Poker Interviews

Talking Tournament Poker with Richard Tatalovich - Part 4
By Lee Munzer

In previous installments we met Richard, learned about his poker introduction/ education, checked out his impressive résumé, examined his suggestions to improve poker, and got inside his head as he captured the coveted United States Poker Championship (USPC). In the last issue I promised we saved the best for last. I hope you'll agree. Richard imparts well thought out theories, provides examples of specific strategies, and offers suggestions. He presents them in crystal clarity. From his results, we know they are accurate. I hope you enjoy and deploy his advice and I thank him for sharing with us.

LM: Are you concerned that your Tournament of Champions (TOC) appointment, numerous and prestigious victories in the last two years, and this extensive interview will cut into your tournament winnings going forward?

RT: Actually, yes. While I'm excited and honored to be affiliated with the TOC and I can't hide my tournament results, originally, I thought about passing on the interview when you asked me.

LM: Geez, I would have had to write about playing A-J suited from late position in a raised pot...boring. Why did you feel that way...and why did you consent?

RT: I enjoy the Columbo role; you remember the television detective series with Peter Falk...he projected a bumbling and naive image.

LM: Yeah, but in every show I saw, he accomplished his objective because he was actually very sharp and always a step ahead of his unwitting adversary.

RT: No comment (chuckles). Anyway, initially I was reluctant to do this interview but I eventually changed my mind. I figured that If I began getting more respect, I would just start playing loose as hell and stealing a lot of pots (laughs).

LM: Well, as the United States Poker Champion, you'll have that opportunity. We've discussed tournament poker on many occasions. You often explain through analogies. Why?

RT: When I think about tournament strategy and concepts, analogies come to mind and they seem to keep things in proper perspective for me. Analogies also serve as reminders during the heat of battle.

LM: For example...

RT: I view each tournament as a gigantic minefield that I must navigate my way through without getting blown up. I'm likely to be wounded several times along the way, but as long as none are fatal, I'll get through to the other side. This analogy keeps me focused on major danger...it is lurking nearby and every step of the way. Thinking this way helps me stay focused and, hopefully, prevent a catastrophic event.

LM: Avoiding disaster is an important, underrated aspect of tournament success. Occasionally new players ask me what separates the top players from those with average tournament records. I include sensing and reacting to 'stack smash' in my answer. Your move.

RT: Let's make a move on the chess board. I relate each bet to making a chess move. Combining the right moves with an ability to think ahead will lead to my ultimate goal of checkmate. If I lose sight of the importance of every single bet that I make I will probably miss the money.

LM: How about one more?

RT: I envision a poker tournament as a large jigsaw puzzle that I'm piecing together section by section. Each opponent and each hand is a separate piece. When the blinds/antes increase (this relates to the different stages of a tournament), that's a new section. Once a section is complete, I start piecing the next one together. While I may be working section by section, I never lose sight of the big picture.

LM: As a business owner, you have limited time to devote to poker. However, your two year record (based on tournaments won versus tournaments entered) must rank near or at the top of all time, short-term tourney success. Why have you been so successful in tournament play?

RT: I think I've been blessed with some traits and I've worked hard to develop others that I believe are critical.

LM: Would you be willing to list the top five?

RT: Sure, as long as you don't hold me to order of priority. To become a top tournament poker player, I believe one needs to possess most of these traits:

1. A high tolerance for adversity. I enter every event assuming that I will encounter much adversity along the way. I know that my best chance to overcome this adversity is to remain calm, rational, and focused. After a bad beat, I recommend players adopt the mental framework (by the start of the very next hand) that the last hand is ancient history. They need to look ahead and focus on what must be accomplished. They cannot dwell on "what if" I had won that hand. Most of us have millions of dollars in our 'woulda', 'shoulda', and 'coulda' accounts. Preparing myself for adversity in advance of each tournament keeps me from going on tilt.

2. A strong competitive spirit. I have some seemingly contradictory personality traits. On one hand, I've always been laid back, even-tempered, and low keyed. On the other hand, whenever I'm involved in a competitive situation, I'm extremely tenacious. I use this word because throughout my life, on many occasions, people have commented on my tenacity and expressed surprise that someone they always considered so "laid back" could become as tenacious as they have observed me during competition. Second place in anything always seemed like only a small step ahead of dead last to me.

