Best Hand So Far

I played live last Thursday – my single best night ever. About 30 minutes of $3/6 limit to pass the time while waiting for some real tables – down about $75. 1 hour of $2/5 NLHE cash games – won over $500. I absolutely tore that table up, and it was very hard to leave. Then the Ameristar Thursday evening 60 player tournament ($120 buy in), made the final table 2nd in chips, and 10 players chopped up the prize pool, with 1st and 2nd taking $1000.

Total win on the night was $1336. I’ve had bigger wins in a single evening (or during a single day in Vegas), but this was by best evening ever in terms of the quality of my play.

I was in a zone. With the exception of a couple of mistakes, my reads were dead on, and I was very patient. In the tournament, I played the aggressive bully when I was the big stack, which is so fun. I was never all-in for my tournament life. I didn’t get exceptionally lucky, I avoided getting unlucky, and generally I avoided relying on luck to weave my way through the tournament.

During the middle stage of the tournament, with blinds at 50/100, this hand came up:

I am BB. Folded to Villain on the button, who just limps in. I have played with Villain many times, and he is one of the best 3 or 4 players in KC that I have played against. I’ve played against with him at the $2/5 and $5/10 NL games, and I’ve watched him absolutely mop up. I’ve seen him leave with over $8000 in the $5/10 game. Extremely aggressive, very hard to read, calm as Phil Ivey, very observant. (He owns a chain of barbeque restaurants in KC, and the rumor is that he’s very well off.) I have him covered by a bit, but he is 2nd or 3rd in chips at the table behind me.

SB folds, and I check. I have no idea what Villain holds. Flop is Ah-Qs-8h. I check, and Villain bets 300. I call.

Turn is (Ah-Qs-8h)-3h. I lead out for 850 – the size of the pot. Villain thinks for about 10 seconds, and then folds KK face up and says, “That’ll teach me for trying to get cute.”

Looking back, I’m not exactly sure why I called on the flop. Something told me that I could possibly take this pot away later, or maybe that he was scared of the ace. When the turn card came out, I remember looking at him briefly and then making a pot-sized bet based on my read. I had no deep analytical thought about the hand – it was pure instinct. Without this type of strong read, I would have normally checked and probably abandoned ship. This is why I want to get more time at live play – to improve my reads and act at an instinctual level, without having to internally verbalize an analysis of the hand.

This may seem like a routine hand and it was actually a very minor skirmish in the tournament, but after he folded I was extremely proud of acting strongly based on my read. Especially since he is one the best players I’ve played against in KC, and he was easily the best player at my table.

I had 5d-5c.

A Classic Blunder

So I have been crushing the $1/2NL on Party, and last Thursday night I decide, “You know, I’m kind of bored with vanilla poker. I’m easily as good as the players at $2/4, $3/6, and probably $5/10. The $5/10 game is more the level that I play live. I can hang in those games on-line, easy.”

Well, that may be true, but when you only have several buy-ins and hit a bad stretch, it can be a bankroll crusher. So, in the course of 2 nights, I proceeded to dump back almost all of the profits since the beginning of June. A few bad beats lead to over-aggressive play to “get is back,” and poof, I’m back where I started.

A classic, stupid, bankroll management mistake. And the Running Back Plan has been working perfectly.

“Clearly, much of the stress and anxiety occurring in poker is a short
bankroll. This stems from a kind of paradox: In order for a win to have
meaning, we overplay our bankroll. But this in turn brings the
annoyance/anger factor into play and takes us off our dispassionate, detached
view.”

Zen and the Art of Poker, p.52.

Bingo. This is exactly what I was feeling. I need a bigger challenge. If I can make 23 BB at $1/2, then I can double or triple my net $win that at the next levels, right?. Well, maybe. But, I lost sight of the fact that if I hit a few bad beats it can have a devastating effect on my bankroll, especially if I amp up the aggression to get it back quickly.

So, its back to baby steps on the Running Back Plan. I’m resetting, and I commit to stick to the level that’s appropriate for my bankroll. Crush the level I’m on until I have enough to very comfortably move up and take several bad beats without the slighted affect on my overall bankroll.

The System at Work

The Running Back Plan results thus far:
10 days of play
30 levels achieved (2% of on-line bankroll per level)
23.5 table-hours
$1460 won at $1/2NL
$46 per table/hour
23 BB won per table hour

Since I started the “Running Back Plan,” my results have been like magic. I started this plan on June 20th, and I took a week vacation in there. I’ve played on 10 different days. On these 10 days, I’ve increased 31 “levels,” with each level being a win of 2% of my total on-line bankroll, rounded to the nearest $10.

