Now I see why the books and pros talk about the importance of “game selection,” which is poker-code for “play with the fish, avoid the sharks.” I think the sky is, in fact, falling.
In the last week, either my game has completely fallen apart, or the on-line tables are suddenly much tougher. I don’t think I’m playing much different or particularly bad. I’ve reviewed hands afterwards, and I don’t see much different about my play or any glaring mistakes. I’m honest with myself when I fuck up. I think I am witnessing the rapid effect of new laws choking of the continuous supply of funds to the on-line fish.
I’ve played SNGs regularly for a couple of years, and I’ve kept complete records for about 14 months now. I have consistently turned a profit in SNGs with a ROI around 20%. I’m a hobby player and no part of my family income is derived from poker, but I play to win and I hate losing. I’ve been playing off a single $200 on-line deposit since 2003. I've used Neteller only to move funds between sites, but I've never used it to make a deposit. The longest stretch I’ve ever gone without a cash in the last year is five SNGs.
During the last week, I had a 1-for-12 cash stretch at the $33, $55 and $75 levels. An all-time losing streak. Here’s what I see happening: The weak players are getting washed out of the games.
In a typical SNG at these levels and lower, prior to the legal crackdown, a table consisted of 3-4 weak players and the rest decent to very good players. Solid players rely on weaker players to make mistakes, which provides profit in the long run. The weaker players don’t have to be “bad,” they just have to make enough mistakes in the long run to provide a decent ROI for the solid players. These weak players can’t fund their accounts any more, and they are disappearing from the game.
Evidence of this trend:
1. Checks on Sharkscope prior to the crackdown revealed an amazing number of players that had huge losses in SNGs. They have to be continuously funding their accounts to keep playing. Now, checks on Sharkscope usually reveal only players that are making money. This is bad.
2. Lots of players are lasting longer in SNGs. The main characteristic of weak SNG players is that they take too many gambles at the early levels. In the past, a typical SNG was down to 4-5 players when pushbot play started. Now, there are sometimes 7-8 players still around during what use to be the bubble level – way more than I’ve ever seen before. At this point, all players are using correct strategy to be in pushbot mode even if they are a big stack because they are raising small stacks. Its become a contest of 7-8 players pushing, and just having your hand hold up, like the middle stages of a short-stack PStars multi-table tournament. The overall effect of stronger players is easier to see in SNG rather than cash games.
3. I see lots of posters on message boards that are suddenly short on funds and need help with transfers between sites. I’ve been kind of amazed at the extensive discussions on new creative methods to get funds into accounts – phone cards and such. These were the regular depositers that have lost the ability to fund their accounts. The games are literally drying up without their funds.
Another contributing factor is that I have not been able to win a single race situation in SNGs, which is really what you need against a table of solid players when everyone is in pushbot mode in later rounds. My AQ gets beat by KJ, my KQ gets beat by AT, my JJ gets beat by AQ, etc. – I was on the losing end of far more than my share of races in this stretch.
Not bitching, it just what happens sometimes. But, it used to be that these losing streaks were ironed out because not every SNG results in 7 players in pushbot mode. Previously, these occasional tough tables were broken up by tables with weakers players that naturally thinned the field, so only 3-4 players went to pushbot mode rather than 6-7. In the long run, this will have a dramatic effect on results.
Its inevitable that choking off the deposits will completely strangle on-line games. Sharks will play only with sharks, the very best and the lucky will win in the short-term, and the rake will eviscerate the funds in circulation. I am not one of the very best. I can see that continuous deposits from fish are absolutely critical to on-line poker, and the lawmakers certainly chose the most effective means of killing the games.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
My Vegas Options
I'm staying at the Wynn for the 'Wynn Classic' in a few weeks. And the Venetian is offering deep-stacked tournaments when I am there?! Sweet!! My only problem will be which to play in...
