, "What's next?"

The most likely answer has always been a congressional mark-up, where the bill is read aloud and members of the corresponding committee can voice their concerns and edits. But it has been unclear as exactly to when that mark-up would occur.

But it appears that date could be on the horizon. Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas told Card Player that a mark-up on Frank's poker bill could happen as soon as this month "if the stars align," and that he was "optimistic" that a mark-up would happen by the spring.

In an exhaustive interview, Pappas discusses what the PPA has been doing in recent months in preparation for a committee vote, the importance of getting Harry Reid's support for online poker, and a host of other issues. Part 2 of the interview will be posted on Saturday.

Stephen A. Murphy: What has happened since that March. 3 hearing in regards to Barney Frank's bill?

John Pappas: There's been a lot of work behind the scenes with the PPA and others to kind of solidify support in the committee for the proposal. We're also seeking compromises where necessary; maybe we'll earn some more votes from committee members who maybe oppose the bill in its current form, but would support it with some changes to it. Those often center around enforcement, like you see in the Menendez bill, some additional measures to protect minors from accessing web sites, things along those lines.

We've been in a number of discussions and I think Mr. Frank has a few more issues that he's working out himself, and we hope he will stick to his deal to mark this bill up sometime in the spring.

SM: How important is the house financial services committee vote?

JP: Well, it's a huge committee, with over 70 people on it. I think the vote in the committee is kind of the bellwether. Based on that vote in the committee, if it's overwhelmingly in favor of the bill or if it's a narrowly passed bill, it'll kind of chart our course. We all must be aware that the Senate could act independently on this as well. We'd certainly work with Senate offices if they choose to do so.

SM: Could there be a second hearing in the committee without a markup?

JP: I don't think you'll see a second hearing unless Chairman Frank wants to do a hearing on the UIGEA regulations, which are set to come out on June 1. I think the next step would be a mark-up; I think it's just a matter of when Chairman Frank will be able to schedule that. We still remain optimistic that it will still be sometime this spring; it could be as early as the end of this month if the stars align, but I don't know if Mr. Frank is there yet.

SM: How many co-sponsors does Barney Frank's bill have now, and how has that changed in recent months?

JP: I think it has 66 or 67 co-sponsors now. There may be a few names of people who have announced their intention to co-sponsor, but haven't been added to the official list yet. I think it's probably gone up four or five co-sponsors since the March hearing, not significantly. But the hearing was obviously limited to those members of the committee.

SM: The PPA has been very active in talking to many state legislatures about regulation recently. Tell me some of the specific things you've done in D.C. and at the federal level since March?

JP: It's really been on the ground. CPAC was obviously a big success. It helped educate other audiences. We're doing outreach like that regularly. But for the most part, we've focused on specific members of the committee, talking with them to see how we can get them in the position to support the chairman's bill.

SM: Besides Barney Frank (D-MA), who are the major advocates for poker on Capitol Hill?

JP: Obviously, Senator Menendez (D-NJ). A lot of supporters of Chairman Frank's bill have been strong supporters from the get-go, people like Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Ed Perlmutter (D-CO). If you want to identify a champion, Barney Frank is the champion because he is the author of the bill and chairman of the committee of jurisdiction. I don't think anyone is going to try to take the mantle from him, nor would it be appropriate from them to do so. Congressman McDermott (D-WA) is another; he's the sponsor of the tax bill. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), as well as other members of the Nevada delegation, has been very supportive.

We continue to work with Senator Reid (D-NV) to educate him on it, and I think his position is evolving in terms of internet poker.

SM: Talk about the importance of getting Harry Reid's support. He sent a letter supporting a delay for the UIGEA, but he hasn't come out with an official position on online poker regulation, correct?

JP: He has not. I can't underscore how important his position is on all of this because I would suspect that the White House looks to Senator Reid for a number of issues, but most significantly for gaming issues. He is the majority leader, and he represents the largest gaming state in the country. I think a lot of people will view his opinion as kind of gospel when it comes to this, so we're hopeful that he comes — and I think he is — that he comes to the right conclusions about internet poker and the need for a federal license.