   Consequently, when I get into serious, short stack trouble in a poker tournament, I'm clinging on by my fingernails, my toenails, and the skin of my teeth...doing whatever I have to in order to survive and mount a comeback. Many times I'll see players get short stacked after a bad beat. On the very next hand they throw away the remainder of their chips because they're disgusted and they've given up. Frankly, though it benefits me, I lose respect for these players. When I get down to the felt, my main thought is, 'what an incredible and fulfilling accomplishment it's going to be when I come back from the dead to take the trophy.' I'm focused on everything I must do from that point on to give myself a chance to win.

3. A capability to maintain focus. One of the worst feelings you'll ever experience in major tournament poker is when you bust out due to a dumb mistake you've made after playing great poker for the previous twelve hours. It's very easy to let down for just a moment if you've been playing all day and are feeling tired. Sometimes all it takes is one momentary lapse in judgment to destroy your effort. You have to have incredible focus and discipline at all times in order to be a top tournament player. I try to remember to mentally ask myself before every bet, 'will I be able to live with myself afterwards if I make this bet and it doesn't work out.' If I can review my play after I've busted out and come to the conclusion that I would play the key hands the same way again (given the same situation) then I'm satisfied with my performance in the tournament. It's always disappointing when I don't cash in, but as long as I didn't beat myself, I can live with it. I won't have any regrets and I won't beat myself up over it.

4. An ability to know your mind and your body. Players should never enter a tournament when they're not in the right frame of mind. Having said that, I'm as guilty as anyone of not following this advice. Too often I've played when I was exhausted from lack of sleep. Or, I'll be at the table, but my mind will be preoccupied with thoughts such as, 'I'd rather be biking, hiking, working out or poolside with a good book.' Often it's a business matter I feel I should be taking care of and a sense of guilt seeps in. At times like this I'm prone to blow off a bunch of chips on a silly hand. Maybe consciously or subconsciously I'm trying to bust out of the tournament. At other times I'm chomping at the bit and I can't wait to take my seat at the table. Invariably, these are the times that I get in 'the zone' on reading players and I reach my personal peak in all facets of the game. I get to a place where I feel almost like a player and a spectator. I'll be thinking, 'wow, that was a great laydown I made' or 'gee, that was a brilliant play to maximize my win on that pot,' or 'man, I'm reading this guy like a book!'

5. An understanding of poker probability. I've always been innately mathematically inclined. This ability comes in handy. I'm able to quickly calculate the probabilities when I'm involved in a hand. That said, I would give this skill a much lower ranking of importance than the previous traits I've mentioned. In fact, I believe several highly successful tournament players have a below average 'math IQ.' So, you could possess the mathematical genius of Paul Erdös (pronounced Air-dish) and it wouldn't be worth a lick in tournament poker if you didn't have these other traits.

LM: That's great stuff. While not a trait, I know you stay in shape. I see some pretty portly players pushing chips around. What degree of importance do you place on fitness?

RT: I believe regular exercise and good nutrition is very important for mental and physical health. When I'm making hotel reservations for a tournament, I always ask if they have a work out facility. Sometimes the response will be a deciding factor on whether I attend a tournament. I try to workout every morning. If the hotel has no facilities, I try to get in some isometrics and calisthenics in my room. I'm currently in the best shape of my life because I made a long, overdue decision to hire a personal trainer (one of the best in the Valley I'm told). He thoroughly kicks my ass (can I say that?). We work out three days a week and he has me on a special diet regimen and supplements that we hope will turn me into superman in three months or so (laughs). More seriously, poker is a sedentary activity. It's important to stay healthy and fit. This also keeps your mind alert. Mental clarity and physical stamina help get you through a tournament that may last 14 hours or more...and that might be the first of three days...as you know from playing in the TOC.

LM: Ah, but I make it a point never to play the third day...alas, not by design. I recently wrote an article about bad streaks. What are your thoughts?

RT: I believe I'm resilient. Everyone goes through slumps/dry spells. During these times, it can be very easy to start losing confidence. For some players, the problem feeds on itself and they never recover. This syndrome extends to almost all professions. It's very noticeable in sports. A baseball player goes into a hitting slump and starts pressing so hard that his slump just gets worse. A top notch quarterback suddenly can't hit his receivers. A golfer starts hooking or slicing his drives and can't seem to correct it. I really have to guard against this because I tend to be very hard on myself.

