I initially thought that I played this hand in the last weekly CT tournament very poorly. The result was certainly bad. Hand history and running commentary:
PokerStars Tournament Level VI (100/200) - 2007/01/25
Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: (1645 in chips)
Seat 2: (4125 in chips)
Seat 3: (1405 in chips)
Seat 5: Darvcus (4520 in chips) -- I’m big stack, an important consideration.
Seat 6: (1605 in chips)
Seat 7: Villain (3990 in chips) -- Villain makes loose calls, another important point.
Seat 8: (3775 in chips)
Seat 9: (2770 in chips)
SB posts small blind 100
Villain: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Darvcus [Tc 8c]
folds, folds, folds, folds, folds
Darvcus: raises 400 to 600 -- Yes, a steal raise. Also, I really like T8s. Its one of my favorite hands. I don’t know why.
SB folds
Villain: raises 400 to 1000
Darvcus: calls 400 -- Villain could have a wide range of hands here. I think he would raise more with a premium hand. Call here is standard, but unnecessarily expensive given stack sizes.
*** FLOP *** [Kh Th Ks]
Villain: bets 600
Darvcus: calls 600 -- My instant reaction was that he has an underpair. I thought there was very little chance that he would play a K like this. After a bit of thinking, I settle on something like 80% underpair, 15% ten, 5% king. I don’t think this player would be a flush draw or straight draw here.
*** TURN *** [Kh Th Ks] [5d]
Villain: checks
Darvcus: checks --- His check tells me that he’s scared that I may have a king or a ten. So, my initial thought of an underpair is strengthened. If I check, it might signal that I’m on a draw (QJ, AQ, J9, something like that) or that I am setting a trap with a big hand.
*** RIVER *** [Kh Th Ks 5d] [6c]
Villain: bets 800
Darvcus: calls 800 -- Value bet with a lucky with 55 or 66 for a boat? Naah. He thinks that my draw didn’t get there? Yeah, that’s probably it. Decent chance my ten is good, which make this a super easy call given his range of hands and that I’m getting a great price -- 800 for 4000+.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Villain: shows [Ah Ts] (two pair, Kings and Tens)
Villain collected 4900 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4900 Rake 0
Board [Kh Th Ks 5d 6c]
Seat 5: Darvcus (button) mucked [Tc 8c]
Seat 7: Villain (big blind) showed [Ah Ts] and won (4900) with two pair, Kings and Tens
Well, crap. I’m crippled, and this hand was ultimately my demise because cold-card, pushbot poker followed to the end. This is why small-stack tournaments are so frustrating, and thinking in terms of cash games is damaging. There’s zero room for error in shallow tournaments. In a cash game, this would have been a fairly standard hand (including my button play here) -- I might have started with maybe 140 BBs as the big stack at the table and lost about 13BBs. No big deal. But since this is a shallow tournament, I start with about 23 BBs, lose 13BBs, and I’m suddenly in Pushbot mode. Give me deep-stack play!
Other ways to my play in this hand:
1. Re-raise PF and put him to the test. He probably would have called. No comment.
2. Raise the flop. He probably would have called. No comment.
3. Push on the river. I actually think he’s more likely to lay down to this play because of the concern that I’ve been slow-playing a king. But he probably would have called.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
My Turn
I've suffered many a bad beat, so its time for me to deliver one. For some reason, I don't feel too bad about it. I'd play this the same way about 100% of the time. This looks similar to a certain High Stakes Poker hand, just for several hundred thousand less.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Rocky Cash Games
I busted out of the CT tournament in the middle of the pack, as usual. Too much PF poker -- need deeper stacks. Plus, I made one very poor play, which is a killer given stack sizes.
Close tournament table, open cash game tables. In this hand tonight, my aces hold up. Whaddyaknow. After I raised UTG, I'm just hoping everyone doesn't fold, given the rockiness of the game. When BB calls the small stack push and then calls my reraise, he's gotta have a hand. The flop is almost perfect, except for the two spades. I'm 95% sure I'm way ahead, because BB would have made it 3 bets PF with KK or QQ. If he has AQ, I'm going to get some more. If he has AK, I'm going to get it all. If he has KQ, oh well.
I get the sense that the cash games are tightening up on all sites. Or at least there's less donks from the current reload constraints. I dunno, maybe this is just my limited experience from occasionaly play. My SNG results remain steady, but the cash games seem tougher. I'm playing my same game, but the results are flat. If it weren't for the occasional hand like above, my cash game results would be very flat. Standard play, win the occasional big pot, pack it in and move to the next table. The running back plan.
The Bodog Challenge Update
Starting Bodog Bankroll on Jan. 14, 2007: $31
Bankroll at Last Blog Post: $117
Gain/Loss: $94
Current Bodog Bankroll: $211
Total SNGs played: 25 (lots of HU SNGs)
Cash Game Table-Hours: 2.5
Sports Bets: 1 (2-team parlay -- Bears -3 and Patriots +3)
I’m starting to dislike the Bodog SNG structures. The early levels are OK, but after the 50-100 level, the blinds double at each stage and therefore escalate way too fast. I’m in pushbot mode whether I’m a big or smaller stack, based on the size of the smaller stacks at the table. In one game, I was pushing with decent hands as a big stack into stacks of 6-9 BBs. Someone asked, “Speak, do you have a monkey pushing buttons for you?’’ Apparently my play set everyone on tilt, as they started calling my AQ and TT with hands like T8 and J9 out of frustration.
Close tournament table, open cash game tables. In this hand tonight, my aces hold up. Whaddyaknow. After I raised UTG, I'm just hoping everyone doesn't fold, given the rockiness of the game. When BB calls the small stack push and then calls my reraise, he's gotta have a hand. The flop is almost perfect, except for the two spades. I'm 95% sure I'm way ahead, because BB would have made it 3 bets PF with KK or QQ. If he has AQ, I'm going to get some more. If he has AK, I'm going to get it all. If he has KQ, oh well.
I get the sense that the cash games are tightening up on all sites. Or at least there's less donks from the current reload constraints. I dunno, maybe this is just my limited experience from occasionaly play. My SNG results remain steady, but the cash games seem tougher. I'm playing my same game, but the results are flat. If it weren't for the occasional hand like above, my cash game results would be very flat. Standard play, win the occasional big pot, pack it in and move to the next table. The running back plan.
The Bodog Challenge Update
Starting Bodog Bankroll on Jan. 14, 2007: $31
Bankroll at Last Blog Post: $117
Gain/Loss: $94
Current Bodog Bankroll: $211
Total SNGs played: 25 (lots of HU SNGs)
Cash Game Table-Hours: 2.5
Sports Bets: 1 (2-team parlay -- Bears -3 and Patriots +3)
I’m starting to dislike the Bodog SNG structures. The early levels are OK, but after the 50-100 level, the blinds double at each stage and therefore escalate way too fast. I’m in pushbot mode whether I’m a big or smaller stack, based on the size of the smaller stacks at the table. In one game, I was pushing with decent hands as a big stack into stacks of 6-9 BBs. Someone asked, “Speak, do you have a monkey pushing buttons for you?’’ Apparently my play set everyone on tilt, as they started calling my AQ and TT with hands like T8 and J9 out of frustration.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Try this trick
I can't believe this actually worked.
Home game in my basement, about 3 weeks before Christmas. Everyone is in great spirits, which made everything fun even when people were losing. All 8 players are still in the tournament. I have a monster stack thanks to solid play and a few lucky breaks here and there.
I raise UTG. Friend to my immediate left calls, as does button. Flop is Kh-7h-3s. I bet about half the pot. Player on my left calls, button folds.
Turn is (Kh-7h-3s)-9h. Other player in the hand has a shortish stack. To draw attention to the play that I'm about to try, I say, "Is it legal to show my cards now?" I know the answer. Everyone kind of says, "Um, yeah, I guess."
