tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78636672024-03-07T13:38:08.019-05:00Wired AcesTexas Hold 'Em and the Bad BeatChrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11465950210404720423noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-61695966762210177892008-01-22T13:44:00.000-05:002008-01-22T15:25:05.821-05:00Table Conduct<em>In a small attempt to periodically update this space with something other than infrequent (and probably rather boring) bankroll or tournament updates -- and maybe more importantly to move beyond the plateau to some sort of growth -- I'm going to attempt to throw up a few things on more general strategy and thinking. Below is the first of these posts.</em><br /><br />Somewhere along the line I picked up a little quote that <em>should</em> be every players guide to conducting themselves appropriately at the table:<br /><span class="postbody"><blockquote>Win with grace, lose with dignity, and never<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><em>ever</em> tell a sucker what he's doing wrong.</blockquote>Let's examine the three parts of this.<br /><br /><strong>Win with grace</strong><br /><br />Winning with grace is probably the easiest to achieve of the three parts for most players. We win a hand or a tournament or a race situation... We're pleased... We're in a good mood. Typically people with such a mood are naturally gracious to those around them. We may shrug our shoulders to our losing opponent, or offer some condolence if we won via a bad beat or even-money situation. The hand-shake is frequently seen as a way to soothe egos and establish that we, the winner, aren't somehow gloating over our (perceived) dominance of the other player.<br /><br />Being a gracious winner is really the only way to be a <em>respected</em> winner, and achieving that status in other player's minds is simply put, good business for future encounters at the table. (And often just as importantly, away from the table.)<br /><br />Personally, I think I do pretty well with this. By nature, I am an empathetic person, and tend to be quite cordial when I'm in a good mood - when hands are holding up - when I'm making good decisions - when the game is running as it is "supposed" to run.<br /><br />But there are still paths available to slipping from being a gracious winner. Perhaps a (losing) opponent will insult your play. Sometimes, prior history with an opponent may incline you to gloat or insult. The "there, moron, take that" sentiment can be quite strong. This kind of gloating behavior <em>belies an attitude that is completely counter-productive in poker</em>: it's as if you are seeking out confrontation to prove your mastery, when the more appropriate approach often is to avoid confrontation... to tip-toe around it... to stop when your opponent "goes"... to zig when they zag. Simply put: It reveals that your ego is involved.<br /><br />Poker is definitely <em>not</em> the game for someone who derives pleasure in adding insult to injury.<br /><br /><strong>Lose with dignity</strong><br /><br />Yeah, this is the tough one. The second-bests keep coming in an unbroken chain. The 9 and 4 and 2 outers cripple us. Every raise we make is hijacked from behind with a re-raise. 80/20 situations feel like races, and races feel like domination.<br /><br />I don't need to say much about <em>why</em> players struggle with losing in a dignified manner - every player knows these emotions all too well. Some will whine and complain - some will hurl insults and passive-aggressive remarks. <br /><br />Personally, I can be horrible in this arena. I'm a naturally animated person (which is obviously a formidable handicap as a poker player). A coolly-intended statement can take on the feel of an exclamation when you're inclined to be so animated. Often there is a disconnect between how I actually feel about a beat or a loss, and how what happens after is displayed or perceived by others. I may be "okay" with the result, but something said intended as a tension-relieving joke may be seen as bitterness. An innocently-begun postmortem may end up looking like whining or anything else other players don't want to hear.<br /><br />Perhaps the best I've ever done was leaving the room entirely after a particularly bad beat. While this may not be necessary, and may in itself be somewhat of a surrender of your dignity (the little baby can't take it so he runs off to cry), it's far superior to a lot of other things that can happen after a loss. Ideally, and most appropriately for players who share my problems detailed above, silence may be the best option.<br /><br />So why be dignified when losing? Simply put: people like watching train wrecks. We all secretly love seeing others in distressed situations. We take <em>delight</em> in seeing a player lose his cool, if for no other reason than he might rebuy and fuel the game with tilt. He's not thinking clearly and coolly, he's putting blood in the water and chips in the pot. In a game where skill can take a painfully long time to dominate luck, perhaps the only real domination we can accomplish in the short-term is to get another player frustrated and off his game.<br /><br />And here's the point: the more a player tends to become an undignified loser, the more others at the table want to see him lose. Your ego is on your sleeve and good players will recognize this as the sign of a target. </span><span class="postbody">You <em>will</em> be seen as a likely source of profit. They'll take shots against you they might not take if you were more respected, <em>seek out your weaknesses</em>, and then pick them apart, while they likely leave other, quieter, players alone.<br /><br />(Side note: don't even think that you can get more action by acting like an ass. I've yet to see a player who can pull this off to the desired effect.)<br /></span><span class="postbody"><br /></span><span class="postbody"><strong>Never<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><em>ever</em> tell a sucker what he's doing wrong</strong></span><br /><span class="postbody"><br />As a long-time player, I've "been around the block" I think. I've seen and played in a lot of different games, and one of the worst things that can happen to a game (and it always does if the game goes on long enough) is that the dead-money players which fuel the game and give us a profit will inevitably leave. Hopefully they leave broke, but for one reason or another, they always leave.<br /><br />Why would you encourage them to do so? Telling someone what they are doing wrong is not only the sure sign of someone with an ego that needs propping up, it's a sure way to discourage a poor player from continuing to be a poor player. He might leave, or he might correct his errors, but either way, the driving force of the game has left the table. Poor players not only directly fuel the game, but they indirectly often run good players that you might normally struggle to beat, right into your monster hands. Simply, they encourage and drive <em>action</em>.<br /><br />The most common form of this error occurs when a poor player plays poorly and is rewarded for his efforts. The loser's superiority has not manifested itself in the end result of the hand, and he will feel the need to exert this superiority in some other way. Thus, he tells the sucker what he's doing wrong. <br /><br />Perhaps the most glaring form of this error is missing the fact that different people play poker for widely-varying reasons, and for some of them, it is purely <em>for fun</em>. Now, if you are ultimately going to profit from their fun, and they are going to have a good time, what does pointing out their poor play accomplish? Likely feeling insulted... perhaps even beginning to feel like an "outsider" at the table, they are not likely to be enjoying the experience, and when they leave or alter their play, you're no longer profiting: everyone has lost exactly what they came to the game for.<br /><br /><strong>In conclusion</strong><br /><br />Analogous to "Win with grace, lose with dignity, and never ever tell a sucker what he's doing wrong", is the similarly-minded quote "Never complain, never explain." By never complaining and never explaining at the table, you're likely to be a gracious winner and a dignified loser. I have to assume that these things <em>will</em> aid your game, if the majority of other technical aspects of play are in place and you feel that you are at a plateau.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-58757204158271698502008-01-08T02:36:00.000-05:002008-01-08T03:04:11.116-05:00Nice Multi WinStill alive, still grinding away...<br /><br />After a few bankroll decimations -- the good kind I suppose -- to pay for various things in my life since my last long-ago update here, I'm back hitting the online tables with regularity. Micro limits... bankroll building...<br /><br />Despite a growing FTP balance which I should be using to take more shots at satellites, I generally avoid tournaments most of the time. As a poker player, you work hard (and often to little effect) to maintain some kind of sanity and emotional balance... and well, I probably don't have to tell you how a string of time-sucking tournaments that end in bad beats or coolers can upset that balance. But still, I don't think I've ever been in a MTT online where I wasn't in awe of the amount of dead money. (I did satellite into the Sunday Million once a few months ago with FTPs and didn't cash.)<br /><br />So Full Tilt has added these new "Knockout" tourneys, where most of the buy-in goes into a traditional prize pool, with some reserved for each player: Knock someone out, and you win their bounty. Tonight I finished in first place in a 90 player, $3+.30, winning $72, and KOing 10 players for an extra $5 (.50 a-piece). <br /><br />My play was good, and I ran good. I busted 5 of the 9 players at the final table, all desperate short stacks, and overcame a 2:1 deficit heads-up in a several level battle. Now, I can't really comment on the effect of the bounties on how people play... I didn't observe any situations where .50 is going to influence your decisions, but perhaps less-rational players might. What those little bonuses do accomplish is to help offset the buy-in of the tournament, even if you don't cash. At the above noted structure, busting as few as 3 other players is going to get you nearly half of the total buy-in back. In effect, the bounties "flatten" out the prize structure- typically in a 90 player tourney, 9 players will cash (10%), where in a knockout tournament I'd guess somewhere around 25-40% will get at least something back for their efforts. Take a horrible beat on the bubble, and chances are you may still have made money or broken even.<br /><br />Of course, if you bust out early yourself, you probably still are down the whole buy-in, but in general playing knockout tournaments vs traditional tournaments should lower your bankroll fluctuations, and help offset <em>some</em> amount of variance.<br /><br />Good luck out there.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-63450602644925284532007-05-18T22:30:00.000-04:002007-05-19T00:55:56.629-04:00Poor Play In NLHEHaving not posted here since February... a minor poker update might be called for before I get to the actual subject, a companion post to <a href="http://wired-aces.blogspot.com/2007/02/smart-play-in-nlhe.html">Smart Play In NLHE</a>.