LM: What are your remedies?

RT: I take time off and try think about anything and everything except poker. I'll revitalize myself with things I enjoy doing - mostly outdoor activities. Also, motivational tapes are helpful. If I'm able to get away, a relaxing vacation is great. Eventually, the desire and fire to play comes back. I know then that I'm ready to begin playing again.

LM: Let's talk about your game and your success. Thinking about some key plays you made at Foxwoods or the Taj Mahal, can you come up with a common denominator or two?

RT: Yes, I made some huge laydowns. Actually, when I review and annotate a tournament where I won, I can usually find at least a couple of huge laydowns I made which would have cost me the tournament, had I made the calls. Sometimes it's with a large pocket pair before the flop in hold'em - queens for example. Other times it's on the turn or the flop. Sometimes in a limit hold'em tournament it's playing a big hand passively instead of aggressively when I suspect I'm beat, for example, hitting my set on a rainbow flop that has no straight or flush draws, but putting my opponent on a bigger set. All of these situations occurred in recent tournaments.

Secondly, reading players is another very important component in the whole scheme of things. I'm not talking so much about picking up a particular tell on an opponent, but speaking more in terms of tuning into their playing style and betting patterns, studying the board, and asking myself, why did they just make the bet they did, or for that matter, why didn't they bet. For me (and I would suspect for most everyone) this is an acquired skill that comes with experience. Over time, I have improved dramatically in this area, and I now consider it to be one of my better skills.

LM: An example would be helpful.

RT: Okay, this may seem paradoxical to some of your readers right on the heels of talking about the huge laydowns I make. But, in a recent no-limit hold'em tournament, my opponent pushed in his sizable stack on the river. My thoughts:

• If I call and lose, I'm still in the tournament (since I have him outchipped slightly), but I'm crippled.

• I have a pretty good read on his playing style and betting patterns.

• (After studying the board) The only way he can make this bet is if he's on a stone cold steal.

So, I put him on a busted open-ended straight draw. The thing that really made this tricky was there was another player in the pot behind me who I knew had me beat, since I only had king high. Taking into account that player's style and what he was likely to be holding, I concluded that if I went all in, especially since I came over the top of the original bet, he couldn't call. So, I pushed everything in. The player behind me folded quickly and I called out the original bettors hand (probably a combination of my read and trying to be optimistic) before he turned over his cards. Fortunately, I was right. This play came at a critical time and enabled me to bust a good player out of the tournament and double through in chips.

LM: Hopefully, we've gotten a good feel for your style by now. How would you describe it?

RT: Okay, again this may seem paradoxical to some of your readers right on the heels of that unorthodox hand. (Laughs) Have I made it general enough to avoid giving away my secret strategies? I will tell you I'm not an ABC player. There are a lot of very solid ABC players who know all the best starting hands, the probabilities of completing hands, the odds that their opponents will complete theirs, etc., etc. They play strictly by the book. Often, I will see some of these players still hanging in there in the latter stages of a tournament, but I don't see them at the final table very often, and they rarely win a tournament. At the major tournament level, solid ABC play isn't going to get the brass ring unless these players get an inordinate amount of great starting hands and most of them hold up. Just put me at a table full of great ABC players and I'll be a happy man.

Normally, you're not going to get enough great starting hands that also hold up to carry you through a tournament. While the traits we discussed are very important and can be listed, outlining what I feel you need to do to win a tournament is difficult due to the intangibles involved. You just have to sort of finesse your way through a tournament. You have to play some starting hands that others would muck, and you have to win uncontested pots without the best hand, especially at crucial times. I guess it comes down to that 'feel' for the game that you hear mentioned from time to time. It's like some sort of poker intuition. It has become instinctive to me. So, to sum up my playing style the best I can, I hope I don't have a style. I try to change speeds and images frequently. At times, some of my plays may look really dumb on the surface, but there is usually a method to my madness.

LM: In the last issue, we talked about your seven-card stud call with a pair of fours. Do you have another "method to your madness" illustration for the readers?

