I played in a live poker game yesterday, the first time I've done that for months. The buy-in was a bit over my usual maximum, but I treated it as a special 'fun game', not part of my usual bankroll management plan. It's just as well that I did that, as it turned out to be a fairly expensive exercise.
My wife's friend's brother is a regular at the Tuesday night tournament at the Thirsty Whale pub. We were told on Sunday morning that he was running a poker cash game at the pub, so we went up in the afternoon to check it out. We were told that the game was Omaha, with a buy-in of $20, but when some of us revealed our opinions on Omaha Holdem, they changed it to alternate rounds of Texas and Omaha. It wasn't till I sat down at the table that I realised it was being played in rather an odd format. It was a no limit game with the blinds at $1 and $2, which means that we were buying in for just 10 big blinds! How strange.
Even although it was a no limit game, play was pretty passive with very little raising. Even so, I soon found myself topping up my chip stack for another $20, as did a number of others. As play went on, there were more and more top-ups and the play started to get more aggressive, with bigger and bigger bets. My wife and I were both playing and we both ended up topping up several times, with neither of us doing very well. But we played on into the evening, just for the fun of it. They were a fun bunch of players and we had an entertaining, if somewhat expensive evening.
As for my games, I did better in Texas Holdem than in Omaha, which was no surprise to me. I think the only time I collected in the Omaha games was once when I picked up a better full house than my opponent. A more typical hand was the one where I picked up an Ace high flush only to have it busted when my opponent's two pair was upgraded to a full house on the river.
The Texas Holdem games were better, but not by much. On three different occasions when I had a huge hand, someone else had the same hand and it was a split pot. I also lost quite a few chips to the same player on two different occasions when he was slow-playing pocket Aces. But at least the Texas hands were keeping me in the game. Later on, when a few of the players had busted out and we were down to a five player table, the game reverted to Omaha only. So I did a lot of folding and a bit of limping in to see the flop, which invariably missed me completely. When we hit the last hand I was so far behind, and had so few chips left that I pushed all-in blind and, true to form, came last.
Despite all this, I had a good time and thoroughly enjoyed my first live poker game for a long time. However, it was a one-off 'festive season special'. Even though I believe the game is to be played on a regular basis, I won't be back any time soon. I've got to look after my precious bankroll, and the game is just too expensive for me. Oh well, back to the computer screen in the dark back room.
Sunday, 30 December 2012
Thursday, 6 December 2012
Analyse Schmanalyse
So this is Christmas,
and what have you done?
Another year over,
and a new one just begun. John Lennon
Although the calendar year hasn't ended yet, my poker year has in fact ended. This is because I divide my playing year into two parts: the "summer season" from December to February, and the "regular season" from March to November. So I consider November 30th to be the last day of my poker year. A good time to look back and assess my progress.
I don't want to get too bogged down in figures, but here is a basic summary of my year. During this time I have played 70 hours of online tournaments, 88 hours of online fixed limit games and 160 hours of online sitngos, making a total of over 300 hours of poker. These figures are surprising to me. I didn't realise how much of my time was taken up with playing sitngos. I was supposed to be concentrating on fixed limit holdem and tournaments this year, but more than half the time is taken up by sitngos. This is partly because the fixed limit games and tourneys have not always been available to play at a convenient time. I think this is because of the lower player numbers on 888 and also because there are a lot of European players, who are in time zones that are around 8-12 hours behind New Zealand. So if I want to play in the evening, its early morning to them and often sitngos are the only one of those three game types that are available.
The measure I use for assessing my results is "blinds won or lost per hour". I use this measure because it makes it easier to compare games with varying buy-ins. For cash games, it's pretty straightforward. For tournaments, I set a nominal blind for each game, which is the average big blind from the last ten cash games I've played. So if the nominal blind is, say 50c, then if I play a $5.50 sitngo and lose, then I've lost 11 blinds. Likewise, if I play in a $3.00 tournament and win $11, then I've won 16 blinds.
My worst results this year come from multi-table Texas Holdem tournaments. I am currently losing 9 blinds per hour in these games. This is very disappointing, considering that this was the game I was getting the best results with coming into the beginning of the year. Second-best are Texas Holdem single-table sitngos, with a loss of 3 blinds per hour, another game that I had been doing quite well with up until this year. Surprisingly, my best results have come from fixed limit six-max Texas Holdem cash games, with an overall loss rate of 2 blinds per hour. I actually think that I was beginning to get a feel for the fixed limit games, and if I'd been able to get more game time I might even have turned my losses into a small win. Maybe.
Looking at the hours played for each game type, I'm beginning to think that I might have to change my poker site. If I'm playing my primary game on Wednesday night, then I should be able to clock up at least 120 hours over a 9 month period. I haven't decided which games I'll be playing in the regular season next year, but I'm likely to have similar availability problems if I stay on 888. Despite my paranoia about poker sites since the Fulltilt ponzi scheme collapsed, it looks like I'm going to have to find a bigger site, with a larger variety of available games.
As for the overall health of my bankroll, it's not doing too well. My overall profit became an overall loss in September, and has stayed in negative territory ever since. Since November 30th last year I've lost nearly half of my original bankroll. This is not good.
In an earlier post I posed the question, "am I a bad player who just got lucky for a while? or am I a good player on a bad streak?" It's becoming increasingly likely to me that the answer is that I'm not a very good poker player who was enjoying a lucky streak for a while. So, where to from here? Well, to state the obvious, I need to become a good player. Even if I don't have that X factor required to become a really good player, there are always going to be ways of improving my game to some degree. It's just a matter of finding them.
I've finally got my copy of Super System from the local library and have started reading it. It's an interesting read, but not really of much value to me as a low limit online poker player. The book is clearly aimed at live game players who play at the higher limits. In fact, Doyle Brunson states on several occasions that these principals are intended for use against good players. He says that if you're up against weak players, most of the time you're going to have to beat them by showing down the best hand. I'm beginning to realise that this is a problem shared by most "how to" poker books.
I've read a few books on poker play, and the problem is that I'm not in their target audience. The advice that they dispense is designed to help players who are up against others who have a reasonable level of skill. They are not aimed at players who are up against a table full of gamblers, calling stations and wannabes playing for milk money. That's not to say that poker guides (in book form or online) have no value. The general principals of correct play are vital, but the way that they are applied is different for these sorts of games. That's the trick. I need to figure out how to apply the principals that I've learned to these low level online games.
So I will continue reading Super System with the idea of picking up any little tips that I can, but in the knowledge that most of this stuff is going to be of little value to me in the games I'm playing. I really need to develop my own 'super system'. So, for a start I'm going to be taking notes on all my games during the summer, with particular emphasis on big losing plays and big winning plays. In other words, what am I doing wrong and what am I doing right? Hand analysis, game analysis, strategy analysis, whatever it takes.
During the summer season I play one game-type only. So for the next three months I'll be playing sitngos and nothing else. By the end of February, maybe I'll have worked out a successful playing style. Then again, maybe I'll just go outside and get a tan.
and what have you done?
Another year over,
and a new one just begun. John Lennon
Although the calendar year hasn't ended yet, my poker year has in fact ended. This is because I divide my playing year into two parts: the "summer season" from December to February, and the "regular season" from March to November. So I consider November 30th to be the last day of my poker year. A good time to look back and assess my progress.
I don't want to get too bogged down in figures, but here is a basic summary of my year. During this time I have played 70 hours of online tournaments, 88 hours of online fixed limit games and 160 hours of online sitngos, making a total of over 300 hours of poker. These figures are surprising to me. I didn't realise how much of my time was taken up with playing sitngos. I was supposed to be concentrating on fixed limit holdem and tournaments this year, but more than half the time is taken up by sitngos. This is partly because the fixed limit games and tourneys have not always been available to play at a convenient time. I think this is because of the lower player numbers on 888 and also because there are a lot of European players, who are in time zones that are around 8-12 hours behind New Zealand. So if I want to play in the evening, its early morning to them and often sitngos are the only one of those three game types that are available.
The measure I use for assessing my results is "blinds won or lost per hour". I use this measure because it makes it easier to compare games with varying buy-ins. For cash games, it's pretty straightforward. For tournaments, I set a nominal blind for each game, which is the average big blind from the last ten cash games I've played. So if the nominal blind is, say 50c, then if I play a $5.50 sitngo and lose, then I've lost 11 blinds. Likewise, if I play in a $3.00 tournament and win $11, then I've won 16 blinds.
My worst results this year come from multi-table Texas Holdem tournaments. I am currently losing 9 blinds per hour in these games. This is very disappointing, considering that this was the game I was getting the best results with coming into the beginning of the year. Second-best are Texas Holdem single-table sitngos, with a loss of 3 blinds per hour, another game that I had been doing quite well with up until this year. Surprisingly, my best results have come from fixed limit six-max Texas Holdem cash games, with an overall loss rate of 2 blinds per hour. I actually think that I was beginning to get a feel for the fixed limit games, and if I'd been able to get more game time I might even have turned my losses into a small win. Maybe.
Looking at the hours played for each game type, I'm beginning to think that I might have to change my poker site. If I'm playing my primary game on Wednesday night, then I should be able to clock up at least 120 hours over a 9 month period. I haven't decided which games I'll be playing in the regular season next year, but I'm likely to have similar availability problems if I stay on 888. Despite my paranoia about poker sites since the Fulltilt ponzi scheme collapsed, it looks like I'm going to have to find a bigger site, with a larger variety of available games.
As for the overall health of my bankroll, it's not doing too well. My overall profit became an overall loss in September, and has stayed in negative territory ever since. Since November 30th last year I've lost nearly half of my original bankroll. This is not good.
In an earlier post I posed the question, "am I a bad player who just got lucky for a while? or am I a good player on a bad streak?" It's becoming increasingly likely to me that the answer is that I'm not a very good poker player who was enjoying a lucky streak for a while. So, where to from here? Well, to state the obvious, I need to become a good player. Even if I don't have that X factor required to become a really good player, there are always going to be ways of improving my game to some degree. It's just a matter of finding them.
I've finally got my copy of Super System from the local library and have started reading it. It's an interesting read, but not really of much value to me as a low limit online poker player. The book is clearly aimed at live game players who play at the higher limits. In fact, Doyle Brunson states on several occasions that these principals are intended for use against good players. He says that if you're up against weak players, most of the time you're going to have to beat them by showing down the best hand. I'm beginning to realise that this is a problem shared by most "how to" poker books.
I've read a few books on poker play, and the problem is that I'm not in their target audience. The advice that they dispense is designed to help players who are up against others who have a reasonable level of skill. They are not aimed at players who are up against a table full of gamblers, calling stations and wannabes playing for milk money. That's not to say that poker guides (in book form or online) have no value. The general principals of correct play are vital, but the way that they are applied is different for these sorts of games. That's the trick. I need to figure out how to apply the principals that I've learned to these low level online games.
So I will continue reading Super System with the idea of picking up any little tips that I can, but in the knowledge that most of this stuff is going to be of little value to me in the games I'm playing. I really need to develop my own 'super system'. So, for a start I'm going to be taking notes on all my games during the summer, with particular emphasis on big losing plays and big winning plays. In other words, what am I doing wrong and what am I doing right? Hand analysis, game analysis, strategy analysis, whatever it takes.
