Feel like I’ve made some progress since my last entry. May was a tough month, as I barely broke even, courtesy of a win on May 31st that put me in the green by about $40. Wish I could blame it on luck, but alas, the lackluster results have still been a result of my play.
So, I decided to go the route of hiring a coach to help with my game – in this case, James “SplitSuit” Sweeney, who focuses on fullring and plays at or around the level I’m currently trying to master. We’ve had some interesting conversations, and he’s clearly highlighted a couple of aspects of my game that I've needed to adjust – primarily related to being a little less aggressive in certain instances, so that I’m willing to set mine a little more frequently, flat 3-bets more in position and call OOP versus steals in instances where I’m ahead of the steal range, but potentially dominated by the villain’s continuation range versus a 3-bet.
These adjustments took some getting used to, but I feel like I’m getting more comfortable playing pots post-flop because of them, as opposed to settling everything on the basis of two cards. It’s also forcing me to work on my hand-reading, as identifying opportunities to steal pots vs. letting go based on perceived ranges becomes more critical for success in that environment.
Even with these improvements, I still feel that my biggest leak has been in taking marginal, one-pair type holdings too far – either by not getting away from them earlier in the hand, or by willing to put too much in the middle pre-flop with hands like AK or QQ. I’ve been extremely critical of myself in identifying spots where I should have folded AK vs.a 4-bet when I had strong feeling the opponent had aces, and in putting too much money in the pot when checkraised on the flop, just in case my opponent happened to be bluffing. It seems that my default reaction to a strong play is “this guy might be full of it” – but putting these suspicions to definitive rest has cost me entirely too much money in the past.
So, while the progress has been slow, I do feel that I’m getting there. Yesterday may have been the culmination of that sense of developing discipline, as I grinded for a few hours with no noticeable result, while folding several TPTK type of hands early against strength – only to later benefit from a run resulting in my largest single-session win ever (over 6.5 buy-ins). In the past, I would never have seen that result, because I would have been in the hole to the tune of 3 or 4 buy-ins before starting the recovery. It’s amazing what an effect not losing your chips in the first place can have on your overall winrate.
As an interesting aside, I was at a table with Chris Moneymaker for one of the $50 buy-in events on Sunday, and nearly busted him. Alas, all of the money went in preflop with my aces vs. his jacks, but he spiked a jack on the flop, leaving me on life support. Considering it was extremely early in the tournament, and – if I recall correctly, a 5-bet pot – I was a little surprised he was willing to get it all in with jacks in that spot. But then again, he’s got a main event bracelet, and I’ve got nada, so…
Current Bankroll: $18,680.87
Month To Date: 42,670 hands; up $555.65; 1.30 bb/100
Year to Date: 329,222 hands; up $4,398.35; 1.38 bb/100
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Revisiting the Sunday Million on Riverstars...
In broad strokes, I’ve blown through the earlier resistance level I mentioned in my last post, and am now sitting about $800 above that point. Not bad for a week’s worth of work. Most notably, the first 12 sessions since starting the analysis I referred to in that prior post were positive EV. I ran extremely poorly one day, with an actual result that was more than five buy-ins below EV… but that’s going to happen. You can only control what you can control.
I also cashed in my second Sunday Million ever, although it was a pretty strange affair. During the early stages of the tournament, with everyone still holding a full stack of around $10K, some clown in early position literally open-shoved his entire stack… and there I am sitting behind with pocket cowboys. I mean, wtf?
I thought to myself, there’s no way anybody is going to open-shove with pocket aces while everybody still has an M of over 30. So I called. And yes, he had pocket aces. Fortunately, I spiked a king on the flop. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, that’s all there is to say about that.
I played fairly conservatively until the bubble, getting myself comfortably in the money after knocking out some Brazilian pro with AKs vs. her AQ. Thereafter, I ran pretty card dead, stealing a few pots when necessary but ultimately beginning to succumb to the increasing blind levels. My best opportunity to make a stand came when I held 88 in the cutoff, but I folded in light of an early position raise to $15K from a short stack that should have pushed (I’m pretty sure he wanted action, and I didn’t want to oblige a premium pair). Fortunately, I was able to push shortly thereafter with pocket 7s, and was called by AQ. The flop was ugly, coming AQx – but I spiked a 7 on the river to put my stack back over $100K. A few hands later, I found pocket aces in early position, raised to $15K and was met with a $50K shove from pocket ducks. He spiked a 2 on the river, putting me back in trouble territory. A few hands later, I pushed with AT and was called by a shorter stack with K5, and yes… he spiked a 5 on the river. Then on life support, I pushed my remaining $18K with pocket tens, and was called by the big blind with pocket kings. I spiked a ten on the flop; he then spiked a king on the turn. Keep in mind, these hands were all played in a span of about 5 minutes. Yeah, I’m not a conspiracy theorist; I can’t be because I win money… but there really is a reason the site is sometimes affectionately referred to as Riverstars lol…
Current Bankroll: $16,671.06
Month To Date: 78,215 hands; up $1,309.05; 1.67 bb/100
Year to Date: 213,737 hands; up $3,500.30; 1.64 bb/100
I also cashed in my second Sunday Million ever, although it was a pretty strange affair. During the early stages of the tournament, with everyone still holding a full stack of around $10K, some clown in early position literally open-shoved his entire stack… and there I am sitting behind with pocket cowboys. I mean, wtf?
I thought to myself, there’s no way anybody is going to open-shove with pocket aces while everybody still has an M of over 30. So I called. And yes, he had pocket aces. Fortunately, I spiked a king on the flop. In the immortal words of Forrest Gump, that’s all there is to say about that.
I played fairly conservatively until the bubble, getting myself comfortably in the money after knocking out some Brazilian pro with AKs vs. her AQ. Thereafter, I ran pretty card dead, stealing a few pots when necessary but ultimately beginning to succumb to the increasing blind levels. My best opportunity to make a stand came when I held 88 in the cutoff, but I folded in light of an early position raise to $15K from a short stack that should have pushed (I’m pretty sure he wanted action, and I didn’t want to oblige a premium pair). Fortunately, I was able to push shortly thereafter with pocket 7s, and was called by AQ. The flop was ugly, coming AQx – but I spiked a 7 on the river to put my stack back over $100K. A few hands later, I found pocket aces in early position, raised to $15K and was met with a $50K shove from pocket ducks. He spiked a 2 on the river, putting me back in trouble territory. A few hands later, I pushed with AT and was called by a shorter stack with K5, and yes… he spiked a 5 on the river. Then on life support, I pushed my remaining $18K with pocket tens, and was called by the big blind with pocket kings. I spiked a ten on the flop; he then spiked a king on the turn. Keep in mind, these hands were all played in a span of about 5 minutes. Yeah, I’m not a conspiracy theorist; I can’t be because I win money… but there really is a reason the site is sometimes affectionately referred to as Riverstars lol…
Current Bankroll: $16,671.06
Month To Date: 78,215 hands; up $1,309.05; 1.67 bb/100
Year to Date: 213,737 hands; up $3,500.30; 1.64 bb/100
Monday, April 19, 2010
Resistance Level...
$15.7K appears to be a key resistance level for me, to put things in equity market terms. I first crossed this point early in the year, and then suffered a retracement back to the high $13K level. I thereafter recovered to $16.1K, and then promptly fell back to $15K again (about a week ago).
At this point, I realized I needed to take a more analytical approach to my game. So, I delved into Hold Em Manager much more deeply than I ever had before. My self-assigned task was to sort my results – per holecard combination – from each of early, middle, cutoff, button and blind positions, in each of unopened, limped and raised pots – and then build ranges for each based on my historical success at the $0.50/$1.00 level.
What I discovered was that I was playing a tighter game than was necessary, primarily because the bottom end of my range in most situations were still showing a material profit. So, I’ve been expanding my ranges – slowly – with the intention of identifying the optimal cutoff points. The immediate results have me playing slightly more aggressively, as my last several sessions have resulted in statistics in the 14/13 range as opposed to the 12/10 area. I expect that this will continue to expand with further analysis, ideally, to something where I’m playing a 16-18% VPIP. I believe this would likely be an optimal range for fullring.
A related benefit is that I’ve been able to identify specific holecard combinations that have given me unexpected trouble in certain scenarios. Exploring these scenarios has helped me identify several post-flop leaks in my game, primarily related to inappropriate bluff attempts and failure to identify areas where my opponents could conceivably be strong.
All of the foregoing has led me to take a much more active approach to my play, and the results thus far have been promising. Since starting a week ago, all of my sessions have been winners, and I’m now sitting squarely back at my $15.7K resistance level. (I’d actually be a bit beyond that, but I had a fairly unsuccessful slate of tournaments on Sunday – failing to cash in six of the eight MTTs that I played.)
Speaking of tournaments… I had a rather rude welcome to the Sunday Million. I’d never played in one before, primarily because I felt the $215 buy-in was a bit too steep. But given my relatively successful tournament record, and the deep-stack nature of the Sunday Million, I’ve recently decided to start using my VPPs to buy into these events, hoping to score a significant cash for zero financial outlay.
Well, I was looking forward to this one all week. It felt like taking a leap from the minor leagues to the pros. A 10K starting chip count, reasonable blind structure and potential quarter million payday if the cards ran my way. So I had my full pot of coffee brewed, my complement of undercard tourneys up and running on the left monitor, my nine ring games going on the right, ready to settle in for long haul ahead… and then… four friggin’ hands into the tournament, I was felted by top set over middle set. I’ve told myself that everyone would have gone broke in that spot, considering the inflated preflop pot (raised and a few callers) - and since the top set was sitting under the gun, I thought there was a reasonable chance he was overplaying a premium pair on the 9 high flop. 7-out; next shooter…
On a personal note, I’ve been feeling a little down of late. My personality is such that I tend to lead a fairly solitary existence; my current girlfriend once remarked that I reminded her of Richard Nixon towards the end of the Frost/Nixon movie, where he asked Frost, in earnest, if he actually enjoyed being around people. She’s right; for the most part, my preferred pursuits are largely constructive/competitive, and I’ve never been one for socializing to a great extent. I think this is one of the reasons I’m so attracted to the internet version of this game, for obvious reasons.
While I still feel like a fifteen-year old in spirit, I’ve actually turned forty this year. And while forty isn’t particularly old from a life standpoint (or even from the standpoint of the brick and mortar game), it might as well be the age of a dinosaur from the internet perspective. Most of the people I’m playing against are years, and even decades, younger than I am. In my estimation, this makes it somewhat difficult to establish or become part of a network of players who get to know and support each other as they develop their respective games. Yes, mine is a fairly solitary pursuit, as are most of the other things in my life.
I’ve never had children, nor have I ever had the type of relationship in which one would consider having children. The women that I’ve been involved with have been those who “fell into my lap”, so to speak – as opposed to those who I might actually look to get involved with. That’s not to say they aren’t great women, they just haven’t really been “right” for me.
I have a female friend who is one of the few women I’ve known in my life who I feel I have a great deal in common with, and with whom I enjoy spending time immensely. (Of course, she’s already taken.) She recently commented to me that she’s looking forward to getting married and having children; not necessarily now, but at some point in her life. I remember responding in a somewhat surprised fashion, saying something along the lines of “wow, I thought you were more like me in that regard”, in reference to my stated position that marriage is an institution that doesn’t make sense, considering it’s unnatural to spend one’s entire life with a single significant other.
As I get older, I’m beginning to realize the drawbacks of that position. Perhaps it would be a great thing to have someone there who’s a true soul mate, someone you genuinely enjoy being with on a regular basis. I suppose I’ll never know, as I just don’t see this happening in my future…
Current Bankroll: $15,894.31
Month To Date: 50,096 hands; up $912.00; 1.82 bb/100
Year to Date: 185,618 hands; up $3,103; 1.67 bb/100
At this point, I realized I needed to take a more analytical approach to my game. So, I delved into Hold Em Manager much more deeply than I ever had before. My self-assigned task was to sort my results – per holecard combination – from each of early, middle, cutoff, button and blind positions, in each of unopened, limped and raised pots – and then build ranges for each based on my historical success at the $0.50/$1.00 level.
What I discovered was that I was playing a tighter game than was necessary, primarily because the bottom end of my range in most situations were still showing a material profit. So, I’ve been expanding my ranges – slowly – with the intention of identifying the optimal cutoff points. The immediate results have me playing slightly more aggressively, as my last several sessions have resulted in statistics in the 14/13 range as opposed to the 12/10 area. I expect that this will continue to expand with further analysis, ideally, to something where I’m playing a 16-18% VPIP. I believe this would likely be an optimal range for fullring.
A related benefit is that I’ve been able to identify specific holecard combinations that have given me unexpected trouble in certain scenarios. Exploring these scenarios has helped me identify several post-flop leaks in my game, primarily related to inappropriate bluff attempts and failure to identify areas where my opponents could conceivably be strong.
All of the foregoing has led me to take a much more active approach to my play, and the results thus far have been promising. Since starting a week ago, all of my sessions have been winners, and I’m now sitting squarely back at my $15.7K resistance level. (I’d actually be a bit beyond that, but I had a fairly unsuccessful slate of tournaments on Sunday – failing to cash in six of the eight MTTs that I played.)
Speaking of tournaments… I had a rather rude welcome to the Sunday Million. I’d never played in one before, primarily because I felt the $215 buy-in was a bit too steep. But given my relatively successful tournament record, and the deep-stack nature of the Sunday Million, I’ve recently decided to start using my VPPs to buy into these events, hoping to score a significant cash for zero financial outlay.
Well, I was looking forward to this one all week. It felt like taking a leap from the minor leagues to the pros. A 10K starting chip count, reasonable blind structure and potential quarter million payday if the cards ran my way. So I had my full pot of coffee brewed, my complement of undercard tourneys up and running on the left monitor, my nine ring games going on the right, ready to settle in for long haul ahead… and then… four friggin’ hands into the tournament, I was felted by top set over middle set. I’ve told myself that everyone would have gone broke in that spot, considering the inflated preflop pot (raised and a few callers) - and since the top set was sitting under the gun, I thought there was a reasonable chance he was overplaying a premium pair on the 9 high flop. 7-out; next shooter…
* * *
On a personal note, I’ve been feeling a little down of late. My personality is such that I tend to lead a fairly solitary existence; my current girlfriend once remarked that I reminded her of Richard Nixon towards the end of the Frost/Nixon movie, where he asked Frost, in earnest, if he actually enjoyed being around people. She’s right; for the most part, my preferred pursuits are largely constructive/competitive, and I’ve never been one for socializing to a great extent. I think this is one of the reasons I’m so attracted to the internet version of this game, for obvious reasons.
