terrencechan

When I busted from the tournament, Jacqueline was still in bed sleeping and apparently had no designs on waking up, so I headed down to hang out with people and find stuff to do. I walked around for the poker room and Greg Pappas, who was in charge of the board, informed me that a 50-100 NL game was starting up. I heard through many sources that the big game has been rocking for the whole week, so I withdrew $10k from my Stars account and joined the game. It was pretty quiet for the first couple of hours, but I did manage to double up in large part to a big pot where I called a raise preflop with 55, check-raised the preflop raiser on a 9-5-4 board, bet the 6 turn and bet the J river all-in. (He told me just now that he had 96.) The game did start getting good at various points but was never really phenomenally rocking like the Aruba games I played in. I ended up finishing just up 3k though, as I got myself stuck calling off $7400 on a flopped flush draw and missing.[1]

One of the interesting things about my day for those of you who like to hear about famous personalities is that I played a significant amount of time with Mike Matusow. Now, a lot of people are portrayed in the media in a certain light that does not accurately reflect who they are. Mike Matusow is not one of those people.


Mike Matusow is such an interesting armchair psychological study. And I know that there are actual psychologists who read here so I won't pretend like I know anything about the field. But here is a guy who has been a professional poker playr for a really long time. Much longer than I have, or even most people I know. And yet outside of his ability to play the game, he seems to understand almost nothing about the mentality it takes to be a successful professional poker player.

So that I am not simply accused of just slandering the guy, here are some actual, reproduced verbatim to the best of my ability, things that came out of the mouth of The Mouth, provided with context.

Matusow has just come to the table. After a couple of unveventful orbits he gets into a hand with Alex Brenes. I think either Matusow raised 300 and Alex called from the BB or Alex raised in early position and Matusow called late. Anyway Matusow has position and the flop is KhJsTh. Alex bets out perhaps 500 and Matusow raises to about 1500. Alex re-raises to 4k. Matusow thinks for a short while and sets Alex in for another 4k. Alex immediately calls. Matusow says, "you have ace-queen?" Alex nods and shows it. Matusow says, "I need the board to pair," implying of course that he has a set.

The turn is a Jh. Matusow turns over KJ (just top two, not a set, but full anyway). Alex though, has the Qh and just as I think, "two outs", the 9h falls on the river! Immediately Matusow must jump over to the other table to tell the world that he's had a full house beaten by a straight flush.

Okay, fair enough. That's a pretty spectacular hand. But, of course, Matusow will complain for the next hour about getting 2-outed. Never mind that he was over a 5:1 dog when the money actually went in. Nope, he got "2-outed". Actually, what's funny is that when he re-tells the story, the pot is about $10000 bigger and he actually got one-outed.

This is, to Matusow, another example of how bad he's running. The guy next to him in the #3 seat (I'm in the #2) is playing in the game but quite clearly a fanboy player. He plays the role of sympathetic sidekick and general suck-up, saying stuff like "and you've been running like this for two years? Wow." Matusow responds in the affirmative. He starts going into a long speech about how a lot of people "never run bad" and how some people are "just born luckier than others." "Like Phil Ivey. This guy never runs bad." This segues into a longer diatribe about "these young online players," who "have millions of dollars but because they have never run bad for like, six months at a time, like I have." He talks about the young pros and how they will inevitably go on a horrible run like the run he's on now in side games and how this will destroy them. He attempts to act as, the seasoned voice of experience by relating his early days where he "couldn't lose a pot for like, two years, and I thought I was the greatest poker player in like, life. Other people would tell me stories about how they were running bad and I'd just nod and say, 'yeah geez, that sucks' and then when they were gone I'd snicker about how bad they must be." The basic jist of this discussion (if that's what you can call one person talking and another person nodding a lot) is how the young pros are due for a fall, of course, with bad run whining thrown in for good measure.

What I really don't understand about this is that Matusow actually plays online poker. And since he plays online poker, he knows that these online pros are getting in 200-400 hands an hour, many of them playing 2000+ hands virtually day in and day out. They have experienced more horrid (and blessed) runs in a year than a b&m pro will face in 15 years. But Matusow thrives on being the tortured soul. It is as if to say, "no one can possibly experienced the things I've experienced." My response is, "yes, they have. And worse. And they all handle it better than you do."