During the summer season I play one game-type only. So for the next three months I'll be playing sitngos and nothing else. By the end of February, maybe I'll have worked out a successful playing style. Then again, maybe I'll just go outside and get a tan.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Million Dollar Dream
We're not talking peanuts,
We're not talking chickenfeed,
Let me hear you scream,
The million dollar dream. Headless Chickens
No matter how sad the reality, we all have our dreams of glory. There are some poker dreams that I cling to, but first, lets take a look at the reality:
*I've been playing poker seriously for about five years and I'm running at a loss
*In the last four months my bankroll has plummeted
*I am currently playing at the micro level; games that require a buy-in of a few dollars
*I am following a bankroll management plan that requires me to have a bankroll equal to 20 times the buy-in for a ring game and 50 times the buy-in for a tournament
*I don't play in satellite tournaments
*I don't know anyone in Hollywood.
Bearing all this in mind, let me set out my Ten Big Poker Dreams. These are all things I'd love to achieve, but am realistic enough to know that they are extremely unlikely. I start with the least unlikely dream and progress through the list to the most unlikely. The way I see it, item one on my list is about as likely to happen as me hitting a royal flush in Spades. The chances of achieving item ten are about the same as the chances of me hitting a royal flush in Spades, followed by a royal flush in Hearts, followed by one in Diamonds, then in Clubs, in successive hands.
So, here are my poker dreams:
1. Australian Poker Weekend. Fly to Australia and spend the weekend playing poker. This is based on the assumption that Australian casinos are likely to have a larger range of games available over a longer period of time than Auckland's Sky City. I don't actually know if this is true, but it seems to be a fair assumption. And I like the idea of flying off to another country just to play poker.
2. Vegas Poker Safari. Fly to Las Vegas and spend a week playing poker. The ideal time to do this would be during the World Series of Poker, but any time would be fine. The idea would be play in ring games rather than tournaments. It would be great just to soak up the atmosphere. I suppose that somewhere like Macau or Hong Kong might be cheaper but the problem is: they're not Vegas.
3. Play a Big Sky City Tournament. The Auckland Casino has a big tournament on every long weekend. The buy-in is about $1100. Win or lose, it would be great to play in a big live tournament like that.
4. Play in the Aussie Millions. A bit more expensive to enter this one, but at least it's just ácross the ditch'. This is one of the major tournaments so you might get to rub shoulders with some big-name players. Once again, just being there would be the experience of a lifetime.
5. Cash in a Major Tournament. If I ever reached the point where I had a bankroll that enabled me to enter the Aussie Millions, then I guess I'd have enough to enter other international tournaments. It would be such a buzz to cash in one of these, even if it was at the lowest level.
6. Win a Major Tournament. Winning any tournament is great but winning a major puts you in a whole different class. And the prize money is pretty good too. But beyond the cash, you get bragging rights forever.
7. Play Strip Poker with Jessica Alba. Ok, so I put this one in mainly to illustrate the level of improbability that we are reaching here. But if the opportunity were to come up, I'm pretty sure I could beat her. I don't know what would be in it for her if she won, but that's not my problem.
8. Win a WSOP Bracelet. This is pretty much the ultimate poker prize. Even though there might be more players to beat and more money to be won in other events, a WSOP bracelet is the equivalent of Olympic gold. It's not about the numbers, it's about the jewellery.
9. Become a Successful Omaha Player. We are really entering Fantasyland here. I don't honestly believe that this is possible, but if I could figure out how to win at Omaha.... No, that's crazy talk.
10. Cash in the Main Event. A lot of poker players dream of winning the WSOP Main Event, or at least making the final table. But with afield of 5000 or more, and most poker pros getting eliminated in the early stages, I'd be ecstatic just to burst the bubble and collect some cash. That's something I would never forget.
So those are my poker dreams. Oh well, back to the micro online games.
OMG, a thought just occurred to me. What if Jessica agreed to play, but only if it was Omaha? What a nightmare.
We're not talking chickenfeed,
Let me hear you scream,
The million dollar dream. Headless Chickens
No matter how sad the reality, we all have our dreams of glory. There are some poker dreams that I cling to, but first, lets take a look at the reality:
*I've been playing poker seriously for about five years and I'm running at a loss
*In the last four months my bankroll has plummeted
*I am currently playing at the micro level; games that require a buy-in of a few dollars
*I am following a bankroll management plan that requires me to have a bankroll equal to 20 times the buy-in for a ring game and 50 times the buy-in for a tournament
*I don't play in satellite tournaments
*I don't know anyone in Hollywood.
Bearing all this in mind, let me set out my Ten Big Poker Dreams. These are all things I'd love to achieve, but am realistic enough to know that they are extremely unlikely. I start with the least unlikely dream and progress through the list to the most unlikely. The way I see it, item one on my list is about as likely to happen as me hitting a royal flush in Spades. The chances of achieving item ten are about the same as the chances of me hitting a royal flush in Spades, followed by a royal flush in Hearts, followed by one in Diamonds, then in Clubs, in successive hands.
So, here are my poker dreams:
1. Australian Poker Weekend. Fly to Australia and spend the weekend playing poker. This is based on the assumption that Australian casinos are likely to have a larger range of games available over a longer period of time than Auckland's Sky City. I don't actually know if this is true, but it seems to be a fair assumption. And I like the idea of flying off to another country just to play poker.
2. Vegas Poker Safari. Fly to Las Vegas and spend a week playing poker. The ideal time to do this would be during the World Series of Poker, but any time would be fine. The idea would be play in ring games rather than tournaments. It would be great just to soak up the atmosphere. I suppose that somewhere like Macau or Hong Kong might be cheaper but the problem is: they're not Vegas.
3. Play a Big Sky City Tournament. The Auckland Casino has a big tournament on every long weekend. The buy-in is about $1100. Win or lose, it would be great to play in a big live tournament like that.
4. Play in the Aussie Millions. A bit more expensive to enter this one, but at least it's just ácross the ditch'. This is one of the major tournaments so you might get to rub shoulders with some big-name players. Once again, just being there would be the experience of a lifetime.
5. Cash in a Major Tournament. If I ever reached the point where I had a bankroll that enabled me to enter the Aussie Millions, then I guess I'd have enough to enter other international tournaments. It would be such a buzz to cash in one of these, even if it was at the lowest level.
6. Win a Major Tournament. Winning any tournament is great but winning a major puts you in a whole different class. And the prize money is pretty good too. But beyond the cash, you get bragging rights forever.
7. Play Strip Poker with Jessica Alba. Ok, so I put this one in mainly to illustrate the level of improbability that we are reaching here. But if the opportunity were to come up, I'm pretty sure I could beat her. I don't know what would be in it for her if she won, but that's not my problem.
8. Win a WSOP Bracelet. This is pretty much the ultimate poker prize. Even though there might be more players to beat and more money to be won in other events, a WSOP bracelet is the equivalent of Olympic gold. It's not about the numbers, it's about the jewellery.
9. Become a Successful Omaha Player. We are really entering Fantasyland here. I don't honestly believe that this is possible, but if I could figure out how to win at Omaha.... No, that's crazy talk.
10. Cash in the Main Event. A lot of poker players dream of winning the WSOP Main Event, or at least making the final table. But with afield of 5000 or more, and most poker pros getting eliminated in the early stages, I'd be ecstatic just to burst the bubble and collect some cash. That's something I would never forget.
So those are my poker dreams. Oh well, back to the micro online games.
OMG, a thought just occurred to me. What if Jessica agreed to play, but only if it was Omaha? What a nightmare.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Spring Bulletin
I went to Skycity Casino with my wife a couple of weeks ago. Over the years it's become a tradition for us to celebrate our wedding anniversary by sitting in different areas of a huge room full of strangers (LOL). Anyway, I decided to check out the 'Poker Zone' upstairs. The previous year I'd gone up there and bought in to a ring game for the minimum amount of $60 and walked out a couple of hours later with over $500. However, when I got there I found that the buy-in had increased. The blinds had gone up from $2/$3 to $2/$4 and the minimum buy-in was now $100. Oh well, back to the roulette. When I first played poker at the casino a few years ago, the blinds were $1/$2. I guess those were the good old days.
I'm writing this on my new notebook. Not only do I have a new computer that measures its speed and memory in gigs rather than megs, but I've also got a broadband connection. Everything happens so much faster now. As an example, when I downloaded the 888 software from the website, a process that used to take more than an hour, it was all done within three minutes! I am so impressed. I haven't had any disconnection problems when playing online and that annoying delay that always appeared during ring games has disappeared. Also, I can surf the net at the same time as playing poker if I want to, although I don't think I will because I need to concentrate on my games.
My results however, have not changed. What I used to describe as a downswing has now become an inexorable slide into oblivion. The last ten times I've played have all been losing sessions and my bankroll is at its lowest point since August 2009. And I am at a total loss to explain why. I simply cannot take a trick. At this point I couldn't win a game of poker against a blind donkey playing with his cards face-up on the table. Nevertheless, I keep plugging away.
I've been watching the World Series of Poker Main Event final table on TV recently. The final table was shown live and my wife and I recorded it and watched it in manageable segments. The first six players were knocked out within a few hours, but once it was down to the final three, it turned into a marathon. It was ten hours before the seventh player was finally knocked out. But even though this was not edited and at times the players took an age to make a decision and we didn't get to see the hole cards until the hand was over, it was still fascinating to watch. I was glad to see that two of the three were 888 players, and I was cheering for Jake Balsiger, because he was the short stack and I like to cheer for the underdog. However, in that epic battle he was eventually overwhelmed and had to settle for a measly couple of million dollars.
So we settled in for a long heads-up contest between Greg Merson and Jesse Sylvia. But it all ended in anti-climax. After just 17 heads-up hands, Merson pushed all-in with K5 and, to my surprise, Sylvia called with QJ. King high won the hand and Merson took out the title, the $8m, the bracelet and, for good measure, enough points to beat Phil Hellmuth in the Player of the Year contest. A good win for Greg Merson, who looked to be in control of the game pretty much all the way.
I've also been watching The Big Game on TV. Even though they're only showing highlights of previous shows, it's still fun to watch. The thing I like most about this show is the commentary. The guy who commentates on the play (I don't remember his name) is very knowledgeable about the game and really adds another dimension to the show. He's always explaining why he thinks particular plays are being made, what the players' reasoning might be, what sort of odds they are getting, and lots of other details that make it much more interesting than other poker shows. It's nice to see a show that's both entertaining and informative.
I'm still struggling to figure out a successful Fixed Limit 6-max strategy. I had a series of decent wins last month but have now reverted to my usual form in this game. Last week I tried ultra-passive pre-flop combined with more aggressive post-flop play but it didn't do me any good. When I play again tomorrow maybe I'll try the seat-of-the-pants make-it-up-as-I-go-along strategy. Or maybe the hope-to-get-lucky-strategy. Or maybe the call-everything-to-the-river strategy. Or something. Time will tell.
Another advantage of having a modern computer is that I can watch video now. I started reading poker-pro Daniel Negraneau's blog a while back, but I could only read his old stuff because he switched to video-blogs (vlogs?) earlier this year and my old computer couldn't hack showing video. So now I've started watching his more recent posts. These can be found at www.fullcontactpoker.com. Check out the first one, 'Real Talk', where he goes off at the people behind the Fulltilt Poker scam. Classic.