<br /><br />I'm still playing quarter/half short-handed NLHE online working on that $2k bankroll I'm forcing myself to have before moving up to .5/1. I'm showing an earn rate of ~$3.50/hour, and although I still think this can (and should) be more, hey, it's positive. (Quitting sessions when things sour would probably boost my earn by a dollar or more.) Live results in tournaments have been mediocre, as those things tend to be, with typically strong positive showings in cash games.<br /><br />Once you've been thinking about poker and seriously playing poker for a few years, there usually isn't a whole lot that can happen in a given session, or month, or maybe even year that seems all that exceptional (hence the relative lack of post around here... I assure you I've been playing). In the beginning, you're learning new concepts with every session... later those concepts become solidified and redefined and there's still a new thing here or there to pick up. At some level of poker maturity and development, new ideas plateau out and are few and far between. This is the "learning curve" poker players talk about.<br /><br />With that said, most of my own gains (in both experience and profit) in the last few months are due less to technical progress, and more to personal progress like improved concentration, discipline, etc. I've talked many times about the players who you will see playing smart, tight, solid poker for 2 hours, and who blow their whole stack on one poorly timed and poorly played bluff or similar play. They have the technical skills to win, just not the self-control. Playing optimally, means playing optimally on <em>every hand</em>.<br /><br />So, that brings me to the hand I'd like to examine in depth... balancing recent posts out by showing a hand that I lost money on and that I misplayed, that really touches on some key aspects of playing optimal NLHE, and some common leaks and traps.<br /><br />-----------<br /><br />I'm sitting on ~$150 after a set of fours held up against a nut flush draw. (Beware good results in a session like this... it can seem consciously or <em>subconsciously</em> like "hey I'm going to book a positive session here, I can gamble some". This can be a serious leak.)<br /><br />I'm under the gun with JJ, and make a 4xBB raise to $2. The player behind, who I've seen long enough to know plays tight and very solid values (and almost never raises or re-raises preflop, re-raises to $6.75 of his ~$50. Everyone else folds. This is the critical point in this hand for me: I can be <em>at least</em> 80% certain that I'm against AA, KK, QQ, or a <em>mild</em> possibility of AK.<br /><br />Checking the odds will reveal that it would cost me $4.75 to call, into the $9.50 pot, or 2:1 pot odds. Now here's the problem, and this did cross my mind at the time: There's really only one flop that I can feel good about, and that's one that contains a Jack. If I would hit it, my opponent has ~$44 left that I may well get. For $4.75 more, I have a 7.5:1 chance of getting $44, or just over 9:1 implied. Calling is viable here <em>but</em>... The <em>real</em> problem (if you're still following me), is the danger of the flop containing cards all Ten or lower. I'd have flopped an overpair (hard to let go, even for experienced players), and would likely still be very far behind in the hand, to my opponents presumably bigger pair. On the whole, taking the flop here isn't bad, so long as you are <em>completely</em> committed to laying the hand down unless a Jack flops.<br /><br />In reality, I called, saw a Seven-high flop, and checked my overpair. My opponent bet $11.50. In some breakdown of discipline, fueled partly by the well-ingrained pattern of picking off continuation bets (even out of position), I called. Of course at this point going to the turn, I know I can't bet out (as I might normally here to complete the pick off), because habit has thankfully been replaced by conscious thought, and that thought is still saying I'm way behind to a bigger pair.<br /><br />He moves in on the turn (a Ten), and I quickly and wisely fold. This wasn't a huge mistake from a financial standpoint (I lost $11.50 more than I should have), but:<br /><br />1. Losing $11.50 seems insignificant, but when your earn rate is $3.50/hour, it represents <em>3+ hours of play</em>.<br /><br />2. It was a blatantly stupid error. I knew what I was against. I knew what I had to do. I didn't do it. At few points in NLHE are you this certain of your opponents hand, so by all means, listen to the certainty, and make your errors on the tough decisions, not the easy ones.<br /><br />This hand is also particularly interesting, because it's precisely the type of hand that <em>many</em> players will lose large on, and will take comfort and consolation in saying "What could I do? I had an overpair. It was just bad luck/timing to run into a bigger pair." ---when you can see from the analysis above that the player not only had every opportunity to back away from the hand, but had nearly every reason to as well.<br /><br />Hopefully the analysis above drives home three old poker adages:<br /><br />1. "Bad players pick their hands, good players pick their <em>spots</em>". This was a bad spot, even if an overpair is usually a profitable hand.<br /><br />2. "Don't throw in good money after bad". I realized instantly that I had made an error, and corrected it by folding as soon as possible. Being stubborn is a good way to be broke.<br /><br />3. "Stop small errors while they're still small". In poker, one seemingly-insignificant or loose call early in a hand can lead down a path to disaster. Many times once you're in a hand, it basically plays itself (i.e. a hand you're not going to get away from), but there are subtleties in knowing what hands and what spots may lead to possible trouble. You can't fear demons at every turn in a poker game and expect to do well, but with the relatively small implied-odds equity in the hand above, not to mention the possibility of set-over-set (or my opponent getting away from his hand at some point, drying up my implied odds), perhaps the best play was a pre-flop fold.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1171836384651412192007-02-18T15:15:00.000-05:002007-02-18T17:06:24.683-05:00Smart Play In NLHEI've been working the short-handed quarter/half no limit tables again, and recently with encouraging success, making a respectable hourly rate. Part of this success, I'm certain, can be attributed to putting a lot of skills together well. As a player, at one time or another I have most of the "pieces" and skills needed to win... such as hand-reading, odds, starting selection, table texture and adjustments, and so forth. But to win, and consistently, these things all have to work together simultaneously, or at least most of them. Not a revolutionary idea, but difficult to apply.<br /><br />So here are two hands that hopefully show what I mean that I'd like to go through and actually post some real poker content:<br /><br /><strong>Example #1</strong><br /><br />I'm on the button, 6-handed, with A6o [Ac 6s]<br /><br />The SB is a rabbit, who can be counted on to fold without a strongly-flopped hand, and let you know if she has it. The BB seems to be a tight/solid player who plays with some measure of craftiness.<br /><br />Now, A6o is good enough to play here short-handed on the Button. My gut is that I should probably raise here, but my hand isn't very strong, and I know I can easily outplay one of my opponents, and I'll have position. I elect to call and we go three to the flop:<br /><br />8s 2h Th<br /><br />Checked to me. I usually adore firing at a pot like this, but there's some compelling reasons not to. I still have a weak hand, and no strong outs (save maybe the 3 other Aces), and although that suggests trying a bluff (it may be my only way to win), there's just a tiny pot out there, and there's not much chance of me forcing out a better hand or a draw. This is a mistake that's easy to make: you take a stab at a pot you may well be winning, get a caller or callers, and now you're playing a bigger pot with a (still) weak hand. I still have position, it's a small pot, and I may have the best hand: I check.<br /><br />4h<br /><br />Checked to me again. Now the flush became possible, not to mention somebody likely has a flush draw, and that's not me. Though I've been checked to twice (usually a good spot to fire at), again, there's no pot (thanks to my earlier refusal to stab), and no compelling reason to bet. Managing pot size like this, even when certain situational factors are telling you to do otherwise, is one of the keys to playing effective NLHE.<br /><br />I'm sure some may feel this is elementary, and others will criticize my completely passive play here, but keeping pots small is perhaps one of the most overlooked elements of what people term under the larger heading "discipline"... if only because it's far easier for discipline to collapse in larger pots. I've seen others (and myself) play good solid poker for hours, and then a pot plays out (characterized by early round pot-building) where either because of straight pot odds, implied odds, or just plain poor play, your stack is deleted. Never underestimate the possible negative effect of what seems like, at-worst, a small error early. <br /><br />Ad<br /><br />SB checks and BB bets the pot. Now here is where being able to judge an opponent's skill level is paramount. I've made a pair of Aces on the river, usually good enough to win this small and previously uncontested pot, but I have to consider my opponent. He's been crafty and solid so far, and I question why he would make a pot bet here. It's entirely possible he's sensing weakness via all the checking going on and just trying to take it down. He may also assume that I wouldn't just limp an Ace on the button.<br /><br />But I sense there's more here... if he had a hand that might justify a bet on the river, that I could beat, it would have to be one pair, or some sort of really weak Ace... neither very likely for him to pot bet. Based on the player, there's a good chance he made a flush, straight, or possibly two pair.<br /><br />I'm getting 2:1 if I call, so I'd only have to pick off a bluff 1/3 of the time here to break even, but again, knowing the player reasonably well, I fold. <br /><br />The last important point of this hand is applying relative values... all this discussion about a $3 pot? This is a concept that amazes me that people who should (and DO) know better fail to apply. Making a good decision in poker has nothing to do with the absolute amounts of money involved, only the relative amounts. 2:1 is 2:1 whether it's $1000:$500 or $3/$1.50.<br /><br /><strong>Example #2</strong><br /><br />Here's a classic situation that you'll see over and over...<br /><br />I'm in middle position this time with AJs [Ah Jh]. Still .25/.50. I open for a raise to $2. The SB and the BB call. The SB has been loose with his calls, especially pre-flop, but otherwise avoids trouble. The BB has been generally solid, but predictable and "by the book".<br /><br />3s Ks Kc<br /><br />The SB checks. The BB bet's $5 into the $6 pot.<br /><br />Let's examine this briefly. The SB is known to call loosely pre-flop, so it is conceivable that he holds a K or a flush draw (the only two hands I really fear), but his check makes either of these a little less likely, and of course, it's most likely he has nothing. The BB was getting 3:1 to call preflop, so his call doesn't necessarily signify anything powerful. Furthermore, one of the possible holdings that I could fear, AK, he has shown a tendency to re-raise with pre-flop. Also, the BB's tendency to be predictable and "standard" (whatever that means) has been strong, and would not likely lead to such a strong bet if he in fact held a King. I would actually expect a check from this player.