SM: There's obviously a ton of poker players who live in Nevada, and Senator Reid is facing what is expected to be a tough reelection campaign this March. What do you say to poker players who are hesitant to vote for him because he hasn't come out strongly in support of online poker regulation?

JP: Well, there's a lot of time between now and March. 2. We hope that there is a definitive measure of support from the senator by that time, and I think that he did send the letter to the regulators, supporting the delay, is something that poker players can feel very good about. To be quite honest, I think that letter had a lot to do with the support of the petition. I think he has shown the poker community that he's interested and that he's open to the idea. We just need to get him all the way there.

And from the PPA's perspective, we need to continue to remind our members that they should weigh in with Senator Reid. He's going to be at home a lot over the next several months, campaigning. They need to seek him out and ask him about this issue along with all the other national priorities our country is dealing with, like healthcare, jobs, and the economy.

SM: Senator Menendez's bill still doesn't have any co-sponsors. Has that bill sort of fallen to the backburner a bit as you guys concentrate on Barney Frank's bill?

JP: No, it hasn't fallen on our backburner at all. We remain committed to trying to advance that bill, but the Senate works a little differently than the House. The House works on the system of getting a bill introduced, getting co-sponsors, having a hearing, having a mark-up, having a vote. The Senate works under its own special procedures. Respecting that and understanding that, we're going through the appropriate steps to make sure that when the time is right, Mr. Menendez's bill will be available.

As I mentioned before, one of the important things that we need to do is make sure we have folks like Harry Reid on board before you start pushing something in his chamber. He is the majority leader, and he can very much stop something, and we don't want to push him into a position where he is stopping something. We'd rather first work to get him on board.

We have a very different position on the House side where the chairman of the committee is actually the author of the bill. We have a lot more flexibility to demonstrate momentum on that bill than we do on the Senate side.

Part 2 of the interview will be published on Saturday, March 13. In it, Pappas will discuss the new (and approaching) UIGEA deadline and the possibility of state legislatures leapfrogging the federal movement to regulate online poker.

Are satellites a profitable way of entering online poker tournaments? For some players yes, for others no. Let’s look into this a bit closer.

Satelliting into big tournaments is incredibly popular among online poker players. Ever since Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP Main Event after qualifying in a $30 satellite, online satellites constitute a big part of the poker economy.

Of course it’s appealing to enter an expensive tournament by paying a smaller amount of money and play it out for the seats. But is satelliting a profitable strategy? Let’s take it down in pieces and see what we find.

Play Satellite??

Bad Player= Bad Idea

Average= No Use

Good Player= Good Value

 

Notation

We’ll use the following notation:

B = buy-in to the target tournament

s = satellite buy-in

a = your ability, see below

n = number of satellites played

Some prerequisites

In a poker tournament, we’ll assume that the average player’s probability of winning equals his share of the total buy-in. For example, in a ten player sit-and-go, the average player has 10% of winning.

Likewise, in a satellite, the average player has the following probability of winning a seat:

P = 1 / (Number of players per seat)

This is the same as:

P = s/B

where, I repeat, s is the satellite buy-in and B the buy-in to the target tournament.

For if you pay $10 to play a satellite to a $100 tournament, it doesn’t matter if there are 10 or 200 players. In the first case there’s one seat to win, in the second there are 20. If you’re average, your chances are 1/10 in both cases.

If you’re above average you will win more often, maybe 20 percent as often or twice as often as the average player. We will express your ability as that factor, and write the probability of winning a seat depending on your ability as:

P = as/B

For example, a = 2 if you win a seat twice as often as the average player, and a = 1.3 if you win 30% more often.

There are some very specific limits for this value, but we’ll not go into those details here. Also , this factor varies from tournament to tournament. We’ll use a fixed value for our calculations, but you should keep in mind that in reality, ‘a’ depends on the specific conditions in every tournament.

Expected cost of qualifying

With your probability of winning a seat in an individual satellite being P = as/B, the expected number of satellites you need to play before qualifying is:

EV(n) = B/(as)

Since the cost for each satellite is s, your expected cost of qualifying is:

EV(cost) = B/a

This gives us a few interesting results right away.

