Online gambling

I'm not as upset to see online gambling be done in the United States as a lot of other people are.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the government over regulating our lives and having the states turn into a true big brother type society. And the ease of a game almost anytime is great. As is the fact that you don't need a lot of money to play, and can in fact play for free some spots.

But if the Absolute Poker scandal from a few years back taught us anything, it's that these sites should be monitored and have some accountability to its players. I do eventually see the US starting online poker again, after all demand is too high for the government to just keep sites, but when they come back they will have policies in place to make sure everything is on the up and up.

But for me the internet also takes away a big element of the game in sitting around a poker table and chatting with your buddies, or complete strangers, not to mention learning how to read players and understand thoughts and strategy. Yes there are internet stars who have made millions just online, but not a lot translate to the real game. Tom Dwan comes to mind. But it is also well known Dwan was playing underage on poker sites as he learned the game and started raising his bankroll. The underage gambling is one of the big concerns of the government, and I completely understand that.
Dwan made the transition because he didn't change his style much but also doesn't change expressions much. Internet players often have a hard time realizing that although their style may be the same in a real game, their body language is different.That all-in bluff you make at a crucial point of an online tournament may go well because that player on his computer doesn't see your small grin, etc.

But back to the point, poker is a game to be experienced, not just played. In a way it's kind of like the Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles deciding to play a football game on an XBOX instead of the field.
To play it at the casino is the way to experience that. The problem of course is that not all casinos have real low limit games or small buy in tournaments you find online, and you don't find a tournament starting every minute. But that's not always a bad thing. That by itself forces gamblers to follow a rule every pro from Doyle Brunson to Dwan reiterate...follow a schedule or plan. "I will play for two hours before taking off 8, etc." and never gamble more than you can afford to lose. Going to a casino pulling out a $100 and losing it makes that seem a lot bigger reality than sitting online and losing it, and pressing rebuy.

Internet poker will be back, and a few people who finally decide to step into a real casino in the meantime, may be better off in the long run when it does.

Showing down wild players

I tend to pay a lot of attention to betting styles in no-limit.
There is a difference between being aggressive and wild.

Aggressive players tend to bet out strong when they have a playable hand, or at least know that their opponent probably doesn't.
Wild players tend to let loose on any two cards.
Knowing the fine line that separates the two can win money.
In this single table tournament that I recently won, one player had a wild betting style.
Up to this hand, I had sat back quietly folding most hands and just winning twice, mainly on uncalled raises. The players I check down here had a history of wild bets, but was also very sporadic. He had raised earlier with 10/3 off, 7/4 off and J/2 off. He had yet to showdown with any pocket pair or ace. And we were at least 30 hands into the tournament at this point.

On the hand, there were eight players left, I was on the button with 1,405 chips, 4th place. The wild man was under the gun (first to act) with 3,358 chips.

I'm dealt 6s, 4c, a hand I normally trash.
Wild man calls ($20 at this point). Seat 2 (1,722 chips, and a little loose) calls. All fold to me, so I call. Small blind posts and big blind checks for a $100 pot so far.

The flop: 5s, 6h, 5c.
That gave me two pairs, a nice situation, and since there was no pre-flop raising I have to assume that unless a blind hit a 5 or 6, I'm good.
Check. Check. Wild man bets 125. Fold to me.
At this point I know if I call I may be committed to play this hand out to the bitter end. But I also know that more than likely I'm ahead. His betting pattern suggests that. More than likely he actually started with two decent cards (K/Q or J, 10 suited maybe). Plus he hasn't seen me show any cards to this point, so he has no info on me.
Two pairs makes a 125 bet into a 225 pot fairly simple. Call. And everyone else folds making us heads up. Had anyone else stayed, it's likely I would have had to consider giving up the hand. Still, I don't want to play this too aggressively yet, just in case I am right about his hand and he hits and also it will keep me with a tight image.

Ace of clubs. Not a great card for me, but again, I don't figure him for an ace, and I'm pretty much confirmed that when he checks. I opt to check too, just to keep a tight image.
Last card is a 4 of diamonds. It hit my other hole card, but is irrelevant since my two pair are 6s and 5s.

He checks again. If he did have the ace before, he would have definitely bet out by now. But I opt to check again just in the small chance he was slow playing something strong to set me up, and more importantly if he wasn't, to be sure I show the two pair to everyone to somewhat confuse them: Am I really tight? If so, why would I play 6,4 off to begin with, and why would I call a raise with it and not bet late?

Wild man shows j,10 off and I show the winning hand for the 350 pot.

If nothing else, if everyone else at the table was paying attention it showed them not to fear Wild Man's betting. If they notice that it can become a real table assault on one player.