While I still feel like a fifteen-year old in spirit, I’ve actually turned forty this year. And while forty isn’t particularly old from a life standpoint (or even from the standpoint of the brick and mortar game), it might as well be the age of a dinosaur from the internet perspective. Most of the people I’m playing against are years, and even decades, younger than I am. In my estimation, this makes it somewhat difficult to establish or become part of a network of players who get to know and support each other as they develop their respective games. Yes, mine is a fairly solitary pursuit, as are most of the other things in my life.
I’ve never had children, nor have I ever had the type of relationship in which one would consider having children. The women that I’ve been involved with have been those who “fell into my lap”, so to speak – as opposed to those who I might actually look to get involved with. That’s not to say they aren’t great women, they just haven’t really been “right” for me.
I have a female friend who is one of the few women I’ve known in my life who I feel I have a great deal in common with, and with whom I enjoy spending time immensely. (Of course, she’s already taken.) She recently commented to me that she’s looking forward to getting married and having children; not necessarily now, but at some point in her life. I remember responding in a somewhat surprised fashion, saying something along the lines of “wow, I thought you were more like me in that regard”, in reference to my stated position that marriage is an institution that doesn’t make sense, considering it’s unnatural to spend one’s entire life with a single significant other.
As I get older, I’m beginning to realize the drawbacks of that position. Perhaps it would be a great thing to have someone there who’s a true soul mate, someone you genuinely enjoy being with on a regular basis. I suppose I’ll never know, as I just don’t see this happening in my future…
Current Bankroll: $15,894.31
Month To Date: 50,096 hands; up $912.00; 1.82 bb/100
Year to Date: 185,618 hands; up $3,103; 1.67 bb/100
Monday, April 5, 2010
Reconnect...
Stopped writing for awhile, primarily because the head of my company sent a warning email to the entire staff indicating there was far too much personal internet usage on company time - a practice he considers akin to theft. While he didn't identify the specific culprits, I'm fairly certain any cursory review would have resulted in my having been identified as one of the organization's most prolific abusers... so I cooled it for the time being.
March was a tough month where I ran significantly below all-in EV (+$367 actual vs. +$1536 EV), but things are going better thus far in April, particularly thanks to a solid win in curtailed action today (notwithstanding my AA getting cracked by AK for a full stack). I also cashed in three of the four MTTs I played in yesterday, going deep in a $50 buy in (292 out of 6000+) and very deep in a $10 buy in (21st out of 4000+). I was short stacked in the latter, and pushed in the SB with garbage against what I knew to be a button steal, but ran into AA in the BB. C'est la vie.
I have to get something cancerous removed from my face tomorrow. Expect to be back in action in the evening, however...
Current Bankroll: $15,612.88
Monday: 931 hands; up $346.00; EV: +$464.12
Month To Date: 14,476 hands; up $474.75; 3.28 bb/100
Year to Date: 149,998 hands; up $2,666; 1.78 bb/100
March was a tough month where I ran significantly below all-in EV (+$367 actual vs. +$1536 EV), but things are going better thus far in April, particularly thanks to a solid win in curtailed action today (notwithstanding my AA getting cracked by AK for a full stack). I also cashed in three of the four MTTs I played in yesterday, going deep in a $50 buy in (292 out of 6000+) and very deep in a $10 buy in (21st out of 4000+). I was short stacked in the latter, and pushed in the SB with garbage against what I knew to be a button steal, but ran into AA in the BB. C'est la vie.
I have to get something cancerous removed from my face tomorrow. Expect to be back in action in the evening, however...
Current Bankroll: $15,612.88
Monday: 931 hands; up $346.00; EV: +$464.12
Month To Date: 14,476 hands; up $474.75; 3.28 bb/100
Year to Date: 149,998 hands; up $2,666; 1.78 bb/100
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Turning Point...
It clearly takes time to adequately incorporate a newly learned, complex concept in any recurring endeavor. I mentioned awhile back that I needed to add an element of aggression into my game, a vital element that had been previously absent. Well, February was the month - and I think yesterday was the turning point.
There are several low stakes grinders who have multitabled their way to SNE status on Stars, chalking up somewhat decent long-term winrates of a few bbs/100 in the process. Generally, however, you see these grinders with VPIP/PRF ratios of something along the lines of 11/9. They're waiting for good hands - admittedly, with remarkable discipline - and pushing them to the limit for all they are worth. This strategy can clearly result in one becoming a solid winner at, say, the $0.50/$1.00 level. But it's not going to do anything to improve one's game to the point where that player can effectively compete at higher levels.
I have no interest in remaining at $0.50/$1.00. Accordingly, I've gone through an ongoing process which has resulted in a fairly constant transformation in my playing style. Late last year, I came to the conclusion that I was taking top pair type hands too far - so I made a conscious effort to stop that, and saw a vast improvement in my winrate for late December and January.
The next step was to significantly open up my aggression level - by stealing blinds more liberally, 3-betting light in position and from the blinds against the right opponents, 4-bet bluffing against habitual 3-bettors, squeezing more regularly and taking fold equity to the felt in inflated pots. Initially, this resulted in a complete reversal of my previous fortunes - whereas I had previously been a consistent loser in hands that didn't get to showdown but a huge winner in hands that did, I was now playing somewhat breakeven in both categories. This was obviously a great result for hands that do not get to showdown - but a disastrous turn of events for hands that did.
In reviewing my play - particularly after my nightmarish session on Tuesday - I realized that while I had more than embraced all of the aggressive concepts mentioned above, I was doing so far too liberally. The net effect of this resulted in a somewhat aggro-donk style of play, which did not reflect favorably upon my winrate. In fact, after Tuesday, I found myself in the hole to the tune of almost $500 for the month of February - leaving me in danger of posting my first monthly loss ever.
Fortunately, due to my fairly high self-monitoring nature, I feel as though I've rapidly identified the instances in which I've been incorrectly applying this newfound aggression - and have already started making the requisite adjustments to my game. While it's still too soon to weigh in on this point definitively, my session last night seems to reflect this belief - considering I tabled one of my best sessions ever only 24 hours after completing one of my worst.
If I'm correct, then I do believe there are blue skies on the immediate horizon...
Current Bankroll: $14,362.14
Tuesday: 3106 hands; down $755.05; EV: -$298.22
Wednesday: 1972 hands; up $535.40; EV: +$432.35
Month To Date: 52,420 hands; up $47; 0.09 bb/100
Year to Date: 88,711 hands; up $1,776; 2.00 bb/100
There are several low stakes grinders who have multitabled their way to SNE status on Stars, chalking up somewhat decent long-term winrates of a few bbs/100 in the process. Generally, however, you see these grinders with VPIP/PRF ratios of something along the lines of 11/9. They're waiting for good hands - admittedly, with remarkable discipline - and pushing them to the limit for all they are worth. This strategy can clearly result in one becoming a solid winner at, say, the $0.50/$1.00 level. But it's not going to do anything to improve one's game to the point where that player can effectively compete at higher levels.
I have no interest in remaining at $0.50/$1.00. Accordingly, I've gone through an ongoing process which has resulted in a fairly constant transformation in my playing style. Late last year, I came to the conclusion that I was taking top pair type hands too far - so I made a conscious effort to stop that, and saw a vast improvement in my winrate for late December and January.
The next step was to significantly open up my aggression level - by stealing blinds more liberally, 3-betting light in position and from the blinds against the right opponents, 4-bet bluffing against habitual 3-bettors, squeezing more regularly and taking fold equity to the felt in inflated pots. Initially, this resulted in a complete reversal of my previous fortunes - whereas I had previously been a consistent loser in hands that didn't get to showdown but a huge winner in hands that did, I was now playing somewhat breakeven in both categories. This was obviously a great result for hands that do not get to showdown - but a disastrous turn of events for hands that did.
In reviewing my play - particularly after my nightmarish session on Tuesday - I realized that while I had more than embraced all of the aggressive concepts mentioned above, I was doing so far too liberally. The net effect of this resulted in a somewhat aggro-donk style of play, which did not reflect favorably upon my winrate. In fact, after Tuesday, I found myself in the hole to the tune of almost $500 for the month of February - leaving me in danger of posting my first monthly loss ever.
Fortunately, due to my fairly high self-monitoring nature, I feel as though I've rapidly identified the instances in which I've been incorrectly applying this newfound aggression - and have already started making the requisite adjustments to my game. While it's still too soon to weigh in on this point definitively, my session last night seems to reflect this belief - considering I tabled one of my best sessions ever only 24 hours after completing one of my worst.
If I'm correct, then I do believe there are blue skies on the immediate horizon...
Current Bankroll: $14,362.14
Tuesday: 3106 hands; down $755.05; EV: -$298.22
Wednesday: 1972 hands; up $535.40; EV: +$432.35
Month To Date: 52,420 hands; up $47; 0.09 bb/100
Year to Date: 88,711 hands; up $1,776; 2.00 bb/100
Monday, February 22, 2010
Keeping The Faith...
"To all you heavy rounders with a headache for your pains
Who dread the thought of going 'round the bend
Bless you all and keep you on the road to better things
Heaven can be yours just for now..."
-Gordon Lightfoot
Just trying to fight through it...
Current Bankroll: $14,581.79
Friday PM (1): 2276 hands; up $18.80; EV: +$40.37
Friday PM (2): 2296 hands; down $540.20; EV: -$494.57
Saturday PM (1): 2458 hands; up $14.20; EV: -$33.31
Saturday PM (2): 1517 hands; down $188.60; EV: -$208.99
Sunday: 722 hands; up $208.10; EV: +$195.04
Month To Date: 47,342 hands; up $267; 0.56 bb/100
Year to Date: 83,633 hands; up $1,996; 2.39 bb/100
Who dread the thought of going 'round the bend
Bless you all and keep you on the road to better things
Heaven can be yours just for now..."
-Gordon Lightfoot
Just trying to fight through it...
Current Bankroll: $14,581.79
Friday PM (1): 2276 hands; up $18.80; EV: +$40.37
Friday PM (2): 2296 hands; down $540.20; EV: -$494.57
Saturday PM (1): 2458 hands; up $14.20; EV: -$33.31
Saturday PM (2): 1517 hands; down $188.60; EV: -$208.99
Sunday: 722 hands; up $208.10; EV: +$195.04
Month To Date: 47,342 hands; up $267; 0.56 bb/100
Year to Date: 83,633 hands; up $1,996; 2.39 bb/100
Friday, February 19, 2010
Sick hand...
Here's a perfect example of why February's been a struggle. A hand where I 4-bet bluffed, was flatted, flopped what amounted to the nuts - but was actually an underdog to exactly one of the 2,162 possible two-card combinations my opponent could have been holding (and yes, he was holding that one combination):
Hero (BTN): $104.05 (104.1 bb)
SB: $120.75 (120.8 bb)
BB: $100 (100 bb)
UTG+1: $125.25 (125.3 bb)
MP1: $100 (100 bb)
MP2: $93 (93 bb)
MP3: $145.10 (145.1 bb)
CO: $261.50 (261.5 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with 7d 8s
5 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, SB raises to $9, BB folds, Hero raises to $22, SB calls $13
Flop: ($45) 5c 9s 6c (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $16, SB raises to $32, Hero raises to $82.05 and is all-in, SB calls $50.05
Turn: ($209.10) Kc (2 players, 1 is all-in)
River: ($209.10) Ks (2 players, 1 is all-in)
Results: $209.10 pot ($3 rake)
Final Board: 5c 9s 6c Kc Ks
Hero showed 7d 8s (a straight, Five to Nine) and lost (-$104.05 net)
SB showed 7c 8c (a flush, King high) and won $206.10 ($102.05 net)
Current Bankroll: $15,072.49
Thursday: 2392 hands; down $201.90; EV: -$162.68
Month To Date: 38,073 hands; up $755; 1.98 bb/100
Year to Date: 74,364 hands; up $2,483; 3.34 bb/100
Hero (BTN): $104.05 (104.1 bb)
SB: $120.75 (120.8 bb)
BB: $100 (100 bb)
UTG+1: $125.25 (125.3 bb)
MP1: $100 (100 bb)
MP2: $93 (93 bb)
MP3: $145.10 (145.1 bb)
CO: $261.50 (261.5 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with 7d 8s
5 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, SB raises to $9, BB folds, Hero raises to $22, SB calls $13
Flop: ($45) 5c 9s 6c (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $16, SB raises to $32, Hero raises to $82.05 and is all-in, SB calls $50.05
Turn: ($209.10) Kc (2 players, 1 is all-in)
River: ($209.10) Ks (2 players, 1 is all-in)
Results: $209.10 pot ($3 rake)
Final Board: 5c 9s 6c Kc Ks
Hero showed 7d 8s (a straight, Five to Nine) and lost (-$104.05 net)
SB showed 7c 8c (a flush, King high) and won $206.10 ($102.05 net)
Current Bankroll: $15,072.49
Thursday: 2392 hands; down $201.90; EV: -$162.68
Month To Date: 38,073 hands; up $755; 1.98 bb/100
Year to Date: 74,364 hands; up $2,483; 3.34 bb/100
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Grinding Against Soft Variance...
Just grinding away the last few days, and holding the line while dealing with some "soft" variance discussed by Ed Miller and Jared Tendler in a recent video (i.e., the variance associated with consistently running into the top end of your opponents' ranges, consistently missing the flop, consistently getting 3-bet, etc.). I made a few tilty/spewy plays on Tuesday as a result, but was bailed out on a couple of occassions by fortunate turn and river cards. And so it goes.
Here's an interesting hand from my Tuesday session... villain is 63/31 over a limited hand sample, so I don't expect him to be very strong when leading OOP into a 3-bet pot, particularly after calling pf out of position. I thought that when pushing here, given the fold equity I should have had, I would be getting a fold from most of his range. How little did I know...
MP3: $50 (50 bb)
CO: $122.05 (122.1 bb)
BTN: $100 (100 bb)
SB: $99 (99 bb)
Hero (BB): $106.70 (106.7 bb)
UTG+1: $100 (100 bb)
MP1: $113.50 (113.5 bb)
MP2: $101.50 (101.5 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Qd Ad
6 folds, SB raises to $3, Hero raises to $9, SB calls $6
Flop: ($18) 9h 7h Jd (2 players)
SB bets $10, Hero raises to $97.70 and is all-in, SB calls $80 and is all-in
Turn: ($198) 9d (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($198) 5d (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Results: $198 pot ($3 rake)
Final Board: 9h 7h Jd 9d 5d
SB showed 6d 6h (two pairs, Nines and Sixes) and lost (-$99 net)
Hero showed Qd Ad (a flush, Ace high) and won $195 ($96 net)
I love sucking out against head scratching calls lol...
