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...
Friday, January 29, 2010
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)
