Poker Interviews

Talking Tournament Poker with Richard Tatalovich - Part III
By Lee Munzer

LM: I was telling someone about your "why ask why" philosophy we discussed in Part II. She thought it was a terrific helper in focusing one's priorities. How did you come up with it?

RT: I've used it so long, I can't recall. It applies to most situations. I was involved in a poker hand that truly epitomizes this philosophy, and it's one that your readers may find humorous.

LM: We can all use a laugh, shoot.

RT: This happened in a no limit tournament about a year ago, but I believe I can recollect the details. We had just convened the 10 player final table. I was co-chip leader with the guy on my left. Just as in the Poker Million, I raised three times the size of the big blind from under the gun with pocket kings. The guy on my left called, the button reraised, I pushed in my whole stack, the guy on my left who had just called my original bet pushed in his entire stack without hesitation, and the button folded. I was certain that I had run into slow played pocket rockets.

However, I was stunned and delighted when he turned up his cards revealing K-9 offsuit! I was even more stunned and not quite so delighted when two nines flopped and I busted out of the tournament. The joke on me was my opponent turned out to be a professional dog trainer. He commiserated with me later and explained that he never lays K-9 (canine) down … no matter what the situation. So, maybe the guy with the K-4 who took my chips at the Poker Million had a son named Kevin who turned four years old that day … I dunno. Why ask why?

LM: You've gotta start asking yourself why play K-K under the gun. In the last issue we discussed your poker introduction and education. When I play, I learn from my opponents. Reaching so many final tables you've probably had some great on the job training. What have you learned?

RT: I watch my opponents carefully, especially the "name" players. I learn different, sometimes very subtle, things from each. I'd recommend players be observant and open to learning from others. They should experiment with what they've learned to see what works for them. I'd rather not single out any specific players, but I would say that one trait most top professionals possess is patience, especially in the early stages of a tournament. There's no need to take any unnecessary risks early on.

LM: What can you do to improve your game?

RT: I need to play more. I'm not sure there's a specific area I should be working on. The more I play, the more I learn. In particular, I learn how my opponents play in certain situations. I have a pretty good memory and I can usually recall those tidbits of information from the recesses of my mind when I need them.

LM: Who are your toughest opponents?

RT: There are so many top notch players, with more moving into the upper echelon all the time. The difference in ability between the top tier and the second tier players narrows every day. So, there isn't anyone that I can single out as my toughest opponent from an ability standpoint. However, I can tell you who has cost me the most money. Surprisingly, it's a player who would probably not be included on anyone's top player list (but, he would rank high on the nice guy list). Dan Alspach has a spell over me. I can't win a hand against him no matter how big an underdog he is on any given hand (which is most of them). He always manages to draw out on me. It's uncanny and so far beyond the laws of probability that it's off the charts.

As an analogy, my uncle, an infielder, played major league baseball for many years during the Bob Feller era. Cleveland's Feller, as your readers may know, was the best pitcher of his time. My uncle was a great fielder, but was only a career .249 hitter. Yet, when Feller was asked which hitter gave him the most trouble during his career, he instantly replied, "Pecky Suder." My uncle had Bob's number and Dan has mine.

LM: Take a day off when Alspach is pitching. Can you tell us about a player on your 'watch list'?

RT: I may be biased, since we've become friends recently, but I would cast my vote for Tony Cousineau. For someone who has yet to win a major tourney (I predict that will change soon) he has patience, brains, guts, and confidence. I like that combination.

[Editor's note: Good prediction. Shortly after Lee submitted this article Cousineau captured the $500 limit hold'em United States Poker Championship (USPC) tournament at the Trump Taj Mahal].

LM: Who do you admire in the poker industry?

RT: Again, lots of candidates and difficult to single out one person. However, Rudy Loteif is certainly a poker man we can all appreciate. I admire Rudy for several reasons. From my very first tourney, when I knew literally no one, he was warm, friendly, and treated me as if I was just as important as the pros who had been on the tournament trail for many years. This made me feel comfortable in a setting that can be somewhat intimidating for a novice.