Current Bankroll: $15,274.89
Monday: 2211 hands; down $337.60; EV: -$256.09
Tuesday: 2699 hands; up $150.75; EV: -$256.09
Wednesday: 2826 hands; up $172.85; EV:+$262.27
Month To Date: 35,681 hands; up $957; 2.68 bb/100
Year to Date: 71,972 hands; up $2,685; 3.73 bb/100
Here's an interesting hand from my Tuesday session... villain is 63/31 over a limited hand sample, so I don't expect him to be very strong when leading OOP into a 3-bet pot, particularly after calling pf out of position. I thought that when pushing here, given the fold equity I should have had, I would be getting a fold from most of his range. How little did I know...
MP3: $50 (50 bb)
CO: $122.05 (122.1 bb)
BTN: $100 (100 bb)
SB: $99 (99 bb)
Hero (BB): $106.70 (106.7 bb)
UTG+1: $100 (100 bb)
MP1: $113.50 (113.5 bb)
MP2: $101.50 (101.5 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Qd Ad
6 folds, SB raises to $3, Hero raises to $9, SB calls $6
Flop: ($18) 9h 7h Jd (2 players)
SB bets $10, Hero raises to $97.70 and is all-in, SB calls $80 and is all-in
Turn: ($198) 9d (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($198) 5d (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Results: $198 pot ($3 rake)
Final Board: 9h 7h Jd 9d 5d
SB showed 6d 6h (two pairs, Nines and Sixes) and lost (-$99 net)
Hero showed Qd Ad (a flush, Ace high) and won $195 ($96 net)
I love sucking out against head scratching calls lol...
Current Bankroll: $15,274.89
Monday: 2211 hands; down $337.60; EV: -$256.09
Tuesday: 2699 hands; up $150.75; EV: -$256.09
Wednesday: 2826 hands; up $172.85; EV:+$262.27
Month To Date: 35,681 hands; up $957; 2.68 bb/100
Year to Date: 71,972 hands; up $2,685; 3.73 bb/100
Monday, February 15, 2010
Profitable Weekend...
Contrary to my expectations, I did not have to help clean out Michele's garage on Sunday. In fact, I didn't see Michele at all this weekend, as she's currently dealing with a situation involving one of her family's properties in Arizona. This benefited me twofold: (a) I didn't have to deal with the ridiculousness of Valentine's Day (my apologies to all hopeless romantics, but seriously, what a bullshit "holiday"), and (b) I got to play a ton of poker.
Fortunately pour moi, I ran pretty well, netting nearly a grand (at 10.10 bb/100) and pushing my bankroll north of the $15K mark in the process. Oddly enough, my five Friday/Saturday sessions were winners, yet my two Sunday sessions were losers. (I didn't cash in any of thelotteries tourneys I played.)
A few posts back, I mentioned something about losing repeatedly while playing at Michele's home on Sundays. The last couple of weekends, I've been playing at my home on Sundays - and the losing has continued. As much as I'd love to be able to pin the blame on Michele's less-than-optimal poker environment for this trend, I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm ineffectively playing against the schools of fish that regularly turn out on Sundays as a result of the massive tournament schedule.
My sense is that I'm probably falling prey to something akin to FPS - although I wouldn't characterize it precisely as such, because I think the style works well against decent opponents. I've been rewarded by expanding my aggression level against the normal crop of thinking players who show up during the week - but against the Sunday contingent, these plays simply seem to backfire over and over again.
On a typical weeknight, I can open with ATC for 2.5x on the button, expect to take down a fair amount of pots, be three-bet occasionally, folding most of my trash but occassionally 4-bet bluffing those who I suspect are re-stealing, all for a decent profit. On Sundays, any open from the button invariably leads to calls from both blinds, neither of whom are going anywhere any time soon.
On a typical weeknight, I can bluff an overcard on the turn. On Sundays, I'll routinely be called by bottom pair / no draws.
On a typical weeknight, I can protect the money put into a 3-bet pot with a semibluff shove. On Sundays, not a chance.
On a typical weeknight, I can profitably squeeze light openers with ATC. On Sundays, I'll be routinely called by the original caller. (Actually, one play that seems to be a Sunday favorite that I've now seen on two occasions is where an overcaller will shove against a squeeze attempt. In both instances, it smelled somewhat funny to me, so I called with, I think, jacks in one instance and KJo in another - and was a comfortable favorite both times. You know, soul reads, lol...)
I really think that on Sundays, my biggest mistake is in trying to play too creatively/aggressively. There's no point in trying to represent a hand when your opponent isn't thinking about what you're likely holding. And there's no point in trying to utilize position without the benefit of cards, when your opponents couldn't possibly care less about your positional advantage.
So, I'm probably better off playing solely my cards on Sundays - only raising with hands that rate to be a favorite in late position, only continuing when I actually hit the flop, and calling more preflop with anticipated implied odds. The challenge will be in forcing myself to actually play this way...
Current Bankroll: $15,288.89
Friday PM (1): 1068 hands; up $427.35; EV: +$583.85
Friday PM (2): 1065 hands; up $208.85; EV: +$203.59
Saturday AM: 639 hands; up $379.79; EV: +$358.84
Saturday PM (1): 1548 hands; up $89.20; EV: -$51.02
Saturday PM (2): 1252 hands; up $246.95; EV: +$110.35
Sunday AM: 2634 hands; down $305.30; EV: -$412.35
Sunday PM: 1483 hands; down $67.95; EV: -$127.20
Month To Date: 27,945 hands; up $971; 3.47 bb/100
Year to Date: 64,236 hands; up $2,699; 4.20 bb/100
Fortunately pour moi, I ran pretty well, netting nearly a grand (at 10.10 bb/100) and pushing my bankroll north of the $15K mark in the process. Oddly enough, my five Friday/Saturday sessions were winners, yet my two Sunday sessions were losers. (I didn't cash in any of the
A few posts back, I mentioned something about losing repeatedly while playing at Michele's home on Sundays. The last couple of weekends, I've been playing at my home on Sundays - and the losing has continued. As much as I'd love to be able to pin the blame on Michele's less-than-optimal poker environment for this trend, I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm ineffectively playing against the schools of fish that regularly turn out on Sundays as a result of the massive tournament schedule.
My sense is that I'm probably falling prey to something akin to FPS - although I wouldn't characterize it precisely as such, because I think the style works well against decent opponents. I've been rewarded by expanding my aggression level against the normal crop of thinking players who show up during the week - but against the Sunday contingent, these plays simply seem to backfire over and over again.
On a typical weeknight, I can open with ATC for 2.5x on the button, expect to take down a fair amount of pots, be three-bet occasionally, folding most of my trash but occassionally 4-bet bluffing those who I suspect are re-stealing, all for a decent profit. On Sundays, any open from the button invariably leads to calls from both blinds, neither of whom are going anywhere any time soon.
On a typical weeknight, I can bluff an overcard on the turn. On Sundays, I'll routinely be called by bottom pair / no draws.
On a typical weeknight, I can protect the money put into a 3-bet pot with a semibluff shove. On Sundays, not a chance.
On a typical weeknight, I can profitably squeeze light openers with ATC. On Sundays, I'll be routinely called by the original caller. (Actually, one play that seems to be a Sunday favorite that I've now seen on two occasions is where an overcaller will shove against a squeeze attempt. In both instances, it smelled somewhat funny to me, so I called with, I think, jacks in one instance and KJo in another - and was a comfortable favorite both times. You know, soul reads, lol...)
I really think that on Sundays, my biggest mistake is in trying to play too creatively/aggressively. There's no point in trying to represent a hand when your opponent isn't thinking about what you're likely holding. And there's no point in trying to utilize position without the benefit of cards, when your opponents couldn't possibly care less about your positional advantage.
So, I'm probably better off playing solely my cards on Sundays - only raising with hands that rate to be a favorite in late position, only continuing when I actually hit the flop, and calling more preflop with anticipated implied odds. The challenge will be in forcing myself to actually play this way...
Current Bankroll: $15,288.89
Friday PM (1): 1068 hands; up $427.35; EV: +$583.85
Friday PM (2): 1065 hands; up $208.85; EV: +$203.59
Saturday AM: 639 hands; up $379.79; EV: +$358.84
Saturday PM (1): 1548 hands; up $89.20; EV: -$51.02
Saturday PM (2): 1252 hands; up $246.95; EV: +$110.35
Sunday AM: 2634 hands; down $305.30; EV: -$412.35
Sunday PM: 1483 hands; down $67.95; EV: -$127.20
Month To Date: 27,945 hands; up $971; 3.47 bb/100
Year to Date: 64,236 hands; up $2,699; 4.20 bb/100
Friday, February 12, 2010
Stylistic Differences...
I mentioned in yesterday's blog that I've started to see a breakthrough at my current level. What I essentially mean is that I've finally incorporated a more reasonable sense of aggression into my game. Thus far in February, my VPIP/PFR stats are 16.2/14.5 (although the style is now actually closer to a 17.5/15.5; my overall stats should converge to this as the month progresses), and my post-flop aggression rating is now 2.68 (but will likely be closer to between 2.7 and 3.0). My 3-betting and squeeze stats are now at 5.4% and 4.0% respectively.
Although I've been running a bit cold in February (currently flat for the month, although I should be about $500 better in terms of all-in EV, and I've run into some cold decks with hands that weren't all-in prior to the river), I feel much more confident in my post-flop game. I think this is a result of playing more hands overall, and having to regularly deal with the response to my obvious light steals in late position. The more you do it, the better you get.
An interesting side result is that my Hold'Em Manager "red line" (reflecting money won without a showdown) is positive for the first time in seven months. I'd previously been seeing significant monthly red line losses - so if I can get my showdown win result close to my normal monthly levels, I should be seeing a phenomenal improvement in my winrate. While stylistic differences in play dictate that an improvement on one side of the ledger will probably result in a decrease in the other side, my immediate task will be to try to minimize this offsetting effect.
Unless I'm granted a reprieve, it looks like I'm going to be tasked with helping Michele to clean out her garage tomorrow. So once again, my weekend poker is going to be affected...
Current Bankroll: $14,363.99
Sunday AM: 1427 hands; up $36.60; EV: -$37.82
Sunday PM: 1877 hands; down $330.55; EV: -$169.10
Tuesday: 2069 hands; down $333.40; EV: -$86.97
Wednesday: 2896 hands; up $394.05; EV: +$419.91
Thursday: 2767 hands; up $107.05; EV: -$58.73
Month To Date: down $7; -0.04 bb/100
Year to Date: up $1,720; 3.15 bb/100
Although I've been running a bit cold in February (currently flat for the month, although I should be about $500 better in terms of all-in EV, and I've run into some cold decks with hands that weren't all-in prior to the river), I feel much more confident in my post-flop game. I think this is a result of playing more hands overall, and having to regularly deal with the response to my obvious light steals in late position. The more you do it, the better you get.
An interesting side result is that my Hold'Em Manager "red line" (reflecting money won without a showdown) is positive for the first time in seven months. I'd previously been seeing significant monthly red line losses - so if I can get my showdown win result close to my normal monthly levels, I should be seeing a phenomenal improvement in my winrate. While stylistic differences in play dictate that an improvement on one side of the ledger will probably result in a decrease in the other side, my immediate task will be to try to minimize this offsetting effect.
Unless I'm granted a reprieve, it looks like I'm going to be tasked with helping Michele to clean out her garage tomorrow. So once again, my weekend poker is going to be affected...
Current Bankroll: $14,363.99
Sunday AM: 1427 hands; up $36.60; EV: -$37.82
Sunday PM: 1877 hands; down $330.55; EV: -$169.10
Tuesday: 2069 hands; down $333.40; EV: -$86.97
Wednesday: 2896 hands; up $394.05; EV: +$419.91
Thursday: 2767 hands; up $107.05; EV: -$58.73
Month To Date: down $7; -0.04 bb/100
Year to Date: up $1,720; 3.15 bb/100
Monday, February 8, 2010
Deleted Post...
I've elected to delete yesterday's post. Suffice it to say that this past weekend's poker was limited to action on Sunday, but I mentally just wasn't into it - and ended up failing to cash in the two MTTs I entered and dropped 3 full buy-ins in the cash games. I wasn't even in the mood to do a post-mortem, so I've got no current stats to reflect...
Friday, February 5, 2010
Decent Recovery...
Was all-in six times last night, won 2 as a heavy favorite and lost 3 as a significant dog; won the one as a slight underdog (w/AK vs. QQ pf).
My biggest mistake of the session was a hand where I raised under the gun w/AKs. I was 3-bet by the big blind (who 3-bets 10% of his hands from that position) to about $11 (effective stacks were $100), and I called in position. The flop came Q96, giving me a backdoor flush draw and two overcards. The BB led out for $15 into the $22 pot, and I shoved with my perceived fold equity and draws. Unfortunately, I was insta-called with kings.
In this case, I incorrectly invoked Ed Miller's advice regarding playing inflated pots against light 3-bettors. Generally, if a light 3-bettor puts a bet in on the the flop and you push with as little as 25% equity, it's very hard for the 3-bettor to call, given his range - and when he does, you have the draws to fall back on. That would have made sense in this case had my opponent perceived my play to be a steal from the cutoff or button. However, since my raise came from under the gun, he likely would have put me on a strong hand - and I therefore should have identified his range as having been significantly narrower. Chalk up another lesson learned...
On the bright side, I'm happy to report that $245 of my win came from non all-in scenarios...
No poker tonight, as I have to head to a Hollywood party involving guys in my hockey league at a place called Coco Deville. I've never heard of this place, but Michele tells me it's a fairly well-known celebrity hangout. (And she would know.) Since the guys in my league are all entertainment types (both on the business and talent side), I guess that makes sense. I know that sounds like it would be fun for most people, but all I can think of right now is how much I'm going to regret not being able to get in some cards this evening...
Current Bankroll: $14,533.09
Thursday: 1987 hands; up $316.65; EV: $206.94
Month To Date: up $118; 1.64 bb/100
Year to Date: up $1,847; 4.25 bb/100
My biggest mistake of the session was a hand where I raised under the gun w/AKs. I was 3-bet by the big blind (who 3-bets 10% of his hands from that position) to about $11 (effective stacks were $100), and I called in position. The flop came Q96, giving me a backdoor flush draw and two overcards. The BB led out for $15 into the $22 pot, and I shoved with my perceived fold equity and draws. Unfortunately, I was insta-called with kings.