I flip the Ah face up and announce that I'm all in.
Oohs and aahs at this odd move. Other player in the hand looks like he has a tough decision, so I know that he has a K. Another player at the table says exactly what I'm hoping for: "Why would he do that unless he's bluffing?"
Victim ponders, with assistance from the others at the table. The consensus is that I'm clearly bluffing. "OK, I call."
I flip over the 6h for the nut flush. Victim groans and rebuys. More oohs and aahs.
Fun stuff.
Home game in my basement, about 3 weeks before Christmas. Everyone is in great spirits, which made everything fun even when people were losing. All 8 players are still in the tournament. I have a monster stack thanks to solid play and a few lucky breaks here and there.
I raise UTG. Friend to my immediate left calls, as does button. Flop is Kh-7h-3s. I bet about half the pot. Player on my left calls, button folds.
Turn is (Kh-7h-3s)-9h. Other player in the hand has a shortish stack. To draw attention to the play that I'm about to try, I say, "Is it legal to show my cards now?" I know the answer. Everyone kind of says, "Um, yeah, I guess."
I flip the Ah face up and announce that I'm all in.
Oohs and aahs at this odd move. Other player in the hand looks like he has a tough decision, so I know that he has a K. Another player at the table says exactly what I'm hoping for: "Why would he do that unless he's bluffing?"
Victim ponders, with assistance from the others at the table. The consensus is that I'm clearly bluffing. "OK, I call."
I flip over the 6h for the nut flush. Victim groans and rebuys. More oohs and aahs.
Fun stuff.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Rethinking Hold ‘em – Tournament vs. Cash Games
Occasionally someone on CT asks about the main difference between NL hold ‘em tournaments and cash games. Frequently the question is “why do I excel in SNGs and tournaments but suck at cash games?”
Pondering this question, a new approach to thinking about the game just occurred to me.
In hold ‘em, your hand strength is traditionally defined by your two starting hole cards. When someone is defined as a LAG, they play a lot of their two starting cards and see a lot of flops. When someone says “I have a really good hand,” they are talking about their two hole cards.
But, hold ‘em is a seven card game, not two. What if I define my “starting hand” as the first five cards? Three of the five are common cards, but they are still part of my hand. What if I decide to play a lot of starting hands, with the idea that my starting hand is my first five cards, and not just my first two cards?
My focus shifts to the flop. If I define my starting hand as the first five cards, then the notion of loose or tight does not even begin until I make my decision after I see the first three board cards. Seeing the flop is routine, and I make my first decision after I see my first five cards. I’m playing 5-card hold ‘em rather than 2-card hold ‘em.
What is the cost of this approach? Typically, no more than 3BBs or 4BBs. In a standard cash game in late position, I can usually see the flop for one standard raise.
What hands qualify to see my 5-card starting hand? Just about any playable 2-card starting hand -- all pairs, suited connectors, big cards and suited aces. I’ll tighten these requirements in early position, but proceed to the flop in late or middle position for a standard pre-flop raise. The pre-flop raise is merely the cost to see my 5-card starting hand.
Now, back to tournaments vs. cash games -- I think this 5-card mind-set explains the difference between cash games and tournaments (SNGs included). In a tournament, your stack size often precludes you from seeing lots of flops. Its just too expensive relative to the blinds. This is especially true in on-line short-stack tournaments like the weekly CT tournament. If I have 3500 at the 50/100 level in the weekly CT tournament, I’m in decent shape. But, the cost to see just three flops with a 3500 stack would be over 25% of my stack. That’s just too expensive relative to my stack size. So, in a typical on-line tournament, almost all of the critical decisions are made based on the first two cards alone.
In comparison, in a typical cash game, after about an hour of successful play I might have 130BBs, so seeing as many as five flops for a standard raise is just around 10% of my stack. Therein lies the major difference between cash games and tournaments. Now, once I’ve seen my 5-card starting hand, I’m going to evaluate the strength of my hand. This is where the most critical decisions are made in cash games. But, if I’m seeing more flops and spending more money up front, I have to be even more cautious to not over-play my 5-card starting hand. I think this is the difference between successful and unsuccessful NLHE players.
I believe this is why so many of the most very successful big-time tournament players focus first on the blind structure of any tournament. The blind structure throughout the whole tournament (not just the first few levels) is absolutely critical for them to have enough chips to pay to see lots of their 5-card starting hands. For tight players, this is not so important because they are making most of their decisions based on their first 2 cards. But for players like Negreanu, Goehring and other famous loose players, a shallow blind structure is the most critical element of the tournament.
This is nothing revolutionary – play deep-stack poker and see lots of flops. But, if my focus becomes routinely seeing flops and making the first major decision after I see 5 cards, I’ve adjusted for cash games. If I play the 2-card version of hold ‘em, its usually too tight for cash games.
The Bodog Challenge Update
Starting Bodog Bankroll: $31
Gain/Loss: $85
Current Bodog Bankroll: $117
SNGs played: 9
Cash Game Table-Hours: 1
Pondering this question, a new approach to thinking about the game just occurred to me.
In hold ‘em, your hand strength is traditionally defined by your two starting hole cards. When someone is defined as a LAG, they play a lot of their two starting cards and see a lot of flops. When someone says “I have a really good hand,” they are talking about their two hole cards.
But, hold ‘em is a seven card game, not two. What if I define my “starting hand” as the first five cards? Three of the five are common cards, but they are still part of my hand. What if I decide to play a lot of starting hands, with the idea that my starting hand is my first five cards, and not just my first two cards?
My focus shifts to the flop. If I define my starting hand as the first five cards, then the notion of loose or tight does not even begin until I make my decision after I see the first three board cards. Seeing the flop is routine, and I make my first decision after I see my first five cards. I’m playing 5-card hold ‘em rather than 2-card hold ‘em.
What is the cost of this approach? Typically, no more than 3BBs or 4BBs. In a standard cash game in late position, I can usually see the flop for one standard raise.
What hands qualify to see my 5-card starting hand? Just about any playable 2-card starting hand -- all pairs, suited connectors, big cards and suited aces. I’ll tighten these requirements in early position, but proceed to the flop in late or middle position for a standard pre-flop raise. The pre-flop raise is merely the cost to see my 5-card starting hand.
Now, back to tournaments vs. cash games -- I think this 5-card mind-set explains the difference between cash games and tournaments (SNGs included). In a tournament, your stack size often precludes you from seeing lots of flops. Its just too expensive relative to the blinds. This is especially true in on-line short-stack tournaments like the weekly CT tournament. If I have 3500 at the 50/100 level in the weekly CT tournament, I’m in decent shape. But, the cost to see just three flops with a 3500 stack would be over 25% of my stack. That’s just too expensive relative to my stack size. So, in a typical on-line tournament, almost all of the critical decisions are made based on the first two cards alone.
In comparison, in a typical cash game, after about an hour of successful play I might have 130BBs, so seeing as many as five flops for a standard raise is just around 10% of my stack. Therein lies the major difference between cash games and tournaments. Now, once I’ve seen my 5-card starting hand, I’m going to evaluate the strength of my hand. This is where the most critical decisions are made in cash games. But, if I’m seeing more flops and spending more money up front, I have to be even more cautious to not over-play my 5-card starting hand. I think this is the difference between successful and unsuccessful NLHE players.
I believe this is why so many of the most very successful big-time tournament players focus first on the blind structure of any tournament. The blind structure throughout the whole tournament (not just the first few levels) is absolutely critical for them to have enough chips to pay to see lots of their 5-card starting hands. For tight players, this is not so important because they are making most of their decisions based on their first 2 cards. But for players like Negreanu, Goehring and other famous loose players, a shallow blind structure is the most critical element of the tournament.