Even though my tourney entries were few and far between in the beginning, anytime I saw Rudy he would greet me by name with a big, warm smile, and a handshake. Rudy is a real pro at his job. He epitomizes a trait I really respect; "grace under pressure." As you may know he is currently dealing with a serious health problem. The last time I saw him he was seated and hooked up to an oxygen tank. But, true to form, as I approached him he immediately unhooked himself, stood, and with that familiar, comforting, smile, gave me a big bear hug. That's Rudy - a big teddy bear. He reminds me a lot of my dad.

LM: Good pick. What are your poker goals?

RT: I'm sure every serious tournament player wants to become the world champion and I'm no exception. I want to keep progressing, refining, and improving my game. I also want to continue meeting new people and establishing new friendships … that's one of the best things about playing poker. Another goal is to enjoy playing. That requires knowing when to step back and take a break before I hit the burnout phase. I believe virtually everyone in this business experiences burnout from time to time, especially when running badly. Finally, I hope to contribute in some way to raising tournament poker to a new level … to make it mainstream, high profile, and a highly respected pastime.

LM: In November I saw the following on the Internet: "Tournament of Champions, Inc. is proud to announce that multiple major tournament winner and entrepreneur Richard Tatalovich has joined TOC, Inc. as its Southwestern United States area representative." That's quite an honor. It also may be the avenue for you to achieve the goals you just mentioned.

RT: I'm very happy to have an opportunity to work with Chuck Humphrey. You're right, I considered it a great honor to be asked to join his team. I believe that the TOC is the best vehicle we have to take tournament poker to a new mainstream and highly visible level.

LM: In my discussions with top players and tournament personnel, the "is it doable" opinion varies. The dissenters point out the game's profile and play of hands are not conducive to television coverage. What are your thoughts?

RT: I disagree. Look at how quickly extreme sports went mainstream. One day police officers were chasing skateboarders off the streets. The next day these same athletes were doing flips on ESPN … and probably headed to the Olympics before long. The same thing is true for pocket billiards, which is a staple event on ESPN today. We'll need to adopt the European innovation that enables television viewers to see the players cards … adding immeasurably to viewer interest.

The home audience will see the analytical capabilities and the heart top tournament poker players possess. The overall image of poker will be raised and tournament poker players will be widely viewed as respectable, intelligent, skilled professionals - along the lines of tournament bridge players or chess grandmasters. Ultimately this will result in increased televised events, corporate sponsorship, larger prize pools, and great overlays for players. This next step will benefit everyone in this industry, including the casinos. Players and casino management should focus on the bigger, longer term picture and embrace the TOC's efforts.

LM: I was happy to see you win one of the no-limit hold'em events at the Foxwoods World Poker Finals (WPF) this year. Then you captured the USPC main event. Until October, your extensive résumé didn't include a no-limit win and I had wondered why. What are your views on no-limit poker?

RT: I consider no-limit hold'em to be my best game. It's also the game I enjoy the most. I caught on to no-limit hold'em faster than any other game. It came to me naturally and almost immediately. The first time I ever played no-limit was during a long weekend trip to the 1998 Four Queens Classic. I decided to play some no-limit satellites (with payoffs of $540) to get my feet wet. I played 15 in three days. I won nine and took a piece from four others. To date, that's the best satellite record I've ever compiled.

I also entered the second chance evening tourney. The fee was $120 (plus rebuys). More than 100 players entered. I never made a rebuy and finished second. Prior to Foxwoods, I thought I would get off the no-limit schneid a few months ago. I flew into Los Angeles for the last two events of the Heavenly Hold'em tourney at the Commerce. In the no-limit tourney we played down to three-handed. On six different occasions I moved all in with pocket pairs. All six times I was called … three times by two overcards, making me (roughly) an 11-to-10 favorite, and the other three times by a weak ace (like A-3) where my pair was bigger than their kicker, making me a solid favorite. I know you can tell me the exact odds.

LM: You'd be about 2.3-to-1 (depending on suits) over A-3 if you held pocket sevens. So?

