My Experience in the 2005 WCOOP: Maybe We Are All Playing Team Poker?

PokerStars recently concluded its World Championship of Online Poker (WCOOP). This was a fantastic two-week-long series of tournaments, generating some massive prize pools. I had the pleasure of playing in three of the events, but through a combination of bad play and bad luck, I fell short of the money in all three. Perhaps you remember my friend Dave Huff from my article ("An Online Pro's Success Story") last month. He played all 15 events and cashed in three of them, while simultaneously earning a fourth-place finish in a $215 buy-in, 2,500-player PartyPoker tournament for a $30,000 payday. Needless to say, his success continues.

However, the coolest part of the WCOOP for me was event No. 5 - the $215 no-limit hold'em event with rebuys - which attracted over 2,100 players. It wasn't cool because of anything I did personally. I barely cracked the top 400 before busting out unceremoniously. Dave made the money, but was short-stacked the entire way, and he too had an unsatisfying ending. No, what made the tournament special was that our friend Jack M, one of Northern California's strongest players, navigated his way through the field and ending up winning the entire thing.

I had actually logged off of PokerStars after Dave's elimination, and he and I were just sitting around, having a drink and shooting the breeze. Then I got a call from Jack at about 10 p.m. In his quiet, unassuming manner, he said, "Matt, I'm doing pretty well in the PokerStars tournament. You might want to take a look at it."

So from about 10 p.m. until the tournament's conclusion at 3:45 a.m., I stayed awake, sweating him. I didn't offer any strategic advice, mainly because a player as good as Jack didn't need any. Instead, I just provided moral support, congratulating him after his big wins and offering sympathy after his occasional losses. I was pretty tired by the time it was done, but watching him play was worth every minute of it. He built his chips steadily, won the one big "coin flip" hand that he needed to win, and basically controlled the entire final table. It was fun watching someone so dominant. I felt honored to know him, and to have had the chance to watch him at work.

Some Tough Opposition

Days later, after reading the write-up of the event, I found out that one of Jack's final-table opponents was Joe Sebok. For those who don't know, Joe is an up-and-coming professional player whose father is poker great Barry Greenstein. According to Joe, Barry was keeping an eye on him during the late stages of the tournament, and offering some advice along the way. Needless to say, Jack was in with some tough company.

It got me thinking, though. How many players at that final table were truly playing on their own? Were any of them really sitting alone at home, with no one offering any support? Or, did they all have their poker buddies watching too? Could it be that the final table of a major online tournament is really nine teams playing against each other, rather than nine individuals? It would not surprise me in the least.

Mind you, when I talk about teams, I am not suggesting anything against the rules. I think many people hear the phrase "team poker" and immediately start thinking "collusion." That is not at all what I am talking about. That would be two people playing in two different seats, working together, which is most definitely illegal. I'm referring to two or more people putting their collective minds together to make a decision on a single online hand. Not only is that legal, I think it's pretty smart.

An Example of Team Poker at Work

Joe Sebok recounted the following hand in his write-up, and I remember it vividly. Early at the final table, Jack picked up K-K and raised under-the-gun. Joe cold-called him from early position. I did not know who Joe was at the time, but I did know that he had played solidly to that point, and I didn't think he'd call without a strong hand. Everyone else folded, so they went to the flop heads up.

It came 10-8-7, and I remember breathing a small sigh of relief that Jack had dodged the dreaded ace. He made a pot-sized bet, and then Joe moved all-in for a significant amount. Right away, I didn't like it. My immediate gut instinct was that Joe had either cold-called preflop with A-A, or else had outflopped Jack's K-K.

I do not remember my exact words to Jack, but they were something along the lines of, "I know you probably have to go with this hand, but I'm not sure I like it." Jack responded with something like, "I cannot lay this down," and he made the call rather quickly. Joe produced J-J, received no help, and found himself near elimination, while Jack doubled up and took a big step towards his eventual title. I was very glad that Jack's instincts were better than mine, and I only wonder if he would have been able to talk me into calling if it had been me holding the K-K, contemplating a laydown.

I bring this hand up because it turns out that Jack and I were not the only ones who saw the hand two different ways. According to Joe, he and Barry did not have the same instinctual reaction either. When Jack bet the flop, Joe put him on A-A or K-K and was leaning towards folding. On the other hand, Barry thought there was some chance that Jack had a high pocket pair, but still felt that Joe had to move in with his J-J. In the end, Joe deferred to Barry and made the all-in move. But, we can only wonder if he would have laid down the jacks had he been playing alone. "Team poker" doesn't always help.

Strength in Numbers

But speaking from experience, it helps a hell of a lot more often than it hurts, and I know that I would never dream of flying solo in a situation like that. If I had made the final table of a WCOOP event, I would have had Jack, Dave, and at least one or two other top players keeping an eye on my table. Then if a tough hand came up, I could solicit everyone's opinion as to the correct play. Maybe I wouldn't initially agree with everyone, but I would definitely consider all of their input before making my final decision.

And then, even if no tough decisions need to be made, it still feels good to have your friends there cheering you on. You get a real sense of camaraderie when everyone is rooting for your opponent to fold when you're bluffing, or call when you're holding the nuts. It's a lot different from a brick-and-mortar (b&m) tournament. When friends are watching you from the stands, they don't know what to root for. They are in the dark just as much as your opponent. Online poker creates a much better environment for sweating your friends at a final table.

Another Online vs. B&M Debate

In b&m poker getting a second opinion on your hand is illegal. Whether you like it or not, you're on your own. Online, not only is it legal to have several people collaborating on the same hand, you'd be a fool not to do it with big money on the line. No one really talks about it much, but that might be one of the biggest differences between online and b&m. When someone wins a big b&m tournament, he obviously gets all the credit.

On the other hand, if I manage to win a big online tournament, I know that I will not have done it alone. I will have succeeded, at least in part, because I had some damn good players on my team.

Matt Lessinger's "Bet With Less" column appears in Card Player magazine. He can be reached at mlessinger@hotmail.com.

---

Sign in to your myCardPlayer account to post comments.

User Name:

Password:

Remember Me

 

Need a myCardPlayer account?

Sign Up

Lost User Name or Password?

Get Help

 

Post a comment

Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene or otherwise objectionable content; have spam, commercial or advertising content or links may be removed and may result in the loss of your MyCardPlayer ID (including e-mail). Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly. Never assume that you are completely anonymous and cannot be identified by your posts.

 

your comment