<br /><br />The paired flop like this is a classic situation for a re-raise steal, especially here, as the already presumed weak SB would have to have a very real, very strong hand to call my reraise with the original bettor still to act behind. Furthermore, I'm assigning a near-zero probability that the BB has a King, so the only hand that *might* even get a call from him is a flush draw.<br /><br />I reraise to $10 and both players fold.<br /><br />You'll see this time and again, where on a flop of something like QQ8, some dolt will bet pot or near it, usually holding an 8. Most people reason that if they get action after making such a bet, they are done with the hand, so don't disappoint them by folding. Of course, be sensible in situations like this and consider your opponents and the number of them, but these can be prime opportunities to win nice pots with no hand at all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1171256600901716662007-02-11T23:57:00.000-05:002007-02-12T01:55:06.386-05:008k FT Sunday Night GuaranteeI'm trying the 8k Guarantee ($10+1) on FullTilt again as I posted about recently, and figured in the absence of real content here, I'd live blog it. <br /><br />988 players<br />153 places paid<br />1,888.07 = first place<br /><br />------<br /><br />Whew. Level one, I limp K5s (I know, I know) from the cut off in an unopened pot and flop top pair, calling pot and turn bets from the BB, hit two pair on the river, and reraise his third pot bet, which he folds after pot committing himself. Up to T2500. Ranked 95/900.<br /><br />------<br /><br />Level two, a poorly flopped AKs and some blinds play has me back down to T1850. <br /><br />------<br /><br />Fold Fold Fold. Level 5, double through ATs with AJs on a Jack high flop and dodge his flush draw. T3120, ranked 195/471.<br /><br />------<br /><br />First Break, nothing significant... T2620, 238/395. Work to do.<br /><br />------<br /><br />Level 7: double through KQs with A9s after I boated on the turn and let him catch the nut flush on the river. T5240, ranked 96/356.<br /><br />------<br />Level 9 (100/200), knock out A4o with AKs, up to T8015, then KK gets some limpers to fold, then QJ turns trip Queens against middle pair taking me to ~12k, then TT vs 77 all-in flops A77 ONCE AGAIN proving that 80/20's are like coin flips whether the 20% can make quads against me*, putting me at about 8k though still. Then I get A8o in the BB, SB opens for a raise which I call: flop AJ8, he bets, I raise, he goes all in (has me covered) I call and he shows KT for the gutshot, WHICH HITS. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, OVER.<br /><br />Seriously. out 236.<br /><br />* Recently in tournaments, I've had 99 make quads on my AA, TT make quads on my QQ, and now 77 make quads on TT. All were all in preflop, and two of those cases I still made a boat. I've made the statement that I'd gladly lose 80% of races if I could just win every 80/20, or hell, 80% of them.<br /><br />I might as well play bingo.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1169440577805364732007-01-21T23:19:00.000-05:002007-01-21T23:36:17.820-05:00Multi-Table TournamentsAt another web place last July, I chimed in an answer to a question like "where will you be 1 year from now", and on that short list of goals, I remember throwing in something about taking more shots at multi-table tournaments (MTTs) online.<br /><br />If you've been following along, and I don't know who this might even apply to, I started poker online hitting the single-table sit-and-gos pretty hard, eventually migrating to short-handed cash games. But along the way, I've hit a few freerolls and other big MTTs, and really seem to do well in such a format.<br /><br />Last night, needing a break from some work and rather on a whim (perhaps with last July's goal in mind) I jumped into a 90-player deep-stack $1.25 entry-fee MTT on FullTilt, and won. (netting a life-changing $21.25) Probably the most amazing part of the tournament was sitting three-handed with ~25k in chips, with an 18k stack and a (lucky) but huge 200k+ stack. I busted Mr. 18k, and buckled down to drill into this huge lead that my heads-up (and loose) opponent had. I eventually worked up to a 1:2 deficit, then we did the 2:1 flip and I was in front. Next hand after the flip, my tilting opponent shoved with 98o and I called with AJo to finish the deal.<br /><br />In around a half hour at midnight, I'm enrolled in a $10+1 $8k Guarantee, currently with ~180 players registered (and growing). My goal is simply to cash, but $1536 sure isn't bad for first, with some bankroll boosting numbers for any mid-to-top final-table seat. I'll post updates in the comments so check there for how this all turned out.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1168589966344128412007-01-12T02:15:00.000-05:002007-01-12T03:19:26.873-05:00Backgammon and Poker, Part 2Backgammon is easily as aggravating as poker can sometimes be, and it seems perhaps more so. I don't know if they call it a suckout when a player who is very far behind lucks into a win, or if backgammon players tell "bad beat stories", but whatever the terminology is, the nature of the game is the same.<br /><br />The backgammon equivalent of "rivering" someone is coming from behind in bearing off (when all the checkers are "free" of one another and each player begins removing them from the board according to dice rolls, with the winner getting his/her's off first.) I won't go into detail but let's just say that rolling doubles (6-6, 5-5, etc) is generally very advantageous.<br /><br />Now with 36 possible ways to roll a pair of dice, and 6 of those ways being doubles, we can say the odds of rolling doubles are 5:1 against. Pretty long, but with the average bear-off requiring something like 6-9 casts of the dice, well, you <em>should</em> roll doubles at least once. Yet I have seen game and again where I was comfortably ahead, and my opponent rolled 3 sets of doubles, sometimes <em>consecutively</em>, to win. Odds of 3 consecutive doubles? 125:1 ...you don't <em>commonly</em> see odds like that in poker, I can tell you that. <br /><br />But maybe... Let's say player one holds 99 and player two has AA and the flop is 994. Player two needs running Aces, which is 22.5:1 to hit one on the turn and then 45:1 to hit one on the river. Unless I'm a moron and can't do odds anymore, that's a combined probability of over 1000:1 or something like 0.1%. I'm sure it's happened to some poor guy at one time or another.<br /><br />Another common scenario involves your opponent needing exactly one number to do very bad things to you, like for instance he must roll a six, or you will likely win. Again, with 36 ways to cast two dice, 11 of them will include at least one 6, so the odds are about 2.3:1 against. Consider it a common A6 vs 88 70/30 matchup in poker.<br /><br />Thinking (and rambling) about these kinds of probabilities -- and perhaps this is the point -- shows how the two games are similar yet different. NLHE allows a player to deny the other(s) the odds they will need by varying bet and raise sizes accordingly, but there is a problem: he doesn't have complete information. In other words, though you can control the pot odds, you must infer and guess at what those odds should be to make your opponent be in error to call, and that's <em>if</em> you are ahead with the best hand, which you also are often uncertain of. (Incomplete information is why bluffing is possible.)<br /><br />On the other side, backgammon is a game of <em>complete</em> information. You know your position and your opponent's at all times. But (excluding the doubling cube, which is going into too much detail for a poker blog) you don't really "bet" to deny your opponent odds, and you often cannot force him to resign (like folding): he gets his turns and consequently, often gets his chance to suck out, no matter how far behind he may be. You must use the odds much more subtly, using probabilities of certain occurrences to guide your strategy and moves in a more indirect way.<br /><br />Putting this all together, poker becomes more psychological because of incomplete information, and a good deal of the time involves looking <em>backward</em> in a hand to infer information and guide decision-making. Backgammon on the other hand relies heavily on examining countless <em>future</em> scenarios and balancing these rather complex possibilities with the current position.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1167686203194210072007-01-01T15:50:00.000-05:002007-01-01T16:16:43.206-05:00Backgammon and PokerSo my wife bought me a backgammon set for xmas, which was a great gift considering it's a game I've been curious about for a while now, but had literally no clue how to play. We've all probably heard of the famous poker players who also were/are apparently accomplished backgammon players; Harrington, Magriel (who wrote the backgammon "bible"), etc... so I knew there must be something to backgammon.<br /><br />I'm still getting up to speed with the game, but the seemingly confusing rules at first are easily mastered, and then the real strategy starts to develop. The similarities to poker, most specifically NL Hold'em, are many:<br /><br />- the above noted "minute to learn, lifetime to master"<br />- a rather optimal balance of luck and skill (short-term variance, long-term positive results for good play)<br />- places within the game where moves are automatic, others that involve tough decisions and gambles<br />- always having outs: either game allows you to be very far behind, yet arise to victory<br />- starting position has a powerful effect on outcome and subsequent strategy: in backgammon, this deals with "opening moves"; in Hold'em, starting hand selection<br />- the ability to escalate the stakes and put your opponent to tough decisions (as well as the reverse)<br />- those awful moments when your opponent can simply do no wrong, either always rolling exactly what you fear, or catching exactly the card he needs<br /><br />As you can see (or already know if you play both), the two games are a good match. Backgammon's complexity may be best demonstrated in the fact that programmers were able to simulate and write effective chess playing programs, before they could do so with backgammon. Interesting as well, are the other variations of "tables" games played similarly on a backgammon board.<br /><br />I've been playing at <a href="http://www.play65.com">play65.com</a>, and although my rating there took a big hit getting up to speed with the game, I've been winning more, and scored my first "backgammon" (and it was doubled!). I'm not sure how seriously I'll end up pursuing backgammon, and poker is still the focus, but backgammon may be a welcome break from poker for those times where you just need to put your mind somewhere else for a few days.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1167257875436494712006-12-27T16:26:00.000-05:002006-12-27T17:17:55.466-05:00Cap NL ExaminedI've been playing generally less online poker lately (but a good deal of live, and have been busy with <a href="http://www.keystonepokertables.com">Keystone Poker Tables</a>), but when I play I've been hitting the Cap NL tables on FullTilt.<br /><br />With a good sample of hands at Cap NL, I've come to a few conclusions... mostly that for unknown reasons, I struggle to beat this game, and I'm more profitable at regular 100BB NL. I've looked hard for leaks and problems here, but the answer is elusive.