But not all the conventions offer such troubling mixes. Last year, the 2006 WSOP shared convention space with the Western Roofer's Association. I don't know much about roofing (I'm a life-long city dweller and renter). Still, I very much wanted to sneak my way into a seminar with the title "What Ever Happened to the 3-Tabbed Single?" Now I'll never know.

This year, like last, a portion of the WSOP coincided with IDEX, otherwise known as the Creepy Doll Convention. This is a trade show for people who make disturbingly lifelike baby dolls. On my last day in Vegas, I walked through the hallway with fellow poker writer Dan Michalski. The creepy doll show floor was open, and we couldn't resist.

We went up to the entrance, where a sweet woman in her sixties told us that we really couldn't enter without IDEX badges. Dan noted that we both held press badges, and that had to count for something.

She replied, "Well, there's a doll back there with a twelve-inch penis. You really should see it."

We nodded. Of course we needed to see it. She motioned us to go ahead, and there we entered what will be the fodder for decades of nightmares.

I won't try to describe the dolls. Instead, I'll leave you with Dan's photos, which do a great job of capturing the horror. I will note that the Dirk Diggler of the doll world was fairly small--about a foot high. Only when enlarged to life-size scale would his member be the size she quoted.  (view picture - warning: NSFW)

Keith Lehr, he said. He told me that he was a pot-limit hold 'em specialist who lived in Shreveport and played the biggest games in Louisiana and Dallas. He had won a WSOP bracelet in pot-limit hold 'em.

Today, Keith Lehr, known is poker circles as "Lehr Jet" is among the chip leaders in the $5k six-handed event.

I wish I was less drunk that night, as I'd be able to better remember the stories he told us. But I do remember this.

In one hand we played together, the pot had gotten relatively big. I had raised, and the action was back to Keith. He looked at me, then said, "I bet my eye." He then pulled a glass eye out of his head and placed it on the table in front of him. There was a moment of shock, then the table dissolved in hysterics.

He folded and held onto the eye.

But before I give my opinions on the games, you should know where I'm coming from. I'm I winning mid-stakes player. I've played 5-10NLHE for a few years now, and poker is a substantial part of my income. I am not a high-roller and have nothing to say about the 100-200 game. So take this assessment for what it's worth. Your mileage may vary.

Low-Stakes Games
While waiting for seats in the $5-$10 game, I spent some time playing $2-$5, and what I found was some really, really nitty play. A lot of people at the table bought in short ($150 or $200) and were unwilling to put any chips in the pot without a big-ole hand. These are great games to play is you want to practice developing an action image. You can chop and chop all day,occasionally running into a check raise, to which you can easily fold.

The $2-$5 games are the lowest limit games at the Rio, so these are the spots where the non-player will sit and blow a few hundreddiscretionary dollars. If you've got the patience to wait these guys out, you can definitely make some profit.

Mid-Stakes Games
First I want to talk about the $2-$5 PLO game. For a table with a $5 BB, the game is enormous. There's almost always a $10 straddle, and many players sit with well over $1,500. It's not uncommon to see some players sit in with $5k or more. Some of these guys seemed very dangerous. One Irish player sat into my table with a $5kBellagio chip then had a long conversation with Andy Black before starting to play. He was nice enough, but my PLO isn't that strong and I wanted nothing to do with this guy.

I think that higher-limit pros play in the $2-$5 because it's sometimes the only PLO game going. Other times, there's the $2-$5 and the next biggest game is $25-$50 (with a $100 straddle), with players having stacks of 25k or more. That's not for everyone.

There are definitely some soft seats in the 2-5 PLO games, it's just a matter of getting to them before the super deep stacks clean them out. While you wait you're vulnerable to the pressure these deep-stack players can apply.

The $5-$10 NLHE games have been highly, highly variable. The level of skill is usually a huge leap from $2-$5--and the game plays much deeper; $1500 to $2000 is the usual buy-in. At most of the tables I played at, I'd have guessed that a majority of the players were long-term winners. Many have clearly been full-time pros. I played with a couple of young Norwegians who were extraordinarily good. Maybe the best players I've ever played against. I stayed at the table solely for the learning opportunity. And it was a costly lesson--I burned a buy-in in the course of trying to figure out a couple of tough hands.

Overall, though, I've found the games beatable. This class of player isn't going to automatically go broke for 250 BB on an overpair when you flop a set. They can get away from dangerous hand. I've found that most of my profit has come from representing a made hand in a mid-sized pot. If you can can confidently put an opponent on something likeTP/TK or an overpair , you can often take the pot away when the board bets a little nasty. (Note: This technique doesn't work so well against the Norwegians.)

There was also some profit to be had out of the $2-$5 players who are stepping up and taking a shot. The tend to play a little nervous and tight (and don't we all when we step up in stakes), and so are vulnerable to chopping.