In this case, I incorrectly invoked Ed Miller's advice regarding playing inflated pots against light 3-bettors. Generally, if a light 3-bettor puts a bet in on the the flop and you push with as little as 25% equity, it's very hard for the 3-bettor to call, given his range - and when he does, you have the draws to fall back on. That would have made sense in this case had my opponent perceived my play to be a steal from the cutoff or button. However, since my raise came from under the gun, he likely would have put me on a strong hand - and I therefore should have identified his range as having been significantly narrower. Chalk up another lesson learned...
On the bright side, I'm happy to report that $245 of my win came from non all-in scenarios...
No poker tonight, as I have to head to a Hollywood party involving guys in my hockey league at a place called Coco Deville. I've never heard of this place, but Michele tells me it's a fairly well-known celebrity hangout. (And she would know.) Since the guys in my league are all entertainment types (both on the business and talent side), I guess that makes sense. I know that sounds like it would be fun for most people, but all I can think of right now is how much I'm going to regret not being able to get in some cards this evening...
Current Bankroll: $14,533.09
Thursday: 1987 hands; up $316.65; EV: $206.94
Month To Date: up $118; 1.64 bb/100
Year to Date: up $1,847; 4.25 bb/100
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Looking to improve in marginal post-flop situations...
My first session of February picked up right where January left off - with a loss of over two buy-ins, except this time I was victmized by a pretty tough run of cards - including QQ losing to a set of jacks on the river, aces getting cracked by kings after the money went in preflop, a set of jacks losing to a royal flush on the river, and two instances of pushing with the nut flush draw on the flop against sets, neither of which got there.
I fared a bit better last night in a fairly uneventful session. Given the discovery I wrote about the other day, I intend to pay much closer attention to my performance in instances where I am not all-in before the river. I posed the question on stoxpoker.com, and the response that came back was that the result is probably a function of style - meaning that I'm likely a tighter player (true) who makes most of his money off of maniacs who get it all-in light.
I guess that's served me well thus far - but my sense is that in order to move up to higher limits, I'm going to need to refine my game so that my performance in more marginal post-flop situations improves dramatically. In examining some of my losses in these instances, it's become clear to me that I often spew a ton of money trying to run multi-street bluffs at inappropriate times. The fact that I'm continually able to win a few huge pots on a fairly consistent basis has somewhat disguised this leak, as I've remained profitable overall - but looking at this in a vacuum will result in my now addressing this deficiency directly.
In that regard, while Wednesday's win was fairly modest, I was satisfied with the fact that the vast bulk of it came from non all-in situations. I'll be looking to improve upon that trend prospectively...
Current Bankroll: $14,216.44
Tuesday: 3290 hands; down $225.00; EV: $266.13
Wednesday: 1939 hands; up $26.85; EV: $25.46
Month To Date: down $198; -3.79 bb/100
Year to Date: up $1,530; 3.69 bb/100
I fared a bit better last night in a fairly uneventful session. Given the discovery I wrote about the other day, I intend to pay much closer attention to my performance in instances where I am not all-in before the river. I posed the question on stoxpoker.com, and the response that came back was that the result is probably a function of style - meaning that I'm likely a tighter player (true) who makes most of his money off of maniacs who get it all-in light.
I guess that's served me well thus far - but my sense is that in order to move up to higher limits, I'm going to need to refine my game so that my performance in more marginal post-flop situations improves dramatically. In examining some of my losses in these instances, it's become clear to me that I often spew a ton of money trying to run multi-street bluffs at inappropriate times. The fact that I'm continually able to win a few huge pots on a fairly consistent basis has somewhat disguised this leak, as I've remained profitable overall - but looking at this in a vacuum will result in my now addressing this deficiency directly.
In that regard, while Wednesday's win was fairly modest, I was satisfied with the fact that the vast bulk of it came from non all-in situations. I'll be looking to improve upon that trend prospectively...
Current Bankroll: $14,216.44
Tuesday: 3290 hands; down $225.00; EV: $266.13
Wednesday: 1939 hands; up $26.85; EV: $25.46
Month To Date: down $198; -3.79 bb/100
Year to Date: up $1,530; 3.69 bb/100
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
"I'm All-In..."
I made quite a discovery yesterday. In attempting to further investigate what I consider to be the validity of EV statistics (or lack thereof), I incorporated a couple of filters in my stats to determine how many times I was all-in before the river (when EV stats come into play), vs. how many times I am not all-in before the river (when EV is not affected).
Since starting to play no-limit in the first half of 2009, I’ve logged approximately 310,000 hands. Of this amount, I was all-in before the river approximately 1200 times. That’s less than ½ percent of all hands played. To put it another way, my EV statistics fail to account for more than 99.5% of the hands that I play.
But that wasn’t the surprising discovery. Here’s the discovery that nearly caused me to lose consciousness:
I’m honestly stunned by this. At first, I thought it was rather damning evidence that my play is sorely lacking in some respects (and I suppose that may still be the case) - but in reviewing the stats of other winning players within my database, the pattern seems to repeat itself over and over again. Players who have material positive winrates overall seem to be breakeven players or net losers over the course of all hands in which they are not all-in before the river – which is obviously the vast majority of hands.
Are these stats ridiculously skewed, or do most players have similar patters?
(I’ll post on Stoxpoker for feedback/commentary…)
(As an aside, I'd love to know how to replace those stupid flowers up above with actual bullet points lol...)
Since starting to play no-limit in the first half of 2009, I’ve logged approximately 310,000 hands. Of this amount, I was all-in before the river approximately 1200 times. That’s less than ½ percent of all hands played. To put it another way, my EV statistics fail to account for more than 99.5% of the hands that I play.
But that wasn’t the surprising discovery. Here’s the discovery that nearly caused me to lose consciousness:
- In the 310K hands that I’ve played, my overall winrate is an admittedly modest 3.01 bb/100. (Hey, I’m still a relative no-limit neophyte, lol.)
- In the 1,200 hands in which I’ve been all-in before the river, my winrate is 742.75 bb/100.
- In the other 309K hands, I’m showing a modest monetary LOSS. (Due to playing at different blind levels, my overall winrate is actually a positive 0.11 bb/100 over this sample.)
I’m honestly stunned by this. At first, I thought it was rather damning evidence that my play is sorely lacking in some respects (and I suppose that may still be the case) - but in reviewing the stats of other winning players within my database, the pattern seems to repeat itself over and over again. Players who have material positive winrates overall seem to be breakeven players or net losers over the course of all hands in which they are not all-in before the river – which is obviously the vast majority of hands.
Are these stats ridiculously skewed, or do most players have similar patters?
(I’ll post on Stoxpoker for feedback/commentary…)
(As an aside, I'd love to know how to replace those stupid flowers up above with actual bullet points lol...)
Monday, February 1, 2010
Blew it...
Was rolling along with a nice win on Friday - and so I only needed to get through a decent weekend to maintain my 6bb/100 winrate for the month, and move up to $1-$2. Unfortunately, the wheels fell off the wagon on Saturday. It started with set over set, and culminated with several losses on the river. Had a couple of ill advised plays (pushing over a 4-bet in a button vs. blind battle w/AK, only to run into KK, and trying to run a 3-barrell bluff into a made hand, etc) that were ultimately the result of tilt, and well... looks like I'm going to be spending another month at $0.50-$1.00...
Current Bankroll: $14,414.59
Friday: 1237 hands; up $174.95; EV: $174.79
Saturday AM: 1302 hands; up $11.90; EV: $23.30
Saturday PM: 2093 hands; down $343.60; EV: -$401.18
Sunday: 528 hands; up $7.40; EV: -$104.26
Month To Date: up $1,728; 4.76 bb/100
Current Bankroll: $14,414.59
Friday: 1237 hands; up $174.95; EV: $174.79
Saturday AM: 1302 hands; up $11.90; EV: $23.30
Saturday PM: 2093 hands; down $343.60; EV: -$401.18
Sunday: 528 hands; up $7.40; EV: -$104.26
Month To Date: up $1,728; 4.76 bb/100
Friday, January 29, 2010
Don't Provide a Matching Right
This is not a poker entry, since I didn’t play any poker last night. But I think it’s a concept worth discussing, particularly for anyone who’s gainfully employed in our (pseudo) free-market society.
In a prior life, I was Director of Business Affairs for a major record label. Back when record companies held a significant advantage over the artists with whom they contracted (i.e., before technological advances allowed artists to effectively record and distribute their own product without major label funding/resources), there was a clause that would appear in many types of agreements called a “matching right”. This right would essentially allow a label to match any deal offered by another entity, and the artist would be forced to take the deal, rather than contract with the new entity. (A similar concept in sports is restricted free agency, where a player would be forced to remain with his current team, provided that current team is willing to match any third-party RFA offer received by that player.)
Employers take advantage of an implied matching right with respect to its employee base all the time. The expectation is that if an employee is dissatisfied with his/her current compensation, that employee will at some point voice this displeasure, and give the employer an opportunity to consider an appropriate increase in wages. Further, employers often anticipate that an employee will communicate a competing offer prior to accepting same, in the hopes that the current employer will match the offer in order to retain the services of the employee.
Any employee who allows his/her employer to take this approach is, in effect, allowing the employer to potentially undercut that employee’s fair market value compensation. If an employer knows an employee’s services are worth $80/hour, yet that employee will accept $70/hour, what’s the incentive to pay the additional $10/hour – if the employer knows it will be provided with an opportunity to negotiate before the employee leaves to join a competitor? There is no incentive for the employer to do so.
So how does an employee combat this? Well, one way is make sure the employer knows it is not getting a matching right. Doing this in something other than an antagonistic manner can be challenging, but I find that the issue is best addressed during a review period. Generally speaking, when a modest annual compensation increase is communicated to an employee in an annual review, the employer is usually looking for some form of feedback as to employee’s level of satisfaction with that increase. The optimal response is to remain silent. Pretend that you’ve just moved all-in on a bluff, and are now staring emotionless at the chips piled at the center of the table.
When prompted for a response, with something along the lines of “given the economy, we feel this is more than a fair increase; how do you feel about it?”, you might consider responding with something to the effect of: “Thanks, I appreciate your candor. If that’s what xyz corp perceives my worth to be, then I will continue to remain for as long as I’m in agreement with that assessment.” And let it go.
The employer might ask for an explanation as to your meaning, to which you might respond with “Well, this is ultimately a free market, and the market will bear what the market will bear. I’ve never believed in trying to negotiate pay increases with a current employer, as I think a company should be entitled to assess the value of its employees as it deems appropriate. So if I’m not satisfied with your perception of my value, it’s ultimately my responsibility to make a change, instead of asking you to reconsider your assessment. And I’m really OK with that.”
At this point, you’ve effectively put the employer on notice. If they value you, they are not going to take a considered statement like that lightly. The bottom line is, never name your price, and never communicate satisfaction with your compensation level. Otherwise, you’ll never know how much money you might be leaving on the table...
In a prior life, I was Director of Business Affairs for a major record label. Back when record companies held a significant advantage over the artists with whom they contracted (i.e., before technological advances allowed artists to effectively record and distribute their own product without major label funding/resources), there was a clause that would appear in many types of agreements called a “matching right”. This right would essentially allow a label to match any deal offered by another entity, and the artist would be forced to take the deal, rather than contract with the new entity. (A similar concept in sports is restricted free agency, where a player would be forced to remain with his current team, provided that current team is willing to match any third-party RFA offer received by that player.)
Employers take advantage of an implied matching right with respect to its employee base all the time. The expectation is that if an employee is dissatisfied with his/her current compensation, that employee will at some point voice this displeasure, and give the employer an opportunity to consider an appropriate increase in wages. Further, employers often anticipate that an employee will communicate a competing offer prior to accepting same, in the hopes that the current employer will match the offer in order to retain the services of the employee.
Any employee who allows his/her employer to take this approach is, in effect, allowing the employer to potentially undercut that employee’s fair market value compensation. If an employer knows an employee’s services are worth $80/hour, yet that employee will accept $70/hour, what’s the incentive to pay the additional $10/hour – if the employer knows it will be provided with an opportunity to negotiate before the employee leaves to join a competitor? There is no incentive for the employer to do so.
So how does an employee combat this? Well, one way is make sure the employer knows it is not getting a matching right. Doing this in something other than an antagonistic manner can be challenging, but I find that the issue is best addressed during a review period. Generally speaking, when a modest annual compensation increase is communicated to an employee in an annual review, the employer is usually looking for some form of feedback as to employee’s level of satisfaction with that increase. The optimal response is to remain silent. Pretend that you’ve just moved all-in on a bluff, and are now staring emotionless at the chips piled at the center of the table.
When prompted for a response, with something along the lines of “given the economy, we feel this is more than a fair increase; how do you feel about it?”, you might consider responding with something to the effect of: “Thanks, I appreciate your candor. If that’s what xyz corp perceives my worth to be, then I will continue to remain for as long as I’m in agreement with that assessment.” And let it go.
The employer might ask for an explanation as to your meaning, to which you might respond with “Well, this is ultimately a free market, and the market will bear what the market will bear. I’ve never believed in trying to negotiate pay increases with a current employer, as I think a company should be entitled to assess the value of its employees as it deems appropriate. So if I’m not satisfied with your perception of my value, it’s ultimately my responsibility to make a change, instead of asking you to reconsider your assessment. And I’m really OK with that.”
At this point, you’ve effectively put the employer on notice. If they value you, they are not going to take a considered statement like that lightly. The bottom line is, never name your price, and never communicate satisfaction with your compensation level. Otherwise, you’ll never know how much money you might be leaving on the table...
Thursday, January 28, 2010
PPA on CA Internet Poker Monopoly
I’m a little upset with myself at the moment. I have a dinner with a client on the Westside at 7, meaning I have to battle the 405 traffic immediately after leaving the office. So I went home today at lunch to set the DVR for the Islander game tonight, but then got sidetracked by an email from the PPA asking its CA members to write to or call their applicable congressional reps to voice opposition to the proposed intra-state, exclusive internet model. The text of the PPA’s message follows:
As we told you last year, efforts are underway to establish licensed and regulated intra-state Internet poker in California. While a bill has not been formally filed with the California Legislature, the PPA has reviewed the proposal and we are concerned about what it means for you as a poker player and a consumer.
Below you will find some background on the proposal. We hope that you’ll take a few moments to review this information and then let your state lawmaker know that you are concerned, too, by sending them an email.
Background
First, what does “intra-state” poker mean? Today, when you play online poker you compete with other individuals from across the United States and the world. Essentially you are part of a multi-million person global network of poker players. Under the “intra-state” model being pushed in California, your play would be limited to only other California residents. Ultimately, this means fewer players, fewer games, fewer stakes/limits and less opportunity for you to play poker how you want, when you want.