<br /><br />One key +EV situation is completely removed at Cap NL: the small/mid pair call of a preflop raise. Under normal circumstances, you're playing these hands really for one reason, and that is to flop a set... if you don't, you're likely very done with the hand very fast. The odds of flopping a set with a pocket pair are roughly 8:1, so when playing .25/.50 blinds, and faced with a standard early position raise to $2 (bringing the pot to $2.75, and laying you terrible pot odds), you're not getting the 8:1 you need to play your pair and try for the set.<br /><br />Under normal deep-stacked conditions, you can rely on implied odds to overcome this odds deficit and show a profit on the play, but this only makes sense if the raiser has at least roughly 8x the bet amount in his stack. In other words, when you do hit your set, you need to win enough to cover all the times you called and didn't hit it. At Cap NL, there is <em>rarely</em> enough money left to bet to make this play at all profitable, let alone even money.<br /><br />Another problem with Cap NL, completely related to the small pair problem above, is the suited connector, which is severely devalued here due to the need for implied odds which just aren't there. The real strength of suited connectors in NL cash games is their ability to make hands that you feel comfortable backing with your entire stack, namely, straights and flushes. With less profitable opportunities to play hands like suited connectors or medium suited aces, you're going to be playing a lot more top pair/two pair hands, which can be quite volatile as these are very rarely hands you want to invest a lot on. <br /><br />Compounding all of this, is that the play at Cap NL <em>seems</em> to be generally tough to beat. I suspect most of the real donks aren't sitting at the Cap NL tables. For starters, stacking someone doesn't mean all that much, where in a normal 100BB game, I'm beginning to suspect that this is a large component of my profit--- playing large pots better than the competition. At Cap NL, the mistakes of your opponents don't pay you all that well, and these micro-stackings are pretty easily negated by the opposing mistakes you may make and the bad beats you will take.<br /><br />So all this and I've stepped down a level and hit the 100BB tables again... immediately showing multiple buy-in profits in short sessions, and generally seeing errors in others to capitalize on right, left, and center. Warmer waters indeed.<br /><br />Cap NL is an interesting concept and variation, but in practice I find it limits the tools and plays that I can use to show a profit.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1163400289510359102006-11-13T01:01:00.000-05:002006-11-13T01:44:49.523-05:00Cap NL And The Hammer Set-UpTime for an update to be sure, but this'll just be about one night and one hand in particular. Everything else is chugging right along with a healthy bankroll in tow.<br /><br />So, I've been toying a bit with the shorthanded CAP NL tables on Full Tilt... not terribly sure why or what the point really is yet. Basically, there's a cap set on how much any player can contribute to a pot, and once that limit is reached, they are treated as all-in. So, at quarter/half, which is normally a $50 max buy in (and I always do the max), there is a $15 cap. So, your losses on any one hand are limited to $15, as well as winnings limited to $15 from each player (so you can still see bigger pots if things end up multi-way).<br /><br />This cap does several things... notably, reducing the sting of bad beats (and reducing the scope of your bankroll fluctuations in general), as well as making some interesting pot odds problems that I'm not sure I have a handle on yet. One theory is that because of the cap, players will play worse, knowing that they are protected from big losses, and along with this idea, may be more likely to feel pot-committed on the end if there has been decent action. (For example if two players are heads up and have each invested $9 so far, the losing hand <em>may</em> feel obligated to put in the remaining $6 on the end. Not always good play, but that's the point.) All advice I've read online suggests playing perhaps tighter than you normally would (because everyone else will tend loose) as well as massaging pots to get people committed when you have reasonably durable hands.<br /><br />At any rate, I think I can really crack these games, mostly because I seem to excel at chipping away and making many small gains on small mistakes of others, but I often seem to see all those gains wiped out in one or two bad beats. Here, I'm protected somewhat from this, while still earning consistently in small pots.<br /><br />To get to the point though, I had a guy to my right who could literally do no wrong. You know the guy: calling your preflop pot raises with 42s and ATo, and somehow beating you completely illogically in every pot. This guy crushed me. I have QQ and jack the pot preflop, he calls with A3o and nails a T33 flop (where I obviously think I'm good...). I make top set and he calls me down with middle pair and rivers a backdoor flush. AK vs JT on a AK8 flop, and he nails his gutshot. You get the point. Amazingly I kept my head just above water stealing and winning pots elsewhere. But I had a target in my sights.<br /><br />So now it's becoming personal. Every time I raise, he calls. <em>Every time.</em> And I notice of course, but can do nothing against the deck clubbing him in the face. I start pushing hard, anytime it's me and him and I figure to have the best of it. Mostly, he folds to this aggression.<br /><br />Then I pick up the hammer (72o) UTG. This is fate. Reasonably tight table all just taking turns at this guy. I raise pot. NewGuy to my left thinks a bit, but folds. My nemesis calls, of course. I quickly head to the options and un-check "auto muck". This is going to be good. The flop is irrelevant. He bets the minimum, and I come over the top with a pot raise. He folds, and I show it.<br /><br />Then the magic happened. Two red aces appeared in front of me in the BB. NewGuy min raises UTG. Folded to Mr. Nemesis on the button, and he min re-raises. I stick in the third raise to just over half of the cap, set up perfectly by the previous hand. NewGuy caps it with TT and Nemesis calls with JTo, and I hold the lead to rake the pot and move positive for the night. Sure, I'd have been a lot better off if some of my other hands vs this guy had held up, but there's not much that's sweeter than finally getting the best of a luckbox.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1159821482025440402006-10-02T15:23:00.000-04:002006-10-02T16:38:02.093-04:00The Long RoadSo, it's time for a little check in.<br /><br />Live play has been completely tuned in as of late for me. Recent results include three straight cashes (a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) in one of the leagues I play in, and two satisfying wins in two straight days last week. Granted, I feel as if the cards have been running good for me... and perhaps this is one of those things that every poker player feels, but by "running good" I really just mean having the best hand hold up and occasionally winning a race or a 60/40.<br /><br />Tournaments are one of those things... when you're winning, you love them and can't play enough... and when things are going bad... you hate them and swear them off forever. But there's more going on here than simple fate and luck... there really is a fine line that you can walk as a player... things you can actually control, even when it seems like just a matter of cards and luck.<br /><br />Some points:<br /><br />I believe the ipod has been a big aid in my case. It doesn't matter what I'm listening to... but having music in my ears at a low enough volume to still hear table talk, seems to dramatically increase my confidence and focus. It puts me in just enough of my own little world (some guys feel this way about hats and glasses) to stay on top of situations, make good reads, and carefully consider every single point of action.<br /><br />Taking time on every action, even when your play is predetermined and clear (to you) has been something I've overlooked in the past. It throws off opponents and gives them a chance to make an incorrect read or overthink a situation (or talk themselves into or out of something). Maybe more importantly, I catch myself finding other angles or reasons for doing something else than what I might have done if I was forced to act immediately. It gives you a chance to catch a mistake before you make one. I was actually accused of slowrolling Kings against a guy two weeks ago, because I was contemplating the other players actions and what they might mean. UTG had limped, prompting two more limps, and in middle position with the Kings I raise of course... folded back around to UTG, who moved all in (very suspect) and folded to me. I hadn't played with this player before... and the limp re-raise all in could indeed have been aces. Fortunately, I had him covered nearly 2:1, so I could call with little fear, and his mid pair didn't improve. Bringing me to my next point:<br /><br />I tread a lot more carefully (think "alligator blood") without adequate chips. Now this may seem like an obvious strategy... I mean, ok you don't have that many chips... of course you have to play carefully and have limited options compared to deep stack poker, but it has greater impications than that. For starters, although some of my circle of games have started taking on better and better structures (longer levels, etc), there's still pressure... and it becomes paramount to not dick around post flop in the early going.<br /><br />The key here is to absolutely *not* lose any significant amount of chips early on (which simply means not putting much in without the nuts or near nuts), and nearly as important, gain some. For me, what this "gain some" means is actually doing a lot of observation which will help both immediately and later, but also getting involved in good spots with anything which can flop well, and doing so for raises when opening the pot. I pressure, and set a tone that I think may benefit me: "I'm not going to do anything stupid, and you're not going to outplay me... I'm not profitable for you to tangle with... move on."<br /><br />Then later, in the determining middle stages of the tournament, with chips to burn, you can play your game with little fear. Example from last Monday: I'm the chip leader or close to it, although there are other similar stacks, final table, maybe 8 players left. UTG limps, and there's another limp when it gets to me, and holding A9s, I elect to call, some more folds and the SB limps, BB checks. The flop came 942, and it's checked to me. Clearly, with top pair, top kicker and this many players involved, I need to bet solid and see where I'm at. UTG concerns me with his limp (although less since his flop check) and the SB had made a strange look when looking at his cards before calling preflop. SB goes into the tank and I'm on him: no movement or action is going to go unnoticed by me. After a protracted think, he moves all in, everyone folds around to me.<br /><br />He's a good player... smart, tricky... and very rarely out of line. I mull over the bottom set or two pair possibilities, and still feel like flipping a coin to decide whether to call or not. Eventually I do call, and he holds 43. (From him, this was essentially a bluff, and he must have believed either I held nothing, or more likely, that I would ultimately fold to that much pressure from him.) The point of this long long story is, without the chips to burn, I could not have made that call or put myself in the situation to knock him out and gain significant chips. With a smaller stack, I couldn't have called the bet from this player... and with an even smaller short stack, I would have been all in and he would have folded.