In a final assessment I'd say the games were beatable but far from great. There were a lot of winning players in the $5-$10 game--a high percentage of pros. There are definitely easier games to be found. At one point a few nights ago, it was about 1:30 am, and my $5-$10 game was whittled down to 4-handed play after a fish busted. The player to my right took a look at the lineup, and saw, correctly, that we were all of pretty even ability. "This is pointless," he said. We agreed, and the game broke.

In today’s starting event, the $5,000 short-handed no–limit, you’d expect to see some tough tables. With a $900,000 prize expected for first place, you could expect all the pros to be out for this one. And the high buy-in would keep away most of the kitchen table crowd.

Erick Lindgren had Nick Schulman as the button to his big blind. And the Devilfish, who quickly accumulated a big stack, had Howard Lederer, with a stack of almost equal size, immediately to his left.

As I surveyed the room, I came to think that no one in the room regretted her draw more than Jennifer Harman. Harman was in the 1 seat of table 37. Seat 2, Phil Laak. Seat 3, Hoyt Corkins.

Laak seemed to be playing well and he was gathering chips. But what really bothered Harman was the table banter.

In a hand during the 100-200 blind level, it was folded to Harman, who completed from the small blind. Laak checked his option. The flop came Js-Qs-9h, and Harman bet 200. Laak called. The turn was the 4c. Harman bet 700; Laak called. The river brought the Tc and both players checked.

Harman turned over Qd-3d, for top pair. Laak waited a few moments before declaring, “Slow-roll a chop!” He showed Q-2. The pot was split.

Harman turned to Laak and said, “I bet you’re really fun at a bar, but not at a poker table.”

First to the math. I ran a bunch of hands through twodimes, and came to this conclusion: If you can tell the difference between a playable hand and a piece of garbage, chances are you’ve got no more than 60 percent pot equity preflop and no less than 40 percent. Of course, some oddities come up, where you can end up with a hand that’s completely dominated, but that’s a pretty rare case.

So if you’re holding a playable hand, anything from A-K-2-3 to 9-T-J-Q you should be trying to see a flop. As I watched the great players, I saw that they (and their tablemates) often limped. Contrast this to hold ‘em, especially late tournament hold ‘em, where limping is pretty rare. But this makes sense because in hold ‘em a player can possess (or represent) a hand that is 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 favorite against all comers. In PLO-8, the best you represent is a marginal favorite: the equivalent of A-T vs. K-Q.

A good example of a spot when limping then calling a raise was appropriate came up between Brett Jungblut and a player I didn’t recognize. Brett limped UTG, and the player to his left raised pot, thereby committing about 70 percent of his chips. Brett called and the two saw a flop of Ac-Jc-9c. Brett checked, looked at the inevitable all-in bet, then thought before folding, face-up, A-2-3-4 with the two red suits. His opponent showed a set of Aces.

When I plugged the competing hands into twodimes, you can see the reason in Jungblut's play:

Ad-2d-3h-4h vs. Ac-As-Tc-Js is a dead heat, 50/50 pot equity.
Ad-2d-3h-4h vs. Ac As 8c 5s, gives AA a 55-45 pot equity edge.

Even in a total nightmare match up, the situation isn’t all that dire:

Ac As 2c 3s vs. Ah 2d 3h 4d gives Aces a 67-32 equity advantage.

Yesterday, I made a clear tactical mistake. I made a few raises with decent hands in favorable position. Almost every time I found myself in a difficult spot, facing re-raises or looking at flops that had no relation whatsoever to my hand. I lost a lot more chips in these spots than I needed to.

The other major point that I took from both my play and my observations concerned the play of good but vulnerable hands when out of position. For example, yesterday, with blinds of 100 and 200, two players limped; the small blind (a stone) didn’t complete, and three of us saw a flop of Ad-Jd-7c. I held A-J-X-X. I bet out the pot and was called in one spot. The turn was the Qd. I checked, and then folded.

When I talked through the hand with a friend, he asked me what card I would have liked to have seen on the turn. The 9s would have been nice, we decided, but other than that there’s almost no clean card in the deck. Any paint would raise the potential of Broadway; any low card could but me in spot where I was playing for half the pot.

I saw Chau Giang enter a similar situation from the big blind. It was limped in two spots and the small blind completed. On a flop of K-J-2, two spades, Chau bet pot and was called in one spot. The turn was the Qh, and Chau checked, and his opponent bet enough for Chau to make a call for his tournament life. Chau folded and his opponent showed a hand, AA, that he said he could beat.

These are tough spots that are sometimes unavoidable, but I wonder if I (or Chau) could have looked for check raises that sealed the action. I guess what I learned here is that, if at all possible, avoid hitting two pair on a draw heavy board – or something like that.

Any advice for playing these sorts of hands from pokerwire’s readers is welcome. Leave a comment.

These new guys have done some reading. I’d guess that most have schooled themselves in the ways of tight play by taking in Sklansky and Harrington. They know to be wary of A-Q, and to abandon all but the very best hands from early position. They’re not necessarily willing to go broke on top pair.