I'm writing this on my new notebook. Not only do I have a new computer that measures its speed and memory in gigs rather than megs, but I've also got a broadband connection. Everything happens so much faster now. As an example, when I downloaded the 888 software from the website, a process that used to take more than an hour, it was all done within three minutes! I am so impressed. I haven't had any disconnection problems when playing online and that annoying delay that always appeared during ring games has disappeared. Also, I can surf the net at the same time as playing poker if I want to, although I don't think I will because I need to concentrate on my games.
My results however, have not changed. What I used to describe as a downswing has now become an inexorable slide into oblivion. The last ten times I've played have all been losing sessions and my bankroll is at its lowest point since August 2009. And I am at a total loss to explain why. I simply cannot take a trick. At this point I couldn't win a game of poker against a blind donkey playing with his cards face-up on the table. Nevertheless, I keep plugging away.
I've been watching the World Series of Poker Main Event final table on TV recently. The final table was shown live and my wife and I recorded it and watched it in manageable segments. The first six players were knocked out within a few hours, but once it was down to the final three, it turned into a marathon. It was ten hours before the seventh player was finally knocked out. But even though this was not edited and at times the players took an age to make a decision and we didn't get to see the hole cards until the hand was over, it was still fascinating to watch. I was glad to see that two of the three were 888 players, and I was cheering for Jake Balsiger, because he was the short stack and I like to cheer for the underdog. However, in that epic battle he was eventually overwhelmed and had to settle for a measly couple of million dollars.
So we settled in for a long heads-up contest between Greg Merson and Jesse Sylvia. But it all ended in anti-climax. After just 17 heads-up hands, Merson pushed all-in with K5 and, to my surprise, Sylvia called with QJ. King high won the hand and Merson took out the title, the $8m, the bracelet and, for good measure, enough points to beat Phil Hellmuth in the Player of the Year contest. A good win for Greg Merson, who looked to be in control of the game pretty much all the way.
I've also been watching The Big Game on TV. Even though they're only showing highlights of previous shows, it's still fun to watch. The thing I like most about this show is the commentary. The guy who commentates on the play (I don't remember his name) is very knowledgeable about the game and really adds another dimension to the show. He's always explaining why he thinks particular plays are being made, what the players' reasoning might be, what sort of odds they are getting, and lots of other details that make it much more interesting than other poker shows. It's nice to see a show that's both entertaining and informative.
I'm still struggling to figure out a successful Fixed Limit 6-max strategy. I had a series of decent wins last month but have now reverted to my usual form in this game. Last week I tried ultra-passive pre-flop combined with more aggressive post-flop play but it didn't do me any good. When I play again tomorrow maybe I'll try the seat-of-the-pants make-it-up-as-I-go-along strategy. Or maybe the hope-to-get-lucky-strategy. Or maybe the call-everything-to-the-river strategy. Or something. Time will tell.
Another advantage of having a modern computer is that I can watch video now. I started reading poker-pro Daniel Negraneau's blog a while back, but I could only read his old stuff because he switched to video-blogs (vlogs?) earlier this year and my old computer couldn't hack showing video. So now I've started watching his more recent posts. These can be found at www.fullcontactpoker.com. Check out the first one, 'Real Talk', where he goes off at the people behind the Fulltilt Poker scam. Classic.
Thursday, 25 October 2012
I'm All-in
A played in a rather odd online sitngo tournament a few weeks back. The game had progressed fairly normally up until the point where there were just four players left on the table. There was myself and two others with medium-sized stacks and one big stack. On one particular hand, the big stack (BS) went all-in pre-flop, and everyone folded. This is not unusual behaviour for a big stack, and is called 'stealing the blinds'. In the next hand, BS went all-in again, and everyone folded. Then he went all-in pre-flop again. And again. And again. And again.
By this stage I'd realised that this player had decided to just go all-in on every hand. As I had a slightly larger stack than the other two players I decided to just wait it out and let the other two players tangle with this character. So I resolved to fold everything but pocket aces or kings, and sat back to watch the fun.
Obviously, the other two smaller stacks couldn't afford to sit and wait, so they did what I expected they would. When either one of them got a decent pre-flop hand they went all-in or called the all-in bet. On these occasions, BS usually had the worst hand and usually lost, but he persisted with his strategy. Eventually his stack-size had dwindled below that of the other three and he got eliminated on one of his all-in bets.
After he'd gone play continued in a normal way, with no more all-in bets than you would expect to see in the later stages of a sitngo. We three remaining players had a few comments to make about Mr All-in. Basically, we couldn't understand the reasoning behind such a strategy. He was the big stack. If he'd wanted to, he probably could have sat out nearly every hand and still ended up in first or second spot. Instead, he just threw his chips away. Very odd.
Although this was a pretty extreme example, I've noticed that quite a few players have 'all-in fever'. This is particularly evident in tournaments, especially in the early stages. You get players going all-in pre-flop with absolute rubbish, and other players calling them with hands that are marginal at best. I've never really understood the logic behind putting your entire stack at risk to win a handful of chips. Likewise, calling an all-in bet with middle-strength card when you have no idea of the strength of the other hand is just plain stupid to me.
Now, it may be that these types of player have decided that it's better to take a risk early on and hope for a double-up than to play for an hour or more and then get eliminated. If that's the case then I guess it's a reasonable strategy, though not one that I would want to pursue. But I suspect that this is not the case for most of these players. I think that these players are just looking to gamble. They're looking for the thrill of putting their tournament life on the line and hoping for the rush of the double-up. In other words, it's a strategy that's not designed to win the game, but rather to provide an adrenaline rush.
This is typical gambling behaviour and it may well be fuelled by televised poker games. After all, TV is always looking for the dramatic and poker shows that cover many hours of play are edited down to a few of the most dramatic moments. So inevitably we see a lot of all-in situations, lots of coin-flips, lots of eliminations and double-ups, and of course, the occasional lucky, game-saving river card. So maybe some of these players want to be like the pros and put all their chips on the line, even if the circumstances are completely different.
Myself, I limit all-in plays to certain specific circumstances. I've always been aware of the basic principal that you need a much better hand to call an all-in bet than you need to make one. However, my recent analysis of my poorest plays has revealed that I still tend to call all-in bets more than I should. So now I work on the following simple rule: don't call an all-in bet pre-flop unless you have pocket kings or aces. Of course all rules have exceptions. Where I was the big stack I might well call an all-in bet from a short stack if I had a reasonably strong hand. Likewise, if I was very short-stacked I might very well call an all-in bet from a loose player or the big stack, if I had decent pre-flop hand.
Going all-in is a bit different because the aggressor has the advantage. It can be a very useful tool both pre-flop and post-flop, provided it is used sparingly. Use it too much and it loses its value. Most of the time when I go all-in I don't want to be called. It usually happens when I think I have the best hand but I'm not sure. I figure that if I go all-in, my opponent would have to have a VERY good hand to call. Most of the time it works.
The all-in play that really puzzles me is when a player hits a monster hand (say, the nut straight) and then goes all-in. In a situation like that I'm usually thinking 'what's the most that I can bet and still get a call?'. The funny thing is, quite often someone will call one of these all-in bets, and lose most or all of their chips. Why would someone do that? Did they really think it was a bluff? Sure, sometimes players bluff at the pot, but in my experience it happens a lot less often than you might think, at the lower level games at least. There have been occasions in the past where I've hit a monster hand and gone all-in, hoping my opponent would think I was bluffing. It hardly ever works for me, even though it seems to happen quite frequently for other players. Maybe they've noticed how tight I am. Then again, I doubt that they'd have that degree of awareness.
So my guidelines are pretty simple. Stay out of the way of players who want to make the big push. Leave the hero calls to others. And then use the all-in play when the time and circumstances are right, just like other poker moves. After all, if I want to gamble all my chips on a 50/50 shot, I'll put them all on red at the roulette table.
By this stage I'd realised that this player had decided to just go all-in on every hand. As I had a slightly larger stack than the other two players I decided to just wait it out and let the other two players tangle with this character. So I resolved to fold everything but pocket aces or kings, and sat back to watch the fun.
Obviously, the other two smaller stacks couldn't afford to sit and wait, so they did what I expected they would. When either one of them got a decent pre-flop hand they went all-in or called the all-in bet. On these occasions, BS usually had the worst hand and usually lost, but he persisted with his strategy. Eventually his stack-size had dwindled below that of the other three and he got eliminated on one of his all-in bets.
After he'd gone play continued in a normal way, with no more all-in bets than you would expect to see in the later stages of a sitngo. We three remaining players had a few comments to make about Mr All-in. Basically, we couldn't understand the reasoning behind such a strategy. He was the big stack. If he'd wanted to, he probably could have sat out nearly every hand and still ended up in first or second spot. Instead, he just threw his chips away. Very odd.
Although this was a pretty extreme example, I've noticed that quite a few players have 'all-in fever'. This is particularly evident in tournaments, especially in the early stages. You get players going all-in pre-flop with absolute rubbish, and other players calling them with hands that are marginal at best. I've never really understood the logic behind putting your entire stack at risk to win a handful of chips. Likewise, calling an all-in bet with middle-strength card when you have no idea of the strength of the other hand is just plain stupid to me.
Now, it may be that these types of player have decided that it's better to take a risk early on and hope for a double-up than to play for an hour or more and then get eliminated. If that's the case then I guess it's a reasonable strategy, though not one that I would want to pursue. But I suspect that this is not the case for most of these players. I think that these players are just looking to gamble. They're looking for the thrill of putting their tournament life on the line and hoping for the rush of the double-up. In other words, it's a strategy that's not designed to win the game, but rather to provide an adrenaline rush.
This is typical gambling behaviour and it may well be fuelled by televised poker games. After all, TV is always looking for the dramatic and poker shows that cover many hours of play are edited down to a few of the most dramatic moments. So inevitably we see a lot of all-in situations, lots of coin-flips, lots of eliminations and double-ups, and of course, the occasional lucky, game-saving river card. So maybe some of these players want to be like the pros and put all their chips on the line, even if the circumstances are completely different.
Myself, I limit all-in plays to certain specific circumstances. I've always been aware of the basic principal that you need a much better hand to call an all-in bet than you need to make one. However, my recent analysis of my poorest plays has revealed that I still tend to call all-in bets more than I should. So now I work on the following simple rule: don't call an all-in bet pre-flop unless you have pocket kings or aces. Of course all rules have exceptions. Where I was the big stack I might well call an all-in bet from a short stack if I had a reasonably strong hand. Likewise, if I was very short-stacked I might very well call an all-in bet from a loose player or the big stack, if I had decent pre-flop hand.
Going all-in is a bit different because the aggressor has the advantage. It can be a very useful tool both pre-flop and post-flop, provided it is used sparingly. Use it too much and it loses its value. Most of the time when I go all-in I don't want to be called. It usually happens when I think I have the best hand but I'm not sure. I figure that if I go all-in, my opponent would have to have a VERY good hand to call. Most of the time it works.
The all-in play that really puzzles me is when a player hits a monster hand (say, the nut straight) and then goes all-in. In a situation like that I'm usually thinking 'what's the most that I can bet and still get a call?'. The funny thing is, quite often someone will call one of these all-in bets, and lose most or all of their chips. Why would someone do that? Did they really think it was a bluff? Sure, sometimes players bluff at the pot, but in my experience it happens a lot less often than you might think, at the lower level games at least. There have been occasions in the past where I've hit a monster hand and gone all-in, hoping my opponent would think I was bluffing. It hardly ever works for me, even though it seems to happen quite frequently for other players. Maybe they've noticed how tight I am. Then again, I doubt that they'd have that degree of awareness.
