Why do they play so loose on High Stakes Poker?

Anyone watch this show? Blinds are $300/$600 with a $100 ante and minimum buyin is $100,000. So each player has at least 150 big blinds unless they lose a good chunk of their stack. And all of these players are pretty well known successful players, but it's insane how loose they play preflop. One hand I saw a player raised preflop (a big raise since there were antes and maybe a straddle) with 56 suited, got called by a 6 3 suited, a 5 4 offsuit, and a few more weak hands. So why is this?

Basically, 1-they got the money 2- they know each other very well and most likely play position 3- trying to get lucky ? lol

'cause the producers want it that way. They're not trying to teach viewers to play poker in normal games, they want action.

With the ante (unusual for a cash game to begin with) so big relative to the blinds, the pot odds are huge. And I think in the 4th season they remove the ante and add a 3rd blind plus a straddle option, which (I may be wrong here) gives the UTG player the option to post another blind before anyone receives cards. All designed to get more action for the viewers.

1. antes/straddles
2. TMM syndrome (too much money)
3. deep stacks = big implied odds
4. sammy farha
5. jamie gold
6. eli elezra

how do add quotes at the bottom of posts? That always are there I mean.

put it in your signature at the bottom and i thought those calls were reasonable.

Those guys don't play there cards as much as they play each other. TMMS is a sure thing as well. Phil H. should never play in that game ever again!

I am sure that they all are getting a very signifcant ammount of money for the television appearance. So that probably means that they are using that money to gamble with. If they lose it, so what it was free. If they win, well then they are getting a very very significant ammount of money for being on TV. =p

I think High Stakes Poker is the best poker program on TV. They may play some garbage hands, but they know how to play them well at times. You don't need to have a big hand to act like you have a big hand. It's a lot more entertaining for the viewers this way too.

An important thing to recognize is that they are not playing bad poker. They all don't play poker, but these are not bad plays. First off the antes are a big reason and second of all the deep stacks. The new Harrington on Cash games series explains this very well. As stacks get deeper the gap between the big and small hand narrows. Think about it, AA is not going to stack with those deep stacks unimproved (without a good read). So when AA as well as 44 have to set to be worth money the gap between them narrows, as the only time their value changes is if there's a set over set.

The small hands are NOT "hoping to get lucky". Well in a sense they are, but it's all about implied odds. In a big-stacked game like that stacking an opponent is huge. And then practically the opposite concept does this as well. Because players are less willing to stack with a big hand it's easier to bluff an opponent off of a hand. Think about it. Low-stakes cash game where the opponent is 60 big blinds deep. I don't care what flops, he's stacking that flop. Now in a high stakes game, say the board pairs, AA would be foolish to stack there. So for that reason bluffs become more able to take pots down. When it's a small hand vs. a big hand the small hand has one advantage in that it knows if it's good or not. If 53 misses the flop, there's no way it's any good. AA doesn't flop a set? You could be up against a set and 2-pair or you could be up against bluffs. The average online player won't be able to lay down the low end of a straight, while a high stakes pro 167 BBs deep would. That's more reason to play those hands, because you can get out of the inherently messy spots these create sometimes, and because even if you don't hit, you are able to bluff others out of the pot if they don't hit a big hand.

And then there is the fact that these are tremendous postflop players. They are able to make good laydowns or good bluffs to escape the marginal situations. Obviously mistakes are still made, but

Not hardly, it is their own money. Check and see just how far Daniel N. is in the whole. Last I heard it was around $750,000 but that was some time back. No network is going to put up that kind of cash unless it's prime time major chanel where they can get a premium for advertising minutes. Do the math and see just how much money is at the table at the start of the show.....Def. TMM

No you are right, he buys in with a million. I meant the guys that buy-in with the hundred grand. I am sure that since it is almost all filmed in a short time, that they are paid that much.

edit: I did not mean it was the networks money either, if that is what you mean. What I meant is that they get paid for being taped, plus they wear the logos (FullTilt, etc), so they are making money to play in that game through the pay for being on the show + sponsorship pay. They gamble with that, it is their money for sure, but it probably isnt money that they have been saving for the event. Daniel is another story, he buys in with the million.

But they're getting paid regardless. So if they lose a $200k pot (if it's heads up and they both had full buy-ins) they have just lost $100k they could have taken home at the end of the session. Even if the station just paid them 5 million bucks, without losing the pot he could have had the full money and now he only has 4.9 million. And 100k is still a good chunk of money, even to them.

zach, i think you're over-glorifying a lot of these players just because they're "TV pros" or on HSP. at least half of the particularly loose/bad calls are coming from farha, elezra, and gold. those aren't tremendous postflop players, they're gamblers with money. watch farha call a reraise to 15% of effective stacks preflop out of position with K7o. elezra is easily the best of the 3, though, but even he would tell you that he gambles

That's true, but you also see players like Brunson and Negreanu making plays like that. You don't mean to tell me that they are just gamblers do you? You're probably right about some of them, but both Doyle and Daniel are amazing postflop players and are able to profitably play some hands that most amateurs would get into big trouble playing.

Agreed. I was just saying that that is probably why they play alittle looser (a word?), than normal. It is pay, but it is probably only a days pay. (or for each show/day its taped/whatever the case may be).

I think everyone's got bits of the truth here. And I think everyone here, unlike most of the audience, doesn't try to take this playing style to their regular game.


I'd hate to be playing against Sammy. "Raisy-daisy" Ack! what has he got this time?