RT: Alright, here's another example that may help to demonstrate this point. This hand took place early in a $1,600 no-limit hold'em satellite at the now defunct Carnivale of Poker. I had pocket kings. Three players limped in prior to my action. In this situation it's pretty much a no brainer to push in my whole stack, shut everyone out, and take the pot right there. An alternate and less favored strategy might be to make a significant raise with the hope of getting re-raised or called by just one other player and getting heads up for a larger pot. This of course is riskier than the first strategy because even if I have the best hand going in, I may still lose. But, I view poker like many other forms of investments: low risk, low reward; high risk, high reward. So, I did neither. No, no, I didn't make one of those huge laydowns...not in this situation, that's for sure. I just called the limpers. Now, why would I do something that dumb, you say?

LM: Well, a bit strong, but I'm not in love with the play because I want to knock the blinds out. But, continue.

RT: Okay, and with at least three other players in the pot, the value of my kings goes way down. So, why make a play that may turn a super powerful starting hand into a mediocre one? For several reasons. The main one being that sitting right behind me on the button was a player I've had the occasion to play against many times in the past. He's very good, very well known, and (most importantly in this case) he's super aggressive. I figured there was about a 75 percent chance that he would make a move to take the pot. It was early in the satellite, we each started with $1,500 in chips, and the blinds were only $25/$50 at the time. Had I moved in and taken the pot uncontested, I would have won $225 (the three limpers and two blinds). While this $225 gain is not too bad at that stage in the satellite, it represents a tiny fraction of the $15,000 in chips (nine opponents) I needed to win the satellite.

So, by choosing the high risk, high reward route, if I'm right, the button will either make a large raise or go all in and then I'll be able to get heads up with him. Hopefully, he'll even call my re-raise (given the pot odds, he might). Even if his hand is so weak that he can't call my re-raise, I've taken a much larger pot than I otherwise would have and I've taken a good chunk out of a player's stack who has position on me and I deemed to be one of the main threats at the table. Anyway, he put in a large raise, everyone folded, I went all in, he thought for awhile and called. He actually had a good hand...10-10. I won the hand and, as he departed, he roundly chastised me for making an idiotic play by limping with my kings with three other limpers already in. He said I had wasted my satellite entry stating that it would be impossible for someone as dumb as me to ever win a tournament. Thinking about the recent success I'd had (he was unaware that I had won three major tourneys in the preceding weeks) I couldn't help grinning. So, in one fell swoop I accomplished three objectives that would give me a good chance to win the satellite: I more than doubled my stack, I knocked out one of my main competitors at the table, and I gained great residual value.

LM: Talk about advanced strategy...that's great. Tell us what you mean by residual value?

RT: After a play like that, everyone at the table assumes I am an idiot who has no clue. That makes my job easier. The well known player who busted out helped my cause even more by emphasizing what a stupid play it was. Most of the players at that table were new to me...several Europeans and a few others who I hadn't played with before. By the looks on their faces and the nods of their heads, I assumed they concurred with his opinion.

Several hands later, I got involved in a pot with Dewey Weum, who was (by far) the strongest player at that table. For my money, Dewey is one of the best no-limit hold'em players in the world. You're not going to outsmart him. Usually, the only way you're going to get his chips is to have a monster hand at the same time he has a huge (but lesser) hand, or you have to draw out on him. Anyway, I had a large stack from my 'kings' hand, plus a few smaller pots. Dewey still had an average stack since he hadn't been able to play many hands to that point. After the flop, I bet and Dewey came over the top all in. At that point, there was no question that Dewey had the better hand. I only had a flush draw. If anyone else at the table had made that bet I would lay my hand down, but I decided to call Dewey because if I lost, I would still have had a decent stack, but if I won, Dewey would be out. I knew the rest of the satellite would be a cakewalk.

I got lucky, drew out, and built up even more residual value by playing a hand that everyone at the table probably felt I shouldn't have. Now every opponent was certain I was a fool. I went on to win the satellite, but just as importantly, I did a lot of talking to the other players throughout the remainder of the satellite - I introduced myself, got to know their names, and tried to give them as many anchors and hooks as I could in hopes that they would remember me if we ended up at the same table again...preferably in one of the major tournaments...with a lot more money at stake. If that happened, I would continue to cash in on the residuals I had just established. I knew if we met again these players would have an image of me as a dumb player who got lucky and beat them in a satellite. They would be anxious to even the score and might play hands against me that they wouldn't play against others. I might get some calls that I want (that I wouldn't normally get).