So my guidelines are pretty simple. Stay out of the way of players who want to make the big push. Leave the hero calls to others. And then use the all-in play when the time and circumstances are right, just like other poker moves. After all, if I want to gamble all my chips on a 50/50 shot, I'll put them all on red at the roulette table.
Sunday, 14 October 2012
News Briefs
I've been watching edited highlights of the World Series of Poker Main Event over the last few weeks. I finally worked out that Sky TV was showing it late on Sunday nights, so I started recording it. They started with Day 3 and now we're down to Day 7, with just 29 players left. I've been careful not to look at any poker news sites so I don't know who's going to make the final table. Although they usually call these players the 'November Nine', I think the final table is actually played at the end of October this year. As usual, all the big name professional players are out of it. At least my favourite pro, Daniel Negraneau made another deep run this year, before getting knocked out by actor/comedian Kevin Pollack. As always, it's highly entertaining stuff. Over 8 million dollars first prize. A nice payday for someone.
My own results continue to be in the negative zone, although the downward slide has levelled out a bit. My bankroll is still below the break-even point and I have now played ten online tournaments in a row without cashing. Sitngos have been up and down, but mostly down.
On the plus side, I'm actually doing pretty well in six-max fixed limit holdem. Since dropping to a lower level game I've won four sessions in a row, more than doubling my buy-in in two of those. I really don't see how this sudden success can be down to the drop in level as the type of play is much the same, and many of the same players from the higher level can also be found at this level. So I figure I must be getting used to this game type. When I play next I'll go back up to the next level and see what happens.
My wife and I went and played in the NPPL tournament at our club on Saturday night. I just felt like playing some live poker and approached it as more of a night out than a serious game. As expected, there was some incredibly loose play. One example: a player raises THIRTEEN TIMES the big blind with pocket aces and gets called by another player with K 4! Of course - you guessed it - the player with K 4 hit two pair and won. My wife and I both played for a couple of hours before getting knocked out, but it was just a bit of fun. However, she says that certain players at her table seemed to have much larger stacks after the break when the chip denominations were changed. That's disconcerting and I guess it's another good reason not to play in this game.
I went on holiday a few weeks ago and took a poker book with me to read. I originally wanted to take Doyle Brunson's Super System, but couldn't get it. So I took Barry Greenstein's Ace on the River. It's not really aimed at novices like me (the subtitle is An Advanced Poker Guide), but it was still an interesting read. It sheds a lot of light on the fascinating world of the professional poker player. Greenstein comes across as an odd mix of ruthless poker professional, philanthropist and philosopher. Or maybe that's what he wants us to believe. Anyway, I enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone with a general interest in the world of poker.
Another TV show I've been watching is The Big Game. This is a great concept. A novice player (called the 'loose cannon') is given a $50,000 buy-in to a ring game, and goes up against five professional players. After 150 hands, if the loose cannon has more than the original $50k, they get to keep the balance. It's a lot of fun to watch and involves some very big names in the poker world (including Daniel Negraneau). This show is on TV3 and they seem to be doing the same thing as Sky does with its poker shows. It was on for a while earlier in the year for a few weeks, then it stopped without warning, and now it seems to have started again in the middle of a series. This series is particularly good because Phil 'the poker brat' Hellmuth is playing and it's always entertaining to see him throw a tantrum when things don't go his way.
I got an email from a ghost today. This message was from a poker site calling itself 'Fulltilt Poker'. Sounds vaguely familiar. Wasn't that the site that was closed down by the FBI a couple of years ago? Didn't they have their licence revoked by the Gaming Authority of whatever tax refuge they were operating out of? Didn't they meet all requests for information from their customers with a resounding silence? Well, apparently they are starting up again on November 6th. And they are inviting all old account-holders to come and play. Yeah right. Have I got 'sucker' stamped on my forehead?
My own results continue to be in the negative zone, although the downward slide has levelled out a bit. My bankroll is still below the break-even point and I have now played ten online tournaments in a row without cashing. Sitngos have been up and down, but mostly down.
On the plus side, I'm actually doing pretty well in six-max fixed limit holdem. Since dropping to a lower level game I've won four sessions in a row, more than doubling my buy-in in two of those. I really don't see how this sudden success can be down to the drop in level as the type of play is much the same, and many of the same players from the higher level can also be found at this level. So I figure I must be getting used to this game type. When I play next I'll go back up to the next level and see what happens.
My wife and I went and played in the NPPL tournament at our club on Saturday night. I just felt like playing some live poker and approached it as more of a night out than a serious game. As expected, there was some incredibly loose play. One example: a player raises THIRTEEN TIMES the big blind with pocket aces and gets called by another player with K 4! Of course - you guessed it - the player with K 4 hit two pair and won. My wife and I both played for a couple of hours before getting knocked out, but it was just a bit of fun. However, she says that certain players at her table seemed to have much larger stacks after the break when the chip denominations were changed. That's disconcerting and I guess it's another good reason not to play in this game.
I went on holiday a few weeks ago and took a poker book with me to read. I originally wanted to take Doyle Brunson's Super System, but couldn't get it. So I took Barry Greenstein's Ace on the River. It's not really aimed at novices like me (the subtitle is An Advanced Poker Guide), but it was still an interesting read. It sheds a lot of light on the fascinating world of the professional poker player. Greenstein comes across as an odd mix of ruthless poker professional, philanthropist and philosopher. Or maybe that's what he wants us to believe. Anyway, I enjoyed it and recommend it to anyone with a general interest in the world of poker.
Another TV show I've been watching is The Big Game. This is a great concept. A novice player (called the 'loose cannon') is given a $50,000 buy-in to a ring game, and goes up against five professional players. After 150 hands, if the loose cannon has more than the original $50k, they get to keep the balance. It's a lot of fun to watch and involves some very big names in the poker world (including Daniel Negraneau). This show is on TV3 and they seem to be doing the same thing as Sky does with its poker shows. It was on for a while earlier in the year for a few weeks, then it stopped without warning, and now it seems to have started again in the middle of a series. This series is particularly good because Phil 'the poker brat' Hellmuth is playing and it's always entertaining to see him throw a tantrum when things don't go his way.
I got an email from a ghost today. This message was from a poker site calling itself 'Fulltilt Poker'. Sounds vaguely familiar. Wasn't that the site that was closed down by the FBI a couple of years ago? Didn't they have their licence revoked by the Gaming Authority of whatever tax refuge they were operating out of? Didn't they meet all requests for information from their customers with a resounding silence? Well, apparently they are starting up again on November 6th. And they are inviting all old account-holders to come and play. Yeah right. Have I got 'sucker' stamped on my forehead?
Monday, 1 October 2012
A Game of Two Halves
I played in a rather unusual game of fixed-limit Holdem last week. Unlike most of these games there was some very aggressive raising and re-raising, both before and after the flop. At first I thought I'd stumbled upon a table full of aggressive players, but after a while I realised it was largely down to one individual. Although there were a number of players raising and re-raising in almost every hand, it was in response to the tactics of this one player - let's call him Mr A. It didn't take me long to figure out that a pre-flop raise or re-raise from Mr A wasn't any indicator of the strength of his hand. Therefore, a further raise was often correct with any decent hand, after which Mr A would cap the betting. The other players had also figured this out, so the betting was often capped pre-flop, with three or more players in the pot. This made for a real action game.
Some examples:
I pick up AA and raise and re-raise until the betting is capped. There are four callers! Much to my surprise, my aces hold up against four other hands.
With K8 I call a re-raise by Mr A. The flop is T 8 5, giving me middle pair. I bet and get called on the flop, turn and river. Mr A had 4 2. Middle pair wins.
With AJ I raise and the betting is capped by Mr A. I call him all the way to the river with only ace high. He shows K2 for a pair of twos and wins.
I get J9 and keep calling raises until the betting is capped. In a normal game I probably would have folded to the first raise, but there are five players in the pot and I figure I have the odds to call. No hit on the flop so I fold.
I don't know whether Mr A always plays this way or whether or not it usually works for him, but on this particular occasion it didn't. I came into the game with 100 blinds and at that point Mr A had about 200 blinds. A couple of hours later Mr A lost his last few chips and left the table. I had doubled up.
After Mr A left, the table settled down into the usual passive play you generally find in these games. Players who had previously been raising and re-raising with all sorts of hands pre-flop were now happy to just call and see the flop. This confirmed my assumption that the other players had adjusted their play to accommodate the 'action man'. I left the table after a couple of hours and found that I'd lost about 30 blinds since Mr A left. So I actually did a lot better on the aggressive table than the passive table.
Some of the differences I noted about 'aggro FLH' are as follows.
*You can call raises with marginal hands because of the size of the pot.
*You're less likely to limp in with poor hands because of the likelihood of a raise.
*You seldom raise with a good hand because someone else will probably raise for you.
*It's harder to judge the strength of other players' hands.
*It's harder to defend the blinds.
*You often have the pot odds to keep calling post-flop.
Although I did pretty well in the aggressive phase of this game, I don't think I'd like to play in this type of game too often. It seems to me that there is the potential for both big wins and big losses. This time I got the wins and Mr A got the losses. If we meet again, it could just as easily be the other way around.
Some examples:
I pick up AA and raise and re-raise until the betting is capped. There are four callers! Much to my surprise, my aces hold up against four other hands.
With K8 I call a re-raise by Mr A. The flop is T 8 5, giving me middle pair. I bet and get called on the flop, turn and river. Mr A had 4 2. Middle pair wins.
With AJ I raise and the betting is capped by Mr A. I call him all the way to the river with only ace high. He shows K2 for a pair of twos and wins.
I get J9 and keep calling raises until the betting is capped. In a normal game I probably would have folded to the first raise, but there are five players in the pot and I figure I have the odds to call. No hit on the flop so I fold.
I don't know whether Mr A always plays this way or whether or not it usually works for him, but on this particular occasion it didn't. I came into the game with 100 blinds and at that point Mr A had about 200 blinds. A couple of hours later Mr A lost his last few chips and left the table. I had doubled up.
After Mr A left, the table settled down into the usual passive play you generally find in these games. Players who had previously been raising and re-raising with all sorts of hands pre-flop were now happy to just call and see the flop. This confirmed my assumption that the other players had adjusted their play to accommodate the 'action man'. I left the table after a couple of hours and found that I'd lost about 30 blinds since Mr A left. So I actually did a lot better on the aggressive table than the passive table.
Some of the differences I noted about 'aggro FLH' are as follows.
*You can call raises with marginal hands because of the size of the pot.
*You're less likely to limp in with poor hands because of the likelihood of a raise.
*You seldom raise with a good hand because someone else will probably raise for you.
*It's harder to judge the strength of other players' hands.
*It's harder to defend the blinds.
*You often have the pot odds to keep calling post-flop.
Although I did pretty well in the aggressive phase of this game, I don't think I'd like to play in this type of game too often. It seems to me that there is the potential for both big wins and big losses. This time I got the wins and Mr A got the losses. If we meet again, it could just as easily be the other way around.
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
Analyse That
Having already come to some conclusions about my poker game choices, I thought I'd take a closer look at my results from the two types of game that have yielded the best results.