<br /><br />Really though, all of these things above come back to focus, concentration, and confidence. I've been guilty before of many of the silly little sins poker players have: marrying excellent starting cards that have probably been outflopped... and not being patient enough or thinking through a lot of situations where the action seems automatic, but there may be overlooked angles (both bad and good ones).<br /><br />With the amount of time I've spent thinking about, watching, and indeed playing the game... I know I have more experience than most of the people I play against. <em>Using</em> that experience is the difficult part... it's far to easy to think that simply having it, or being more knowledgeable means you will win. And far more devastating when you don't, and you know you didn't play well.<br /><br />I've definitely hit my zone lately, and even without the great results, I'd have to say this is the best I've ever played.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1158372513962372912006-09-15T20:57:00.000-04:002006-09-15T22:08:33.976-04:00Blogger Poker Tour, Season 2Anyone with a blog should sign up for the second season of the <a href="http://www.bloggerpokertour.com">Blogger Poker Tour</a>, powered by <a href="http://www.poker.com">Poker.com</a>. Similar to the last season, it will be a series of $500 freerolls, in which players can qualify for the Grand Final, with <a href="http://www.bloggerpokertour.com/prizes.htm">prizes</a> as follows:<br /><br />1st: A $10k seat in the 2007 Aussie Millions tournament held in Melbourne, Australia + $2,500 travel and spending money.<br />2nd-3rd: A deluxe 8' BPT poker table(2nd) and a 6' BPT poker table(3rd) built by <a href="http://www.keystonepokertables">Keystone Poker Tables</a> and yours truly.<br />4th-10th: Poker.com 4GB black ipod nano.<br />11th-15th: Poker.com chipset.<br />16th-20th: Poker.com Grand Final Ticket (good for entry into your choice of grand final tournament at Poker.com - Aussie Millions, WSOP, WPT.)<br /><br />...All free and open to anyone with a blog (any topic).Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1157088860011003622006-09-01T00:47:00.000-04:002006-09-01T01:45:24.706-04:00Climbing Back OnMy previously noted disasters seem to be healthily behind. I say <em>healthily</em>, because I'm about 90% of the way to believing recent disasters moved my game forward in surprising ways. Really, as a poker player, if you're not using failure as well as success to learn, I just don't think you're going to make it very far.<br /><br />I've had little mini bad runs before... and when I say "bad run" I'm talking of bad beats coupled with bad play. It should be noted, and not lightly, that the two come together quite often, and that's probably no accident. The recent events for me (at least online), however were the real thing: not the little mini bad runs that I thought were horrible... but the real deal.<br /><br />I can too vividly recall at least half-a-dozen stackings, where I was a commanding favorite to win. That happens, as hard as it may seem. But I also am coming around to realize there were a lot of points where I was way off my game... I hit on "pushing" edges in one of my recent posts about my run, asking that getting your money in as a favorite can't be a bad thing... but also noting that it increases variance. Most importantly, I realize now that, no, in theory it's not bad... just one problem: that's not <em>my</em> game, to be risking so much on hands, even one's that are the favorite. Often, I wasn't making bets "outside the box". I wasn't zigging when opponents zagged. I <em>was</em> testing fate and luck and saying "let's see you suck out on this". And then they did. Or worse, already had me beat.<br /><br />When I'm on my game, I play aggressive, don't get me wrong, but there's a well-noted fine line between aggression and stupidity... between making bets that give your opponents poor odds (that they will call) and making bets that will only get called if your already beat... between playing smart to win, and trying too hard to win.<br /><br />This is old stuff, really. Nothing new here. As probably all serious (and good) poker players know, poker learning is cyclic. I've noted many times how you learn someting and something clicks and you say "hey, ok, I <em>know</em> that, I get it"... and then a few months later you really learn it, internalizing it in some new way or with greater significance. And then sometime later you learn it <em>again</em>. This is like that.<br /><br />A big help with these things, are Larry Phillips' books (which I know I've mentioned many times and quoted at length recently) <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Poker-Timeless-Transform/dp/0452281261/">Zen and the Art of Poker</a>, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Poker-Rules-Transform-Game/dp/1580628370/">The Tao of Poker</a>. Scoff at the titles if you will, but there's gold here if you're looking for it. The books have that rare quality of being the kinds of things you can pick up now and again and pick a page at random to read... and come away with a little perspective shift... a little hint at maybe what your problem is... something you need to learn again.<br /><br />Poker players have a lot of little sayings and truisms, like "top pair is a good hand to win a small pot and to lose a big one" or if you're looking for something more humorous "you can lead a horse to water but a donkey will follow you all the way to the river" or the ever popular "AK: Anna Kournikova: looks good but doesn't win shit".<br /><br />One of the favorites I often use in my home game is "A fold is a win"... in two contexts: it's always a win for you when opponents fold (hey, 80/20 still ain't a lock, you know? rake the chips- you're a winner), and more importantly often folding yourself is the only way to "win". Phillips says "Learn to use inaction as a weapon." Brilliant. I mean, how defeating is it to an opponent if every time he's strong you withdraw? Putting this in action in a game is really one of the most beautiful things you can do at the table to defeat your opponents.<br /><br />Anyway, the big kind of overall mantra/focus/truism recently for me, has been a return to the idea that <em>the cards</em> are going to determine <em>if</em> you win or lose a hand, but <em>you</em> are going to determine <em>how much</em>. What separates the long-term winners from the losers is simple: good players lose less than bad players on the hands they lose, and win more than bad players when they win. Simple. Makes sense. A lot like life, try and control what you actually can control. The real game-application of this concept can get pretty subtle, or be as blatant as using good starting card selection.<br /><br />I think I know this, now, but 6 months from now, I'll learn it <em>again</em> in a new way. Probably so will you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1154643200797612002006-08-03T17:35:00.000-04:002006-08-03T18:13:24.260-04:00Winning Notes On The Losing StreakSometimes (often), others say it better than you ever could. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1580628370/sr=8-1/qid=1154641929/">Larry Phillips</a>:<blockquote>There is no level of experience at which it ceases to be amazing that you can play poker all day long and not go on a hot streak for fifteen minutes, while across the table another player has been on one for six or seven straight hours. There is just no amount of expertise where this stops being an awe-inspiring sight-- but it it something we have to deal with, and learn to integrate into our game. Probability tells us that such a thing is simply going to happen once in a while. Still it is always just as wondrous to behold the first time you see it as the 500th...<br /><br />All real gamblers know the Inner Scream. It's like the face in that one painting, <i>The Scream</i>, the oval-headed guy with his mouth open and his hands on his cheeks. It's exactly like that, only it's on the inside. It's a scream for just <i>average</i> luck, not even for <i>good</i> luck anymore. For the wondrous state of affairs where, every time you get annihilated, there is some kind of offsetting win of some kind, somewhere. It's just pleading to break even.<br /><br />Even the most calm, serene, and composed among us has a limit. It might be 7 losing hands in a row. It might be 7 bad beats in a row; it might be 7 hours or 7 weeks or 7 months. However long it is, there is a limit beyond which our sense of humor begins to leave us.<br /><br />A true cold spell is a thing of wonder. It is almost breathtaking in its scope and depth... It's a feeling caused by a combination of events so unlikely, so statistically improbable, that it's really hard to believe. And yet we see it happen right before our eyes, often over and over again.<br /><br />Statistical occurances that are 20-1 against, 50-1 against, 100-1 against happen routinely, in an unbroken string. And as a player you <i>know</i> these odds. And you know they are even longer when combined.<br /><br />But the annoying part, really, is not the losing. And it's not the money either. Because you can always get more money. It's a feeling of betrayal almost, the appearance of a suddenly topsy-turvy world where logic no longer seems to function, where bad players win effortlessly, and good play is penalized. It's a funhouse-mirror world where logic-- and the familiar laws of long experience-- no longer apply. It's as if you accidentally dropped something, some object, and now the object falls up, not down. It's the dismissal of a world you knew-- or thought you knew.</blockquote><br />Some who read this will know exactly what I'm feeling and trying to convey, and others, like I once similarly did, will scoff and think things like "yeah quit whining everyone takes beats" or "sure blame bad luck for your bad play". Truly, nobody knows you when you're down and out. You really can't recieve objective responses from people when you try and relate the magnitude and consistancy of horrible luck: everyone, even those few who truly know the game and have had the experience, reserve a little corner of their brain for doubt and distrust in your ability to objectively see the situation and accurately judge your own play. Poker players, by nature, know to believe nothing someone tells them, if only because they know too well the nature of their own fish-stories.<br /><br />Mentally at least, I feel as if this run is behind me. It's there, still looming and within sight, but slowly fading. Heavy losses, yes... broke, no. Stakes have been reduced. Hatches have long been battened down, and will remain so. A little <em>average</em> luck please?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1154369175407924112006-07-31T12:49:00.000-04:002006-07-31T14:06:15.706-04:00Running AWFULNot much to say... and I don't want to bore too much and commit the sin of ragging on with bad beat stories, but I can safely say that I've hit the most awful streak I've yet to encounter in my life, and that should probably be noted and talked about a little. I'm not one of those guys that always claims to win, or be always "up", or only talks about good things that he's done.