At the start, 2% was $40. At the current level I’m working on (level 31), 2% is $70. My total win in these 10 days has been $1460. Most importantly, I’ve had 19 winning sessions out of 21 sessions. The way I’ve been recording things, a session is any time I have at least one cash table open. I’ve recorded more than one session on a single day by playing at more than one time in a day (only on the weekend), or playing one or more cash tables, then playing a SNG or tournament, and then opening up one or more cash tables again.

My complete focus has been simply winning a modest amount to book a win and reach the next level. With the constant focus of reaching the next level, I’ve been more focused than ever before at cash games. Traditionally, playing SNGs or a tournament provides focus – win the table or the tournament – while playing cash games just seems like a never-ending grind.

But, with the Running Back approach, I have a constant goal in cash games. I’m conscious of reaching the next level. These levels are simply a different method of characterizing progressive wins, but the levels provide a focus and a goal that really works for me. I enjoy the focus of winning enough in each session to reach the next “level,” then playing around to UTG and logging out to book a winning session and reach the next level. Then opening 1 or 2 tables and winning the next $60 to reach the next “level,” repeat, repeat.
I haven’t played perfect poker, and I haven’t been running especially good. Overall, I’m making more well-reasoned decisions, and thinking through each decision, because I’m conscious of the fact that each decision affects whether I reach the next level. Its really working.

Big Mother Bad Beat

Everyone bitches about bad beats. Statistically speaking, what is the worst possible bad beat?

I am proud to say that I have lived through what I believe to be the worst possible bad beat in hold ‘em. In a way, I’m kind of proud that this happened -- its like climbing to the summit of a 14,000-foot mountain. I have reached the pinnacle of bad beats, I have survived, and every other beat I will suffer in my poker career is just a minor irritant that dreams to be this truly horrendous beat, which I shall henceforth call the “Big Mother Bad Beat,” or just the Big Mother.

So, what is this Big Mother that I’m talking about? Let me describe it through this two-part analysis:

First, to set up the Big Mother, you need to flop a monster. Everyone likes to throw out the word “monster.”

“I flopped a monster!”

Oh yeah? What was it? A set? Maybe the nut flush? You call that a monster? I scoff at your puny monster.

The set up for the Big Mother is flopping a truly savage, evil, flesh-eating demon from Hell. A monster that children fear from under their bed, that they believe really exists. The Balrog from the Mines of Moria is close. Only a monster of enormous proportions qualifies for the Big Mother Bad Beat. I shall call this monster the “Sexy Beast,” and it consists of only two very select hands -- flopping quads or a straight flush.

Now, let’s take a moment to ponder the Sexy Beast. On those very rare occasions when we are blessed with a Sexy Beast, it is a bittersweet moment. You have an iron-clad lock on the hand, and your only concern is how to coax your opponent’s chips into the pot. Unfortunately, this is often impossible. When you flop a Sexy Beast, there is a very likely chance that your opponent has zilch, and he will dump the hand like yesterday’s girlfriend unless he feels the urge to run a bluff.

Second, now that we’ve flopped a Sexy Beast, how can this build into the Big Mother? Only one single scenario qualifies: your opponent is drawing dead except for two cards in the deck, which must appear in perfect succession on the turn and the river. Only if he catches perfect with those two cards, can he slay your Sexy Beast. Not a one-outer, which he has two chances to hit, but instead a two-outer that he has to hit in succession.

And, to make matters more difficult, the flop has to be an exact arrangement of cards that actually convinces him to put more chips into the pot on the flop rather than mucking. And, even more chips again on the turn, ideally his whole stack. This is nearly impossible, unless your opponent is just stupid.

What is the probability of the Big Mother occurring? I have no idea, but I know that its really improbable. Someone who’s better at statistics than me can calculate the odds of this happening.

By now you’re thinking, “Holy shit, man, that a lot of rambling for a single hand Can you get to the point?”

Okay, so now, I reveal to you the Big Mother Bad Beat.

Flopped quads beat by runner-runner quads. And I didn’t slow-play, either, so I should get bonus points.