Of greater concern, however, is the idea that the intra-state poker model being discussed would eliminate the various Internet poker brand-names you know and play with today and replace them with a sole provider of Internet poker in California (at best there would be two provider platforms). So, not only would you have less people to test your poker skills against, but you would be forced to play on only one Website or platform. From a consumer standpoint this is a definite step in the wrong direction. It limits choice, destroys the competitive marketplace and dramatically reduces the need to provide player incentives like rake-backs and bonuses.
To be clear, the PPA does not oppose state-based licensing and regulation of Internet poker. We strongly believe that a regulated marketplace will provide a better experience for the Internet player. In fact, that is why we have invested so much time and so many resources to push the U.S. Congress to enact a sensible federal policy of licensing and regulation. We are concerned, however, when state proposals, like the one being contemplated in California, seek to cut Internet players off from the rest of the world and limit their choice in the marketplace.
What You Can Do!
Poker players must let their elected officials know where they stand. Your state Senator, Sen. Tom Harman serves on the Governmental Organization Committee. On February 9th, that Committee will hold a hearing about the efforts to license and regulate intra-state Internet poker. Please take two actions today:
1) click on the button below and send an email to Sen. Tom Harman
2) call Sen. Tom Harman at (714) 957-4555 and tell him/her:
• I am a poker player and a voter in your district.
• I am concerned about California Internet poker legislation that would limit my online choices and create an Internet poker monopoly.
• Please work with our state’s federal delegation to support efforts in Congress to license and regulate Internet poker and protect my rights as a consumer.
• Thank you for considering my views.
Please let the PPA know how your call went by filling out this brief feedback form.
Thank you again for standing up for your poker rights in California. The PPA will be closely monitoring the situation and will keep you informed as it progresses. In the meantime, we have established a California question email inbox so we can better serve you. If you have a question or comment about the prospects of intra-state poker in CA send it to: PPACALinfo@theppa.org.
Proud to play,
Steven Miller, California State Director
Poker Players Alliance
So I did what any self-respecting internet poker player would do, and called Tom Harman’s number to voice my outrage (so to speak). I ended up speaking with one of his staff, who seemed on the youngish side and indicated he was an internet poker player as well. Long story short, I think I effectively got the point across.
But I then left without setting the damned DVR. I’ve heard a rumour that you can do this remotely via the internet, but I have no idea how to accomplish that. So it looks like I’m going to miss the Islander game tonight.
Anyway… last night’s session resulted in my being all-in only twice, each time with KK vs. AA. I lost a full stack on one after all the money went in preflop, but won 122bb on the other after my opponent slowplayed his aces preflop and I spiked a set. My next two largest losses were mental errors, to a certain extent. I lost 61bb when I tried to run a three-barrell bluff in a blind vs. blind battle against what turned out to be pocket aces (the aces didn't raise at any time during the hand), and I lost 53bb when I didn't bet enough on the turn to protect my trip aces, after which my opponent rivered a flush and got me to call what I hoped was a bluff (or at least a bet with an inferior ace). So I don't feel like I was at my best, but still came through with an 8.81 bb/100 session.
Bankroll: $14,563.94
Session: 1407 hands; up $123.95; EV: $148.79
Month To Date: up $1,877; 6.03 bb/100
Voice your Concerns about CA Internet Poker Monopoly!
Happy New Year! The Poker Players Alliance – your advocate for poker rights – is already working hard to make 2010 a banner year for our community. We look forward to your continued support and want to update you on some developments in California. As we told you last year, efforts are underway to establish licensed and regulated intra-state Internet poker in California. While a bill has not been formally filed with the California Legislature, the PPA has reviewed the proposal and we are concerned about what it means for you as a poker player and a consumer.
Below you will find some background on the proposal. We hope that you’ll take a few moments to review this information and then let your state lawmaker know that you are concerned, too, by sending them an email.
Background
First, what does “intra-state” poker mean? Today, when you play online poker you compete with other individuals from across the United States and the world. Essentially you are part of a multi-million person global network of poker players. Under the “intra-state” model being pushed in California, your play would be limited to only other California residents. Ultimately, this means fewer players, fewer games, fewer stakes/limits and less opportunity for you to play poker how you want, when you want.
Of greater concern, however, is the idea that the intra-state poker model being discussed would eliminate the various Internet poker brand-names you know and play with today and replace them with a sole provider of Internet poker in California (at best there would be two provider platforms). So, not only would you have less people to test your poker skills against, but you would be forced to play on only one Website or platform. From a consumer standpoint this is a definite step in the wrong direction. It limits choice, destroys the competitive marketplace and dramatically reduces the need to provide player incentives like rake-backs and bonuses.
To be clear, the PPA does not oppose state-based licensing and regulation of Internet poker. We strongly believe that a regulated marketplace will provide a better experience for the Internet player. In fact, that is why we have invested so much time and so many resources to push the U.S. Congress to enact a sensible federal policy of licensing and regulation. We are concerned, however, when state proposals, like the one being contemplated in California, seek to cut Internet players off from the rest of the world and limit their choice in the marketplace.
What You Can Do!
Poker players must let their elected officials know where they stand. Your state Senator, Sen. Tom Harman serves on the Governmental Organization Committee. On February 9th, that Committee will hold a hearing about the efforts to license and regulate intra-state Internet poker. Please take two actions today:
1) click on the button below and send an email to Sen. Tom Harman
2) call Sen. Tom Harman at (714) 957-4555 and tell him/her:
• I am a poker player and a voter in your district.
• I am concerned about California Internet poker legislation that would limit my online choices and create an Internet poker monopoly.
• Please work with our state’s federal delegation to support efforts in Congress to license and regulate Internet poker and protect my rights as a consumer.
• Thank you for considering my views.
Please let the PPA know how your call went by filling out this brief feedback form.
Thank you again for standing up for your poker rights in California. The PPA will be closely monitoring the situation and will keep you informed as it progresses. In the meantime, we have established a California question email inbox so we can better serve you. If you have a question or comment about the prospects of intra-state poker in CA send it to: PPACALinfo@theppa.org.
Proud to play,
Steven Miller, California State Director
Poker Players Alliance
So I did what any self-respecting internet poker player would do, and called Tom Harman’s number to voice my outrage (so to speak). I ended up speaking with one of his staff, who seemed on the youngish side and indicated he was an internet poker player as well. Long story short, I think I effectively got the point across.
But I then left without setting the damned DVR. I’ve heard a rumour that you can do this remotely via the internet, but I have no idea how to accomplish that. So it looks like I’m going to miss the Islander game tonight.
Anyway… last night’s session resulted in my being all-in only twice, each time with KK vs. AA. I lost a full stack on one after all the money went in preflop, but won 122bb on the other after my opponent slowplayed his aces preflop and I spiked a set. My next two largest losses were mental errors, to a certain extent. I lost 61bb when I tried to run a three-barrell bluff in a blind vs. blind battle against what turned out to be pocket aces (the aces didn't raise at any time during the hand), and I lost 53bb when I didn't bet enough on the turn to protect my trip aces, after which my opponent rivered a flush and got me to call what I hoped was a bluff (or at least a bet with an inferior ace). So I don't feel like I was at my best, but still came through with an 8.81 bb/100 session.
Bankroll: $14,563.94
Session: 1407 hands; up $123.95; EV: $148.79
Month To Date: up $1,877; 6.03 bb/100
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Verdict: "Major Spew..."
I mentioned that I was going to post my thoughts on an aggressive hand I played the other day, after getting some feedback from a forum post on stoxpoker.com. Well, not only did I get feedback, but feedback from the noted poker authority himself, Ed Miller. This is one of the reasons stoxpoker.com is SUCH a valuable site...
Anyway, my original post was as follows:
Ed Miller has a video called 25 stages of a developing TAG, or something like that. One of his later stages is when a player becomes comfortable using aggression to fight for relatively large pots in instances when he has some equity (even to the limited extent of a gutshot draw with potential backdoor draws and overcards). I'm honestly not sure if this play was a valid incorporation of this concept, or just spewy. My thoughts/analysis follow the hand:
$0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
MP: $160.50 (160.5 bb)
CO: $101 (101 bb)
BTN: $38.35 (38.4 bb)
SB: $194.30 (194.3 bb)
Hero (BB): $213.50 (213.5 bb)
UTG: $105.55 (105.6 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Kh Jh
UTG folds, MP raises to $3, 3 folds, Hero raises to $9, MP calls $6
Flop: ($18.50) Ts 9h 4d (2 players)
Hero bets $12, MP raises to $36.50, Hero raises to $204.50 and is all-in, MP calls $115 and is all-in
Turn: ($321.50) 5h (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($321.50) Qh (2 players, 2 are all-in)
The villain in this case was someone I perceived to be a fairly aggressive player, compared to the standard full ring player I normally see in these games (19/15/3.0AF over a 1K hand sample). Although this was a full ring game, a few players had just left, so we were down to six handed. I’ve been focusing on playing a more aggressive style of late, with a greater 3-betting frequency (approaching 10% over my last few sessions) - and my sense was that the villain saw me as an aggressive player, capable of making light 3-bets.
When the villain raised my continuation bet, I thought it likely that he could make this play with air, forcing me to make a pot-commitment decision. Given that, and with my gutshot, backdoor flush draw and overcards, I elected to push. Here’s the post-mortem analysis:
I didn’t think it likely that he held AA or KK, as I think he would have pushed these hands preflop. I think the reasonable part of his range with which he would call a shove are limited to QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 44, T9s (and perhaps QJs, 87s, A9s, JTs and 98s, although I only incorporated QJs in the analysis, as I thought it less likely he’d take these hands to the felt without any fold equity).
Plugging these hands into Pokerstove, I would have 28.62% equity against his perceived push-call range. My breakeven analysis is as follows:
X=required fold percentage
67x + (1-x)(.2862)(182) – (1-x)(.7138)(-151.50) = 0
67x + (1-x)(52.0884) – (1-x)(-108.1407) = 0
123.0523x=56.0523
x=45.6%
So, I’d have to get a fold 45.6% of the time to break even.
Since the villain had a 15% preflop raising range (and his late MP range was similar), and the push-call range defined above only constitutes about 3% of all holdings, I think getting a fold at least 45.6% of the time here is a reasonable expectation.
Thoughts?
So Ed was kind enough to respond, letting me know he felt the play was pretty spewy. I won't reprint the thread here, as I don't want to infringe on stoxpoker's IP - but the gist of the rationale was that focusing on solely the 15% preflop range was a pretty significant mistake, which makes sense to me in hindsight. Given that my opponent opens 15% of his hands from this position, it stands to reason that his range for calling the 3-bet would have to be narrower, and perhaps significantly so. Further, the flop raise was a pretty strong line, particularly on this type of board. So, counting on a fold nearly half the time was likely inappropriately ambitious.
Lesson learned. Although last night's session did demonstrate a side benefit to playing the hand this way; specifically, the same player 5-bet shoved his A2s against my AK preflop. So not only did I get caught light on the hand described above (while managing to win the hand for a significant pot), my opponent therafter assumed I was 4-betting light, and shoved against me with a dominated hand - getting stacked again in the process. Fun game, this is... ;)
Current Bankroll: $14,439.99
Session: 1516 hands; up $170.15; EV: $198.19
Month To Date: up $1,754; 5.90 bb/100
Anyway, my original post was as follows:
Ed Miller has a video called 25 stages of a developing TAG, or something like that. One of his later stages is when a player becomes comfortable using aggression to fight for relatively large pots in instances when he has some equity (even to the limited extent of a gutshot draw with potential backdoor draws and overcards). I'm honestly not sure if this play was a valid incorporation of this concept, or just spewy. My thoughts/analysis follow the hand:
$0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 6 Players
MP: $160.50 (160.5 bb)
CO: $101 (101 bb)
BTN: $38.35 (38.4 bb)
SB: $194.30 (194.3 bb)
Hero (BB): $213.50 (213.5 bb)
UTG: $105.55 (105.6 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Kh Jh
UTG folds, MP raises to $3, 3 folds, Hero raises to $9, MP calls $6
Flop: ($18.50) Ts 9h 4d (2 players)
Hero bets $12, MP raises to $36.50, Hero raises to $204.50 and is all-in, MP calls $115 and is all-in
Turn: ($321.50) 5h (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($321.50) Qh (2 players, 2 are all-in)
The villain in this case was someone I perceived to be a fairly aggressive player, compared to the standard full ring player I normally see in these games (19/15/3.0AF over a 1K hand sample). Although this was a full ring game, a few players had just left, so we were down to six handed. I’ve been focusing on playing a more aggressive style of late, with a greater 3-betting frequency (approaching 10% over my last few sessions) - and my sense was that the villain saw me as an aggressive player, capable of making light 3-bets.
When the villain raised my continuation bet, I thought it likely that he could make this play with air, forcing me to make a pot-commitment decision. Given that, and with my gutshot, backdoor flush draw and overcards, I elected to push. Here’s the post-mortem analysis:
I didn’t think it likely that he held AA or KK, as I think he would have pushed these hands preflop. I think the reasonable part of his range with which he would call a shove are limited to QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 44, T9s (and perhaps QJs, 87s, A9s, JTs and 98s, although I only incorporated QJs in the analysis, as I thought it less likely he’d take these hands to the felt without any fold equity).
Plugging these hands into Pokerstove, I would have 28.62% equity against his perceived push-call range. My breakeven analysis is as follows:
X=required fold percentage
67x + (1-x)(.2862)(182) – (1-x)(.7138)(-151.50) = 0
67x + (1-x)(52.0884) – (1-x)(-108.1407) = 0
123.0523x=56.0523
x=45.6%
So, I’d have to get a fold 45.6% of the time to break even.
Since the villain had a 15% preflop raising range (and his late MP range was similar), and the push-call range defined above only constitutes about 3% of all holdings, I think getting a fold at least 45.6% of the time here is a reasonable expectation.
Thoughts?
So Ed was kind enough to respond, letting me know he felt the play was pretty spewy. I won't reprint the thread here, as I don't want to infringe on stoxpoker's IP - but the gist of the rationale was that focusing on solely the 15% preflop range was a pretty significant mistake, which makes sense to me in hindsight. Given that my opponent opens 15% of his hands from this position, it stands to reason that his range for calling the 3-bet would have to be narrower, and perhaps significantly so. Further, the flop raise was a pretty strong line, particularly on this type of board. So, counting on a fold nearly half the time was likely inappropriately ambitious.