Looking at single table tournaments (sitngos), I can see that the winning sessions are quite frequent, with many periods of successive wins. Where there are losing sessions, they usually occur singly, or occasionally in groups of two or three. Until recently, the biggest run of losses I had was eight in a row, but the next highest group was only four losses in a row. Then, in July/August, I had the following sequence: 5L, 1W, 8L, 1W, 8L. Fortunately, this is followed by three winning sessions in a row. It's starting to look like I hit a rough patch. Although it's early days, I seem to be returning to my usual W/L pattern in these games.
In multi-table tournaments, listing the number of losing games between each tournament cash, the pattern looks like this: 1,4,2,WW,1,WW,7,16,3,6,WW,1,1,WW,2,1,(7). Where there is a comma, there is a single win and WW means two wins in a row. The number in brackets is my current string of losses. It should be noted that any cash is counted as a win, even if it is barely a money-back win. It seems to me that I am doing pretty well over-all, and there's no need to panic just yet. I've had a run of seven losses before; in fact my worst run amounted to sixteen losses in a row. I have no desire to break that particular record, and I think it's unlikely that I will. Patience is required.
As if all that wasn't enough, I've also been looking at the notes that I sometimes make during games to see if I can detect any patterns. After trolling through these comments, I've come up with a list of my most frequent mistakes. Going from least frequent to most frequent, here they are:
**Calling all-in pre-flop with KQ or a weak Ace
**Trying to bluff a donkey
**Calling an all-in bet with top pair or less
**Playing marginal hands from early position
**Pushing all-in in the face of a raise or re-raise
**Calling an all-in bet post-flop when an obvious draw appears on the board.
It seems to me that the best thing I can do to improve my game is to stop calling all-in bets, unless I have
(a) the nuts or
(b) a very good reason to believe that my opponent is bluffing.
When you have a good hand it can be hard to believe that someone has drawn a better one. If you raise pre-flop with AK or QQ and someone re-raises or goes all-in, you just don't want to believe that they have AA or KK. When you finally hit top pair on the flop and get re-raised, you don't want to know about overpairs or trips. When you flop trips and your big bets get called until a third heart hits the board on the river, you don't want to give your opponent credit for his rivered flush. Nevertheless, it's something I'm going to have to learn to do. Discipline is required.
As for playing marginal hands out of position, I do it far less often than other players. Even so, poker is a game of information, and you can't get much information from early position. I need to keep an eye on that bad habit.
Finally, I need to keep reminding myself of the golden rule: YOU CAN'T BLUFF A DONKEY.
Looking at single table tournaments (sitngos), I can see that the winning sessions are quite frequent, with many periods of successive wins. Where there are losing sessions, they usually occur singly, or occasionally in groups of two or three. Until recently, the biggest run of losses I had was eight in a row, but the next highest group was only four losses in a row. Then, in July/August, I had the following sequence: 5L, 1W, 8L, 1W, 8L. Fortunately, this is followed by three winning sessions in a row. It's starting to look like I hit a rough patch. Although it's early days, I seem to be returning to my usual W/L pattern in these games.
In multi-table tournaments, listing the number of losing games between each tournament cash, the pattern looks like this: 1,4,2,WW,1,WW,7,16,3,6,WW,1,1,WW,2,1,(7). Where there is a comma, there is a single win and WW means two wins in a row. The number in brackets is my current string of losses. It should be noted that any cash is counted as a win, even if it is barely a money-back win. It seems to me that I am doing pretty well over-all, and there's no need to panic just yet. I've had a run of seven losses before; in fact my worst run amounted to sixteen losses in a row. I have no desire to break that particular record, and I think it's unlikely that I will. Patience is required.
As if all that wasn't enough, I've also been looking at the notes that I sometimes make during games to see if I can detect any patterns. After trolling through these comments, I've come up with a list of my most frequent mistakes. Going from least frequent to most frequent, here they are:
**Calling all-in pre-flop with KQ or a weak Ace
**Trying to bluff a donkey
**Calling an all-in bet with top pair or less
**Playing marginal hands from early position
**Pushing all-in in the face of a raise or re-raise
**Calling an all-in bet post-flop when an obvious draw appears on the board.
It seems to me that the best thing I can do to improve my game is to stop calling all-in bets, unless I have
(a) the nuts or
(b) a very good reason to believe that my opponent is bluffing.
When you have a good hand it can be hard to believe that someone has drawn a better one. If you raise pre-flop with AK or QQ and someone re-raises or goes all-in, you just don't want to believe that they have AA or KK. When you finally hit top pair on the flop and get re-raised, you don't want to know about overpairs or trips. When you flop trips and your big bets get called until a third heart hits the board on the river, you don't want to give your opponent credit for his rivered flush. Nevertheless, it's something I'm going to have to learn to do. Discipline is required.
As for playing marginal hands out of position, I do it far less often than other players. Even so, poker is a game of information, and you can't get much information from early position. I need to keep an eye on that bad habit.
Finally, I need to keep reminding myself of the golden rule: YOU CAN'T BLUFF A DONKEY.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Analyse This
I've been keeping records of my poker results for almost four years now. I started on the advice in some poker book I was reading and the original idea was to keep track of my overall progress. Since then, I've added a lot of detail to my record-keeping, the idea being to be able to compare my results in different game types and buy-in levels. Considering my recent loss of form, I thought now would be a good time to try and make some sense of all that information. Maybe it will help me to find a way of at least slowing the current downward trend.
First, the big picture. I've been record-keeping since October 2008. Nowadays I use a measure of big blinds won or lost to gauge my results, as this allows a comparison between games at different buy-in levels. However, I started out just measuring dollars won/lost, so I'll use that measure for the whole period. I just have to bear in mind that that will tend to skew the results towards the earlier period when I was playing in the more expensive live games.
In those early days I was buying in a lot and not winning much, so my bankroll built up a big negative balance. However, I eventually started winning more than I lost and in time I started approaching the break-even point. In September of last year I finally hit positive territory and I stayed in the black until last month. The downhill slide that started in July dropped me below the break-even point and ever since then I've been flirting with that line, sometimes being above it and sometimes below. In July I lost 21% of my total bankroll and in August, another 19%!
Looking back at the last four years of poker play, I can see that my games fall roughly into three periods. Although these periods overlap each other to some degree, they still provide a useful basis for comparison. Period 1, from October '08 to March '10, was dominated by live ring games, usually with a large buy-in. Period 2, from February '10 to October '11, was dominated by live Texas Holdem tournaments, with somewhat cheaper buy-in levels. Period 3, from February '11 to August '12, was the online poker period, involving a variety of low-buy-in games. So, looking at each of these periods in turn, how did I do?
1. THE RING GAMES. The only game from this period that shows a positive result is my home game. This was an occasional spread limit dealer's choice game that I played with some friends. Even though there was a significant rake in this game, I still did pretty well over-all. The other games were all in the negative. I had a small loss in the casual 9-card games played at a local pool tournament. But Texas Holdem games yielded the biggest losses. I had moderate losses in both live and online TH no limit. The online games were played on Fulltilt Poker and I started at a much higher level than I should have. The live games were played at the casino and were the most expensive games I've ever played in, typically costing around $100 to buy in. But the worst results of all came from three games of TH fixed limit that I organised at my local club. The total loss from these three games alone wiped out the gains from the home games. Fortunately for me, I couldn't find enough players to keep these games going.
2. LIVE TOURNAMENTS. These tournaments were invariably pub games, typically costing $10 to $20, usually with rebuys and add-ons. I played in these on a regular basis for about a year and a half, starting out badly but eventually chalking up a few wins. Overall, I had a good result with these games, about the same as that from the home games.
3. ONLINE GAMES. The online games are much cheaper to play in than the live games, so their results don't have such a large effect on the overall result. Of the four online game types played in this period I've had the best results from Multi-Table Tournaments. The win from these games is comparable to that from the home games and the pub tourneys. Of the three other game types, I've had a moderate win from SitnGos and a moderate loss from Fixed Limit TH, so these two more or less cancel each other out. The worst results from this period come from Omaha. The Pot Limit Omaha that I played online last year yielded a significant loss, as did the handful of Spread Limit games that I played live. Taken overall, this period showed a neutral result.
So, what can I learn from all this?
Well, the obvious conclusion is somewhat surprising to me. I've always preferred playing in ring games rather than tournaments. I consider ring games to be 'real' poker. I seek out tournament structures that are deep-stacked, and therefore closer in style to ring games. But I actually have much better results from tournaments.
My best results have come from Texas Holdem no limit tournaments, both live and online, single and multi-table. The only other significant positive comes from the Spread Limit home game. Unfortunately, that game died out some time ago and is unlikely to return.
The worst results come from ring games, Texas Holdem and Omaha, live and online, all limit structures. You could knock me down with a feather.
Two important principles of poker are bankroll management and game selection. It seems to me that much of my losses derive from playing games that I haven't mastered at levels that are too high. Even though my recent losses have been in tourneys, things would not look so bad if I hadn't lost so much in previous years, playing in poorly chosen games. From now on I'm going to concentrate on my strengths. Although I still fully intend to keep trying different versions of the game, any new games I try will be at the absolute lowest level. Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away at the online tournaments.
After all, spring is in the air, the kowhai is in flower and the birds are building their nests. What better time to spend hours staring at a computer screen?
First, the big picture. I've been record-keeping since October 2008. Nowadays I use a measure of big blinds won or lost to gauge my results, as this allows a comparison between games at different buy-in levels. However, I started out just measuring dollars won/lost, so I'll use that measure for the whole period. I just have to bear in mind that that will tend to skew the results towards the earlier period when I was playing in the more expensive live games.
In those early days I was buying in a lot and not winning much, so my bankroll built up a big negative balance. However, I eventually started winning more than I lost and in time I started approaching the break-even point. In September of last year I finally hit positive territory and I stayed in the black until last month. The downhill slide that started in July dropped me below the break-even point and ever since then I've been flirting with that line, sometimes being above it and sometimes below. In July I lost 21% of my total bankroll and in August, another 19%!
Looking back at the last four years of poker play, I can see that my games fall roughly into three periods. Although these periods overlap each other to some degree, they still provide a useful basis for comparison. Period 1, from October '08 to March '10, was dominated by live ring games, usually with a large buy-in. Period 2, from February '10 to October '11, was dominated by live Texas Holdem tournaments, with somewhat cheaper buy-in levels. Period 3, from February '11 to August '12, was the online poker period, involving a variety of low-buy-in games. So, looking at each of these periods in turn, how did I do?
1. THE RING GAMES. The only game from this period that shows a positive result is my home game. This was an occasional spread limit dealer's choice game that I played with some friends. Even though there was a significant rake in this game, I still did pretty well over-all. The other games were all in the negative. I had a small loss in the casual 9-card games played at a local pool tournament. But Texas Holdem games yielded the biggest losses. I had moderate losses in both live and online TH no limit. The online games were played on Fulltilt Poker and I started at a much higher level than I should have. The live games were played at the casino and were the most expensive games I've ever played in, typically costing around $100 to buy in. But the worst results of all came from three games of TH fixed limit that I organised at my local club. The total loss from these three games alone wiped out the gains from the home games. Fortunately for me, I couldn't find enough players to keep these games going.
2. LIVE TOURNAMENTS. These tournaments were invariably pub games, typically costing $10 to $20, usually with rebuys and add-ons. I played in these on a regular basis for about a year and a half, starting out badly but eventually chalking up a few wins. Overall, I had a good result with these games, about the same as that from the home games.