<br /><br />I'm really just about at the end of my patience. I don't want to hear "that's poker" or "that's variance". I know the goddamn theory. I know what expected value is. I know that 3:1 is not a lock, but it sure as hell means you should win 75% of the time. I need someone to look over my shoulder and say "yeah dude, you're fine, I'm seeing this shit too, hang in there." But I don't have that.<br /><br />FOUR TIMES in the last two days I've flopped sets. Not "trips" with a pair on the board: SETS, with a pair in my hand. FOUR TIMES the flop has been two-suited. FOUR TIMES I have bet the pot on the flop and turn, and FOUR TIMES the board has gone runner runner putting a fourflush on the board so some donkey's top-pair that he just couldn't lay down can make a single-card flush. Don't get me wrong, I want the bad calls, but look at the math:<br /><br />A buy in here is $50. Let's just assume the opponent has $50 too. Let's also assume (generously) that he's a 3:1 dog on average. So in this mythical "long run", there's $100 in each pot, $75 of which by the odds, is mine. 4x$75 = $300 expected value (a net profit of $100). In reality, it was a $200 loss, which is a $300 swing down from the expected value. Good poker. Horrible result.<br /><br />If I flop an overpair, someone flops a set. If I flop a set, someone calls with an overpair and hits. If I'm drawing, well... you know. Yes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chau_Giang">Chau</a>, poker is nice.<br /><br />In the beginning of this horrible run, I can't put a value on tilt, but I acknowledge the subtle effects. Still, I think the real effect most of the time is simply overplaying some situations where you're likely ahead (either defending against the draws that you almost *know* are coming, or attempting to double and cut into the previous losses)... and that really doesn't seem like a problem, does it? Getting more money in when you figure to have the best hand can't be bad, can it? ...Except the swings are more brutal... which would be fine if a 3:1 held up once in a while so you could swing positive too. By karma, I have one hell of an upswing coming.<br /><br />The real point here is that I've checked even the faintest semi-tilt. I play super tight/agressive mechanical poker trying to pull out of this, content to just chip away and make small gains, and over and over the beats still come. Poker is a cruel game... and I know this... I know that that's part of the attraction... I know runs like these seperate the good players from those that can't handle it and can't control their emotion... overcoming the injustice of situation after situation, blah blah long run.<br /><br />How fucking long is long though?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1153175318815700852006-07-17T17:41:00.000-04:002006-07-17T20:21:02.786-04:00$1k In 1YearGoal = ATTAINED. Utilizing conservative bankroll strategy, and finally setting about poker with a solid plan, I turned $50 into $1k in just a week shy of a year, starting at .01/.02 shorthanded NLHE, and <em>now</em> finally bankrolled to tackle quarter/half. It <em>can</em> be done.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.komlenic.com/img/1kgraph.gif" /><br /><br />Just for fun, the hand that won me the final $16.90 and pushed me over 1k with the nut boat (he mucked QQ after calling my river overbet):<br /><br /><img src="http://www.komlenic.com/img/1k.jpg" /><br /><br /><strong>Analysis</strong><br /><br />Before I dive into the gritty stats and too much self-analysis, yes, it's an achievement, and I'm proud of it. Was it easy? No. Was it profitable? That depends on whether you think averaging $1.25 per hour is profitable. My main point here is to acknowledge (and caution) that playing poker <em>seriously</em> and <em>coming up</em> from nothing the hard way is far from a get rich quick scheme. Sure, I think if I was to start again today with $50... I could <em>greatly</em> increase my earn rate and make it to $1k a good deal faster, but it would still take a <em>significant</em> amount of time. If you scoff at the length of time it took me, you're either a better player now than I was then, or you don't understand (or don't care about) <a href="http://wired-aces.blogspot.com/2006/03/growing-bankroll.html">bankroll management</a>. In poker and life, the lucky few among us may seem to stumble into success, but there really is no shortcut. Easy come, easy go.<br /><br />Ok, some stats. I predominantly played single tables at three stakes of shorthanded NLHE. (Figured into the 1k total are also some low-level SNG's[net -] and a small amount of bonus money[+], which coupled together almost exactly zeros out.)<table border="1" style="margin: 0px; padding 2px;"><br /><tr><td><strong>Stakes</strong></td><td><strong>Sessions</strong></td><td><strong>Hours</strong></td><td><strong>Profit</strong></td><td><strong>Earn Rate</strong></td></tr><tr><td>.01/.02 ($5)</td><td>25</td><td>40.58</td><td>$24.75</td><td>$0.61/hr</td></tr><tr><td>.05/.10($10)</td><td>171</td><td>396.25</td><td>$411.55</td><td>$1.04/hr</td></tr><br /><tr><td>.10/.25 ($25)</td><td>162</td><td>322.08</td><td>$513.98</td><td>$1.60/hr</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Totals</strong></td><td>358</td><td>758.92</td><td>$950.28</td><td>$1.25/hr</td></tr><br /></table><br /><br />Nothing staggering here, other than how you'd think the earn rates would be higher... at least I know <em>I</em> think they should be. In big bet poker, the swings (and the rake, but that's a different subject) can and will devastate your earn rate. The simplest explanation is that the absolute value of a "good" decision you might make, doesn't tend to be as big as the absolute value of a "bad" decision. Interpretation: a mistake often costs more than a good choice earns. Putting it yet another way, you can play good poker and make many correct decisions and earn small solid gains, but you can blow those gains with <em>just one mistake</em>. Opportunities to make a single huge gain with one decision are few and far between, and often difficult and risky.<br /><br />Of course, I also freely admit that the low earn rates are in part due to a whole slew of tilt and more often the deadly and deceptive "semi-tilt", not to mention outright inexperience. The whole point was to learn the game and master myself (or <em>master</em> the game and <em>learn</em> myself, depending on how you look at it), and that probably takes a good chunk of loss to do.<br /><br />With all of the above said, it is significant to note that by looking at the graph above, you can see how low my roll was at about 2/3 of the way across. This low point represents yeah, some bad play/beats, but also means that in the last 137 sessions since that point, I made a profit of $736.60 in 244 hours, for a "recent" earn rate of just over $3. Knowing my play, I also know that this was no accident... I simply played better recently.<br /><br />$3/hour doesn't seem like much, but it <em>is</em> relative: it's IMHO a respectable 12 big blinds per hour. Translate that into playing $.5/1, and you're making $12/hour. Sure the competition on average gets better as you move up through these stakes, and it becomes more difficult to maintain such a relative earn rate, but the absolute earn rate can, will, and should continue to increase.<br /><br />The goal for me is to keep building my bankroll and eventually move up stakes to the point where I'm paying myself not only a respectable rate relative to the stakes, but one that is also respectable in real-world terms on its own. In hindsight, the $1k itself isn't nearly as significant as what it represents... as termed above, "coming up the hard way"... Putting in the hours, taking the beats, making and re-making and re-making mistake after mistake, realizing just how hard (and easy) it can be, stripping poker down to its essence and slowly layering tendencies, human nature, knowledge, and personal experience on top. It takes balance and instincts to play winning poker, and there has been no better teacher for me than the roughly 75,000 hands it took to build myself $1,000 in a year.<br /><br />Next up, $2k.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1152837460809151312006-07-13T20:31:00.000-04:002006-07-13T20:38:53.143-04:00Latest TableReally like the way this one turned out... great little cash game table (click for more pics/info):<br /><br /><a href="http://www.keystonepokertables.com/gallery/007/"><img src="http://www.keystonepokertables.com/img/tables/007/thumbs/01.jpg" width="150" height="113" alt="Keystone Poker Tables" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1151951692838768432006-07-03T13:47:00.000-04:002006-07-04T11:41:47.063-04:00BPT: 6 HeadsI managed to qualify for <a href="http://www.poker.com">Poker.com</a>'s <a href="http://www.bloggerpokertour.com/?x=canoeg">Blogger Poker Tour</a>'s Grand Final on July 1st. With a max of 42 players (39 sat), and a $12.5k WSOP package up for grabs, I managed a 7th place finish, and won a 4GB iPod Nano for my efforts. It's kind of sick to think I was 6 heads from the WSOP, but I am quite happy with my performance and result.<br /><br />I've rarely seen a better example of bubble play: all players got prizes for making the final tournament, but the difference between 11th place and 10th was Poker.com gear vs. the start of the iPods. So around 15 players left I found myself ranked 7th in chips, where I stayed despite losing increasing blinds to my make-the-money, tight-weak strategy. The big stacks were just taking everyone else's money, everyone knew it, and nobody cared. I didn't fold everything here, but it was gonna take a pair higher than tens or AK to get involved.<br /><br />Noteable hands (briefly):<br /><br />- Early levels, doubled through KK with my AA (all in preflop after multiple re-raises). Maintained the chip lead for about an hour.<br /><br />- Made two bad moves, both essentially stone-cold bluffs where I felt a lone opponent was weak. Managed to get away with minimal yet significant enough damage.<br /><br />- Short stacked my AQo ended up all-in pre-flop against AKo, and I spiked a Q on the turn <em>and</em> the river. Didn't misplay the hand, but got lucky.<br /><br />- Again short-stacked ended up all-in pre-flop with AKo against a big stacks QQ and a very small stack's 22. Ugly Q on the flop, leaving me needing runner-runner (either two running spades, or two running cards to make a straight, namely J and T) to survive and more than double up. Amazingly, the gorgeous two spades came without pairing the board. Didn't misplay the hand, but got <em>really</em> lucky.<br /><br />- Final hand for me, and by far the most interesting of the tournament from a strategy perspective... I held ATo on the button 7-handed in an unopened pot, and with an effective "m" of about 5 (see Dan Harrington's books). Two options, raise a normal 3-4x the BB, or push all-in. Seeing two biggish stacks in the blinds who are unlikely to have monster auto-call hands, and who just might take a chance on a mid pair or other hands that I would at least be racing with: I opt for the push. The SB wakes up with QQ and of course calls, and I don't improve to finish 7th. My play here is debate-able perhaps, but not really a bad one.<br /><br />As someone who I can objectively say has gotten rather unlucky in tournaments lately, I feel vindicated with the two big bits of luck noted above. Me and variance are square for the time being.<br /><br />Congrats to the big winners:<br /><br />1st: "<a href="http://egonolsenpoker.blogspot.com/">EgonOlson</a>", who'll be representing Poker.com, the Blogger Poker Tour, and Denmark at this year's WSOP. Good Luck!