*****
Two prominent casinos seeking to increase their already growing presences in the Las Vegas poker market have announced major poker events with late February kickoffs. The Venetian has now released details on the 'Deep Stack Extravaganza,' running February 21st through March 11th, 2007, and over at the Wynn, the 'Wynn Classic' runs through the exact same dates. The two series offer vastly different formats, despite the matching three-week runs. The Venetian's deep-stack series emphasizes just that, offering 19 consecutive daily tournaments with either $300+30 or $500+40 buy-ins. The $330's provide a $6,000-chip starting stack, the $540's begin with $10,000 in chips, and both also offer a
purchase of even more chips ($1,500 and $2,500, respectively), for a nominal $10 dealer/staff gratuity. The Venetian's pre-Extravaganza press release also notes 40-minute levels and "very generous" blind structures, with daily satellites also offered to allow even lower-bankrolled players the opportunity to win their way into one of the larger events. 16 of the 19 scheduled events are no-limit Hold'em, with the other three split one each across the pot-limit Omaha, Omaha/8, and H.O.S. (Hold'em/Omaha/Stud) formats. Meanwhile, the Wynn Classic kicks off with a satellite day and two $500+40 no-limit Hold'em events as well, then jumps to events at $1,000+60, $2,000+80 or $3,000+100, and culminates in a four-day $10,000+200 buy-in finale that begins on March 8th.
*****
Two prominent casinos seeking to increase their already growing presences in the Las Vegas poker market have announced major poker events with late February kickoffs. The Venetian has now released details on the 'Deep Stack Extravaganza,' running February 21st through March 11th, 2007, and over at the Wynn, the 'Wynn Classic' runs through the exact same dates. The two series offer vastly different formats, despite the matching three-week runs. The Venetian's deep-stack series emphasizes just that, offering 19 consecutive daily tournaments with either $300+30 or $500+40 buy-ins. The $330's provide a $6,000-chip starting stack, the $540's begin with $10,000 in chips, and both also offer a
purchase of even more chips ($1,500 and $2,500, respectively), for a nominal $10 dealer/staff gratuity. The Venetian's pre-Extravaganza press release also notes 40-minute levels and "very generous" blind structures, with daily satellites also offered to allow even lower-bankrolled players the opportunity to win their way into one of the larger events. 16 of the 19 scheduled events are no-limit Hold'em, with the other three split one each across the pot-limit Omaha, Omaha/8, and H.O.S. (Hold'em/Omaha/Stud) formats. Meanwhile, the Wynn Classic kicks off with a satellite day and two $500+40 no-limit Hold'em events as well, then jumps to events at $1,000+60, $2,000+80 or $3,000+100, and culminates in a four-day $10,000+200 buy-in finale that begins on March 8th.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
I still play live poker
I didn’t get to play live poker during the entire month of January. That sucks.
Finally, I get out to play. Last Saturday night, live casino $2/5 NLHE game. I started with an $800 stack using the 75% rule (you can sit down with 75% of the biggest stack at the table). After only about 10 minutes, I tangled with the big stack.
He was wearing a Penn State sweatshirt. I had not heard him speak a single word yet, but he was at the other end of the table. Most of the other stacks at the table were somewhere between $200 and $500, but PennState was the big stack with more than $1500. I noticed that he took a decent amount of flops, but I hadn’t seen him win much since I sat down and he seemed pretty tight after the flop..
PennState limped UTG. I had KK in MP and raised to $25. This was fairly standard and did not give away the strength of my hand. Everyone folded back to PennState, and he called. We were heads-up with a pot of about $55.
Flop came Ts-6c-8s. He checked, I bet $50. He check-raised to $100 total. This seemed like an odd bet. I immediately assumed he was on a spade flush draw with the minraise, and he was testing to see if I whiffed and was just making a continuation bet. I thought he might also have something like AT, and C/R here for the same purpose -- to get me to lay down AK or an underpair. I felt very certain at this point that I was ahead, so I decided it was time to put in a big raise. I raised back $250, the size of the pot. Play big pots with big hands, right?
He asks the dealer, “How much more?” About 10 seconds after receiving the answer, he announces that he is all in.
Well, crap. Now I’m really put to the test. The pot is about $930, accounting for the fact that he has me covered. I have about $425 left in my stack, so I am not committed here -- if I decide that I’m behind, I can preserve $425 and play on.
So what the hell does he have? I start to run through all the possibilities. Did he limp-call with AA? Very unlikely. Based on the way he’s playing this on the flop, if he had AA he would have either (1) re-popped it pre-flop after I raised, (2) bet out on the flop with two spades on board or (3) check-raised me much more. He had no way of knowing that I would help him build this big of a pot through 4 bets on the flop, so I don’t think he would play AA this slow.
Spade flush draw? Maybe, but unlikely, based on my evaluation of his style. He didn’t seem to be the player that would put it all in on a draw unless he had something else to go with it, like top pair.