This is nothing revolutionary – play deep-stack poker and see lots of flops. But, if my focus becomes routinely seeing flops and making the first major decision after I see 5 cards, I’ve adjusted for cash games. If I play the 2-card version of hold ‘em, its usually too tight for cash games.
The Bodog Challenge Update
Starting Bodog Bankroll: $31
Gain/Loss: $85
Current Bodog Bankroll: $117
SNGs played: 9
Cash Game Table-Hours: 1
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Surprisingly, I Can Still Play Tournaments
My cash game results have been crap lately, and I seem to only show a consistent profit in SNGs for the last few weeks. Since I struggle to make a CT Thursday night final table and haven’t played in many other tournaments, I decided to see if I can still play tournaments. So, I made the decision to play the $26 buy-in FullTilt $25,000 guarantee on Saturday night, and really focus and be ready to stay up late to make a strong finish. I also entered two other tournaments that started at the same time – a $75 FT satellite to a FTOPS tournament and a 90-seat $11 SNG.
Results:
$75 Satellite: There were only about 30 entrants, and it paid six $215 seats (and I would unregister and take the cash). Within the first 5 minutes, my AA were all in vs KK and QQ pre-flop. A king hit on the turn and I’m gone. I could have coasted to a cash finish with a triple+ stack in that one.
90-player deep-stack $11 SNG: 1st place, $250 cash. I can still play medium sized tournaments, despite my CT performance. All of the SNG and HU play really paid off here. At the final table, I was about 4th in chips at the start. I just played it like a SNG, with patience early and then aggression when we were down to 4 players. Others seemed to panic too early and dumped chips with moderate hands.
Despite the fact that this was a deep-stack tournament, I suffered a bad beat at the second level and was down to around 900 when everyone else had 3000+. I used all my hard-earned skills from the weekly CT tournaments and nursed a small stack for quite some time through early and mid-levels until I worked back up to a respectable stack size.
$25,000 guarantee, 1614 entrants: 24th place, $166 cash. At three tables, I was 5th in chips. The crippling hand was my 99 vs AK. Early player limped, I raised 4xBB, and button pushed. I was ABSOLUTELY sure button had AK based on my read of his past play. I made the conscious decision to race, knowing that if I won I would have been 2nd in chips, way in front with the chip leader, and would surely have made the final table. I lost the race, but I was actually very satisfied that I read the hand exactly right – it was like I could see everyone’s cards face up. This was actually the most satisfying hand of the tournament because I was so sure of my read, and I was right.
The Bodog Challenge
I deposited $100 in a Bodog account at the start of the football season, for some fun sports bets. I did OK with the sports bets, but played in a few NL cash games and suffered suckouts. So now I have $31 on there. How far can I run that $31? I'm starting with SNGs.
Results:
$75 Satellite: There were only about 30 entrants, and it paid six $215 seats (and I would unregister and take the cash). Within the first 5 minutes, my AA were all in vs KK and QQ pre-flop. A king hit on the turn and I’m gone. I could have coasted to a cash finish with a triple+ stack in that one.
90-player deep-stack $11 SNG: 1st place, $250 cash. I can still play medium sized tournaments, despite my CT performance. All of the SNG and HU play really paid off here. At the final table, I was about 4th in chips at the start. I just played it like a SNG, with patience early and then aggression when we were down to 4 players. Others seemed to panic too early and dumped chips with moderate hands.
Despite the fact that this was a deep-stack tournament, I suffered a bad beat at the second level and was down to around 900 when everyone else had 3000+. I used all my hard-earned skills from the weekly CT tournaments and nursed a small stack for quite some time through early and mid-levels until I worked back up to a respectable stack size.
$25,000 guarantee, 1614 entrants: 24th place, $166 cash. At three tables, I was 5th in chips. The crippling hand was my 99 vs AK. Early player limped, I raised 4xBB, and button pushed. I was ABSOLUTELY sure button had AK based on my read of his past play. I made the conscious decision to race, knowing that if I won I would have been 2nd in chips, way in front with the chip leader, and would surely have made the final table. I lost the race, but I was actually very satisfied that I read the hand exactly right – it was like I could see everyone’s cards face up. This was actually the most satisfying hand of the tournament because I was so sure of my read, and I was right.
The Bodog Challenge
I deposited $100 in a Bodog account at the start of the football season, for some fun sports bets. I did OK with the sports bets, but played in a few NL cash games and suffered suckouts. So now I have $31 on there. How far can I run that $31? I'm starting with SNGs.
2006
Short summary of my poker in 2006:
Party Poker
I was crushing the Party NL games to the tune of something like 12BB per table-hour for an extended time, but that shut down when Party closed to US accounts. (I assume. I withdrew all my funds, but I don’t know for a fact that I can’t actually play there anymore...) I really jump-started my Party play when I did the “cash game challenges” on CT, and proceeded to run $200 to nearly $3000. For me, nothing inspires good play like a challenge and setting goals.
After Party shut down, I kept playing NL cash games on FullTilt and Stars. My results there are much less impressive than on Party. I’ve analyzed my play, and I’ve concluded that the competition is much tougher than on Party. Where did all the fish go? As much as I’d like to believe that each avatar on the screen is the same faceless little ATM machine, there are real players at the mouse and some of them are as good as me, or better. Damn it.
SNGs
I took what amounted to an extended break from SNGs while playing Party NL cash games. After the Party ended, I added SNGs back into my online poker diet. I played a mix of $33, $55 and $75 SNGs. Summary of 2006 results
In the money: about 45%
ROI: about 22%
Total SNGs: 275
Total winnings: about $2500
Yeah, 2+2 posters would jump on this – “Small sample size!” I only play at night, and this is a lot of play for me. I’m happy with the results, and I’ve played enough to be confident that this is not just a lucky stretch. And the trend is continuing in 2007.
From what I read on 2+2, this is a wonderful ROI at the middle levels. My longest stretch without a cash was 5 SNGs, and during some stretches I was cashing 8 out of 10. I usually play only 2 at a time -- anything more and I am completely unable to get a read on anyone at any table, and I rely heavily on my reads.
In December, I learned about “Sharkscope,” and discovered that I have the little “shark” icon on FT and PS. Wheeee. Sharkscope is actually somewhat useful in certain situations, especially in heads-up play. I am absolutely amazed at the SNG losses of some players. Some of them have negative ROI and their losses are into the thousands from $50 SNGs! How the hell do they keep playing?
I really like heads-up SNGs, because they don’t take much time and they really the competitive blood to a boil. I played 65 HU SNGs, and my ROI was around 10%. My specialty seems to be limit hold ‘em heads-up SNGs (yes, limit) – I really like these, and nearly everyone seems to overplay one or two key big hands each game. But 9-seat SNGs is where to really make the money.
Weekly CT Tournaments
My CT weekly tournament performance has dropped. The play there is much better overall, and the regulars are getting better. Its pretty much a crap-shoot each week, because everyone plays solid pre-flop poker and you need to get good cards to go anywhere. There are less players to pick on, and some the players that I used to bully have become better at sniffing out my bluffs. Its still good practice, and I still enjoy looking forward to Thursday night play. The side bets and team play has kept things interesting and competitive.
On-Line tournaments
On-line tournaments require significant luck and extended concentration, and I really don’t have the time to devote to large field tournaments. I’d like to tackle more mid-level buy-in medium sized on-line tournaments (300-600 entrants), but I can’t stay up until 2am or later to finish these. I wish I had time to play more of these, but SNGs are ideal for the time that I can devote. Despite this, my ROI for tournaments was over 150% for the year, due to 2 big on-line tournament scores early in the year for $2000+.