RT: So, incredibly I lost all six hands! That's been what's been happening to me in no-limit tourneys whenever I go deep into an event. Again, I'm not complaining … that's poker and I did cash in both events.

LM: That's quite a bad beat parlay. We know about your love for tournaments. How do you do in ring games?

RT: I rarely play side action these days, but when I do, it's pot limit hold'em. This past year I decided to take tournaments more seriously, increase my number of entries, and concentrate on improving my tournament play.

LM: Hey, check out this big, beautiful soap box I just built. Care to step up and let off some steam?

RT: Sure. I've been an anti-smoking advocate when it comes to poker, especially in tournaments, since I started playing in casinos. With all the studies showing the extremely harmful (and even deadly) effects of second hand smoke it is disturbing that casinos and poker rooms appear to be the last bastion in America where smokers' rights supersede non-smokers rights. I think it is particularly outrageous that smoking is permitted in tournaments where players do not have the option of leaving the casino or even requesting a table change. You just have to sit there and take it.

Research is a daily activity in my field. I just read a study which stated being subjected to four hours of second hand smoke each day will take six years off one's life on average. I think it is insane that if I want to play in a poker tournament I must subject myself to smoke. The most deadly air in the country must be in the super satellite room at the WSOP. Go check out a super and you'll observe that virtually everyone in the room, smokers and non-smokers alike, are experiencing nonstop coughing fits. When California passed the non-smoking laws, many casino executives were worried that it would put a big hurt on their business. I always felt it would increase their business. I've been to the Bicycle Club and Commerce several times since these laws took effect, and they are busier than they have ever been. Cardrooms around the country should wake up. What are they waiting for?

LM: I'll guess they are waiting for class action suits; maybe from dealers who demand a non-hazardous working environment. By the way, we are making progress. Kudos to the Reno Hilton folks who declared the First Annual World Poker Challenge to be a non-smoking event (in the tournament area). Do you have any suggestions?

RT: That's great news from the Reno Hilton. Let's not forget Tom McEvoy; the first to stick his neck out with a major non-smoking tourney, followed closely by the TOC. But, I believe non-smoking tournaments should be the rule, not the exception. How about drafting a petition that doesn't require all of the signers to immediately and forevermore boycott all smoking tournaments (an unrealistic request), but states the smoking related concerns of all the signers? This way we can express our views without "painting ourselves into the proverbial corner." In addition, petition organizers should request meetings with the management of various casinos to work toward a solution. Casey Kastle and Paul Ladanyi have done great pioneering work in this area. Non-smoking poker players, as well as many smokers, are sensitive to this problem and should be supportive.

LM: Next.

RT: Players who abuse dealers and/or other players should stop. This occurs far too frequently … even by some of the top tournament players. Shame on us. Show some class for crying out loud. Every time I witness this I think, 'Grown men acting like little boys.' It's embarrassing and it's bad for poker. This behavior doesn't get too far at my table since I will usually step in and attempt to shut down the abuser, no matter who he is directing his abuse at. This usually works. If it doesn't I'll call the floor person. I suggest other players do the same. I rarely see unacceptable behavior by female players. I think, in general, they are more sensible and classier than men.

LM: Geez, just what we needed to spice up the article; a sexist statement. Anything else?

RT: I believe cell phones should be banned in the tournament room. They are annoying, distracting, and unnecessary. In addition, users slow the game and throw off the tempo. I've heard more inane, small talk, cell phone conversations at the poker table the last few years than I care to recall. And, it's getting more prevalent all the time. In fact, I have yet to overhear a single conversation that was so important that it couldn't wait for the break. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this. Anyone who is concerned that they'll miss an important call can carry a beeper (preferably one that vibrates). They can choose to play or leave the tournament room to return the call without bothering anyone.

Again, judging from the myriad of pointless conversations I've heard to date, I would be surprised if more than one-in-100 players would leave the table until break time. The first tournament that I'm aware of that banned cell phones is the NCP at Hollywood Park. No smoke, no cell phones, and a nice, noise free and spacious tournament room. What more could a player ask for?