Lesson learned. Although last night's session did demonstrate a side benefit to playing the hand this way; specifically, the same player 5-bet shoved his A2s against my AK preflop. So not only did I get caught light on the hand described above (while managing to win the hand for a significant pot), my opponent therafter assumed I was 4-betting light, and shoved against me with a dominated hand - getting stacked again in the process. Fun game, this is... ;)
Current Bankroll: $14,439.99
Session: 1516 hands; up $170.15; EV: $198.19
Month To Date: up $1,754; 5.90 bb/100
Monday, January 25, 2010
Luckbox...
I did not play a ton of poker this weekend. No action at all on Thursday, as I instead watched the Isles defeat the Panthers in a shoot-out, and then went out for a few brews with a good friend I hadn’t seen since before the holidays. Normal session on Friday, but Saturday was curtailed in light of a continuing education commitment I had to fulfill (for my securities licenses) in the early afternoon at a local Prometric testing center. (I somewhat regret not having attempted to procure the number of the surprisingly attractive, engaging and ringless proctor, who I pegged at mid thirties to early forties, but who wore her tight black jeans, even tighter white shirt and rocker-chick boots extremely well. Perhaps I need to work on improving more than just my poker game lol...)
Didn’t play at all on Sunday in light of, well, a fairly significant hangover. But I did get in a couple of Stoxpoker training videos; one of which was an enlightening piece by Ed Miller describing the 25 stages of a developing TAG. I was pleased to learn that most of the stages involve concepts that I’m currently incorporating into my game. Perhaps I’m further along in my development than I’ve realized…
I was a complete luckbox during my Friday session – considering that of my top 10 most lucrative hands, I was a significant underdog 4 times when all of the chips went in. Three of those cases were fairly academic in terms of the action (in one case, vs. a short stack, I had trip aces against a boat, but fortunately rivered quads; the other two were preflop scenarios - AKs vs. KK, and KK vs. AA). However, the other was an interesting hand. The history follows:
MP: $160.50 (160.5 bb)
CO: $101 (101 bb)
BTN: $38.35 (38.4 bb)
SB: $194.30 (194.3 bb)
Hero (BB): $213.50 (213.5 bb)
UTG: $105.55 (105.6 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Kh Jh
UTG folds, MP raises to $3, 3 folds, Hero raises to $9, MP calls $6
Flop: ($18.50) Ts 9h 4d (2 players)
Hero bets $12, MP raises to $36.50, Hero raises to $204.50 and is all-in, MP calls $115 and is all-in
Turn: ($321.50) 5h (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($321.50) Qh (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Results: $321.50 pot ($3 rake)
Final Board: Ts 9h 4d 5h Qh
MP mucked Td 9d (two pairs, Tens and Nines) and lost (-$160.50 net)
Hero showed Kh Jh (a flush, King high) and won $318.50 ($158 net)
This would probably look like an incredibly spewy play to a lot of players. Interestingly enough, one of the later stages of development referred to by Ed Miller in the video mentioned above covers exactly this type of play – using aggression to fight for relatively large pots in instances when you have some equity (even to the limited extent of a gutshot draw), but suspect that you’re an underdog. I have specific rationale for why I played the hand this way, which involves both a player read and some poker math, which I’ll get into in a later entry (after posting the hand for feedback on the forums).
Speaking of being a luckbox, I mentioned in a prior posting that I feel it is inappropriate to use aggregated EV stats as a means of determining whether you’ve been running lucky or unlucky over a period of time. Here is a reprinting of a thread I started and continued on this topic (and which appears to be dying a slow death from lack of interest, but whatever):
It seems to me that these stats don't necessarily tell the entire story as to whether you've been running lucky or unlucky, particularly over an extended period of time. I think factors in a player's style could affect the extent to which luck will be reflected as an EV differential.
For example... if a player will generally try to maximize his value on all three streets as a post-flop favorite, he's generally not going to be looking to shove his stack before the river, causing his opponent to fold. Yet the same player, as an underdog but with decent equity in the pot, would be more likely to shove before the river in an attempt to take advantage of whatever perceived fold equity he may have.
If his opponent catches up in the first scenario (and the final bet doesn't go in until the river), his EV is going to be 0 (notwithstanding the fact that he ran unlucky for the hand). But if he's called in the second scenario and catches up, his EV is going to be significantly negative (reflecting his positive luck).
It further seems to me that this effect will be more pronounced for more aggressive players, particularly when playing in more passive games (where they're facing more calling stations, and are not going to be facing as many speculative plays post-flop).
I thought about this a bit more, and then adding the following:
I think a more accurate description of the concept is that EV stats only tell you whether you've been running well or poor specifically in all-in situations prior to the river. But I see a lot of discussion where EV relative to bottom line is used to determine whether a player has been running better or worse than expected, overall.
When I review my sessions after the fact, on average, I may be all-in only 5 times or so before the river over the course of a couple of thousand hands. Sometimes it's slightly more, sometimes it's slightly less. But the EV calc only reflects the differential between expected and actual value over the course of that comparatively limited hand sample. The reality is, even with the relatively large pot sizes associated with all-in scenarios, the aggregate amount of money risked in non-all-in situations over the course of a typical session is far greater than the aggregate amounts risked when all-in.
You can have an EV that's lower than your bottom line, yet in reality, you have no way of knowing whether you've been running hot or cold overall, because there's no way to track it with respect to the vast majority of the hands you play.
Given that, I'm not sure I see the value of the aggregate EV stat. I suspect that it's highly overrated.
So there!
No poker tonight, since I need a pre-game nap before my team’s late game...
Current Bankroll: $14,269.84
Friday PM: 2601 hands; up $194.85; EV: -$216.78
Saturday PM (1): 654 hands; up $96.05; EV: $176.57
Saturday PM (2): 610 hands; up $165.30; EV: -$16.69
Month To Date: up $1,583; 5.61 bb/100
Didn’t play at all on Sunday in light of, well, a fairly significant hangover. But I did get in a couple of Stoxpoker training videos; one of which was an enlightening piece by Ed Miller describing the 25 stages of a developing TAG. I was pleased to learn that most of the stages involve concepts that I’m currently incorporating into my game. Perhaps I’m further along in my development than I’ve realized…
I was a complete luckbox during my Friday session – considering that of my top 10 most lucrative hands, I was a significant underdog 4 times when all of the chips went in. Three of those cases were fairly academic in terms of the action (in one case, vs. a short stack, I had trip aces against a boat, but fortunately rivered quads; the other two were preflop scenarios - AKs vs. KK, and KK vs. AA). However, the other was an interesting hand. The history follows:
MP: $160.50 (160.5 bb)
CO: $101 (101 bb)
BTN: $38.35 (38.4 bb)
SB: $194.30 (194.3 bb)
Hero (BB): $213.50 (213.5 bb)
UTG: $105.55 (105.6 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with Kh Jh
UTG folds, MP raises to $3, 3 folds, Hero raises to $9, MP calls $6
Flop: ($18.50) Ts 9h 4d (2 players)
Hero bets $12, MP raises to $36.50, Hero raises to $204.50 and is all-in, MP calls $115 and is all-in
Turn: ($321.50) 5h (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($321.50) Qh (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Results: $321.50 pot ($3 rake)
Final Board: Ts 9h 4d 5h Qh
MP mucked Td 9d (two pairs, Tens and Nines) and lost (-$160.50 net)
Hero showed Kh Jh (a flush, King high) and won $318.50 ($158 net)
This would probably look like an incredibly spewy play to a lot of players. Interestingly enough, one of the later stages of development referred to by Ed Miller in the video mentioned above covers exactly this type of play – using aggression to fight for relatively large pots in instances when you have some equity (even to the limited extent of a gutshot draw), but suspect that you’re an underdog. I have specific rationale for why I played the hand this way, which involves both a player read and some poker math, which I’ll get into in a later entry (after posting the hand for feedback on the forums).
Speaking of being a luckbox, I mentioned in a prior posting that I feel it is inappropriate to use aggregated EV stats as a means of determining whether you’ve been running lucky or unlucky over a period of time. Here is a reprinting of a thread I started and continued on this topic (and which appears to be dying a slow death from lack of interest, but whatever):
It seems to me that these stats don't necessarily tell the entire story as to whether you've been running lucky or unlucky, particularly over an extended period of time. I think factors in a player's style could affect the extent to which luck will be reflected as an EV differential.
For example... if a player will generally try to maximize his value on all three streets as a post-flop favorite, he's generally not going to be looking to shove his stack before the river, causing his opponent to fold. Yet the same player, as an underdog but with decent equity in the pot, would be more likely to shove before the river in an attempt to take advantage of whatever perceived fold equity he may have.
If his opponent catches up in the first scenario (and the final bet doesn't go in until the river), his EV is going to be 0 (notwithstanding the fact that he ran unlucky for the hand). But if he's called in the second scenario and catches up, his EV is going to be significantly negative (reflecting his positive luck).
It further seems to me that this effect will be more pronounced for more aggressive players, particularly when playing in more passive games (where they're facing more calling stations, and are not going to be facing as many speculative plays post-flop).
I thought about this a bit more, and then adding the following:
I think a more accurate description of the concept is that EV stats only tell you whether you've been running well or poor specifically in all-in situations prior to the river. But I see a lot of discussion where EV relative to bottom line is used to determine whether a player has been running better or worse than expected, overall.
When I review my sessions after the fact, on average, I may be all-in only 5 times or so before the river over the course of a couple of thousand hands. Sometimes it's slightly more, sometimes it's slightly less. But the EV calc only reflects the differential between expected and actual value over the course of that comparatively limited hand sample. The reality is, even with the relatively large pot sizes associated with all-in scenarios, the aggregate amount of money risked in non-all-in situations over the course of a typical session is far greater than the aggregate amounts risked when all-in.
You can have an EV that's lower than your bottom line, yet in reality, you have no way of knowing whether you've been running hot or cold overall, because there's no way to track it with respect to the vast majority of the hands you play.
Given that, I'm not sure I see the value of the aggregate EV stat. I suspect that it's highly overrated.
So there!
No poker tonight, since I need a pre-game nap before my team’s late game...
Current Bankroll: $14,269.84
Friday PM: 2601 hands; up $194.85; EV: -$216.78
Saturday PM (1): 654 hands; up $96.05; EV: $176.57
Saturday PM (2): 610 hands; up $165.30; EV: -$16.69
Month To Date: up $1,583; 5.61 bb/100
Thursday, January 21, 2010
How Do They Do It?
Whenever I watch a Rick Mask stoxpoker training video, it becomes painfully clear to me how much I don’t know about the game of poker. What’s more troubling is that I’m not really sure if I ever will understand the game – and the way it should be optimally played – to be able to perform on a professional level.
I commented recently that maintaining even a 12/10 vpip/pfr ratio can be challenging for me at the $0.50/$1.00 full ring games on Stars. In contrast, the statistics at each of Rick’s 4-tables (in any given video) indicates he’s playing at a level that’s about 2.5x greater in terms of aggression. To be able to open up to that extent, and still maintain a winrate of something close to 6bb/100, is indicative of remarkable hand reading skill and ability to exploit opponents’ weaknesses.
At this point, I know I’m playing far too much of an ABC type of game, but understanding exactly HOW to open things up is where I’m getting stuck. For example… Rick, in a recent video, describes that in a full-ring game, he’ll open up KQo sometimes, from under the gun, provided the opponents in later positions (and the blinds) are weak “enough”. But what constitutes weak enough?
Similarly, Rick indicates he’ll start opening up with suited connectors in early position from 76+, so that you’ll have fewer overcards to deal with when you pair up, and that you’ll less frequently make the ignorant end of a straight. But how do you proceed with a hand like this out of position, against resistance? When you get 3-bet by a reasonable player, are you more likely to take a flop out of position with a hand like this because you’re less likely to be facing a dominant hand when you connect? Do you regularly take advantage of ragged flops be donking or check-raising as a bluff with this type of hand, and if so, how do you respond when your bluff gets raised? Do you more often than not give up on the hand at this point, or do continue with your play (thereby increasing your variance in the process)? And if you do regularly give up at this point, how do you prevent becoming exploited by observant opponents in this situation?
I’ve read enough and studied enough about the game to be able to come up with reasonable answers to all of these questions. They key seems to be in continually having the right answers in response to a virtually limitless number of scenarios, all at a moment’s notice. To be able to properly identify, digest and act in accordance with the appropriate stats – and to make the right observations regarding your regular opponents, and record them regularly while in the process of playing multiple games – is more than a daunting task.
I honestly have no idea how these kids have become so adept at doing so in such a short span of time…
Did not have my best game going last night. Was all-in before the river 5 times, lost once with no equity against a short stack who turned two pair; lost twice preflop as a favorite (a full stack w/KK vs. AKo and 32bb with QQ vs. AKo); won 51bb with 74.1% equity on the flop with aces vs. top pair; won 70bb with 90.9% equity on the turn with a set vs. 2 pair. My largest win was 95bb vs. an opponent who slowplayed KK in a blind battle, when my KTo connected with the T77TJ board. My other loss of a full stack occurred when my trip kings (while holding AKo) lost to nines full...
Bankroll: $13,813.64
Session: 1841 hands; down $250.95; EV -$116.65
Month To Date: up $1,127; 4.63 bb/100
I commented recently that maintaining even a 12/10 vpip/pfr ratio can be challenging for me at the $0.50/$1.00 full ring games on Stars. In contrast, the statistics at each of Rick’s 4-tables (in any given video) indicates he’s playing at a level that’s about 2.5x greater in terms of aggression. To be able to open up to that extent, and still maintain a winrate of something close to 6bb/100, is indicative of remarkable hand reading skill and ability to exploit opponents’ weaknesses.
At this point, I know I’m playing far too much of an ABC type of game, but understanding exactly HOW to open things up is where I’m getting stuck. For example… Rick, in a recent video, describes that in a full-ring game, he’ll open up KQo sometimes, from under the gun, provided the opponents in later positions (and the blinds) are weak “enough”. But what constitutes weak enough?
Similarly, Rick indicates he’ll start opening up with suited connectors in early position from 76+, so that you’ll have fewer overcards to deal with when you pair up, and that you’ll less frequently make the ignorant end of a straight. But how do you proceed with a hand like this out of position, against resistance? When you get 3-bet by a reasonable player, are you more likely to take a flop out of position with a hand like this because you’re less likely to be facing a dominant hand when you connect? Do you regularly take advantage of ragged flops be donking or check-raising as a bluff with this type of hand, and if so, how do you respond when your bluff gets raised? Do you more often than not give up on the hand at this point, or do continue with your play (thereby increasing your variance in the process)? And if you do regularly give up at this point, how do you prevent becoming exploited by observant opponents in this situation?