“Taking a Shot” in the Bigger Cash Games
The majority of my on-line cash game losses came from three separate sessions where I “took a shot” in higher stakes games and had very bad nights. On two occasions, I lost tons to horrible suckouts, and on one occasion I just played bad. I would consider the suckouts to be just normal variance at my regular stakes, but the impact is amplified when playing way above your bankroll. If I could erase the losses from these three nights, I would have about $3000 more in my accounts. These expeditions into the higher limits has reinforced basic bankroll management points for me:
(1) play within your bankroll,
(2) beats can happen at any time, even when you’re playing your very best poker, and
(3) if you do take a shot at higher limits, you have to live with the fact that you might erase 6 months worth of winnings in a single session.
2007
So, where do I go from here? Goals for 2007 --
Cash games:
(1) I need to find games as good as Party used to be. Do they exist?
(2) Build the bankroll back to its previous heights. I want $3000 in each on-line account.
(3) Keep playing live cash games at the biggest levels offered locally.
(4) In Vegas, take a shot at a bigger NL game, like $10/20 blinds -- I’m ready for that challenge.
SNGs:
(1) Play more SNGs than cash games on-line. Taking all of 2006 into account, I’ve had better success at SNGs than cash games.
(2) Keep ROI above 20%.
(3) Play 300+ SNGs at the mid levels.
Tournaments:
(1) Keep playing the CT weekly, improve overall results. Primary goal is make final tables.
(2) Occasionally play the weekly Ameristar tournament.
(3) Play in the Wynn Classic $500 event in February.
(4) Play in a WSOP event, around $2000 buy-in.
(5) Play in as many Vegas daily tournaments as I can cram in when I’m there.
(6) Play MORE aggressive in tournaments. I’m starting to firmly believe the strategy of “build up a big stack with LAG play.” It saves time in the long run because I build up a stack to be the bully and last longer (and have more fun), or I bail out early and move on to more lucrative tables.
Other games and other stuff:
(1) Get better at Omaha high.
(2) Get better at 7-stud high-low. I played this occasionally, cash games and SNGs, I like it. Oddly, it doesn’t confuse me like Omaha-8 does.
(3) Find out if there’s another game out there that is like the early days of on-line NLHE, where you can make gobs of easy money.
(4) I purchased a 20” plat-panel LCD TV from the poker bankroll in 2006 (which I now watch while playing on-line – is that a good thing?). I’m aiming to pay for a Dell laptop and wireless connection from the poker bankroll in 2007, in addition to the Vegas trips.
(5) Including money withdrawn for rewards and trips, get lifetime poker winnings to $25,000+ in 2007.
Party Poker
I was crushing the Party NL games to the tune of something like 12BB per table-hour for an extended time, but that shut down when Party closed to US accounts. (I assume. I withdrew all my funds, but I don’t know for a fact that I can’t actually play there anymore...) I really jump-started my Party play when I did the “cash game challenges” on CT, and proceeded to run $200 to nearly $3000. For me, nothing inspires good play like a challenge and setting goals.
After Party shut down, I kept playing NL cash games on FullTilt and Stars. My results there are much less impressive than on Party. I’ve analyzed my play, and I’ve concluded that the competition is much tougher than on Party. Where did all the fish go? As much as I’d like to believe that each avatar on the screen is the same faceless little ATM machine, there are real players at the mouse and some of them are as good as me, or better. Damn it.
SNGs
I took what amounted to an extended break from SNGs while playing Party NL cash games. After the Party ended, I added SNGs back into my online poker diet. I played a mix of $33, $55 and $75 SNGs. Summary of 2006 results
In the money: about 45%
ROI: about 22%
Total SNGs: 275
Total winnings: about $2500
Yeah, 2+2 posters would jump on this – “Small sample size!” I only play at night, and this is a lot of play for me. I’m happy with the results, and I’ve played enough to be confident that this is not just a lucky stretch. And the trend is continuing in 2007.
From what I read on 2+2, this is a wonderful ROI at the middle levels. My longest stretch without a cash was 5 SNGs, and during some stretches I was cashing 8 out of 10. I usually play only 2 at a time -- anything more and I am completely unable to get a read on anyone at any table, and I rely heavily on my reads.
In December, I learned about “Sharkscope,” and discovered that I have the little “shark” icon on FT and PS. Wheeee. Sharkscope is actually somewhat useful in certain situations, especially in heads-up play. I am absolutely amazed at the SNG losses of some players. Some of them have negative ROI and their losses are into the thousands from $50 SNGs! How the hell do they keep playing?
I really like heads-up SNGs, because they don’t take much time and they really the competitive blood to a boil. I played 65 HU SNGs, and my ROI was around 10%. My specialty seems to be limit hold ‘em heads-up SNGs (yes, limit) – I really like these, and nearly everyone seems to overplay one or two key big hands each game. But 9-seat SNGs is where to really make the money.
Weekly CT Tournaments
My CT weekly tournament performance has dropped. The play there is much better overall, and the regulars are getting better. Its pretty much a crap-shoot each week, because everyone plays solid pre-flop poker and you need to get good cards to go anywhere. There are less players to pick on, and some the players that I used to bully have become better at sniffing out my bluffs. Its still good practice, and I still enjoy looking forward to Thursday night play. The side bets and team play has kept things interesting and competitive.
On-Line tournaments
On-line tournaments require significant luck and extended concentration, and I really don’t have the time to devote to large field tournaments. I’d like to tackle more mid-level buy-in medium sized on-line tournaments (300-600 entrants), but I can’t stay up until 2am or later to finish these. I wish I had time to play more of these, but SNGs are ideal for the time that I can devote. Despite this, my ROI for tournaments was over 150% for the year, due to 2 big on-line tournament scores early in the year for $2000+.
“Taking a Shot” in the Bigger Cash Games
The majority of my on-line cash game losses came from three separate sessions where I “took a shot” in higher stakes games and had very bad nights. On two occasions, I lost tons to horrible suckouts, and on one occasion I just played bad. I would consider the suckouts to be just normal variance at my regular stakes, but the impact is amplified when playing way above your bankroll. If I could erase the losses from these three nights, I would have about $3000 more in my accounts. These expeditions into the higher limits has reinforced basic bankroll management points for me:
(1) play within your bankroll,
(2) beats can happen at any time, even when you’re playing your very best poker, and
(3) if you do take a shot at higher limits, you have to live with the fact that you might erase 6 months worth of winnings in a single session.
2007
So, where do I go from here? Goals for 2007 --
Cash games:
(1) I need to find games as good as Party used to be. Do they exist?
(2) Build the bankroll back to its previous heights. I want $3000 in each on-line account.
(3) Keep playing live cash games at the biggest levels offered locally.
(4) In Vegas, take a shot at a bigger NL game, like $10/20 blinds -- I’m ready for that challenge.
SNGs:
(1) Play more SNGs than cash games on-line. Taking all of 2006 into account, I’ve had better success at SNGs than cash games.
(2) Keep ROI above 20%.
(3) Play 300+ SNGs at the mid levels.
Tournaments:
(1) Keep playing the CT weekly, improve overall results. Primary goal is make final tables.
(2) Occasionally play the weekly Ameristar tournament.
(3) Play in the Wynn Classic $500 event in February.
(4) Play in a WSOP event, around $2000 buy-in.
(5) Play in as many Vegas daily tournaments as I can cram in when I’m there.
(6) Play MORE aggressive in tournaments. I’m starting to firmly believe the strategy of “build up a big stack with LAG play.” It saves time in the long run because I build up a stack to be the bully and last longer (and have more fun), or I bail out early and move on to more lucrative tables.
Other games and other stuff:
(1) Get better at Omaha high.
(2) Get better at 7-stud high-low. I played this occasionally, cash games and SNGs, I like it. Oddly, it doesn’t confuse me like Omaha-8 does.
(3) Find out if there’s another game out there that is like the early days of on-line NLHE, where you can make gobs of easy money.