LM: A win? Oh, yeah, you did win there. What are your opinions on prize pool distributions and deal making.

RT: I would prefer tournaments pay only the final table, regardless of the number of entries. I don't like to see final table payoffs diluted by multi-table payoffs. But, okay, I understand the reasoning … to make sure tournaments are well attended and continue to grow. So, I won't harp on this one too much. I can live with it. I'll just think of it as a necessary expense. Actually, I would like to see an occasional winner-take-all tournament. That would really be interesting. Concerning deals, I rarely agree to 'chops'. It wouldn't bother me if tournament directors barred chopping up the prize pool (the TOC way). In five of the last six tournaments I won I took full first place money.

I feel confident in my short-handed and heads-up playing ability, so I'm usually willing to "go for broke." I'm frequently the lone holdout when deals are proposed. We discussed some tournaments where I arrived at the final table in last place or next to last place and came back to win the event. This has given me the confidence that I can win a tournament no matter what chip position I start in. I'm never trying to move up a few places in the money. I'm focused on first place and planning what I need to do to win the event. I don't even want to know what the other places pay because I don't want my attention diverted by thinking about the payoffs for other places. Of course, this is a double-edged sword. There are tournaments where I could have played safe and finished several places higher, but I busted out in a lower position because I was playing for the whole enchilada. But, I'm definitely much farther ahead by deploying this strategy.

If poker gets a shot at widespread exposure, I believe it will be essential to ban chops, otherwise we will lose the viewing public before we ever have a chance. Imagine, if you will, you are at home on a Sunday afternoon in January, anxiously awaiting the start of a great day of NFL football. Several friends have come over to enjoy the NFC and AFC championship games. You hear the sounds of beer cans opening as your friends discuss the matchups. Just then your screen goes blank save for a graphic that reads, "The NFL regrets to announce that the season is over. There will be no conference championship games and no Super Bowl. The four remaining teams have decided to chop up the prize money." I think it's safe to assume that fan interest in professional football would plummet.

LM: Ready to step down from the soapbox?

RT: Not quite. If we have space for one more, there's an area in tournament play that needs attention. It's hand-by-hand play. This occurs when one more player is alive than the tournament is paying and/or each nine places pays the same amount. For example, 46 players remain at six tables and the tournament pays 45. This really stinks. It cuts down on the available play at a crucial time in the tournament. In the example situation you lose more than half of the available playing time waiting until all dealers can start the next hand simultaneously.

Then at 37 players there is another delay because places 28 through 36 are paying the next higher prize. This continues until the final table is established. In a major tournament you may have been playing for ten or twelve hours to get to that point. You've probably overcome a lot of adversity, the blinds are really high (which limits the amount of hands you can play safely), and now this additional, unnecessary hardship of cutting down the playing time is added to the mix. This diminishes the skill factor by turning the tournament into more of a crapshoot than need be … exactly the opposite of what the players want.

LM: Do you have a solution?

RT: Yes, the clock should be stopped for hand-by-hand play. It's not like it will cost the host of the tournament a lot of extra money. We're probably talking about extending the overall length of the tournament by half an hour. At that stage in the tournament there's only a few dealers on hand and a couple of people supervising the tournament. How much more can this cost? The small investment would make a big difference to the players.

LM: Tell the readers something they probably don't know.

RT: The most brilliant tournament plays will often appear to be really dumb plays to all but the most seasoned and sophisticated players and onlookers. There may be a dozen or more variables or bits of information that go into making a great play, but most players and/or onlookers will only be aware of the most obvious considerations. Since they only have a few pieces of the formula that went into the decision, they will conclude that it was a stupid play. Lee, I bring this up because any time that I make a play of this caliber I will invariably hear comments and see expressions from players and railbirds alike indicating that I made an idiotic play. Don't get me wrong. I'm not offended by these comments. I actually prefer them since I will be able to use this perceived weak image to my advantage as the tournament progresses. I don't always win with these plays, but my reasoning is sound and I calculate the risk/reward for the situation at hand.

