Click for Poker Course Details

New for 2014: Small Stakes Solutions!

The mathematics of in-position play in Pot-Limit Omaha from pre-flop to river explained in 5 interactive lectures.
Click for Poker Course Details

Phil Rocquemore

About Phil Rocquemore

Phil 'Quad' Rocquemore is a poker researcher and coach specializing in Pot-Limit Omaha games. He applies his approach to poker decision-making to decisions in his own life, a process he calls 'Metric-based living'.

Hard-hitting Data: Why Metrics Matter

“It's good to know how to read, but it's dangerous to know how to read and not how to interpret what you're reading.”
Mike Tyson

I reviewed video footage of a student playing a PLO session recently and a seemingly innocuous hand caught my eye. The student had raised the betting pre-flop and been called by a player in the big blind. The flop came down:


His opponent checked, my student bet and his opponent raised. My student raised the betting again, his opponent raised the betting once more in response and my student folded his bluff. From my student’s perspective that was all there was to it.

I have omitted one piece of information that I was privy to as the viewer: my student had raised his opponent’s check-raise almost instantaneously. The problem with this timing is that if he had a strong hand here our hero would need to have thought a little about his decision before raising. Our hero had a bet timing ‘tell’: he had unintentionally emitted information which a skilled opponent could use against him.

It is likely that our opponent in the example above recognized my student’s tell. If so, he was using a superior decision metric to outplay my student

1. In this article we’re going to discover how consciously constructing decision metrics can help us better navigate games of incomplete information. We’ll discuss how to build and fit metrics and some common pitfalls of this process. (more…)

Show 1 footnote

  1. Actually I’m inferring that he was using a metric, he may have just been clicking buttons(!)
By | 2017-04-10T13:22:55+00:00 January 27th, 2015|

What every Pro ought to know about floating

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

It’s a pity that poor old Heraclitus was born around 2,300 years before the invention of the game of poker, else he might have been a little more cheery. In the game of life, we integrate our knowledge from prior, apparently similar situations to make decisions in the present. We never have the luxury of even one ‘Groundhog Day’ and the Greek sage’s line rings true.

Happily for us poker players however, our game is one where we repeatedly face situations extremely similar to those we have faced before. We have very little excuse, then, to be unprepared for the most common decisions we can expect to face. The high frequency spots we analyze here will help us to lay the foundation for an optimal approach to C-betting out of position. You will be stepping in this river many times in the future, so read on to avoid the Weeping Philosopher’s fate


Note for my long-time readers getting a sense of deja vu: this article was first published as a subscriber-only post last year.

Show 1 footnote

  1. Heraclitus treated his own dropsy by covering himself in cow manure and baking in the sun, believing that this method would remove the fluid. That didn’t go very well.
By | 2017-04-10T13:23:01+00:00 February 27th, 2014|

The secret of communication

“What you are speaks so loud, that I cannot hear what you say.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

The gleaming red Ferrari appeared out of the corner of my eye as I stepped onto the crossing. It was a good 50 meters away, so usually there would be no cause for alarm. However, in a fit of unbridled puerility, the driver chose to floor the pedal and accelerated(!) with me half away across the road, narrowly missing me as he passed. I flipped him the bird, mostly out of civic duty

1 but in part out of indignation at his brainless act. What happened next was, short of him apologizing, about the best possible result of my show of contempt. (more…)

Show 1 footnote

  1. Whilst I make a point of not responding to minor personal slights, it’s critical to penalize people who create situations where others risk an unbounded negative pay-off that they did not consent to. In plain English, someone who is willing to slightly increase your risk of death simply to get to his destination two seconds faster deserves to be in jail.
By | 2017-04-10T13:23:01+00:00 February 16th, 2014|