(4) I purchased a 20” plat-panel LCD TV from the poker bankroll in 2006 (which I now watch while playing on-line – is that a good thing?). I’m aiming to pay for a Dell laptop and wireless connection from the poker bankroll in 2007, in addition to the Vegas trips.
(5) Including money withdrawn for rewards and trips, get lifetime poker winnings to $25,000+ in 2007.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Aces
After several misplayed hands, I am starting to see that the old adage “win a small pot or lose a big pot with aces” is really true. Here is one trouble hand:
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 5: SpeakEasy_ ( $219.10 )
Seat 4: Villain ( $197.25 )
SpeakEasy_ posts small blind [$1].
Rogue166 posts big blind [$2].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to SpeakEasy_ [ Ad As ]
Everyone fold to Button
Villain raises [$6].
SpeakEasy_ raises [$14].
BB folds.
Villain calls [$9].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 2h, Qs, 6s ]
SpeakEasy_ bets [$18].
Villain calls [$18].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Kd ]
SpeakEasy_ bets [$65].
Villain calls [$65].
** Dealing River ** [ Td ]
SpeakEasy_ is all-In [$121.10]
Villain is all-In [$99.25]
SpeakEasy_ shows [ Ad, As ] a pair of aces.
Villain shows [ Kc, Qh ] two pairs, kings and queens.
SpeakEasy_ wins $21.85 from side pot #1 with a pair of aces.
Villain wins $393.50 from the main pot with two pairs, kings and queens.
Critical analysis of the way I played this hand:
First, I think my PF raise is OK. I want to build a bigger pot, but I really don’t want to scare him away. He could have a wide range of hands, but if he calls its probably something other than complete junk. I could have raised more, to maybe $20, but I don’t think that would have changes the outcome.
On the flop, I almost certainly have the best hand. I probably bet too small, but he also probably calls a pot-sized bet anyway. So, this is somewhat of a mistake on my part, but it still gives me the information that I need to proceed -- he very likely has a queen. At this point, I’d put him on AQ, KQ, QJ or QT, probably not QQ, but that’s also possible. A heart draw is also likely. He could also have a set or AK, but that’s less likely.
I kind of goof on the turn. I think a smaller bet here gives me all the info that I need. I bet the pot, but if I bet maybe a 2/3 bet and get called this should still signal trouble. A 2/3 bet is enough to correctly price out the heart draw. If I make a slightly smaller bet here and get called, I should be thinking about seeing the cheapest possible showdown from this point forward and cross my fingers. AK becomes a possibility, because I would probably call here with AK also, but KQ is now a serious concern.
My river push is just awful. I should be trying to see the showdown without putting in any more money. He’s only going to call this if he has me beat, or possibly if he has AK. At the time, I was thinking that he was calling the turn with either a draw or AK. I didn’t think this through enough to give KQ enough serious consideration. A smaller bet would induce a bad call with AK, which I want. Just a horrible play on the river.
I’ve stacked players with similar hands. The most recent was my KJ vs AA. I raised in MP PF. Villain re-raised a substantial amount on the button, which I actually liked because I immediately thought AA. I flopped 2 pair, checked the flop, and he pushed.
Focusing on the bigger picture, AA usually just remains a one-pair hand all the way to the river. Most of my profit in NL cash games comes from sneaky sets, straights and flushes. I have learned to avoid big pots with one pair and even two-pair hands. A decent amount of my wins comes from playing the flop aggressively when I whiff, such as raising PF with AK or AQ, getting a raggedy flop, and simply betting big to represent a big PP. Usually this results in a fold unless my isolated opponent flopped a sneaky big hand or also has a decent overpair (TT or better).
But AA leads to frequent overplaying. My mentality is to continue to treat AA the same way as if I flopped a set, which is just assigning too much strength on the flop. The hand above is a perfect example. If I had JJ or TT instead of AA, I would naturally be much more cautious, and absolutely would not put my stack at risk. I think the best plan with AA going forward is to make the price seriously steep PF, and then treat my hand as I would treat TT or JJ on the flop, in terms of relative strength.
This way, I’m much less likely to get stacked in this manner again, and I’m getting my money into the pot when I am the clear favorite rather than when I might be the favorite. In a NL cash game, AA is the only hand where I should move the ‘pressure point’ to PF action, in order to avoid trouble and misplaying later, at the risk of telling the table what I’ve got PF. I’ll win the big money later with bigger hands.
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 5: SpeakEasy_ ( $219.10 )
Seat 4: Villain ( $197.25 )
SpeakEasy_ posts small blind [$1].
Rogue166 posts big blind [$2].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to SpeakEasy_ [ Ad As ]
Everyone fold to Button
Villain raises [$6].
SpeakEasy_ raises [$14].
BB folds.
Villain calls [$9].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 2h, Qs, 6s ]
SpeakEasy_ bets [$18].
Villain calls [$18].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Kd ]
SpeakEasy_ bets [$65].
Villain calls [$65].
** Dealing River ** [ Td ]
SpeakEasy_ is all-In [$121.10]
Villain is all-In [$99.25]
SpeakEasy_ shows [ Ad, As ] a pair of aces.
Villain shows [ Kc, Qh ] two pairs, kings and queens.
SpeakEasy_ wins $21.85 from side pot #1 with a pair of aces.
Villain wins $393.50 from the main pot with two pairs, kings and queens.
Critical analysis of the way I played this hand:
First, I think my PF raise is OK. I want to build a bigger pot, but I really don’t want to scare him away. He could have a wide range of hands, but if he calls its probably something other than complete junk. I could have raised more, to maybe $20, but I don’t think that would have changes the outcome.
On the flop, I almost certainly have the best hand. I probably bet too small, but he also probably calls a pot-sized bet anyway. So, this is somewhat of a mistake on my part, but it still gives me the information that I need to proceed -- he very likely has a queen. At this point, I’d put him on AQ, KQ, QJ or QT, probably not QQ, but that’s also possible. A heart draw is also likely. He could also have a set or AK, but that’s less likely.
I kind of goof on the turn. I think a smaller bet here gives me all the info that I need. I bet the pot, but if I bet maybe a 2/3 bet and get called this should still signal trouble. A 2/3 bet is enough to correctly price out the heart draw. If I make a slightly smaller bet here and get called, I should be thinking about seeing the cheapest possible showdown from this point forward and cross my fingers. AK becomes a possibility, because I would probably call here with AK also, but KQ is now a serious concern.
My river push is just awful. I should be trying to see the showdown without putting in any more money. He’s only going to call this if he has me beat, or possibly if he has AK. At the time, I was thinking that he was calling the turn with either a draw or AK. I didn’t think this through enough to give KQ enough serious consideration. A smaller bet would induce a bad call with AK, which I want. Just a horrible play on the river.
I’ve stacked players with similar hands. The most recent was my KJ vs AA. I raised in MP PF. Villain re-raised a substantial amount on the button, which I actually liked because I immediately thought AA. I flopped 2 pair, checked the flop, and he pushed.
Focusing on the bigger picture, AA usually just remains a one-pair hand all the way to the river. Most of my profit in NL cash games comes from sneaky sets, straights and flushes. I have learned to avoid big pots with one pair and even two-pair hands. A decent amount of my wins comes from playing the flop aggressively when I whiff, such as raising PF with AK or AQ, getting a raggedy flop, and simply betting big to represent a big PP. Usually this results in a fold unless my isolated opponent flopped a sneaky big hand or also has a decent overpair (TT or better).
But AA leads to frequent overplaying. My mentality is to continue to treat AA the same way as if I flopped a set, which is just assigning too much strength on the flop. The hand above is a perfect example. If I had JJ or TT instead of AA, I would naturally be much more cautious, and absolutely would not put my stack at risk. I think the best plan with AA going forward is to make the price seriously steep PF, and then treat my hand as I would treat TT or JJ on the flop, in terms of relative strength.