<br /><br />2nd: "<a href="http://lifeuniversepoker.blogspot.com/">OhioMike</a>", who played a great and bittersweet tournament (I sat with him to my left for at least the first hour and a half) and earned a sweet <a href="http://www.bloggerpokertour.com/prize_2nd.htm">30" LCD Monitor</a>.<br /><br />3rd: "<a href="http://www.hotpokerbonus.com/blog">Kdollar00</a>", who survived a pressured 4-handed battle to make 3rd place, and earn a custom <a href="http://www.bloggerpokertour.com/prize_3rd.htm">Keystone Poker Table</a>.<br /><br />Thanks go out again to <a href="http://www.poker.com">Poker.com</a> and the <a href="http://www.bloggerpokertour.com/?x=canoeg">Blogger Poker Tour</a> for putting on a great series of qualifiers and a really well-paced final event. The 5k starting stacks combined with starting blinds of 5/10 made for a great tournament.<br /><br />Season 2 of the BPT starts in early September, with the final 1st prize being a package in the Aussie Millions Tournament to be held in Melbourne, Australia January 2007. All you need is a blog (any topic) to play.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1150687929871315142006-06-18T23:09:00.000-04:002006-06-18T23:32:09.926-04:00WBCOOP^what an acronym. "World Blogger Championship of Online Poker" as hosted by PokerStars.<br /><br />One of these days I'm going to crush one of these freerolls.<br /><br />The result: 90th of 2247. 54 received prizes. 3.5 hours of play that I can be happy with I suppose... gave no bad beats, and for the last hour or two played great short stack poker... just on this side of tight, but plenty pushy in the right spots. Lost with 33 in the SB, two limps to me, and I pushed. Got one caller with QJs, who flopped a Q on the all club flop... I had the only club for the flush draw, but couldn't draw out.<br /><br />Also got plopped down two seats to the right of <a href="http://nicefaceceo.blogspot.com/">Stan</a> of <a href="http://www.nicefacepoker.com">local PA poker fame</a> for a bit. I even got to steal his BB from the button (w Q5o) when it was folded around to me, and witnessed his Aces getting cracked by a three-club flop and a flush draw that hit and helped propel some tard to an ipod nano. Ugly.<br /><br />I really should make it a point to hit a few of these big multi's every month for a chance at a nice score... I always seem to finish what <em>would</em> be usually in the money... something like top 8-10% of the field.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1149656332748334662006-06-07T00:10:00.000-04:002006-06-07T00:58:52.846-04:00Dime/Quarter: 3 Months InI keep saying it, just to bring anyone up to speed who stumbles in here: I've been working since last July to crack the shorthanded NLHE tables on PokerStars. I started with a pathetic $50 and .01/.02 (partly as a learning experience/challenge).<br /><br />So after swinging wildly around dime/quarter (aka 25NL) for the last three months, my bankroll finally broke $750... halfway to the $1k mark and quarter/half. Some observations:<br /><br />I previously clung tightly to the notion that moving up through these micro limits... the play just wasn't that different or better as you go. It's the same game, right? After observation and a good deal of thought on the subject, I have to say that there is certainly some truth to this, but not as much as perhaps you'd like to believe.<br /><br />Here's the thing... overall, it seems to me that the player base is still quite capable of making donkey plays and small errors. I can't tell you how many times I've watched a player play solid tight/aggressive poker for two hours without any noticeable missteps or questionable plays, then blow half a stack or more on a surprisingly awful play. The key here is that it took him two hours to do it. <strong>At lesser limits/levels, <em>more</em> players definitely make <em>more</em> mistakes <em>more</em> often.</strong> ...yet another of those concepts that sound so blatantly obvious, but you don't really internalize and learn until you discover it for yourself.<br /><br />So what this has meant for me, is a lot of growth as a player... really starting to hone in on small leaks, that previously didn't matter so much at lesser levels, because my opponents had even bigger leaks and more of them. At nickel/dime I could spend a lot of chips seeing flops with any reasonable hand (way down to "cute" hands like 45o), or chasing technically bad draws relying on implied odds: more often than not you could get paid off big, even when it was obvious that you hit. At dime/quarter... sure you can still get paid off, and stack a donk now and again who's just playing terrible, but overall, the play of opponents <em>is</em> markedly better. The leaks that previously were overshadowed by bleeding opponents, now represent a significant chunk out of my earn rate.<br /><br />The more I learn, the more I realize that <strong>winning poker is simply a matter of making fewer errors than your opponents</strong>, and when they're making less errors, you really need to start finding and fixing yours.<br /><br />So I play better cards, from better positions. I don't call preflop raises without a fighting chance of having the best hand. I <em>really</em> don't give free cards anymore. I still hammer the hell out of weak limps with decent holdings, and follow through with half-pot continuation bets (a play that is <em>way</em> more effective at dime/quarter). I really think I make less "bad" bluffs, especially those "second barrel" turn bluffs that can be so costly.<br /><br />Recently (realizing my earn rate at dime/quarter was hovering around my earn at nickel/dime), I started to really focus on getting the hourly rate up. I realized that those few dollars here and there pissed away was what was killing me... not the bad beats (although I did have a horrible couple of weeks here and there). So I tend to play shorter, more intensely focused sessions... even if that means taking half hour breaks. I find myself sitting down and saying "ok, one hour... let the cards come... wait for it." and quite often in these short sessions it's remarkably easy to net $10 or more without a single "big" hand or pot, which does wonders for the earn rate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1149113620952508292006-05-31T16:45:00.000-04:002006-05-31T23:01:34.896-04:00UnderstandingA friend posed a question yesterday regarding how well you think you understand other people, which really got me thinking. In the end, the one thing that appears relevant to me, is that someone who truly understands themself, is generally good at beginning to understand others.<br /><br />Now you can probably see where this is heading... yet another angle on the "poker as life" metaphor. If you put the effort into understanding (or at least attempting to understand) your own thought processes, reactions, bet sizes, ego, posture, movements, etc... generally speaking, you're going to be on your way to understanding your opponents. <br /><br />Sure poker players are just like any group of humans: diverse and in many ways unique. But the flip side of that coin is that really, though we may have different priorities and personalities, we're probably a lot more similar than we are different. <br /><br />The key here is this understanding of one's self... I'm sure you know people who appear to float (or more often, struggle) through life without the slightest evidence of introspection. They wear their ego... their insecurities... right out on their sleeve. They never seem to learn. In poker, it is much the same... we all know the guys who do certain negative expectation plays over and over, like never backing down when they encounter resistance, or always chasing bad draws for bad odds, or slowplaying tenuous hands... it's a long list.<br /><br />The tricky thing about poker (and life) is that it takes an astute and honest mind to accurately assess cause and effect and truly "understand", because poor behaviours or poor plays, can often be rewarding. In life, a certain ineffectual coping mechanism, can often appear to be quite effective in the short term, thus reinforcing it as "correct". In poker, well... we all know how on occasion you can get your money in bad, over and over, and come out on top.<br /><br /><br />Unrelated, mostly uninteresting, and quite admittedly whiny tournament story:<br /><br />Hero: 77<br />Villian: AK<br /><br />Flop A74<br /><br />Hero check raises all in, villian calls.<br /><br />Turn: K<br />River: A<br /><br />In all fairness (and somewhat of a salve), the "villian" really did nothing questionable here at any point in the hand... but I really struggle with not whining about this long-odds crap. I mean, 98% (according to card player's calculator), seriously. A guy said, "that happens to everyone, though", and my legitimate response in my head is "no, it really doesn't <em>this</em> often, does it? I don't see you leaving tournament after tournament on the winning side of 80/20's or worse". <br /><br />Furthermore, I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that I truly can't even remember the last time I put something like an 80/20 beat on someone let alone 98/2 (<em>that's <strong>worse</strong> than a one-outer</em>). 60/40, sure... whatever... I'm not crying about losing or winning coinflips or marginal leads... I take my AJ's against KK's and win now and again, too. Hell I remember losing back to back big hands with QQ both times, which fell to KJ and AK, to end a tournament for me... sure that stings a lot, but in reality, one was a coin flip, and the other was a 70/30... <em>these</em> things can/do/and should happen sometimes.<br /><br />I guess I'm just venting frustration, and like any bad beat story, looking for consolation that I really don't need. I know the odds. I know that <em>way</em> more often than not I'm the one taking, rather than giving the <em>truly</em> bad beats. I know I tend to play winning poker and the bankroll supports that. <br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chau_Giang">Chau Giang</a> said it best, on taking a memorable beat at the 2004 WSOP: "Poker is nice...I love play poker".<br /><br />---------<br /><br /><div><a href="http://www.pokerstars.com/blog_tournament/"><img src="http://www.pokerstars.com/blog_tournament/images/blogger-tournament-2006-2.gif" alt="Texas Holdem Poker" width="250" height="90" border="0"></a><p>I have registered to play in the <a href="http://www.pokerstars.com/blog_tournament/">PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker</a>! </p><p>This Online Poker Tournament is a No Limit <a href="http://www.pokerstars.com/">Texas Holdem</a> event exclusive to Bloggers.</p></p><p>Registration code: 8426635</p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1147498470488690332006-05-13T00:24:00.000-04:002006-05-13T01:34:30.560-04:00Zero Sum Minus SomeI just discovered <a href="http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles.html">Tommy Angelo's poker article archive</a> (via <a href="http://guinnessandpoker.blogspot.com/">Iggy</a>). Now maybe I should know who Tommy Angelo is, but I have no idea. What I do know after spending some time at the link above, is that he's written some damn fine articles on poker.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/folding.htm"><i>Folding</i></a> is a brilliant echo of a mantra I've long held: "Fold to win." Eerily familiar, <a href="http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/kay_knows_poker.htm"><i>Kay Knows Poker</i></a> explores the subject of poker wives. But so far in my reading, perhaps the most striking article has been <a href="http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles/zero_sum_minus_some.htm"><i>Zero Sum Minus Some</i></a>.