Matusow on hand-reading. Shortly after the full house/quads hand, a player makes a standard opening raise and Matusow calls out of the SB. The flop is three small ragged cards. Mike checks, guy bets maybe $800. Matusow thinks for a while and folds, muttering to the #3 seat that (for whatever reason) this guy must have a monster. The bettor, over in seat #10, looks surprised and says, "I have a monster?" and turns over KhJh, two overs and nothing else. Matusow now starts complaining to the #3 seat that this guy must be a complete idiot, "making a move on a guy who just lost a $26000 pot on a 2-outer." Since when does a guy making a standard-sized continuation bet on a ragged board after being the preflop raiser constitute "making a move?"

Matusow on ego in poker: "I have less ego than basically all of the top players in poker." He actually said that. I couldn't possibly make that up.

The #10 seat guy is laughing about it lightheartedly with the #8 and #9 seats, which propels Matusow to talk about "guys who watch TV and think they're so fuckin' smart." This segues into:

Matusow on online versus live poker: "Online poker isn't real poker. It's like a video game. I mean, I know people who are good at online poker, but it doesn't mean they're good at poker. Like these online guys who have million-dollar bankrolls and beat me playing online, they start taunting me and stuff, saying, 'Mike, you're so overrated'. I'm just like, 'come to Bellagio and we'll play whatever you want for any amount of money.' Because, you know, I'll play them and I'll spot every tell." Earth to Matusow: Look around the table. There are oh, probably seven guys actually playing against you at this precise table who make their living playing online poker. They're not exactly trembling with fear.

Matusow on (again) how bad he's running: "We did this thing last night, where we all put up $2000 and played a hand blind to the river. On the turn I've got two pair. This one other guy has a flush draw and another guy has a gutterball 3 for a straight. That's it. [pause for effect.] I lose." (A normal person might translate this as: "I got my money in a zero ev situation as a 9:1 dog to win $20000. Some cards got dealt and I suddenly became a 3:1 favourite. But I lost instead.")

Matusow later gets in another hand with Alex. Alex raises to $400 preflop, Mike calls, maybe one other call. Flop TT8. Alex bets $800, Mike calls, heads-up to the turn. Turn T. Alex checks, Mike checks. River J. Alex bets $2500. Mike thinks for a long time and calls. Alex shows QQ. Mike disgustedly shows KJ and comments to the #3 seat, "look at this. Only two outs that can cost me another quarter ($2500) and it comes." He continues along this stream for a while, "jesus. Two-outer for $2500. That's how bad I'm running. Two-outer for $2500." No one ever points out that in fact, there are four jacks in a deck, and four minus one is actually three, not two. That aside, on what planet do you count "outs" that don't actually get you there but cost you more money? If you draw dead, get there and pay off, do you really have licence to complain about running bad? I mean, call me old-fashioned, but don't you have to actually be winning at some point in the hand to tell a bad beat story? In fairness, he did beat himself up over the call. He said, "But I knew I was beat. What a terrible call I made there." Honestly I think it was a correct call. But whatever. Leave it to a guy like this to focus on totally the wrong thing, which is the decision to call a bet with overcards on a paired board.

There's more, but I've rambled long enough. But I mean, I just don't get this guy. One of the topics that pro gamblers have in common and can discuss is how one, through time and experience, learns to dull the numbness of variance. Matusow, despite being a pro for longer than I and most of my friends has been playing poker, lets variance affect him to a degree that completely controls not just his emotions, but his entire philosophy of life. His very existence as a poker pro seems to fly in the face of what you think of when you think of the attributes of a successful poker player: calm, collected, numb(er than most) to variance, able to handle adversity, able to continue playing an A-game in the face of bad beats, rationally and objectively analyzing hands in the post-mortem, keeping your ego in check... the guy is like the living embodiment of the antithesis of all the feel-good fluff articles you read about playing winning poker.


***


[1] Preflop raise to $400 by twin_caracas, I call with AdQd and three others call. Flop T-3-3 with two diamonds. Checked to twin who bets $1400, I raise to $3400, one of the Venezuelan players from the Aruba trip goes all-in for $7400, twin calls, I think for a long time and call. Turn J, twin bets $6000, I fold, he shows TT and both me and the other guy who held Kd7d were drawing dead. River is a diamond for show.