This way, I’m much less likely to get stacked in this manner again, and I’m getting my money into the pot when I am the clear favorite rather than when I might be the favorite. In a NL cash game, AA is the only hand where I should move the ‘pressure point’ to PF action, in order to avoid trouble and misplaying later, at the risk of telling the table what I’ve got PF. I’ll win the big money later with bigger hands.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
When Not To Push
Something to remember...
In this hand, my big turn bet looked like I was on a diamond draw, and also had the effect of getting lots of money in when I was the favorite. This then induces his river push (with a pitifully small remaining stack, unfortunately), because he thinks I missed my diamond draw. If I had pushed the turn, its almost 100% that he folds.
Now if I can only make this play work against a bigger stack.
In this hand, my big turn bet looked like I was on a diamond draw, and also had the effect of getting lots of money in when I was the favorite. This then induces his river push (with a pitifully small remaining stack, unfortunately), because he thinks I missed my diamond draw. If I had pushed the turn, its almost 100% that he folds.
Now if I can only make this play work against a bigger stack.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Setting a Solid Player on Tilt
Here is the hand of the night (not the biggest pot, but the most interesting to analyze) from last Thursday night.
First, the set-up:
Villain is the same guy from this hand. Excellent player, sitting to my immediate left. He moved from another table when two short-handed tables consolidated. He’s clearly stuck, and he’s playing big pots with solid hands in an effort to double up.
On one prior hand, I has Ac-Kc in the SB. 6 limpers around to be. I think about raising, but just call. Villain then raises to $30. All but one other player folds. Villain has about $250 or so behind. I think about just pushing, because I think he’s on a steal. I should have pushed, but I just call. Flop is 8-4-2, and Villain pushes. Other player folds.. I think for a while then fold. I show him my AKs and say, “This could have been a fun hand.”
He looks surprised, and then shows me a deuce. I ask what he would have done if I had just pushed PF after his raise. He says, “Well, if I had pocket deuces I would have definitely called.”
I replied, “Yeah, like you didn’t.” He just smiles, confirming (I believe) that he hit a set of deuces on the flop. But that was an odd push rather then check if he hit his set, so maybe he really had junk, like the Hammer or something...
So, back to the hand in question.
I have about $1100 and have everyone covered. I am UTG with Kd-Qs, and I raise to $20. Four callers, including Villain. Pot is about $85.
Flop is Td-9d-3s. I bet out $40. Villain pushes. Everyone else folds. Pot is now $289, and its $129 more for me to call. I think for a long time, and here’s where I end up:
Villain has either has (1) a diamond flush draw, or (2) a decent but not great hand, like maybe a pair of tens, something like JT or AT. Since he’s stuck, I believe he would push a diamond flush draw. I don’t think he has a great land like a set or two pair because I’m fairly certain that he would have checked to induce a bet, and then pushed. I don’t think he has a big overpair, like AA through JJ -- I think he would have checked either of those hands, also, to induce a bet and then push.
So where does that leave me? I think that I have between 7 and 10 outs -- any J for the straight (maybe less the Jd), any K and any Q (maybe less then Qd). I run some calculations for all of these possibilities in my head and then say, “I’m getting over 2 to 1 on my money, so I think I have to call.”
He replies, “Ace king?”
I say, “No, not that good.” I show my K-Q and he reveals Q-T, no diamonds. Just about exactly one of the two hands that I put him on. So I actually have 7 outs, or runner-runner flush.
The final board is Td-9d-3s-Kc-8h, and I win with a pair of kings.
Villain starts berating me. “What a terrible call! Horrible!” He proceeds to stomp out of the poker room. Very uncharacteristic behavior -- he’s always been Mr. Cool. I guess he’s not used to losing. I wish he would have rebought, but it was late.
So I’ve been wondering ever since whether I calculated correctly and if the math backs up my decision. Was my call right? With calculator and pencil in hand, here’s what I come up with:
First his range of hands. Since I’m torn between flush draw and one pair, I’ll say 50% flush draw and 50% one pair. I think he would push with the nut flush draw or a lower flush draw. To run some calculations for the hands I’m guessing, lets say he has these combinations:
Ad-Xd -- 25% probability
6d-7d -- 25%
Q-T -- 50%
My equities for each hand:
Against Ad-Xd, he is a 75/25 favorite.
75% x -129 = -97
25% x +297 = 74
My total equity = -23
Against 6d-7d, he is a 55/45 favorite.
55% x -129 = -71
45% x +297 = 134
My total equity = 63
Against Q-T, he is a 69/31 favorite.
69% x -129 = -89
31% x +297 = 92
My total equity = 3
-23 x 25% = -6
63 x 25% = 16
3 x 50% = 1
My total equity for the hand is about +11. This is close to a coin flip, but this justifies a call.
If his hands was turned up and I could see his actual hand, its still a call, as my equity vs. Q-T alone is roughly a coin-flip but just positive.
So, I did calculate correctly in the heat of battle and made the right call. However, I don’t think I could ever convince him that I was right...
First, the set-up:
Villain is the same guy from this hand. Excellent player, sitting to my immediate left. He moved from another table when two short-handed tables consolidated. He’s clearly stuck, and he’s playing big pots with solid hands in an effort to double up.
On one prior hand, I has Ac-Kc in the SB. 6 limpers around to be. I think about raising, but just call. Villain then raises to $30. All but one other player folds. Villain has about $250 or so behind. I think about just pushing, because I think he’s on a steal. I should have pushed, but I just call. Flop is 8-4-2, and Villain pushes. Other player folds.. I think for a while then fold. I show him my AKs and say, “This could have been a fun hand.”
He looks surprised, and then shows me a deuce. I ask what he would have done if I had just pushed PF after his raise. He says, “Well, if I had pocket deuces I would have definitely called.”
I replied, “Yeah, like you didn’t.” He just smiles, confirming (I believe) that he hit a set of deuces on the flop. But that was an odd push rather then check if he hit his set, so maybe he really had junk, like the Hammer or something...
So, back to the hand in question.
I have about $1100 and have everyone covered. I am UTG with Kd-Qs, and I raise to $20. Four callers, including Villain. Pot is about $85.
Flop is Td-9d-3s. I bet out $40. Villain pushes. Everyone else folds. Pot is now $289, and its $129 more for me to call. I think for a long time, and here’s where I end up:
Villain has either has (1) a diamond flush draw, or (2) a decent but not great hand, like maybe a pair of tens, something like JT or AT. Since he’s stuck, I believe he would push a diamond flush draw. I don’t think he has a great land like a set or two pair because I’m fairly certain that he would have checked to induce a bet, and then pushed. I don’t think he has a big overpair, like AA through JJ -- I think he would have checked either of those hands, also, to induce a bet and then push.
So where does that leave me? I think that I have between 7 and 10 outs -- any J for the straight (maybe less the Jd), any K and any Q (maybe less then Qd). I run some calculations for all of these possibilities in my head and then say, “I’m getting over 2 to 1 on my money, so I think I have to call.”
He replies, “Ace king?”
I say, “No, not that good.” I show my K-Q and he reveals Q-T, no diamonds. Just about exactly one of the two hands that I put him on. So I actually have 7 outs, or runner-runner flush.
The final board is Td-9d-3s-Kc-8h, and I win with a pair of kings.
Villain starts berating me. “What a terrible call! Horrible!” He proceeds to stomp out of the poker room. Very uncharacteristic behavior -- he’s always been Mr. Cool. I guess he’s not used to losing. I wish he would have rebought, but it was late.
So I’ve been wondering ever since whether I calculated correctly and if the math backs up my decision. Was my call right? With calculator and pencil in hand, here’s what I come up with:
First his range of hands. Since I’m torn between flush draw and one pair, I’ll say 50% flush draw and 50% one pair. I think he would push with the nut flush draw or a lower flush draw. To run some calculations for the hands I’m guessing, lets say he has these combinations:
Ad-Xd -- 25% probability
6d-7d -- 25%
Q-T -- 50%
My equities for each hand:
Against Ad-Xd, he is a 75/25 favorite.