Often these players are completely indistinguishable form hunks of granite. When cards aren’t coming their way and flops miss their Ace-bigs, they are without any means of accumulating chips. They surrender hand after hand after hand; their stacks rarely climbing above average. They become largely if not entirely reliant on cold decks (KK vs QQ, e.g.,) to stay in the running.

While these players wait for their big pairs and TP/TKs, they become easy prey for the more active/experienced players around them. I’ve heard various pros describe strategies that have worked brilliantly this year. One described a play where he’ll defend his big blind with a call with almost any two cards then bet out one-third of the pot on about any flop. Apparently this scary-weak move forces more folds than one would have thought possible.

Others, like Gavin Smith or Erick Lindgren, will call in position with a ton of hands, subjecting their opponents to a variety of calls, bets and raises. They lose chips on some hands, but more often then not, they chop and fineness their way to substantial net gains.

I’ve seen a lot of the same in the side games. Many buy is short and most seem to have no gamble in them at all. An adventurous player can get a way with murder—stealing small pot after small pot—and occasionally winning a big one when a nailing a flop.

Every player I’ve spoken with has said how much easier it is to play against the new breed. A maniac is by his very nature unpredictable, and they inevitable cause some tough decisions. These new guys create almost no difficulties at all.

So I guess the question is this: How can these weak-tight players expand their abilities? I can offer advice that I once got from Mr. Lindgren.

“Play more pots,” he told me. Drop to a lower limit than you currently play (much lower, if it makes you comfortable), and play all kinds of hands in all kinds of positions. Find ways to make the hands work.

Find a way to win without Aces. It’s not only profitable, it’s also a hell of a lot more fun then sitting on your hands waiting for the deck to smack you in the head.

Just a little while later, Reese raised from early position and was called by the same unknown who was on the button. The flop came down Ah-Jc-3h. Chip bet, and was raised. He called and then check-called the turn and river. Reese’s pocket Queens took the pot against his opponents King-high flush draw.

For the rest of the day, it was hard to get a line on Chip. He didn’t show down many hands. My notes show only one hand where he called a river bet (in Seven Stud) and was shown a better hand.

What I found most notable about Chip’s play was the ease with which he went about his play. There were no drawn-out decisions. He acted quickly and without any display of emotion. As you might expect, he behaved like a seasoned professional.

Contrast this display with demeanor of Tuan Le, who sat at an adjacent table with Eli Elezra, Chad Brown, Cyndy Violette, and others. Tuan, one of the more successful no-limit hold ‘em specialists, is fit, with defined biceps. He wears a scowl most of the time, and in no-limit, he pushes his chips with abandon. There’s no doubt that the intimidating air works for him in most tournaments. People are scared to deal with him without a serious hand.

But today, the scowl-enhanced re-raise in limit hold ‘em seems a little silly, especially when he he’s forced to reveal Ac-5c at showdown. Sure, he managed to get lucky in one hand, hitting a flush on the river. But one can only imagine that Brown, Elezra, and Violette where happy enough to see Tuan giving this kind of action with Ace-rag in Limit Hold ‘em.

Later, Tuan lost his I’ll-fuck-you-up scowl when the game moved to Omaha-Hi/Lo. The poor guy was pretty clearly confused on several decisions and seemed to be passively throwing in chips in the pot without any clear idea of what good could come from his donations. In one massive four-way pot, Tuan was caught in a whipsaw: Brown betting in front of him, Elezra raising behind, and Tuan threw in his chips, looking beleaguered and bewildered. Imagine your high-school bully competing in the Spelling B, and you’ll have a good idea of the expression I’m talking about.

In a hand shortly thereafter, Le played a pot that was capped three-way on the flop then went for two bets on the turn. On the river, when it was between he and Eleza once again, Tuan hemmed and hawed, considering the call. Finally, he folded. It’s hard to believe any reasonable hand could be properly folded at that point, given the size of the pot.

The no-limit specialists won’t last long here. More to come as tables consolidate.

Last year, three of the regular winners of the “Big Game,” the $4,000-$8,000 rotation game at the Bellagio, made the final table—Phil Ivey, Chip Reese, and Doyle Brunson.  This year we can expect the big game to be similarly represented. Ted Forrest, Jennifer Harman, and Barry Greenstein are among those who could go very deep. 

According to Greenstein, those who beat the big game manage a long-term profit of one-quarter of one big bet an hour. And while 2k/hour is an impressive wage, it’s amazing to think that the most one can take out of any game is half a small bind. With that kind of margin, every decision is crucial. Think of it this way: If you miss one river value bet, you’ve cost yourself four hours of profit.

To beat the highest level of competition at the highest stakes, the winning players need to possess a vast array of tools. Frankly, as a hammer-wielding no-limit hold ‘em player myself, I’m not even sure what many of these tools will look like.

But I’ll do my best to figure it out. Over the next few days, I’ll be following Ivey, Harman as others as they progress through the $50k HORSE event. Hopefully, I’ll be able to learn a thing or two and pass on the knowledge.