Average players = no gain

For average players, satelliting has no value, it turns out. When a = 1, the expected cost of qualifying equals B, the direct buy-in.

So instead of wasting time in satellites, go ahead and buy a seat. You’ll be saving time and also some additional fees connected to playing in the satellites (more on this below).

Bad players = bad idea

For bad players, with below average ability, satellites are a losing proposition.

When a < 1, the expected cost of qualifying to the target tournament is greater than buying in directly. It’s cheaper for you to buy a seat.

You’ll probably be an underdog in the target tournament as well, but by playing satellites you’re just exploring a new way of losing money.

In this context it’s worth repeating that your ability is expressed as a comparison to the opponents in the specific tournament, so if you play cheaper satellites, your ‘a’ is likely to go up.

In this way, if you’re a long-term loser in $40 satellites, you may still be a winner in $3 satellites, assuming that the opposition is softer in the cheaper satellites.

Good players = good value

If you’re above average, however, satellites become interesting. The better you are, the more you gain from playing satellites.

For example, if you expect to win a seat twice as often as the average player, the expected cost for qualifying equals half the buy-in to the target tournament.

For the WSOP Main Event this amounts to $5,000, not a bad deal in any way.

If you’re 30% better than average, a = 1.3 and you can expect to save 23% of the target tournament buy-in. And so on.

Involving tournament fees

In reality, satellites come with a fee, typically a certain percentage of the satellite buy in. This increases the expected cost of qualifying.

With tournament fees ‘q’ expressed as a part of the buy-in, the expected cost of qualifying becomes:

EV(cost) = (1+q)*B/a

For satelliting to be profitable, we get the following requirement on your ability:

a > 1 + q

So if the tournament fee for satellites is 1/5 of the satellite buy-in, q = 1/5 and your ability ‘a’ must be at least 1.2, that is, 20% better than average.

Taking a shot

Then again, playing a few satellites to a big event may still be motivated, even if the expected value is zero or negative. After all, it gives you a chance to a fantastic adventure.

Maybe you’re ready to pay something for that.

If you’ve decided to play the target tournament anyway

However, if you’re going to play the tournament anyway, things get more complicated, and satelliting naturally becomes less attractive. We’ll attack this topic in Part II of this installation.

PLAY IN THE PIT POKER LEAGUE EACH WEEK FOR FREE.  $4000 IN CASH!!

Polarizing your range, is it good or bad? In fact, what does it even mean? We checked the facts about polarizing your range in poker.

The poker community seems confused on the topic of “polarized range”. We set out to clear things up for good.

Meaning of polarization

The definition of “polarization” is clear:

Polarizing is when a player acts in such a way that his probable hand range splits up between two options – either really strong or really weak.

For example, a player would be polarizing his range if he raised all his very strong hands plus a few bluffs but called with medium strength hands.

So far there are no controversies among poker players. However, is polarizing your range good or bad? Some say it’s good, some say it’s bad.

Polarization good or bad?

According to our research, it can be both. If you’re a good player you can polarize your range in a way that puts the opponent to a hard decision.

On the other hand, if a bad player unwittingly polarizes his range against you, it’s something that you can exploit.

A few examples

One way of using polarization to your advantage would be to bet big on the river with a hand that can only be the nuts or air. For example, if the board is paired, a pot sized river bet would often indicate a polarized range since no one would bet big in this situation with, say, a straight..

The opponent now “knows” that he can only beat a bluff, so it’s hard to call even with a strong hand like ace-high flush. Balance this and the opponents have a hard time handling your river bets.

A counter example would be if a player always bets out with his strong hands plus some bluffs but always check-calls his middle range. You’ll have a load of information and can often outplay him on the flop or later streets.

Conclusion

Polarizing seems to be like most tactical concepts in poker – it’s not good or bad per se. Instead it all comes down to how you balance it.

USE THIS STRATEGY EACH WEEK ON THE PIT POKER LEAGUE.

 $4000 IN CASH GIVEN OUT FOR FREE!!