One of the tourneys in which several of these situations occurred was last year's Legends of Poker $1,000 buy in seven-card stud event. When we were down to two tables, I made plays on three different hands in the span of an hour that I don't think anyone at the table (with the possible exception of a seasoned player who gave me a slight smile and nod) knew what they were about. One guy really went on tilt when I called his river bluff with a pair of fours. For many reasons I was virtually certain that I had the best hand … and I did. My opponent never shut up about what a stupid call it was until he busted out an hour or so later. Of course I responded to his chastising of me with, "If you are such a superior player why would you try to bluff a calling station (his obvious view of me)?" I'm not one to berate anyone, but he was acting like such a jerk by not letting go that I figured that he had it coming. I couldn't resist that comment - and it seemed to really put him on tilt. A good friend of mine (and solid tourney player) was at that table. At the break he couldn't wait to ask me what in the hell was I doing with those three hands.

When I explained my reasoning, it made sense to him. When we reached three-handed play, I made a move that everyone (players, onlookers, and a reporter who was covering the final table), considered foolish. Even though I lost the hand, I really liked the play. It was a well thought out calculated risk and I didn't regret it. Given the same circumstances, I would do it again. One of the few observers who I believe is perceptive enough to understand these moves, not just by me, but by other players, is Mike Paulle - I suppose he's seen enough of them over the years.

LM: I discuss poker with Mike when we cover tournaments together. Not only does he know poker, but he's a world-class buffet connoisseur. You're not getting off the hook so easily with this concept. Describe your thinking on the play at the Legends where you called with a pair of fours.

RT: We were playing stud. (Thinks) I am trying to remember all that went into it. We were down to two tables, so the antes and bring in were large and worth fighting for. My opponent raised on third street showing an ace. Everyone else folded. I had an ace and a king in the hole. Another ace was dead … either someone had folded or exposed an ace. A door card king had been mucked in addition. I decided to call his raise because I was the bring in. We became heads up in a decent size pot. I had picked up some good tells on this player, particularly the way he threw his chips into the pot in various situations as well as the facial expressions that he used. He caught a king on fourth street. His board looked pretty scary at that point. He didn't know that I knew many of his cards were dead.

From his first raise, based on the way he threw his chips into the pot as well as his expressions and some other mannerisms, I was pretty sure he hadn't made a hand yet. I believed he was trying to force me to muck my hand. I can't remember the exact composition of our boards on sixth street, but I do remember thinking that if I call, the only way he can bet the river is if he has at least aces up or as a stone cold bluff. Of course, I was virtually certain that he didn't have aces up. I believed if he checked the river I would be beaten by one pair or possibly two pair lower than aces up. I planned to check in that case. Due to the size of the pot I wouldn't be able to move him off his hand.

So, I was actually happy when he bet the river because in one scenario (a stone cold bluff) I would win the hand by calling. I was pretty certain that I had the winning hand because his tells were more exaggerated on his river bet than on the previous rounds. At that point, I was reasonably certain that my pair of fours was the best hand, even though his board was truly scary and mine wasn't. Judging by the reaction of the other players at the table, they couldn't comprehend why I had stayed with him all the way and then called him with just a lowly pair of fours. It was one of the key hands for me in that tournament.

LM: What's your favorite movie?

RT: I can't really single one out. But, I might be able to narrow it down to a few directors … Kubrick, Scorcese, and Woody Allen. Okay, how about Woody Allen movies because they are funny, smart, and irreverent with biting social commentary. Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, The King of Comedy, and Goodfellas are great films. I enjoy Stanley Kubrick flicks because they are unique, fascinating, a model of perfection, and I might even go so far as to describe some of them as masterpieces. That reminds me, time to rent A Clockwork Orange again.

LM: And time for us to tell the readers that we have been saving the best for last. In the next issue Richard will analyze his playing style, delve into two strategy keys to winning tournament play, and discuss five traits that he believes you must develop if you want to become a top tournament poker player.