97? Also seemed unlikely. Would a relatively tight, decent player call out of position with this hand? Maybe in position in a multi-way hand, but this seemed unlikely heads-up and out of position against the second biggest stack.
Set? This has to be it. Set of TT? Possibly, but the least likely of the three possible sets he might have, since a big stack would very likely raise PF UTG with TT. 66 or 88? Yes, this is definitely the way that he might play second or third set (although the mini-C/R was odd).
What else do I know? I start to study him. He’s shuffling a very small stack of 6 chips, and I notice that he’s visibly shaking. In fact, his hand is trembling so much that he can barely shuffle 6 chips! He’s either extremely nervous or excited. It occurs to me that if this otherwise calm, cautious player were to suddenly run a bluff against the only stack at the table that can ruin his otherwise profitable evening, he would be absolutely motionless if he were on a bluff. So, I’m nearly positive now that I am looking at the trembling hand of a TAG player with a monster flop against the only player at the table that can turn his big stack into a gigantic $2000+ stack.
And, then there’s the golden rule of NL -- don’t go broke with one pair. So, after much thought, I folded. He did not show. He left about an hour later, and despite the largest stack he appeared to be the tightest player at the table. So, he probably did have a set.
The remainder of the night went very well. I ran my stack back up to about $1800 after about 2 hours, and cashed out for over $1600 after three hours of play.
Finally, I get out to play. Last Saturday night, live casino $2/5 NLHE game. I started with an $800 stack using the 75% rule (you can sit down with 75% of the biggest stack at the table). After only about 10 minutes, I tangled with the big stack.
He was wearing a Penn State sweatshirt. I had not heard him speak a single word yet, but he was at the other end of the table. Most of the other stacks at the table were somewhere between $200 and $500, but PennState was the big stack with more than $1500. I noticed that he took a decent amount of flops, but I hadn’t seen him win much since I sat down and he seemed pretty tight after the flop..
PennState limped UTG. I had KK in MP and raised to $25. This was fairly standard and did not give away the strength of my hand. Everyone folded back to PennState, and he called. We were heads-up with a pot of about $55.
Flop came Ts-6c-8s. He checked, I bet $50. He check-raised to $100 total. This seemed like an odd bet. I immediately assumed he was on a spade flush draw with the minraise, and he was testing to see if I whiffed and was just making a continuation bet. I thought he might also have something like AT, and C/R here for the same purpose -- to get me to lay down AK or an underpair. I felt very certain at this point that I was ahead, so I decided it was time to put in a big raise. I raised back $250, the size of the pot. Play big pots with big hands, right?
He asks the dealer, “How much more?” About 10 seconds after receiving the answer, he announces that he is all in.
Well, crap. Now I’m really put to the test. The pot is about $930, accounting for the fact that he has me covered. I have about $425 left in my stack, so I am not committed here -- if I decide that I’m behind, I can preserve $425 and play on.
So what the hell does he have? I start to run through all the possibilities. Did he limp-call with AA? Very unlikely. Based on the way he’s playing this on the flop, if he had AA he would have either (1) re-popped it pre-flop after I raised, (2) bet out on the flop with two spades on board or (3) check-raised me much more. He had no way of knowing that I would help him build this big of a pot through 4 bets on the flop, so I don’t think he would play AA this slow.
Spade flush draw? Maybe, but unlikely, based on my evaluation of his style. He didn’t seem to be the player that would put it all in on a draw unless he had something else to go with it, like top pair.
97? Also seemed unlikely. Would a relatively tight, decent player call out of position with this hand? Maybe in position in a multi-way hand, but this seemed unlikely heads-up and out of position against the second biggest stack.
Set? This has to be it. Set of TT? Possibly, but the least likely of the three possible sets he might have, since a big stack would very likely raise PF UTG with TT. 66 or 88? Yes, this is definitely the way that he might play second or third set (although the mini-C/R was odd).
What else do I know? I start to study him. He’s shuffling a very small stack of 6 chips, and I notice that he’s visibly shaking. In fact, his hand is trembling so much that he can barely shuffle 6 chips! He’s either extremely nervous or excited. It occurs to me that if this otherwise calm, cautious player were to suddenly run a bluff against the only stack at the table that can ruin his otherwise profitable evening, he would be absolutely motionless if he were on a bluff. So, I’m nearly positive now that I am looking at the trembling hand of a TAG player with a monster flop against the only player at the table that can turn his big stack into a gigantic $2000+ stack.