<br /><br />In theory, poker is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum">zero sum</a> game: "a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s)." Sitting around your kitchen table (or one of <a href="http://www.keystonepokertables.com">these beauties</a>), it still is. But as everyone knows, playing poker online or at a B&M card room, means a house rake or seat fee of some kind. Angelo has this to say:<blockquote>Then one day while playing I was watching the money swirl around and down and it occurred to me that the poker table is like a huge punch bowl. Each of us pours liquid (money) into the bowl (onto the table). Then we each get a straw, and we sit around the bowl, and we suck. Meanwhile, at the bottom of the bowl, is a hole.<br /><br />And the effect of the hole looks like <a href="http://www.tommyangelo.com/images/zerosumminussome.jpg">this</a>.</blockquote>The chart linked above is very telling... but mainly it shows how in a true zero-sum poker game, <em>roughly</em> 50% of the players will be long-term winners and 50% will be long-term losers (the left-hand distribution). (Of course it's also possible for a few of the players to win most of the money, with the majority being losers... but in the long run, generally speaking, it's probably much closer to 50/50.)<br /><br />Now looking at the right-hand distribution, the "zero sum minus some" part... it looks like about 70% of the players are long-term losers (a figure which I've heard quoted many times as being widely accepted to be true, especially online). The implication is obvious: to be in the 30%, and a long-term winner in raked games, you not only need to make moves that are profitable enough to beat the other players, but also the big drain at the bottom of the punch bowl. Indeed, that's what Angelo's article is all about.<br /><br />Beating raked poker is tough. Seasoned players know this of course, but even they, as well as beginners, need reminded of how tough it can be to outsuck the rake drain. The real problem here is that the rake drain is a deceptive device; it has a habit of looking more like an inconsequential pin-hole rather than the 10" profit-negating conduit that it really is. Ten cents here, a buck there, does in fact add up quickly and eat into your earn rate.<br /><br />Anyway, I've been beating the players and the rake at PokerStars for a while now... but I'm moving 1/3 of my bankroll over to the much talked about <a href="http://www.worldpokerexchange.com/">World Poker Exchange</a>, offering weekly rebates of 100% of your contributed rake... essentially rake free poker. We shall see how a few weeks there pans out.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1147321962430885142006-05-11T00:27:00.000-04:002006-05-11T00:32:42.440-04:00EuroRoundersMaybe this has been around for a while and you've seen it... but hell, go check out <a href="http://saddlepoint.livejournal.com/7844.html">Excerpts from EuroRounders</a>... hilarious:<blockquote>Michel: "Look...Croissant, I never told you this, but about a year ago, I was playing poker at the Casino des Atlantes, and Marcel Luske walks in. He sits down at the 50/100 pot limit game. And, I mean, the whole place stops, right? Just watching this guy play. After a while there isn't a retarded European gambling game going, because everybody's just, you know, watching this guy."<br /><br />- Joey Croissant nods -<br /><br />Michel: "So you know what I did? I sat down."<br /><br />Joey Croissant: "No way, you need at least 300,000 euros to sit down at a game like that. Such bad financial management is typical of a boorish American!"<br /><br />- Joey Croissant and Michel laugh for twenty-six minutes -<br /><br />Michel: "Right, okay, but seriously, I played for an hour, doing nothing but folding. Then I won a huge pot."<br /><br />Joey Croissant: "Aces? Kings? Ace-King doublesuited? Suited aces? High connectors? Middle doublesuited connectors? Two big pair?"<br /><br />Michel: "Rags."<br /><br />Joey Croissant: "That's probably fine too, you're only like a 48/52 dog."</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1146604155525724432006-05-02T16:42:00.000-04:002006-05-02T17:09:16.456-04:00Two More Good OnesMore poker/life metaphor quality from <a href="http://taopoker.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_taopoker_archive.html#114643775728589862">Pauly</a>:<blockquote>Poker is a way to figure out your limitations and how you react in certain situations or during pressure points as DoubleAs has often discussed. But being honest with yourself is something that is very hard to do. No matter if it's poker or in your normal everyday life, the more you lie to yourself, the more it's going to hurt you and your loved ones in the future. If you are blinded with fame and glory at the poker tables and you're not 100% honest with yourself that you need several more years of training before you take the shot, then you're going to fall hard. And you might be indirectly taking people in your life down with you.<br /><br />The first step is being honest with yourself. Then and only then can you begin the journey to figure out who you really are. Despite all your faults, it doesn't make you a horrible person. Nobody is perfect (well except Phil Hellmuth). And being able to identify your weaknesses allows you to point out your strengths. And that's what you need to focus most of your energy on... what you do best. Then you can take the time to improve those aspects of your life that are liabilities. The two pronged approach is a way to flourish and improve at the same time.</blockquote><br />...and some back-to-basics insight from <a href="http://doubleas.blogspot.com/2006/04/this-entry-is-basically-diary-entry.html">DoubleAs</a>:<blockquote>It takes a lot of time to master the subtleties of fancy plays so that they're profitable. You have to know the right situations to use them: the right position, opponents, stack sizes, table image, etc. .<br /><br />I think most players often just go back to solid play after a FPS tangent. The player is now knowledgeable in the more advanced techniques and can actually use them correctly now. The big realization is that the fancy plays need the right circumstances and that those circumstances rarely present themselves.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7863667.post-1146079355675751212006-04-26T14:17:00.000-04:002006-04-26T15:22:35.746-04:00SCP Spring FreerollOk, so <em>almost</em> the promised domination: 2nd place, <a href="http://wired-aces.blogspot.com/2005/12/scp-fall-league-championship-freeroll.html">again</a>. Now I shouldn't really complain about a $61 second place the day after a $300 first place (and both technically freerolls!), but I might. I wanted the sweep dammit.<br /><br />These leagues (one some friends and I started, and the other was patterned after ours) can be a good way to establish a regular tourney game... and I've seen and heard about a lot of different systems that can be used. We use a 10% "league fee", which goes into the league pot for the end-of-season freeroll, and makes a player eligible to earn points based on tournament finish. Then, for the freeroll (open to anyone who has earned points), players' stacks are based on points earned. It's a very fair system in the end, as even players who have earned few points (perhaps because they missed some tourneys) have a shot at the pot. Granted, they have a weaker stack to start, but they've also contributed less to the pot, and have less at stake.<br /><br />We've had a lot of talk about using an optional add-on (buying more chips, in this case at the start of the tourney) to boost the freeroll pot higher. The problem with a flat add on however, is that it reduces the advantage that the higher points earners would have. For instance, the point leader is to start with T1000, and someone who came out to play once is to start with T200... if you do a flat $x buys you 500 more chips, the leader is getting a 50% add on, while the other player is getting a 250% add on! Worse yet, is that the leader's advantage is now chopped down to 53% instead of 80%.<br /><br />Yesterday I came up with the "50/50 add on", which we used last night: for 50% of the $ contributed to the league pot, a player can buy 50% more chips than he/she would have started with. The main idea here is that the relative stack sizes and advantages are maintained, while boosting the pot by 50% (if everyone buys the add on ). Another positive, is that the people who earned more points per dollar contributed during the season (i.e. finished well), do have some financial advantage, as they end up paying relatively less per added chip.<br /><br />At any rate, I'm very content with my play again last night... I was very patient through the deeper than usual stacks and slower structure, accumulating a minor amount of chips for the first hour or two, but most importantly giving very few away. The table was playing generally very tight preflop as far as I could tell, and in certain spots I was looking for any excuse to make some pressure plays, and overall this worked well: reraising with tens, reraising with Ace-x, and reraising once or twice with small pairs and suited connectors, all with immediate success. I did suffer somewhat by the seating, as I had some selectively aggressive players to my right (often raising before me on hands where I would have raised) and some players who like to call to my left, one in particular who you can never tell if he's slowplaying or chasing as he will rarely raise except on the river (and even then it's almost always all-in).<br /><br />With heavy blinds and an increasingly tight table, I got stuck in a hand when we were 6-7 handed and I raised KQs under the gun... and was reraised nearly all-in by the BB (someone who is certainly capable of making pressure plays with less than premium hands). I thought this one out for a long time, assuming that I was a dog, but guessing (correctly) that I just wasn't that bad off. Putting the BB on a middle pair, I called, and found myself essentially racing 55%/45% against AJo, and nearly doubled up with a river Q.<br /><br />Two later raises in unopened pots from late position or the SB were met with all-in reraises from the player to my left, and both times I made good laydowns (he <em>showed</em> 99 and AK), but with standard raises being 1/5 to 1/4 of my stack, and some horrible cards for a few more rounds, I found myself crippled down to something like T1100 with blinds of 150/300, ugh. I tripled up with AJo, and then several hands later caught AA and KK back to back, reraising with the AA and taking a nice pot right there, and losing with KK: player to my left went all-in after my raise, I called, and the A9x flop had me crushed.<br /><br />At any rate, I got to heads up with something like a 3:2 lead, and we traded large amounts of chips back and forth for a while... I had my opponent all-in at one point A9 vs A5, and the ugly 5 came. We sat with even stacks for a little while, and faced with his frequent all-ins, I never had the cards to fight with at the right time... any pair, any ace, two broadway cards... just a bunch of J6 and the like. Final hand, he just calls from the SB, and fearing that this is possibly a sign of strength, I check my K8... I'll gladly see a flop. The flop comes 875, I lead out with a decent bet, and he goes all in and has me covered. I call, he shows 67 for middle pair and the straight draw, and makes the straight on the turn.<br /><br />You can't win 'em all.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0