I’ve read enough and studied enough about the game to be able to come up with reasonable answers to all of these questions. They key seems to be in continually having the right answers in response to a virtually limitless number of scenarios, all at a moment’s notice. To be able to properly identify, digest and act in accordance with the appropriate stats – and to make the right observations regarding your regular opponents, and record them regularly while in the process of playing multiple games – is more than a daunting task.
I honestly have no idea how these kids have become so adept at doing so in such a short span of time…
Did not have my best game going last night. Was all-in before the river 5 times, lost once with no equity against a short stack who turned two pair; lost twice preflop as a favorite (a full stack w/KK vs. AKo and 32bb with QQ vs. AKo); won 51bb with 74.1% equity on the flop with aces vs. top pair; won 70bb with 90.9% equity on the turn with a set vs. 2 pair. My largest win was 95bb vs. an opponent who slowplayed KK in a blind battle, when my KTo connected with the T77TJ board. My other loss of a full stack occurred when my trip kings (while holding AKo) lost to nines full...
Bankroll: $13,813.64
Session: 1841 hands; down $250.95; EV -$116.65
Month To Date: up $1,127; 4.63 bb/100
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tornados in SoCal?
Going through some strange weather; battling tornados, of all things, in and around Huntington Beach. Considering we in SoCal tend to get a little self-conscious when we’re not on CNN for one reason or another after an extended period of time, it’s all to be expected in the general scheme of things, I guess…
Played for a decent stretch last night; it dawned on me that I seem to be having to check my stats a little too often (for $0.50/$1.00) to try to determine whether the button or blinds are three-betting my steal attempts light, and will fold to a 4-bet bluff. I mean seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I’m playing as reasonably aggressively as I can, yet am only managing a 12/10. How the hell are the games at this level so aggressive? Is everybody at these limits now watching stoxpoker.com videos? What in God’s name is waiting for me down the road at $3-$6?
Was all-in before the river 7 times, 4 times inconsequentially against short stacks. The fifth was a push with the same hand (big slick). On the sixth, I stacked an opponent who was holding a smaller straight (AJ vs. KJ on a KT9Q board); on the seventh, I lost 69bb w/AK vs. AT on an AA6T2 board. C'est la guerre.
Isles had their 4-game winning streak snapped, but showed remarkable resiliency in overcoming 3-0 and 4-1 deficits to tie the game at 4 in the third. Only a subsequent power play goal courtesy of Crosby/Malkin (and an unfortunate major/game misconduct taken by Andy Sutton with under five minutes left to play) sealed it for the Pens…
Bankroll: $14,064.59
Session: 1841 hands; up $58.25; EV $99.79
Month To Date: up $1,378; 6.11 bb/100
Played for a decent stretch last night; it dawned on me that I seem to be having to check my stats a little too often (for $0.50/$1.00) to try to determine whether the button or blinds are three-betting my steal attempts light, and will fold to a 4-bet bluff. I mean seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I’m playing as reasonably aggressively as I can, yet am only managing a 12/10. How the hell are the games at this level so aggressive? Is everybody at these limits now watching stoxpoker.com videos? What in God’s name is waiting for me down the road at $3-$6?
Was all-in before the river 7 times, 4 times inconsequentially against short stacks. The fifth was a push with the same hand (big slick). On the sixth, I stacked an opponent who was holding a smaller straight (AJ vs. KJ on a KT9Q board); on the seventh, I lost 69bb w/AK vs. AT on an AA6T2 board. C'est la guerre.
Isles had their 4-game winning streak snapped, but showed remarkable resiliency in overcoming 3-0 and 4-1 deficits to tie the game at 4 in the third. Only a subsequent power play goal courtesy of Crosby/Malkin (and an unfortunate major/game misconduct taken by Andy Sutton with under five minutes left to play) sealed it for the Pens…
Bankroll: $14,064.59
Session: 1841 hands; up $58.25; EV $99.79
Month To Date: up $1,378; 6.11 bb/100
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Hockey Night in America...
No poker last night, given the Islanders game and my game shortly thereafter. This is starting to sound like a broken record, but the Islanders (now 9-2-1 in their last 12) pasted the conference front-running Devils 4-0, chasing the vaunted Marty Brodeur after two periods. Would have been 5-0 if it weren’t for another disallowed goal, this time on a quick whistle in the first period. And it would have been closer to 8-0 if not for a few remarkably acrobatic saves by Marty prior to his departure...
And my team, after starting off 0-2, improved to 11-3-1 last night. Things are good on the ice all around, although I’m useless today after having gotten only about 4 hours of sleep lol...
Next up for the Isles tonight are the Stanley Cup champion Penguins. Should be a good tilt...
Random thought for the day: Why can't one's mind see through the folly of a commitment to another person, to the extent that it rightfully overcomes one's emotions regarding that person? A good friend maintains that it's all about ego.
Whoa...
And my team, after starting off 0-2, improved to 11-3-1 last night. Things are good on the ice all around, although I’m useless today after having gotten only about 4 hours of sleep lol...
Next up for the Isles tonight are the Stanley Cup champion Penguins. Should be a good tilt...
Random thought for the day: Why can't one's mind see through the folly of a commitment to another person, to the extent that it rightfully overcomes one's emotions regarding that person? A good friend maintains that it's all about ego.
Whoa...
Monday, January 18, 2010
Happy Monday...
Happy Monday. It’s raining here, which is somewhat of an event in Southern California. It’s also MLK day, and although my financial planning practice is technically closed (given the three-day market weekend), I’m dutifully here at the office, pretending to fulfill the responsibilities of my corporate gig. (Given that we’re admittedly given a ridiculous number of vacation days each year, we don’t enjoy the benefit of “fringe” holidays such as this, President’s Day, etc.)
Had a rather typical weekend. My Saturday morning and afternoon poker sessions were uneventful, to say the least. My largest loss of the morning was 46bb when AKs overtook my pocket cowboys. I stacked one player for a full buy-in after he called (w/K8o) my pre-flop raise out of the blinds. I hit a set of queens on the flop while he paired his king, and he called through the river after improving to trips. Was all-in before the river only twice, both times against short stacks. Won 30bb as a 39.5% flop underdog when my tptk overtook my opponent's 2 pair after improving to a straight on the turn; lost 20bb as a 63.3% preflop favorite as big slick lost to 75o. Didn't place in any of the three tournaments; hence the slight bankroll decline...
In the afternoon session, my biggest win was 30bb, after having 3-bet w/KK preflop and getting two callers. My two largest losses were brutal - and a perfect example of why I think EV statistics arehorseshit less than particularly meaningful. My largest loss (48bb against a half-stack) came when my pocket aces, out of the blinds, improved to a set on the flop. At the time, I had 97% equity in the $21 pot, calculated against the eventual winner of the hand. He was along for the ride w/QTo. The turn put a jack on board (9-5-A-J with a flush draw). Given that my opponent only had a pot sized bet left in front of him, I could have pushed with my 82% turn equity, but I chose the likelier path to his entire stack, and bet only $10 with the intention of betting his last $24 on the river. Unfortunately, he hit his gutshot on the river - and I was left without even the consolation prize of a bump in expected value. My next biggest loss was to the tune of 40bb. In this instance, I flopped a straight (with KJ on a Q-T-9 rainbow board). I don't know what my equity was, because I didn't bother to call the river shove. Can you guess the turn and river? Come on, play along now... very good! A king followed by a jack...
After shutting down the computer for the day, I had a couple of hours to watch the DVR of the Islanders/Sabres game. It was actually still being played, but I like to delay viewing at least an hour so that I can fast forward through the tv timeouts and intermissions… it’s amazing how much time you can save in life that way. Long story short, the Islanders won another one against one of the top teams in the league. Although they relinquished a 2-0 lead (as they’re remarkably prone to doing), DP outlasted fellow-American Ryan Miller in the shootout for the extra point. It shouldn’t have even gotten to that point, considering the Isles had a third period goal disallowed on a phantom incidental contact-in-the-crease call, which would have given them a 3-1 lead. But it was a great feel-good moment, especially for DP, who admitted his greatest challenge during the course of the day’s events was to not publicly cry in response to the outpouring of support from the home crowd. Good for him.
Headed out to Covina for my standard Saturday night at the Last Chance Saloon with Michele. (It’s not actually called the Last Chance Saloon, I just like to refer to it as such - more to bug Michele than anything else - in honor of the type of clientele who generally patronize the establishment.) Once there, Nate (the bartender) ensured that I’d miss the standard complement of Sunday afternoon poker tournaments by getting me completely sloshed. (He claims it was only the third time he’s seen me drunk. I frankly don’t think he’s been paying enough attention.)
Nate is a pretty engaging fellow… a current Ph.D. candidate in a philosophical discipline, who until recently even sported the ponytail normally attributable to such intellectual types. He’s become a good friend of ours, to the extent of regularly allowing us, along with one or two select others, to remain in the bar for the purpose of continued drinking long after closing time. We have somewhat of an interesting arrangement, insofar as I’m the only customer, to my knowledge, who is not required to pay for his drinks (given the cash-only setup) as he goes along. Rather, at the end of the night, I’ll provide Nate with a certain amount of cash, and he’ll retain what he feels was an appropriate “take” for the evening. My sense is that both Nate and I profit extensively from this arrangement, to the general detriment of the bar’s ownership.
The evening progressed to a certain point, after which (thanks to my switching from Sammy’s to VO) I remember nothing until awakening at 3 in the afternoon on Sunday. Having effectively missed the daily tournament schedule, I turned on the tv to see that the Jets trailed the Chargers by a touchdown at the half. Settling in with a cup of late afternoon coffee, I watched as Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez kept the Cinderella dream alive by battling back for two fourth quarter touchdowns, and a 17-14 win that has them en route to the Super Bowl semifinal. Man, it’s great to be a New York sports fan right now.
Had a couple of hours to kill before dinner, so I decided to get some final weekend poker action in. Now, here’s the thing… I don’t know if it’s the result of her having a ridiculously small screen that makes multitabling a somewhat difficult chore, or if its simply the poker gods trying to tell me something that I should likely already know, but… this session would prove to be my sixth consecutive losing session at Michele’s home. I’ve never had six losing sessions in a row anywhere, and I’m at a loss for a reasonable explanation. Things started out well enough, with my having built up a $175 profit in the space of a little over an hour. During the course of the session, I was all-in before the river 4 times, won the three as a favorite (91.1% and 85.7% equity on the flop, and 81.9% equity preflop), and lost the one with 17.9% equity on the flop. The losing hand was a blind vs. blind battle where I flopped top two pair against my opponent's made straight.
While I could forgive myself for that loss, the hand that bothered me the most was reflective of the most significant leak I've been trying to combat – essentially, losing my entire stack with a one-pair type hand. In this case, I raised from early position with pocket queens, and was min-three-bet by an uber-aggressive player in the cutoff (playing 31/23/5.6 over 256 hands, and 3-betting 15.9% of his hands – all full ring). The button smooth called, which set up a perfect squeeze opportunity for me. But (perhaps as a function of multitabling and not thinking things through clearly enough), I elected to simply call to close out the betting, and evaluate the flop. The 4-4-3 rainbow appeared relatively innocuous, so I checked to the cutoff, who bet half the pot, eliciting a fold from the button. I called, partially for pot-control, partially to give myself an out if the turn proved threatening, and partially to see if the aggressor would slow down. The turn was a 7, putting a two-flush on board. I checked again, my opponent bet half the pot again, and I called again. The river was a 3, putting two pair on the board and completing a runner-runner flush draw. I checked, and to my surprise, my opponent played an overbet shove for $101. Wtf? I had no idea if he would make this play with a strong ace, or perhaps a pocket pair lower than my queens – but he only had to be behind or bluffing 35% of the time for the call to be correct. So given his aggressive nature, I called. He had pocket 4s, for flopped quads – costing me $141.15, and effectively turning a decent winning session into a small loss. This is definitely a hand I’ll be posting for feedback on the forums…
Islanders playing the Devils in a matinee as I write; I’ll be watching the DVR before my own team’s game later this evening… assuming I can catch a boat up the 405 ;)
Saturday AM
Bankroll: $14,023.39
Session: 1370 hands; up $12.95; EV -$0.44
Month To Date: up $1,336; 7.36 bb/100
Saturday PM
Bankroll: $14,029.84
Session: 1196 hands; up $6.45; EV $6.45
Month To Date: up $1,342; 6.94 bb/100
Sunday
Bankroll: $14,007.34
Session: 1383 hands; down $22.50; EV -$54.59
Month To Date: up $1,320; 6.37 bb/100
Had a rather typical weekend. My Saturday morning and afternoon poker sessions were uneventful, to say the least. My largest loss of the morning was 46bb when AKs overtook my pocket cowboys. I stacked one player for a full buy-in after he called (w/K8o) my pre-flop raise out of the blinds. I hit a set of queens on the flop while he paired his king, and he called through the river after improving to trips. Was all-in before the river only twice, both times against short stacks. Won 30bb as a 39.5% flop underdog when my tptk overtook my opponent's 2 pair after improving to a straight on the turn; lost 20bb as a 63.3% preflop favorite as big slick lost to 75o. Didn't place in any of the three tournaments; hence the slight bankroll decline...
In the afternoon session, my biggest win was 30bb, after having 3-bet w/KK preflop and getting two callers. My two largest losses were brutal - and a perfect example of why I think EV statistics are
After shutting down the computer for the day, I had a couple of hours to watch the DVR of the Islanders/Sabres game. It was actually still being played, but I like to delay viewing at least an hour so that I can fast forward through the tv timeouts and intermissions… it’s amazing how much time you can save in life that way. Long story short, the Islanders won another one against one of the top teams in the league. Although they relinquished a 2-0 lead (as they’re remarkably prone to doing), DP outlasted fellow-American Ryan Miller in the shootout for the extra point. It shouldn’t have even gotten to that point, considering the Isles had a third period goal disallowed on a phantom incidental contact-in-the-crease call, which would have given them a 3-1 lead. But it was a great feel-good moment, especially for DP, who admitted his greatest challenge during the course of the day’s events was to not publicly cry in response to the outpouring of support from the home crowd. Good for him.
Headed out to Covina for my standard Saturday night at the Last Chance Saloon with Michele. (It’s not actually called the Last Chance Saloon, I just like to refer to it as such - more to bug Michele than anything else - in honor of the type of clientele who generally patronize the establishment.) Once there, Nate (the bartender) ensured that I’d miss the standard complement of Sunday afternoon poker tournaments by getting me completely sloshed. (He claims it was only the third time he’s seen me drunk. I frankly don’t think he’s been paying enough attention.)