After this hand, I wept tears of joy, for I had survived the Big Mother. And, fortunately, my opponent was on a shortish stack, so it all worked out nicely because I didn’t lose too much.

Twice I have suffered a one-out beat on the river for really big pots, but neither of those hands is as improbable as your opponent hitting two perfect cards on the turn and river.

The Running-Back Attack

I am implementing a new bankroll growth plan. I thought of a football analogy. Often in poker, no-limit cash game play resembles an aggressive passing attack in football. Players often take higher-risk shots at big money, like a long bomb that has a lower chance of completion but a higher reward in terms of yardage. Most poker players, by their nature, are always striving for the quick, big score. It’s the American way, right?

On the other hand, there is the running attack in football. If you have a rock-solid running back that can pound out an average of 3.5 yards per carry, you can slowly march down the field, wear down the opponent, and punch it in for the score.

It has occurred to me that the best way to build a bankroll in cash games is through a series of slow, steady, lower-risk winning sessions, like a steady ground game in football, rather than shoot-the-moon attempts to double up each session like a long passing attack. The passing attack is more exciting, but a solid running game can be just as effective with lower risk.

I think my play is more suited to a running game. A slow, steady march, built on tight hand selection and aggressive play when I am ahead. I am still very willing to use the passing attack and get all my chips in the pot when I am ahead, if the situation calls for it, but that puts me at higher risk if my opponent outdraws me. I’m otherwise content with solid running game in the form of winning a succession of smaller pots at lower risk.

So, how can I put this “running game” strategy into play? Here’s how: win exactly 1% of my total overall bankroll in each session. One “level” in the progression is however long it takes to win 1% of my bankroll. On-line, this means knowing the next 1% benchmark when I sit down, and leaving the table when I hit that benchmark (actually, play the current orbit until just before the BB hits again), thereby locking in the 1% profit. If I sit at a table with a buy-in that is roughly 5% of my total bankroll, I’ll need to win roughly 1/5 of my starting stack to hit the 1% goal for the session. Not so hard to achieve if I’m playing a solid game. Leaving the table after I hit the next benchmark level locks in the profit and moves me up the ladder. Then I buy in to another table where the players do not have a read on my playing style, and repeat.

I’ve run a spreadsheet that shows the progression of bankroll growth by simply winning 1% each time. Although 1% at $40 and $50 chunks does not seem like much, its amazing how fast the bankroll grows with this progression. If you start with a $1,800 bankroll, for example, after 35 levels you will have doubled to over $3,600. After 50 levels, you will have over $4,800. After 100 sessions, you will have over $13,000.

The approach is that you are playing a lower risk strategy because you take the profit off the table after hitting the benchmark. This is ideally suited for on-line play, because jumping around on the tables is so easy. There’s an argument to be made that leaving after a modest win prevents you from making a big hit and doubling or tripling up. Its always possible to hit a big hand at any time and jump up several levels in the progression. If I’m sitting at a very good table with obvious fish or LAGs just waiting to be picked off, I will keep playing after I hit the next 1% benchmark to take advantage of the situation.

Although this strategy might seem ideally suited for limit games, I think its actually better suited for NL play because there is lower variance in NL. You can control the pot size, price out drawing hands, etc., and I’m much better at NL than limit. But it can work either way.

I’ve already put this strategy into play for 10 days. I’m through 19 levels and up over $800, with 11 winning sessions and 3 losing sessions (some of the “sessions” have been jumps in multiple levels). I’m playing roughly the same game, but I’m playing tighter, more aggressive, and I’m making better laydowns. Sessions of $40 and $50 wins add up nicely – no single session is a huge win (unless I hit a couple successive big hands), but I’m posting a lot more winning sessions.

Unless I’m hitting cold cards or tired and playing poorly, I can complete several levels in the span of a few hours of play (open 2 tables, complete a level, close that table and open another, repeat, repeat). The structure that I’m adding to my game may just be an illusion, but it gives me more focus each time I play, because there is a very specific goal for each session -- hit the next level. Each time I leave a table, I’ve progressed a level, which feels like a small, but important, accomplishment. For me, achieving a series of mini-goals and measuring the progress step-by-step is better than just playing, and its more fun. It’s the cure for those players that lament “Cash games are boring because I’m just playing hand after hand.” The progression in levels breaks up any monotony.

I’m a goal-oriented person, and this may just be what I need to make more steady progress and build up a bankroll to pay for some more trips and buy into some bigger live games and tournaments.