3. ONLINE GAMES. The online games are much cheaper to play in than the live games, so their results don't have such a large effect on the overall result. Of the four online game types played in this period I've had the best results from Multi-Table Tournaments. The win from these games is comparable to that from the home games and the pub tourneys. Of the three other game types, I've had a moderate win from SitnGos and a moderate loss from Fixed Limit TH, so these two more or less cancel each other out. The worst results from this period come from Omaha. The Pot Limit Omaha that I played online last year yielded a significant loss, as did the handful of Spread Limit games that I played live. Taken overall, this period showed a neutral result.
So, what can I learn from all this?
Well, the obvious conclusion is somewhat surprising to me. I've always preferred playing in ring games rather than tournaments. I consider ring games to be 'real' poker. I seek out tournament structures that are deep-stacked, and therefore closer in style to ring games. But I actually have much better results from tournaments.
My best results have come from Texas Holdem no limit tournaments, both live and online, single and multi-table. The only other significant positive comes from the Spread Limit home game. Unfortunately, that game died out some time ago and is unlikely to return.
The worst results come from ring games, Texas Holdem and Omaha, live and online, all limit structures. You could knock me down with a feather.
Two important principles of poker are bankroll management and game selection. It seems to me that much of my losses derive from playing games that I haven't mastered at levels that are too high. Even though my recent losses have been in tourneys, things would not look so bad if I hadn't lost so much in previous years, playing in poorly chosen games. From now on I'm going to concentrate on my strengths. Although I still fully intend to keep trying different versions of the game, any new games I try will be at the absolute lowest level. Meanwhile, I'll keep plugging away at the online tournaments.
After all, spring is in the air, the kowhai is in flower and the birds are building their nests. What better time to spend hours staring at a computer screen?
Friday, 17 August 2012
Twenty Questions
I was watching a TV doco the other day called 'Stephen Hawking's Grand Design', in which the great physicist asked the question: 'what is the meaning of life'. Well, I have a few questions of my own; perhaps not as weighty as this, but important questions nevertheless. So, here they are:
Why is Sky TV unwilling or unable to label their poker shows so that viewers know whether or not they are worth recording or watching?
What is the point of going all-in and risking your entire stack just so you can win the blinds?
Is KQ the most over-rated hand in Texas Holdem?
What makes Peter Jackson think he can stretch the material in The Hobbit to make THREE movies?
Am I a reasonably good poker player who has hit a sudden downswing?
Am I an average poker player who has been enjoying a lucky period, but has now entered an unlucky period?
Am I a poor player who has been on a long upswing but is now returning to his normal form?
If a Christian stripper gets slapped on the arse, does she have to turn the other cheek?
If you have a medium to big stack, why would you call an all-in pre-flop bet with anything less than KK?
What should you do when the board pairs?
How likely is it for a player to win a satelite tournament and then do well enough in the main tournament to make the money?
What's the point of making a sequel to Into the Blue without Jessica Alba in that little blue bikini?
Should I loosen up my tournament pre-flop starting hands?
Should I play more aggressively in the early stages of tournaments?
What's so great about small pocket pairs?
Just how big does a hand have to be before it's safe to slowplay it?
Do agnostic dyslexic insomniacs lie awake at night wondering if there is a Dog?
If my bankroll ever reached the point where I could afford to play in one of the Sky City long weekend tournaments, would I be using a walking frame to get to the table?
Seriously, how can you call a big pre-flop bet with K7 offsuit?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Why did I call this post 'Twenty Questions'?
Why is Sky TV unwilling or unable to label their poker shows so that viewers know whether or not they are worth recording or watching?
What is the point of going all-in and risking your entire stack just so you can win the blinds?
Is KQ the most over-rated hand in Texas Holdem?
What makes Peter Jackson think he can stretch the material in The Hobbit to make THREE movies?
Am I a reasonably good poker player who has hit a sudden downswing?
Am I an average poker player who has been enjoying a lucky period, but has now entered an unlucky period?
Am I a poor player who has been on a long upswing but is now returning to his normal form?
If a Christian stripper gets slapped on the arse, does she have to turn the other cheek?
If you have a medium to big stack, why would you call an all-in pre-flop bet with anything less than KK?
What should you do when the board pairs?
How likely is it for a player to win a satelite tournament and then do well enough in the main tournament to make the money?
What's the point of making a sequel to Into the Blue without Jessica Alba in that little blue bikini?
Should I loosen up my tournament pre-flop starting hands?
Should I play more aggressively in the early stages of tournaments?
What's so great about small pocket pairs?
Just how big does a hand have to be before it's safe to slowplay it?
Do agnostic dyslexic insomniacs lie awake at night wondering if there is a Dog?
If my bankroll ever reached the point where I could afford to play in one of the Sky City long weekend tournaments, would I be using a walking frame to get to the table?
Seriously, how can you call a big pre-flop bet with K7 offsuit?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
Why did I call this post 'Twenty Questions'?
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Swimming in the Fishpond
Call me, call me. Call me call me anytime. Blondie
I was playing in an online Sitngo game last night (yet another in a long line of losses) when I came up against a 'superdonkey'. This guy - let's call him MrX - was calling anything with absolute rubbish. The first time I was in a pot with him I hit top pair on the flop. I bet 3/4 of the pot and he called. On the turn I bet 3/4 of the pot and he called. On the river I got worried that he was slow-playing a monster hand so I checked. To my surprise he also checked and revealed nothing more than a busted inside straight draw.
Another player - let's call him MrY - wasn't so lucky. He kept going up against MrX with big hands and getting beaten by absolute rags, usually on the river. When his AA was beaten by some rubbish like Q3, he went ballistic. He started abusing MrY and calling him all sorts of names, most of them unprintable. In the end he went all-in with a marginal hand against his nemesis and was eliminated. Not long afterwards I was knocked out (no, not by MrX) and went to a new game. MrY was in this game too and he was still going on about the 'donkeyfish' on the other table.
This sort of thing happens all the time in low stakes games. I've been going over my game notes recently, and here are some of the comments about particular hands:
*? How do you call a 4x raise with K7 offsuit? [then a few lines down...]
*? How do you call a 3x raise with K7 o?
* All-in with top pair and beaten by fish with J7 - two pair. This player previously went all-in with J5 against KK and won!
* Getting short-stacked. Raise x2 with A8. Called. Flop A J 6.... all-in. Beaten by J6! How do you play against that bullshit?
* All-in, short-stacked with AT. Called by K3. I get trip Aces, they get flush.
This sort of thing used to really burn me up, just like it did MrY, although I don't get abusive towards other players. The thing is, if you're going to swim with the fishes in low level games, you have to learn to cope with donkey plays. It comes with the territory. Getting mad is going to affect your game and lead to bad decisions.
The point is that MrX was making bad decisions but getting lucky. But luck is only ever going to take you so far. Eventually, those bad plays will result in bad losses. On the other hand, if you keep making correct decisions, you will be rewarded, in the long run. The problem is, if you are sitting at a table full of MrX's cousins, it can get very frustrating. If you're playing against the dumb-luck tag-team it can be hard to keep your cool. But if you keep plugging away at it, the results will come.
For example, I know that if I have an open-ended straight draw, the odds of hitting that straight with two cards to come are about 3-1 against. I also know that the odds with one card to come are around 5-1 against. So if someone bets big or if the pot is small, then I don't have the odds and I don't call. No matter how many times you see someone call those big bets and then hit their straight on the river, you know the odds were against them and they just got lucky. If a lot of players are making foolish calls then some of them are bound to get lucky.
There's no point in going on tilt because someone calls your big bets and then draws out on you on the river. For every time that happens, there are multiple times that the calling player loses a lot of chips. It's just that we tend to remember those bad beats and forget about all the other times we had a nice collect. By the same principal, the fish who is always chasing that inside straight will always remember the one time they hit their straight on the river, and not the five times they missed it.
So my advise to MrY is to cultivate a Buddha-like calm. When you get beaten by the ragking, refrain from making comments about has mother or using words that get turned into a string of **** by the software. Just type in "nice hand". The sarcasm will go right over MrX's head.
My advise to MrX is very simple. Call me. Please.
I was playing in an online Sitngo game last night (yet another in a long line of losses) when I came up against a 'superdonkey'. This guy - let's call him MrX - was calling anything with absolute rubbish. The first time I was in a pot with him I hit top pair on the flop. I bet 3/4 of the pot and he called. On the turn I bet 3/4 of the pot and he called. On the river I got worried that he was slow-playing a monster hand so I checked. To my surprise he also checked and revealed nothing more than a busted inside straight draw.
Another player - let's call him MrY - wasn't so lucky. He kept going up against MrX with big hands and getting beaten by absolute rags, usually on the river. When his AA was beaten by some rubbish like Q3, he went ballistic. He started abusing MrY and calling him all sorts of names, most of them unprintable. In the end he went all-in with a marginal hand against his nemesis and was eliminated. Not long afterwards I was knocked out (no, not by MrX) and went to a new game. MrY was in this game too and he was still going on about the 'donkeyfish' on the other table.
This sort of thing happens all the time in low stakes games. I've been going over my game notes recently, and here are some of the comments about particular hands:
*? How do you call a 4x raise with K7 offsuit? [then a few lines down...]
*? How do you call a 3x raise with K7 o?
* All-in with top pair and beaten by fish with J7 - two pair. This player previously went all-in with J5 against KK and won!
* Getting short-stacked. Raise x2 with A8. Called. Flop A J 6.... all-in. Beaten by J6! How do you play against that bullshit?
* All-in, short-stacked with AT. Called by K3. I get trip Aces, they get flush.
This sort of thing used to really burn me up, just like it did MrY, although I don't get abusive towards other players. The thing is, if you're going to swim with the fishes in low level games, you have to learn to cope with donkey plays. It comes with the territory. Getting mad is going to affect your game and lead to bad decisions.
The point is that MrX was making bad decisions but getting lucky. But luck is only ever going to take you so far. Eventually, those bad plays will result in bad losses. On the other hand, if you keep making correct decisions, you will be rewarded, in the long run. The problem is, if you are sitting at a table full of MrX's cousins, it can get very frustrating. If you're playing against the dumb-luck tag-team it can be hard to keep your cool. But if you keep plugging away at it, the results will come.
For example, I know that if I have an open-ended straight draw, the odds of hitting that straight with two cards to come are about 3-1 against. I also know that the odds with one card to come are around 5-1 against. So if someone bets big or if the pot is small, then I don't have the odds and I don't call. No matter how many times you see someone call those big bets and then hit their straight on the river, you know the odds were against them and they just got lucky. If a lot of players are making foolish calls then some of them are bound to get lucky.
There's no point in going on tilt because someone calls your big bets and then draws out on you on the river. For every time that happens, there are multiple times that the calling player loses a lot of chips. It's just that we tend to remember those bad beats and forget about all the other times we had a nice collect. By the same principal, the fish who is always chasing that inside straight will always remember the one time they hit their straight on the river, and not the five times they missed it.
So my advise to MrY is to cultivate a Buddha-like calm. When you get beaten by the ragking, refrain from making comments about has mother or using words that get turned into a string of **** by the software. Just type in "nice hand". The sarcasm will go right over MrX's head.
My advise to MrX is very simple. Call me. Please.
Tuesday, 31 July 2012
July Results
A man walks into a doctor's surgery on Monday morning. The doctor says, 'I have good news and bad news".
'OK', says the patient, 'give me the good news'.
'Well', says the doctor, 'according to these results, you have two days to live'.