And, then there’s the golden rule of NL -- don’t go broke with one pair. So, after much thought, I folded. He did not show. He left about an hour later, and despite the largest stack he appeared to be the tightest player at the table. So, he probably did have a set.
The remainder of the night went very well. I ran my stack back up to about $1800 after about 2 hours, and cashed out for over $1600 after three hours of play.
$800 + 2 hours = $1800
(Phone cameras are made for chipstack pictures.)
No Mercy for the Weak-Tight
The other players were fairly easy to read. One woman sitting two to my left, who is a regular with her husband in this poker room, should have just announced exactly what her hands were. She was on a shortish stack all night long and was basically only playing top-15 hands pre-flop. She was moaning and groaning all night long about not getting any cards. She declared that she either raises or folds PF, and she doesn’t even mess with questionable PF hands.
So, I knew exactly where she stood when she played a pot. On the rare occasion that she played, it went like this:
(1) She became completely silent, which meant a premium hand -- AA, KK, QQ.
(2) She would say to her friend, sitting immediately to my left, something like “OK, let’s see if this goes anywhere.” This meant she had two big cards like AK, AQ or a small pocket pair that was good only for set value.
(3) She would groan and raise, meaning she had a middle pocket pair like TT, 99 or 88, and she was just waiting to get bet off her hand when the inevitable overcard hit on the flop.
Unless she hit the flop or started with a premium hand, she would bail out. There was no bluffing to her game. Weak-tighties don’t get any easier to read than this. So, of course, I was the villain who ended her evening in misery...
I’m in late position and limp in with several others. Weak-Tight raises to $15 on the button with a stack of about $250, and she gives the “let’s see if this goes anywhere” comment to our mutual neighbor. So, I believe that she is in category #2 -- big cards or small pocket pair. (Its amazing that she would not notice that I’m paying attention to all of these comments...) Everyone calls.
Flop is Qh-8h-6d. Its checked to me and I bet $30. Weak-tight minraises to $60. Its folded back to me and I call. At this point, I’m 100% certain she has either AQ, 88 or 66.
Turn is (Qh-8h-6d)-4c -- an apparently harmless card. I give a little facial expression that says “Damn, that didn’t complete my flush,” and I check. She bets $75. I think for a bit, sigh like I’m on a draw and reluctantly go all in. She calls and turns over 66 for the set. I reveal 75o for the nut straight.
The river bricks out, and she stands up in complete disgust. “Why do people play that shit?” she asks, referring to my pitiful 75o. As an answer, I motion to the pile of chips that I’m stacking. After she leaves, several others declare that she blew the hand, as she should have raised more on the flop. They were absolutely right.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
The Next PartyPoker
The Bodog Challenge Update
Starting Bodog Bankroll on Jan. 14, 2007: $31
Bankroll at Last Blog Post: $211
Gain/Loss: $129
Current Bodog Bankroll: $340
Total SNGs played: 41
Total Cash Game Table-Hours: 3.5
Have I found the next PartyPoker? In less than three weeks of sporadic play I have run $31 to $340. This is how the “PartyPoker Challenge” started back in August 2006. The SNGs are loaded with players that make so many mistakes. The cash tables are filled with mediocre players. The heads-up limit hold ‘em tables are volatile, but a gold mine waiting to be tapped.
In this type of challenge, the risk of ruin is very high at the start. But now I’ve settled into the $21 and $36 SNGs and HU limit HE tables, and I’d have to run awfully cold to bust this bankroll.
Too bad the software and interface sucks.
Starting Bodog Bankroll on Jan. 14, 2007: $31
Bankroll at Last Blog Post: $211
Gain/Loss: $129
Current Bodog Bankroll: $340
Total SNGs played: 41
Total Cash Game Table-Hours: 3.5
Have I found the next PartyPoker? In less than three weeks of sporadic play I have run $31 to $340. This is how the “PartyPoker Challenge” started back in August 2006. The SNGs are loaded with players that make so many mistakes. The cash tables are filled with mediocre players. The heads-up limit hold ‘em tables are volatile, but a gold mine waiting to be tapped.
In this type of challenge, the risk of ruin is very high at the start. But now I’ve settled into the $21 and $36 SNGs and HU limit HE tables, and I’d have to run awfully cold to bust this bankroll.
Too bad the software and interface sucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
