Hold'em Tournament: Playing Heads Up Takes Nerve. Skill. Bluff

Playing heads-up is the closest you'll ever get to feeling like you're playing Russian roulette with Christopher Walken in The Deer Hunter. There might not be a gun to your head, but going toe to toe at the poker table is a high pressure situation.

This is the most important aspect of the game. If you cannot conquer it, you won't be able win your dream win like American Chris Moneymaker.

https://casalarreinacf.com/best-poker/ Moneymaker beat his opponents through a variety of satellite tournaments online on his way to winning in Las Vegas the World Series of Poker Main Event. In 2003, he won $3.6million when he defeated his last opponent at the final table. Moneymaker and the winner this year, Australian Joe Hachem, hadn't played in any major US tournaments but both demonstrated that they were adept at bullying their opponents in single combat.

Heads-up is much like a game of chicken - you don't need the fastest car or, in this case, the best hand. It's all about taking advantage of the limited options available to your opponent. While it may not always work, it is much more enjoyable when you are able to do it.

Take the game of Texas Hold 'Em champion between Sam and David Redlin.

Redlin had an initial raise of less 100,000 hands when Hachem decided to go all-in and make a pair with twos. Hachem called, "Double the stakes."

Redlin won a pair with tens while Hachem received a set. Hachem's set, which was worth 20,000 hands when the dealer paid it out, was superior. Hachem later said that he knew he was beating me. "He thought I would go away so I just called."

It was not as though the pair of tens were an all-in target or a high-value hand. It was never something I would raise with in the past. Hachem was taking a calculated risk, and the odds of him winning were only 3 to 2 chips ahead.

It doesn't always work that way, and there could be many factors that could have influenced a player's hand. But, the fact that he was out, suggests that the player with a big stack was probably playing pretty tough to start with.

Both these poker greats had bigger-than-average bankrolls and big stacks, which meant that they could survive losing a hand, or survive being outdrawn. It's not that they won’t have other draws. However, given the odds that they would be outdrawn (17-1 for the first two and 9-1 for the last), it worked out well.

Both had between 5 and 6 million dollars worth of tournament chips at press time.

Now, many of you are probably very interested to hear whether or not these two made money playing poker. They have both made quite a bit of money in poker related businesses but are not necessarily "famous". Although they are both poker pros, they don't have the same profile as many professional poker players.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be able to play good poker. Both have shown that. Both are about the same in terms of skill and bankrolls. Neither one of them has a mega-stash of chips. Both have roughly the same amount (although Mike Matusow is slightly wealthier).

So far, both seem to be fairly satisfied with their poker skill sets. Mike Matusow seems to take a lot more pride in his no-limit skills, and I saw him getting frustrated while playing last night. However, they still consider poker a job and a means of earning a living.

So what does Mike Matusow make of being typecast as a madman?

It's a wonderful thing. I guess it's part of my poker strategy, to mix it up. Everything comes to a head, at least in my case, at the $1, 500 level of blinds. You can live off your reputation as a maniac once you have it. It depends on who your opponents are. Before a maniac can feel at ease, they must be defeated several times.

They play poker still, evidently. Mike still plays poker. This is the highest level that you would find a poker player, besides perhaps the World Series of Poker.

There aren't many differences between him, other poker players.