'Oh my God', says the patient, 'if that's the good news, then what's the bad news!'
'Well', says the doctor, 'I got these results on Friday.'
Well, the good news is that I actually came out ahead on my Fixed Limit Holdem games; just barely ahead. I played six of these games in July, losing four and winning two, although some of the losses were quite small. Of the last three FLH games, I won 2/3 so maybe I'm beginning to get the hang of it. But let's not jump to conclusions just yet.
As for Multi-Table Tournaments, I only managed to play in three of these this month and got knocked out pretty early in all of them. My best result was 29th place. So that amounted to a moderate loss.
And now for the bad news. I played in 23 SitnGo Tournaments in July, and cashed in four of them, two of those being first place. That's right: 4/23. The worst part is, I don't know why I've been doing so badly in SNGs this month. As far as I'm aware I haven't been playing any differently than before. I have a pretty straightforward strategy that I employ when I play in these single-table tournaments, and it has been pretty effective in the past. But not this month.
Overall, I've lost about 20% of my bankroll in July. In fact my bankroll hasn't been this low since the end of April. So all the gains I've made since I started reporting my monthly results have been lost. This is what you might call a significant setback. My plans for domination of the poker world may have to go on hold for now, so Phil Ivey, wherever you are, you can relax.
So I guess I need a recovery plan for August. Thinking about it though, it really amounts to more of the same. I can't see any glaring holes in my SNG strategy, and I am still ahead for this game type for the year overall. What I will be doing though, is going through my game notes for the year and trying to identify weaknesses in my game. And of course if I can continue to improve in FLH games, that would be a big help. Another win or two in this game type and it'll be time to move up to the next level.
So the final verdict is; down but not out. I'm looking forward to August and Everything After.
Post Script...
As expected Sky Sport's poker coverage is all over the place. Last year they showed a lot of the World Series of Poker Main Event live, and then replayed edited highlights of the whole thing over several months. This year, they've shown a big money tournament called the Big Drop, but haven't showed a single minute of the Main Event. Now that it's over, they've started showing repeats of last year's highlights! LOL!
'OK', says the patient, 'give me the good news'.
'Well', says the doctor, 'according to these results, you have two days to live'.
'Oh my God', says the patient, 'if that's the good news, then what's the bad news!'
'Well', says the doctor, 'I got these results on Friday.'
Well, the good news is that I actually came out ahead on my Fixed Limit Holdem games; just barely ahead. I played six of these games in July, losing four and winning two, although some of the losses were quite small. Of the last three FLH games, I won 2/3 so maybe I'm beginning to get the hang of it. But let's not jump to conclusions just yet.
As for Multi-Table Tournaments, I only managed to play in three of these this month and got knocked out pretty early in all of them. My best result was 29th place. So that amounted to a moderate loss.
And now for the bad news. I played in 23 SitnGo Tournaments in July, and cashed in four of them, two of those being first place. That's right: 4/23. The worst part is, I don't know why I've been doing so badly in SNGs this month. As far as I'm aware I haven't been playing any differently than before. I have a pretty straightforward strategy that I employ when I play in these single-table tournaments, and it has been pretty effective in the past. But not this month.
Overall, I've lost about 20% of my bankroll in July. In fact my bankroll hasn't been this low since the end of April. So all the gains I've made since I started reporting my monthly results have been lost. This is what you might call a significant setback. My plans for domination of the poker world may have to go on hold for now, so Phil Ivey, wherever you are, you can relax.
So I guess I need a recovery plan for August. Thinking about it though, it really amounts to more of the same. I can't see any glaring holes in my SNG strategy, and I am still ahead for this game type for the year overall. What I will be doing though, is going through my game notes for the year and trying to identify weaknesses in my game. And of course if I can continue to improve in FLH games, that would be a big help. Another win or two in this game type and it'll be time to move up to the next level.
So the final verdict is; down but not out. I'm looking forward to August and Everything After.
Post Script...
As expected Sky Sport's poker coverage is all over the place. Last year they showed a lot of the World Series of Poker Main Event live, and then replayed edited highlights of the whole thing over several months. This year, they've shown a big money tournament called the Big Drop, but haven't showed a single minute of the Main Event. Now that it's over, they've started showing repeats of last year's highlights! LOL!
Monday, 23 July 2012
Mid-winter Nosedive
I've got those mid-winter poker downswing blues...
My results have gone from encouraging to discouraging since the end of June. So far, for the month of July (as at the 23rd), I've played in 16 poker games and had a positive result in two of them. This is very bad. All of a sudden I find it virtually impossible to reach the money in a Sitngo game. And as if to confirm my reversal in fortune, I actually won in a Fixed Limit Holdem game!
This is the first time I've hit such a sudden and comprehensive downswing and it's really bugging me. My 888 balance has sunk so low that I'm going to have to make a deposit, something I haven't had to do since I started playing on that site. My old reliable Sitngo strategy no longer seems to be working and I can't seem to get any traction in MTTs.
Ok, so I know that there will always be ups and downs, but the dramatic nature of this change has got me wondering. Have I just hit a downswing, or am I actually coming off a lucky period and returning to my true form? Surely not.
I guess the only thing to do is to keep plugging away. Only time will tell how well or how poorly I'm really playing. The point is that poker is a fun and challenging game, even when the results are depressing. At least that's what I keep telling myself as I watch my chips slide away across the table. Oh well, back to the grind...
My results have gone from encouraging to discouraging since the end of June. So far, for the month of July (as at the 23rd), I've played in 16 poker games and had a positive result in two of them. This is very bad. All of a sudden I find it virtually impossible to reach the money in a Sitngo game. And as if to confirm my reversal in fortune, I actually won in a Fixed Limit Holdem game!
This is the first time I've hit such a sudden and comprehensive downswing and it's really bugging me. My 888 balance has sunk so low that I'm going to have to make a deposit, something I haven't had to do since I started playing on that site. My old reliable Sitngo strategy no longer seems to be working and I can't seem to get any traction in MTTs.
Ok, so I know that there will always be ups and downs, but the dramatic nature of this change has got me wondering. Have I just hit a downswing, or am I actually coming off a lucky period and returning to my true form? Surely not.
I guess the only thing to do is to keep plugging away. Only time will tell how well or how poorly I'm really playing. The point is that poker is a fun and challenging game, even when the results are depressing. At least that's what I keep telling myself as I watch my chips slide away across the table. Oh well, back to the grind...
Friday, 13 July 2012
Increasing the Luck Factor
You might think, for someone keen to find a live poker game, that the situation at my club would be ideal. I go up to this local RSA (Returned Servicemen's Association) Club most weeks, usually on a Thursday night or Saturday afternoon, to play a bit of pool and have a few beers. As it happens, there is a poker tournament on every week on Thursday nights and Saturday afternoons. While it's true that I've played in this tournament a couple of times, I have no intention of playing in it again, except possibly as a bit of a diversion from time to time, like going to put a bet on the horses.
These tournaments are run by an outfit called the National Pub Poker League (NPPL), and they can be found in pubs and clubs all over New Zealand (and, I believe, Australia). They bring along the tables, chips cards etc, and someone to run the tourney and in return they get paid a fee. They are providing entertainment designed to bring in customers in much the same way as that provided by quiz nights or karaoke.
There are a number of reasons why I don't want to play in NPPL games. Firstly, there is the entry fee. You can actually play in these competitions for free, but then you don't qualify to win the cash prize and you start with a small chip stack. If you choose to pay, you get more chips. You can pay from $5 to $20 at the start and get a correspondingly larger chip stack. What's more, there is an add-on at the first break where you can pay from $5 to $20 and get even more chips. Whenever I play in a tournament I always aim to buy in for the maximum amount, to give myself the best advantage in the game. This means I'd have to pay $40 to enter this tournament, which is way beyond my buy-in range. On top of this, you get extra chips when you buy stuff over the bar, which is not that big a problem for me, but it's another factor that goes towards creating an uneven playing field.
Another problem is that there is only one cash prize, second and third being bar tabs. While it's nice to have a bar tab, it's nicer to have the cash, especially if you're paying in cash to play the game. There are a couple of other things that bug me about this format. One is the 'bounty' on the head of one player on each table. If you eliminate this player you get more chips; yet another way of increasing the variance in the game. The other is the fact that the blinds are increased much faster as the end of the tournament approaches and the number of players dwindles. This hardly seems fair to the players who have made it to the end and suddenly find themselves playing in a turbo (quick-fire) tournament.
While all this is enough to keep me away anyway, the thing that really gets me is the 'lucky draw'. If you pay to play, you get to pick numbers for the lucky draw. The more you pay, the more numbers you get. The draw is done just after the start and the winners get even more chips. Then the same procedure is carried out after the add-on. More lucky chips! In effect, the person with the most chips at this stage is likely to be the person who paid the most and/or got luckiest with the chip draws. It turns the whole affair into a giant craps shoot. If I want to shoot some craps, I'll go up to the casino. If I want to play in a poker game, I'll go somewhere else.
OK, I understand that this is a pub game and the aim is to get the punters in and buying drinks. Obviously, these guys are interested in a fun night out and a bit of a gamble. The tourney is structured to appeal to them, not a po-faced poker wannabe like me. But it still bugs me that a live poker game is going on right under my nose, but I cant play in it as a matter of principle!
We all know that poker is a game that incorporates a subtle and at times downright scary mixture of skill and luck. Even the best players (and I'm certainly not in that category) can be beaten by the luck of the cards. The last thing the game needs is to have the luck factor increased. However, it's a sad fact that this is often the case.
When I used to play in a local Friday night tournament it was usually run in a straightforward way. But occasionally the organisers would throw some extra chips into the pot for a 'bonus round', another way of increasing the luck factor. I also played in a special one-off Saturday tourney that they ran where chip raffles were sold. These raffles were sold to the players through most of the day, and the prizes were extra tournament chips.
This is also the reason why I don't play in turbo tournaments online. In any poker game or tournament there are bound to be up and down periods for every player. In tournaments, the bigger your starting stack and the slower the blind increases, the greater is your ability to ride out these fluctuations. In turbos, the luck of the draw becomes more important, pushing the balance in favour of the less skilled players. That's why I prefer deep-stack tournaments when I can find them.
Basically, what it comes down to is increasing your edge. We can all be knocked around by the fall of the cards, so we need every advantage we can find. They say that game selection is one of the most important poker skills. Call me fussy if you like. I prefer the word 'selective'.
These tournaments are run by an outfit called the National Pub Poker League (NPPL), and they can be found in pubs and clubs all over New Zealand (and, I believe, Australia). They bring along the tables, chips cards etc, and someone to run the tourney and in return they get paid a fee. They are providing entertainment designed to bring in customers in much the same way as that provided by quiz nights or karaoke.
There are a number of reasons why I don't want to play in NPPL games. Firstly, there is the entry fee. You can actually play in these competitions for free, but then you don't qualify to win the cash prize and you start with a small chip stack. If you choose to pay, you get more chips. You can pay from $5 to $20 at the start and get a correspondingly larger chip stack. What's more, there is an add-on at the first break where you can pay from $5 to $20 and get even more chips. Whenever I play in a tournament I always aim to buy in for the maximum amount, to give myself the best advantage in the game. This means I'd have to pay $40 to enter this tournament, which is way beyond my buy-in range. On top of this, you get extra chips when you buy stuff over the bar, which is not that big a problem for me, but it's another factor that goes towards creating an uneven playing field.