75% x -129 = -97
25% x +297 = 74
My total equity = -23
Against 6d-7d, he is a 55/45 favorite.
55% x -129 = -71
45% x +297 = 134
My total equity = 63
Against Q-T, he is a 69/31 favorite.
69% x -129 = -89
31% x +297 = 92
My total equity = 3
-23 x 25% = -6
63 x 25% = 16
3 x 50% = 1
My total equity for the hand is about +11. This is close to a coin flip, but this justifies a call.
If his hands was turned up and I could see his actual hand, its still a call, as my equity vs. Q-T alone is roughly a coin-flip but just positive.
So, I did calculate correctly in the heat of battle and made the right call. However, I don’t think I could ever convince him that I was right...
Friday, August 18, 2006
Thursday Night Live Play
Had another opportunity to play live tonight. Cash games and the Ameristar tournament.
First I started with some NL, won a few hundred. Then in the tournament, I came out of the gates firing. I played 3 of the first 4 pots. On the fourth hand, I hit a flush on the turn with Qd-7d, we got all the chips in the middle in a very large pot with lots of dead money, and one guy called my all-in bet with 2 pair. He hit a 4-outer for a boat on the river, and I was out in about 5 minutes of play.
The was actually fortunate. Next I sat in the $15/30 limit game, waiting for a NL seat. Won about a hundred. Then moved to a NL table with a bunch of old farts and one younger guy. I stacked the younger guy, then requested to move to the action table with lots of young guns.
I mopped up at that table. I started by played relatively loose pre-flop, tight on the flop, and just punished one guy mercilessly. He's a yappity guy that plays all the time, and acts very cocky. I initially took his stack of about $400, then he rebought out of frustration to come after me. I took some more of that. He eventually crapped out to someone else.
I'm not sure how much I won for the night -- I'll count tomorrow. The funny thing at this last table was that after I built up a stack of about $1400, I got junk for a really long time and didn't play anything. During one stretch, I think I folded for 3 straight orbits, while everyone else kept limping and calling standard raises. I was playing the tightest at the table with the biggest stack. There's just nothing good about playing T-2, J-5, 9-4, etc. There was so much limping with junk and calling that bluffing would have been useless.
When I did play a hand, it was relatively good, but still players kept calling when they were beat. One guy finally called out that I was playing pretty tight, and I was able to use his perception of my image to bluff him out of a good pot on the river. Paying attention to how others perceive you at the table is always important.
First I started with some NL, won a few hundred. Then in the tournament, I came out of the gates firing. I played 3 of the first 4 pots. On the fourth hand, I hit a flush on the turn with Qd-7d, we got all the chips in the middle in a very large pot with lots of dead money, and one guy called my all-in bet with 2 pair. He hit a 4-outer for a boat on the river, and I was out in about 5 minutes of play.
The was actually fortunate. Next I sat in the $15/30 limit game, waiting for a NL seat. Won about a hundred. Then moved to a NL table with a bunch of old farts and one younger guy. I stacked the younger guy, then requested to move to the action table with lots of young guns.
I mopped up at that table. I started by played relatively loose pre-flop, tight on the flop, and just punished one guy mercilessly. He's a yappity guy that plays all the time, and acts very cocky. I initially took his stack of about $400, then he rebought out of frustration to come after me. I took some more of that. He eventually crapped out to someone else.
I'm not sure how much I won for the night -- I'll count tomorrow. The funny thing at this last table was that after I built up a stack of about $1400, I got junk for a really long time and didn't play anything. During one stretch, I think I folded for 3 straight orbits, while everyone else kept limping and calling standard raises. I was playing the tightest at the table with the biggest stack. There's just nothing good about playing T-2, J-5, 9-4, etc. There was so much limping with junk and calling that bluffing would have been useless.
When I did play a hand, it was relatively good, but still players kept calling when they were beat. One guy finally called out that I was playing pretty tight, and I was able to use his perception of my image to bluff him out of a good pot on the river. Paying attention to how others perceive you at the table is always important.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Saturday Night Variance
Before Saturday night, I’d been running good in August in NL cash games. I’ve posted wins in 12 of my 15 prior sessions in August for a total win of 253BBs.
Saturday night, I played in a multi-table SNG on FullTilt. I am at the final table with a 3800 stack. Blinds are a huge 300-600, in relation to the stacks. (The more I play SNG or tournaments on FullTilt, the less I like them – the levels are way too short.) Everyone but 2 or 3 players is in the “push or fold” zone. Folded to me on the button with KhJd. I push as a 60-40 favorite against a random hand, but BB calls with QQ so I am actually a 72-28 dog, and I’m out.
Soon thereafter, in a $1/2NL cash game, I flop a set of 555 in the BB in a 6-handed limped pot. I have less than a full stack. Board is 8-K-5 rainbow. I check, UTG bets the pot. I C/R all-in when it gets back to me after one caller. UTG calls with a set of 888, so I lose a buy in. I hate set over set – there’s just no way to avoid losing a big pot.
PartyPoker $1/2NL, I have AA in the cutoff with more than a full buy-in. Folded to me and I raise to $7. Button raises to $37. Folded around to me, I flat call, thinking he has AA, KK, AK, or maybe QQ with such a large PF raise. Flop is Ks-Qs-8d. Yuck, unless he has AK. I bet 2/3 pot, he raises the pot. I call, then push the turn of (Ks-Qs-8d)-3s. He calls with a set of KKK. I clearly should have folded to any aggression on the flop – my instincts immediately said “SET” on the flop, but I just ignored it in favor of AK, because my flat call could have made him think I had something less, like maybe JJ which would lead to his aggression with AK.
The damage for the night was about $370.
Now as I type this on Sunday, I’m over $600 on one $1/2NL table, so all is right again.
Saturday night, I played in a multi-table SNG on FullTilt. I am at the final table with a 3800 stack. Blinds are a huge 300-600, in relation to the stacks. (The more I play SNG or tournaments on FullTilt, the less I like them – the levels are way too short.) Everyone but 2 or 3 players is in the “push or fold” zone. Folded to me on the button with KhJd. I push as a 60-40 favorite against a random hand, but BB calls with QQ so I am actually a 72-28 dog, and I’m out.
Soon thereafter, in a $1/2NL cash game, I flop a set of 555 in the BB in a 6-handed limped pot. I have less than a full stack. Board is 8-K-5 rainbow. I check, UTG bets the pot. I C/R all-in when it gets back to me after one caller. UTG calls with a set of 888, so I lose a buy in. I hate set over set – there’s just no way to avoid losing a big pot.
PartyPoker $1/2NL, I have AA in the cutoff with more than a full buy-in. Folded to me and I raise to $7. Button raises to $37. Folded around to me, I flat call, thinking he has AA, KK, AK, or maybe QQ with such a large PF raise. Flop is Ks-Qs-8d. Yuck, unless he has AK. I bet 2/3 pot, he raises the pot. I call, then push the turn of (Ks-Qs-8d)-3s. He calls with a set of KKK. I clearly should have folded to any aggression on the flop – my instincts immediately said “SET” on the flop, but I just ignored it in favor of AK, because my flat call could have made him think I had something less, like maybe JJ which would lead to his aggression with AK.
The damage for the night was about $370.
Now as I type this on Sunday, I’m over $600 on one $1/2NL table, so all is right again.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Critical Self-Analysis
In a rare moment of openly critical self-evaluation, here are leaks and how I can improve my play. What are the causes of most of my losses and losing sessions?