So, the residuals can just keep on flowing and sometimes they can be truly exponential. Obviously, I don't have much of an ego regarding how my fellow players perceive me. In fact, the dumber they think I am, the happier I am. Of course, I can't fool the great players. It's the only endeavor I can think of where I would prefer to be perceived as stupid and inept...and shown no respect by my peers. Do you remember the Andre Agassi commercials; "Image is everything?" Well, this is like that, except in reverse. By the way, it was either the next day or the day after that I won the $1,500 buy in hold'em event and (much to his credit) the player who had chastised me and said I would never win a tournament was one of the first to congratulate me.

LM: He's probably reading this article now saying, "That darn Tatalovich...he'll never pull that on me again."

RT: Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat. I'll just have to come up with another way to try and get his chips. It's like, 'I know that he knows, that I know, that he knows, etc'. Top tournament players must play mind games...and play them well. It's kind of like the Spy vs. Spy in Mad Magazine. This guy's a very experienced player. Maybe next time he'll out think me and take my chips.

LM: Do you have any general, overriding thoughts on tournament strategy?

RT: I'm glad you brought that up. Since I've had some success lately, I've been flattered by friends who seek my advice. They generally inquire how I would play a certain hand. Usually, the first response I give them is, "It depends." There are so many variables within the play of each hand that given the same hand on five separate occasions, I might play it five different ways. In the pocket kings example, even if every variable was exactly the same except for my super aggressive opponent, I would not play the hand the same way as I did. The same holds true for the hand I played with Dewey. In both instances, my determining strategy factor was the specific opponent. Lee, the readers have to use their strengths in working through the many variables presented in tournament play...most of them constantly changing. How I play a particular hand depends on a combination of variables.

LM: Such as...

RT: Okay, including (but not limited to):

1. The composition of players at my table (assuming I have a good read on them).
2. The stage of the tournament.
3. My stack size in relation to the other stacks at my table.
4. My stack size in relation to the average stack size among all the remaining players in the tournament.
5. My betting position (with consideration given to "c" and "d" above).
6. Whether any players have acted in front of me.
7. How many are left to act behind me.
8. Etc., etc., etc.

I could go on and on to describe why "it depends." There is no standard answer on how to play a particular hand. I'm continually updating and keeping track of all this ever-changing information, especially between hands and during hands I'm not involved in. I'm also paying close attention to how other players are playing their hands. Occasionally, after I've called the final bet and my opponent turns over the winner, I will pause and study the board before I muck my hand. Usually in these instances someone will complain that it shouldn't take more than a second or two to know if I have a winner or a loser.

Of course, I know immediately that I have a loser, but I'm quickly replaying all the rounds of betting in my mind. I'm seeing (through his eyes) how my opponent played the hand before the dealer turns the board cards face down. I'm taking into consideration all the variables as they relate to my opponent at that time. This is important information that can tell me a lot about his playing style. And, when you're playing in a major tournament against topnotch competition, it's essential to have as much information at your disposal as possible. It's mentally taxing to keep track of all this information I'm compiling and still stay focused on actually playing my hands properly.

LM: Hmm, and I thought you weren't paying attention when we played at Sam's Town. With your attention to detail, a seven-card stud event has to really drain you.

RT: For me, seven-card stud is the most grueling because in addition to the many variables I've previously mentioned, I'm trying to keep track of every exposed card I've seen, including the suits. By sixth street, especially in the early stages of a tourney when there are more multi-way pots, I may have already seen 15 to 20 exposed cards. It sure would be great to have a photographic memory.

LM: Are you fearful of becoming complacent...or, put another way, "Will success spoil Richard Tatalovich?"

RT: I don't think I'll let it. I still review and analyze every tournament I play (win or lose) after it's over. I still annotate what I did right and what I did wrong. I keep a list entitled, "Poker Mistakes" and, believe me, it's a long one. I review it regularly to (hopefully) keep from repeating these blunders. Whenever I do repeat a mistake, I am really hard on myself.

LM: That's a good message to close with since motivational experts believe the highest level of performance is attained by those who drive themselves relentlessly toward perfection.

As a player, I feel fortunate to have been able to play against Richard, discuss theory with him, and learn as we worked. As a writer, I believe this article accomplishes everything I set out to do when I began interviewing players...work with champions, get the straight skinny on their play, and have them feel good about sharing with us. Finally, Richard, I'm proud to have you as a friend and you should be very proud of what you have accomplished and given back to poker. Thanks.

Part 3 | More Interviews

Comments? Please post them in our Poker Forum.