Nate is a pretty engaging fellow… a current Ph.D. candidate in a philosophical discipline, who until recently even sported the ponytail normally attributable to such intellectual types. He’s become a good friend of ours, to the extent of regularly allowing us, along with one or two select others, to remain in the bar for the purpose of continued drinking long after closing time. We have somewhat of an interesting arrangement, insofar as I’m the only customer, to my knowledge, who is not required to pay for his drinks (given the cash-only setup) as he goes along. Rather, at the end of the night, I’ll provide Nate with a certain amount of cash, and he’ll retain what he feels was an appropriate “take” for the evening. My sense is that both Nate and I profit extensively from this arrangement, to the general detriment of the bar’s ownership.
The evening progressed to a certain point, after which (thanks to my switching from Sammy’s to VO) I remember nothing until awakening at 3 in the afternoon on Sunday. Having effectively missed the daily tournament schedule, I turned on the tv to see that the Jets trailed the Chargers by a touchdown at the half. Settling in with a cup of late afternoon coffee, I watched as Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez kept the Cinderella dream alive by battling back for two fourth quarter touchdowns, and a 17-14 win that has them en route to the Super Bowl semifinal. Man, it’s great to be a New York sports fan right now.
Had a couple of hours to kill before dinner, so I decided to get some final weekend poker action in. Now, here’s the thing… I don’t know if it’s the result of her having a ridiculously small screen that makes multitabling a somewhat difficult chore, or if its simply the poker gods trying to tell me something that I should likely already know, but… this session would prove to be my sixth consecutive losing session at Michele’s home. I’ve never had six losing sessions in a row anywhere, and I’m at a loss for a reasonable explanation. Things started out well enough, with my having built up a $175 profit in the space of a little over an hour. During the course of the session, I was all-in before the river 4 times, won the three as a favorite (91.1% and 85.7% equity on the flop, and 81.9% equity preflop), and lost the one with 17.9% equity on the flop. The losing hand was a blind vs. blind battle where I flopped top two pair against my opponent's made straight.
While I could forgive myself for that loss, the hand that bothered me the most was reflective of the most significant leak I've been trying to combat – essentially, losing my entire stack with a one-pair type hand. In this case, I raised from early position with pocket queens, and was min-three-bet by an uber-aggressive player in the cutoff (playing 31/23/5.6 over 256 hands, and 3-betting 15.9% of his hands – all full ring). The button smooth called, which set up a perfect squeeze opportunity for me. But (perhaps as a function of multitabling and not thinking things through clearly enough), I elected to simply call to close out the betting, and evaluate the flop. The 4-4-3 rainbow appeared relatively innocuous, so I checked to the cutoff, who bet half the pot, eliciting a fold from the button. I called, partially for pot-control, partially to give myself an out if the turn proved threatening, and partially to see if the aggressor would slow down. The turn was a 7, putting a two-flush on board. I checked again, my opponent bet half the pot again, and I called again. The river was a 3, putting two pair on the board and completing a runner-runner flush draw. I checked, and to my surprise, my opponent played an overbet shove for $101. Wtf? I had no idea if he would make this play with a strong ace, or perhaps a pocket pair lower than my queens – but he only had to be behind or bluffing 35% of the time for the call to be correct. So given his aggressive nature, I called. He had pocket 4s, for flopped quads – costing me $141.15, and effectively turning a decent winning session into a small loss. This is definitely a hand I’ll be posting for feedback on the forums…
Islanders playing the Devils in a matinee as I write; I’ll be watching the DVR before my own team’s game later this evening… assuming I can catch a boat up the 405 ;)
Saturday AM
Bankroll: $14,023.39
Session: 1370 hands; up $12.95; EV -$0.44
Month To Date: up $1,336; 7.36 bb/100
Saturday PM
Bankroll: $14,029.84
Session: 1196 hands; up $6.45; EV $6.45
Month To Date: up $1,342; 6.94 bb/100
Sunday
Bankroll: $14,007.34
Session: 1383 hands; down $22.50; EV -$54.59
Month To Date: up $1,320; 6.37 bb/100
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Good Luck, DP
Islanders giving Rick DiPietro his first home start in over a year tonight. Against one of the hottest teams in the NHL, unfortunately. The two points would have been better entrusted to Rollie, but I guess you have to get your 15-year man playing sometime...
Thought about going out last night, but decided to stay in and play a little poker instead. Had a good session, with a win of a little over $300. More of the same in terms in terms of my ever improving discipline; my largest loss was 43bb with two pair vs. a straight. Considering both hands were there on the flop, I seriously considered releasing the two pair early against my opponent's strength - but given the relatively short stack, I elected to pay him off. All-in before the river three times, twice on the flop with sets (91.4% and 90% equity respectively) and once preflop with 45% equity (AKo vs. 77; my aggressive opponent had 3-bet with position and a 70bb stack, and called my shove.)
Got my morning coffee; currently registered for three MTTs and about to fire up some cash games...
Current Bankroll: $14,081.94
Last Session: 1697 hands; up $322.25; EV $220.44
Month To Date: up $1,323; 7.88 bb/100
Thought about going out last night, but decided to stay in and play a little poker instead. Had a good session, with a win of a little over $300. More of the same in terms in terms of my ever improving discipline; my largest loss was 43bb with two pair vs. a straight. Considering both hands were there on the flop, I seriously considered releasing the two pair early against my opponent's strength - but given the relatively short stack, I elected to pay him off. All-in before the river three times, twice on the flop with sets (91.4% and 90% equity respectively) and once preflop with 45% equity (AKo vs. 77; my aggressive opponent had 3-bet with position and a 70bb stack, and called my shove.)
Got my morning coffee; currently registered for three MTTs and about to fire up some cash games...
Current Bankroll: $14,081.94
Last Session: 1697 hands; up $322.25; EV $220.44
Month To Date: up $1,323; 7.88 bb/100
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Hybrid Blog
So I think this blog is going to end up becoming more of a hybrid vehicle covering both my personal life as well as my poker endeavors. Otherwise, this will become too damned boring for me. And it’s much cheaper than therapy lol… the only caveat is that I won’t be able to share the blog with most of the people who actually KNOW me, since many of them will end up becoming unwitting characters in an ever-developing plot...
So I played 2,000 hands – exactly – last night in the space of three hours, and had an incredibly straightforward, uneventful session. I wound up winning a little over $200, the result of stacking four separate opponents, three of whom happened to be holding a top pair hand, and the other an overpair hand. (Somewhat interesting, in light of the modification to my game to which I referred yesterday.) My largest loss was 50bb, when the turn that provided me with two pair also completed my opponent’s straight draw. I was all-in only twice before the river, winning both – once with 86.4% equity on the flop, and once with 100% equity on the turn. I’ll take sessions like that every day…
I’m finally starting to get comments on pokertableratings.com. The first was a fairly straightforward comment, simply referring to me as a “moron” (likely the result of my having hit a 2-outer on the river after an all-in turn bluff against the guy’s aces), but the second was much more interesting. The poster asked, “Too much FPS (fancy-play syndrome). Why?” I discovered, courtesy of HEM, that I’ve actually won more money from this player than from any other single player. In looking at the +20bb wins, each of them was remarkably straightforward. So, I honestly have no idea what specifically made him feel victimized – although I will concede that I’ve fallen prey to FPS over the course of the last few months. I’ve made a conscious effort to remind myself that players at the current level are not that sophisticated, and running elaborate plays instead of taking the straightforward approach is, for the most part, negative EV.
Current bankroll: $13,759
Last session: 2000 hands; up $219.80; EV $192.56
Month to date: up $1,001; 6.63 bb/100
So I played 2,000 hands – exactly – last night in the space of three hours, and had an incredibly straightforward, uneventful session. I wound up winning a little over $200, the result of stacking four separate opponents, three of whom happened to be holding a top pair hand, and the other an overpair hand. (Somewhat interesting, in light of the modification to my game to which I referred yesterday.) My largest loss was 50bb, when the turn that provided me with two pair also completed my opponent’s straight draw. I was all-in only twice before the river, winning both – once with 86.4% equity on the flop, and once with 100% equity on the turn. I’ll take sessions like that every day…
I’m finally starting to get comments on pokertableratings.com. The first was a fairly straightforward comment, simply referring to me as a “moron” (likely the result of my having hit a 2-outer on the river after an all-in turn bluff against the guy’s aces), but the second was much more interesting. The poster asked, “Too much FPS (fancy-play syndrome). Why?” I discovered, courtesy of HEM, that I’ve actually won more money from this player than from any other single player. In looking at the +20bb wins, each of them was remarkably straightforward. So, I honestly have no idea what specifically made him feel victimized – although I will concede that I’ve fallen prey to FPS over the course of the last few months. I’ve made a conscious effort to remind myself that players at the current level are not that sophisticated, and running elaborate plays instead of taking the straightforward approach is, for the most part, negative EV.
Current bankroll: $13,759
Last session: 2000 hands; up $219.80; EV $192.56
Month to date: up $1,001; 6.63 bb/100
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Moving On To A New Decade...
My life has changed substantially since my last few blog entries a couple of years back. I moved from LA down to the OC after having procured more of a challenging (and lucrative) corporate position. Now that I’ve somewhat solidified that aspect of my life, it’s time to focus, once again, on the fantastic game of poker.
Speaking of which, my game has also changed substantially, and for the better. Long story short… I gave up my attempt at the limit poker grind and decided to focus on becoming a no-limit cash game player. Along those lines, I purchased a stoxpoker.com training account (which may be one of the most invaluable poker tools available), upgraded my tracking software from Pokertracker to Hold’Em Manager (which may very well be the next most invaluable poker tool available), and procured a second monitor so that I can now regularly 12-table while keeping a second screen active for viewing statistics and the like.
How has this worked out for me? Pretty well, thus far. Towards the end of my limit poker journey, I was consistently bleeding money, to the point where my online “bankroll” had dwindled from the $1,000 range down to a paltry $100 or so. I knew I had serious leaks in my game that I needed desperately to fix, but I honestly had no idea how to go about identifying what those leaks were. Then the pressures of my corporate commitment eventually rendered poker something of an afterthought, so I stopped playing the game for awhile.
I picked it back up in the early part of 2009, electing to focus on no-limit. After studying several of the stoxpoker.com training videos for awhile, I began to grind at the $.05-$.10 levels, then $.10-$.25, then $.25-$.50, and onto $.50-$1.00, which I’m now playing and looking to conquer. My progression through these levels – as well as a first and a second place finish in two $10 buy-in multi-table tournaments on Stars – has resulted in my online bankroll growing to its current level of approximately $13,500. And this is without the benefit of VPP cash awards, since I’ve taken to using the points to instead procure things like flat-screen televisions for ex-girlfriends, in perhaps unsurprisingly successful efforts to make amends for past instances of exceedingly narcissistic behaviour lol…
In broad strokes, the current status of things is as follows: Hold’Em Manager confirms I’ve won about $5,800 at the $0.50-$1.00 level; however, the winrate is fairly anemic, given that it’s taken me about 250K hands to get to that point. In examining the leak buster feature of HEM, I’ve since determined that I was losing a TON of money in taking top pair hands too far – which is something I should probably have become aware of earlier, given my WtSD% rate of close to 30%. So while my bankroll is now large enough to move to the $1-$2 level, I’ve committed to first attaining a winrate of 6bb/100 at $.50-$1.00 over the course of a full month. Thus far, I’m at 5.97 halfway through January, with my WtSD% at a more reasonable 25%… so far, so good.
As far as the blog is concerned? Well, I've deleted the majority of the older posts, as they're pretty much inapplicable to my game as it stands today. I did, however, retain two posts recounting the play of a few specific hands from a 2007 Vegas trip, which I've been told by a few people are an entertaining read...
And my Islanders beat the Red Wings 6-0 on Tuesday. Just for those of you who aren’t sure if they’re for real… ;)
Speaking of which, my game has also changed substantially, and for the better. Long story short… I gave up my attempt at the limit poker grind and decided to focus on becoming a no-limit cash game player. Along those lines, I purchased a stoxpoker.com training account (which may be one of the most invaluable poker tools available), upgraded my tracking software from Pokertracker to Hold’Em Manager (which may very well be the next most invaluable poker tool available), and procured a second monitor so that I can now regularly 12-table while keeping a second screen active for viewing statistics and the like.
How has this worked out for me? Pretty well, thus far. Towards the end of my limit poker journey, I was consistently bleeding money, to the point where my online “bankroll” had dwindled from the $1,000 range down to a paltry $100 or so. I knew I had serious leaks in my game that I needed desperately to fix, but I honestly had no idea how to go about identifying what those leaks were. Then the pressures of my corporate commitment eventually rendered poker something of an afterthought, so I stopped playing the game for awhile.
I picked it back up in the early part of 2009, electing to focus on no-limit. After studying several of the stoxpoker.com training videos for awhile, I began to grind at the $.05-$.10 levels, then $.10-$.25, then $.25-$.50, and onto $.50-$1.00, which I’m now playing and looking to conquer. My progression through these levels – as well as a first and a second place finish in two $10 buy-in multi-table tournaments on Stars – has resulted in my online bankroll growing to its current level of approximately $13,500. And this is without the benefit of VPP cash awards, since I’ve taken to using the points to instead procure things like flat-screen televisions for ex-girlfriends, in perhaps unsurprisingly successful efforts to make amends for past instances of exceedingly narcissistic behaviour lol…
In broad strokes, the current status of things is as follows: Hold’Em Manager confirms I’ve won about $5,800 at the $0.50-$1.00 level; however, the winrate is fairly anemic, given that it’s taken me about 250K hands to get to that point. In examining the leak buster feature of HEM, I’ve since determined that I was losing a TON of money in taking top pair hands too far – which is something I should probably have become aware of earlier, given my WtSD% rate of close to 30%. So while my bankroll is now large enough to move to the $1-$2 level, I’ve committed to first attaining a winrate of 6bb/100 at $.50-$1.00 over the course of a full month. Thus far, I’m at 5.97 halfway through January, with my WtSD% at a more reasonable 25%… so far, so good.
As far as the blog is concerned? Well, I've deleted the majority of the older posts, as they're pretty much inapplicable to my game as it stands today. I did, however, retain two posts recounting the play of a few specific hands from a 2007 Vegas trip, which I've been told by a few people are an entertaining read...
And my Islanders beat the Red Wings 6-0 on Tuesday. Just for those of you who aren’t sure if they’re for real… ;)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