Playing Tired --
On-line, I only play at night, after the kids are in bed. This is usually after 9:30 or 10:00. At this point in the evening, especially after a full day of work, I’m always tired to some degree. I should avoid playing on those nights when I’m really tired. I also have a tendency to play after midnight if the table is really good, or if I’m behind. I should set a mandatory quitting time at midnight and stick to it. If I’m ahead at the midnight hour is approaching, I should just stop and book a win.
For the rare live session, I only play on weekend evenings, and occasionally the Thursday night tournament at Ameristar. Since live sessions are such a rare event, I just play no matter how I’m feeling. To avoid being tired during these sessions, I should focus on getting some extra sleep in the few days before a live session. Maybe this means no on-live play in the night or two before a planned live session.
Play immediately after a bad beat --
This only applies to on-line play. Immediately after a bad beat, I am more prone to loosen up and ramp up my aggression. Its not really ‘tilt’, but it has some of the symptoms of tilting. For example, in my last on-line session, I took a beat with my QQ vs TT. After carefully coaxing his stack into the pot though action on all streets, villain spiked a ten on the river. A few hands later on another table, I overplayed J9 on a jack-high board, and villain called with KJ, beating me with a better kicker. On the river, he checked and I pushed (my remaining stack was about 60% of the pot size) -- my judgment was clouded and my only thought was that he missed a flush draw. I would not have built such a big pot with J9, and I would have checked behind on the river, if I had not just taken a bad beat. My punishment for this leak on this particular hand was nearly a full buy-in. Ouch.
Playing above my bankroll --
On-line, I still have the urge to play at the higher levels, since that’s closer to my play in live games. My July disaster as a result of playing above my on-line bankroll is well-documented in another post. I have to stay at the appropriate level until I build the bankroll back up, no matter how good I think I’m playing on any particular night.
Taking advantage of a problem --
One trend that I’ve noticed in my play is the psychological affect of the magic $1000 mark. If I have $700 in one particular account, for example, I play my very best poker in an effort to get that account up to $1000. This applies to tournaments, SNGs and cash games. Then when I get it up to $1200 or $1300, my play becomes more sloppy, because the next thousand-dollar increment, at $2000, is much farther away. To both combat this problem AND to take advantage of it, after I cross a $1000 increment, I should transfer funds to another site to keep that account a few hundred below the next $1000 mark. This way, I’m always striving to cross the $1000 threshold through better play, which is just within my reach. As I write this now, I realize how silly this is. But, its still true. I can take advantage by turning my problem into a game strategy.
Playing Tired --
On-line, I only play at night, after the kids are in bed. This is usually after 9:30 or 10:00. At this point in the evening, especially after a full day of work, I’m always tired to some degree. I should avoid playing on those nights when I’m really tired. I also have a tendency to play after midnight if the table is really good, or if I’m behind. I should set a mandatory quitting time at midnight and stick to it. If I’m ahead at the midnight hour is approaching, I should just stop and book a win.
For the rare live session, I only play on weekend evenings, and occasionally the Thursday night tournament at Ameristar. Since live sessions are such a rare event, I just play no matter how I’m feeling. To avoid being tired during these sessions, I should focus on getting some extra sleep in the few days before a live session. Maybe this means no on-live play in the night or two before a planned live session.
Play immediately after a bad beat --
This only applies to on-line play. Immediately after a bad beat, I am more prone to loosen up and ramp up my aggression. Its not really ‘tilt’, but it has some of the symptoms of tilting. For example, in my last on-line session, I took a beat with my QQ vs TT. After carefully coaxing his stack into the pot though action on all streets, villain spiked a ten on the river. A few hands later on another table, I overplayed J9 on a jack-high board, and villain called with KJ, beating me with a better kicker. On the river, he checked and I pushed (my remaining stack was about 60% of the pot size) -- my judgment was clouded and my only thought was that he missed a flush draw. I would not have built such a big pot with J9, and I would have checked behind on the river, if I had not just taken a bad beat. My punishment for this leak on this particular hand was nearly a full buy-in. Ouch.
Playing above my bankroll --
On-line, I still have the urge to play at the higher levels, since that’s closer to my play in live games. My July disaster as a result of playing above my on-line bankroll is well-documented in another post. I have to stay at the appropriate level until I build the bankroll back up, no matter how good I think I’m playing on any particular night.
Taking advantage of a problem --
One trend that I’ve noticed in my play is the psychological affect of the magic $1000 mark. If I have $700 in one particular account, for example, I play my very best poker in an effort to get that account up to $1000. This applies to tournaments, SNGs and cash games. Then when I get it up to $1200 or $1300, my play becomes more sloppy, because the next thousand-dollar increment, at $2000, is much farther away. To both combat this problem AND to take advantage of it, after I cross a $1000 increment, I should transfer funds to another site to keep that account a few hundred below the next $1000 mark. This way, I’m always striving to cross the $1000 threshold through better play, which is just within my reach. As I write this now, I realize how silly this is. But, its still true. I can take advantage by turning my problem into a game strategy.
August Goals
Stay with the Running Back Plan -- 2% bankroll wins per session.
Play about 60 table-hours in August.
Continue playing $.50/1 and recover from the mid-July “Playing Over My Bankroll” debacle until I reach $2000 on Party. Then, move back up to the $1/2NL game on Party. Continue to pound the $1/2NL game for 20+BB/table-hour on Party.
Get Party bankroll to $3000 by the end of August
Get FullTilt and Pstars bankrolls each to $1000+ by the end of August.
When my on-line bankroll reaches $5000, pull some $$ out and buy a Dell laptop and wireless modem. Continue to pound the $1/2NL games from other locations in my home.
Play at least one live Thursday night tournament at Ameristar. [DONE]
Play two live NL cash sessions.
Win at least $600 in live games/tournaments.
Play the CT Thursday night tournaments with more focus.
Don’t move up in levels too fast, and especially don’t move up when I hit a bad beat. Do not chase bad beat losses.
Build up the bankroll to play in bigger live games and tournaments, to pay for trips to Vegas and other fun stuff as rewards for my play.
Play about 60 table-hours in August.
Continue playing $.50/1 and recover from the mid-July “Playing Over My Bankroll” debacle until I reach $2000 on Party. Then, move back up to the $1/2NL game on Party. Continue to pound the $1/2NL game for 20+BB/table-hour on Party.
Get Party bankroll to $3000 by the end of August
Get FullTilt and Pstars bankrolls each to $1000+ by the end of August.
When my on-line bankroll reaches $5000, pull some $$ out and buy a Dell laptop and wireless modem. Continue to pound the $1/2NL games from other locations in my home.
Play at least one live Thursday night tournament at Ameristar. [DONE]
Play two live NL cash sessions.
Win at least $600 in live games/tournaments.
Play the CT Thursday night tournaments with more focus.
Don’t move up in levels too fast, and especially don’t move up when I hit a bad beat. Do not chase bad beat losses.
Build up the bankroll to play in bigger live games and tournaments, to pay for trips to Vegas and other fun stuff as rewards for my play.
Worst Fold Ever
This is easily the worst fold I've ever seen: http://www.pokerhand.org/?443630 . The pot is $366 and its another sixty cents for Villain to call. I'm sure I had him beat, but this is just a silly fold.
I put him on AK with my raise on the flop, but with his call maybe he had a jack. Then he bets the turn, so it could still be either of these hands, but less likely that he has AK with my flop raise. He must have assumed I had the flush on the river, but then why bet? Unless he has complete air, this is just a horrible fold. Even AK is obviously worth a call.
I put him on AK with my raise on the flop, but with his call maybe he had a jack. Then he bets the turn, so it could still be either of these hands, but less likely that he has AK with my flop raise. He must have assumed I had the flush on the river, but then why bet? Unless he has complete air, this is just a horrible fold. Even AK is obviously worth a call.
Monday, July 24, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, July 17, 2006
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.
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.
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 shortZen and the Art of Poker, p.52.
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.”
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.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