Another problem is that there is only one cash prize, second and third being bar tabs. While it's nice to have a bar tab, it's nicer to have the cash, especially if you're paying in cash to play the game. There are a couple of other things that bug me about this format. One is the 'bounty' on the head of one player on each table. If you eliminate this player you get more chips; yet another way of increasing the variance in the game. The other is the fact that the blinds are increased much faster as the end of the tournament approaches and the number of players dwindles. This hardly seems fair to the players who have made it to the end and suddenly find themselves playing in a turbo (quick-fire) tournament.
While all this is enough to keep me away anyway, the thing that really gets me is the 'lucky draw'. If you pay to play, you get to pick numbers for the lucky draw. The more you pay, the more numbers you get. The draw is done just after the start and the winners get even more chips. Then the same procedure is carried out after the add-on. More lucky chips! In effect, the person with the most chips at this stage is likely to be the person who paid the most and/or got luckiest with the chip draws. It turns the whole affair into a giant craps shoot. If I want to shoot some craps, I'll go up to the casino. If I want to play in a poker game, I'll go somewhere else.
OK, I understand that this is a pub game and the aim is to get the punters in and buying drinks. Obviously, these guys are interested in a fun night out and a bit of a gamble. The tourney is structured to appeal to them, not a po-faced poker wannabe like me. But it still bugs me that a live poker game is going on right under my nose, but I cant play in it as a matter of principle!
We all know that poker is a game that incorporates a subtle and at times downright scary mixture of skill and luck. Even the best players (and I'm certainly not in that category) can be beaten by the luck of the cards. The last thing the game needs is to have the luck factor increased. However, it's a sad fact that this is often the case.
When I used to play in a local Friday night tournament it was usually run in a straightforward way. But occasionally the organisers would throw some extra chips into the pot for a 'bonus round', another way of increasing the luck factor. I also played in a special one-off Saturday tourney that they ran where chip raffles were sold. These raffles were sold to the players through most of the day, and the prizes were extra tournament chips.
This is also the reason why I don't play in turbo tournaments online. In any poker game or tournament there are bound to be up and down periods for every player. In tournaments, the bigger your starting stack and the slower the blind increases, the greater is your ability to ride out these fluctuations. In turbos, the luck of the draw becomes more important, pushing the balance in favour of the less skilled players. That's why I prefer deep-stack tournaments when I can find them.
Basically, what it comes down to is increasing your edge. We can all be knocked around by the fall of the cards, so we need every advantage we can find. They say that game selection is one of the most important poker skills. Call me fussy if you like. I prefer the word 'selective'.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
June Results
June's been a pretty busy month for poker playing and I'm pretty happy with my overall results. On the positive side, I played in 34 Sitngos, winning 6, coming 2nd in 3 and 3rd in 3. In other words, half the time that I was in the money, I won it outright. Overall, it was the Sitngos that really pushed my balance into the black.
My second-best results came from the tournaments. Although I cashed in 4 out of the 8 tournaments I played in, the pay-out wasn't that good. My best result was 6/86. The low pay-out reflects the fact that you really need to be in the top 5 or so before you start hitting the big money. I need to concentrate more on building my stack up early on to carry me through to the higher levels, rather than just 'crawling across the bubble'.
Having said that, I'm happy to see that I've increased my bankroll by 10% in June, significantly above my target. That's 4 positive months in a row; an encouraging sign.
The bad news is that I only managed to play in one Fixed Limit Game and one live game for the entire month. I am taking steps to remedy both these situations and I fully expect that I will be more active in both game types in July. Obviously I'm playing a lot of Sitngos; far more than I expected at the start of the year. This is simply because they are fast and convenient. I can almost always find a game at any time of day or night, and a single game only takes an hour to play.
I probably won't be posting results at the end of every month, but for now it's an interesting exercise. I'll do it again at least for July, just to chart my progress, but probably not beyond that (at least not on a monthly basis).
Oh yeah, I must check out Sky TV to see if they're covering the WSOP Main Event. Then again, what they advertise and what they actually show (and at what time) are usually two completely different things. I guess when you have a virtual monopoly in sports coverage you can do pretty much whatever you like.
My second-best results came from the tournaments. Although I cashed in 4 out of the 8 tournaments I played in, the pay-out wasn't that good. My best result was 6/86. The low pay-out reflects the fact that you really need to be in the top 5 or so before you start hitting the big money. I need to concentrate more on building my stack up early on to carry me through to the higher levels, rather than just 'crawling across the bubble'.
Having said that, I'm happy to see that I've increased my bankroll by 10% in June, significantly above my target. That's 4 positive months in a row; an encouraging sign.
The bad news is that I only managed to play in one Fixed Limit Game and one live game for the entire month. I am taking steps to remedy both these situations and I fully expect that I will be more active in both game types in July. Obviously I'm playing a lot of Sitngos; far more than I expected at the start of the year. This is simply because they are fast and convenient. I can almost always find a game at any time of day or night, and a single game only takes an hour to play.
I probably won't be posting results at the end of every month, but for now it's an interesting exercise. I'll do it again at least for July, just to chart my progress, but probably not beyond that (at least not on a monthly basis).
Oh yeah, I must check out Sky TV to see if they're covering the WSOP Main Event. Then again, what they advertise and what they actually show (and at what time) are usually two completely different things. I guess when you have a virtual monopoly in sports coverage you can do pretty much whatever you like.
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Very Bad Call
I had a day off work on Friday and decided to play in the 888 Deep Stack Tournament at 10.30. You get 3000 starting chips and the opening blinds are 10/20, giving you 150 big blinds to start with. There are no rebuys or add-ons; this is my kind of tournament. Here are some edited highlights.
Early on I get KJ on the button, so I raise 4x the blind (4xb) to narrow the field. With a couple of callers, I hit top pair and a flush draw on the flop. I bet half the pot and get one caller. The turn gives me two pair. I put in a bet of 3/4 pot and the opposition folds, adding about 600 more chips to my stack. A good start.
I bet 4xb pre-flop with JJ. I get re-raised to 10xb, so I fold my Jacks. The hand continues and at the end the raiser shows KK. A good fold.
This time I get KK. I raise and get one caller. The flop is all low cards. The caller puts in a decent sized bet and, after some thought, I raise enough to put him all-in. He calls, showing 5 7 (!), giving him bottom pair and a straight draw. He hits a straight on the turn and then there is a straight on the board on the river. A split pot. Hilarious.
I have AK and an Ace comes on the river. I end up all-in against one other player who has A 4. I double up.
With only one player limping in I raise 2xb from the big blind with K 8, and get called. Out of position, with a marginal hand and no help from the flop, I put in a continuation bet and get called. Still hoping to push the opposition off the hand, I have another go on the turn. This time I get re-raised all-in and have to fold with egg on my face. Got rid of about 1000 of my chips with this move.
I call a 3xb bet with 99. The flop looks fairly safe, so when my opponent makes a pot-sized bet, I call. When a 9 comes on the river, giving me trips, I call the other player's all-in bet. It turns out he was betting on Ace high. Another (almost) double-up.
With 8000 chips in hand, my JJ comes up against AA and I drop down to 5000. Jacks are not coming through for me today.
I raise with QJ and get one caller. The flop is Q 6 *, giving me top pair. I bet, he calls. The turn looks safe so I bet enough to put him all-in. He calls and shows 66 for trips. Now I'm back down to my starting stack of 3000, only now it only amounts to 20 big blinds.
Getting nervous about my stack size, I call an all-in bet with AJ against 99. A classic coin flip situation. I win and my stack goes back upto 6000. Welcome to the roller-coaster.
I get Q 4 on the button. As a few players are limping in I decide to call and see what the flop brings. The top card on the flop is a Queen. I realise this could be very good or very very bad. I end up calling big bets from another player all the way down to the river, even though I'm getting increasingly worried that he has a better Queen. It turns out he has QJ, a better Queen. This drops me down to 3000 chips, which is now worth 10 big blinds. A very bad call.
With less than 10 big blinds I have two options pre-flop: go all-in or fold. I wait for a suitable all-in hand but nothing comes. When I'm down to 7BBs, I get Q 8s on the button. Even though one player has put in a minimum raise, I go all-in. I'm called by two players and get beaten by AJ. After one and a quarter hours of play I get knocked out, 77/208.
I had my share of good luck and bad luck in this game, but in the end it was a couple of bad decisions that proved the difference. Hopefully I've learned something from this. Hopefully.
Early on I get KJ on the button, so I raise 4x the blind (4xb) to narrow the field. With a couple of callers, I hit top pair and a flush draw on the flop. I bet half the pot and get one caller. The turn gives me two pair. I put in a bet of 3/4 pot and the opposition folds, adding about 600 more chips to my stack. A good start.
I bet 4xb pre-flop with JJ. I get re-raised to 10xb, so I fold my Jacks. The hand continues and at the end the raiser shows KK. A good fold.
This time I get KK. I raise and get one caller. The flop is all low cards. The caller puts in a decent sized bet and, after some thought, I raise enough to put him all-in. He calls, showing 5 7 (!), giving him bottom pair and a straight draw. He hits a straight on the turn and then there is a straight on the board on the river. A split pot. Hilarious.
I have AK and an Ace comes on the river. I end up all-in against one other player who has A 4. I double up.
With only one player limping in I raise 2xb from the big blind with K 8, and get called. Out of position, with a marginal hand and no help from the flop, I put in a continuation bet and get called. Still hoping to push the opposition off the hand, I have another go on the turn. This time I get re-raised all-in and have to fold with egg on my face. Got rid of about 1000 of my chips with this move.
I call a 3xb bet with 99. The flop looks fairly safe, so when my opponent makes a pot-sized bet, I call. When a 9 comes on the river, giving me trips, I call the other player's all-in bet. It turns out he was betting on Ace high. Another (almost) double-up.
With 8000 chips in hand, my JJ comes up against AA and I drop down to 5000. Jacks are not coming through for me today.
I raise with QJ and get one caller. The flop is Q 6 *, giving me top pair. I bet, he calls. The turn looks safe so I bet enough to put him all-in. He calls and shows 66 for trips. Now I'm back down to my starting stack of 3000, only now it only amounts to 20 big blinds.
Getting nervous about my stack size, I call an all-in bet with AJ against 99. A classic coin flip situation. I win and my stack goes back upto 6000. Welcome to the roller-coaster.
I get Q 4 on the button. As a few players are limping in I decide to call and see what the flop brings. The top card on the flop is a Queen. I realise this could be very good or very very bad. I end up calling big bets from another player all the way down to the river, even though I'm getting increasingly worried that he has a better Queen. It turns out he has QJ, a better Queen. This drops me down to 3000 chips, which is now worth 10 big blinds. A very bad call.
With less than 10 big blinds I have two options pre-flop: go all-in or fold. I wait for a suitable all-in hand but nothing comes. When I'm down to 7BBs, I get Q 8s on the button. Even though one player has put in a minimum raise, I go all-in. I'm called by two players and get beaten by AJ. After one and a quarter hours of play I get knocked out, 77/208.
I had my share of good luck and bad luck in this game, but in the end it was a couple of bad decisions that proved the difference. Hopefully I've learned something from this. Hopefully.
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Seven Goals for 2012
As yesterday was the shortest day of the year, I thought it would be a good time to review my progress towards achieving a set of poker goals that I set at the beginning of the year. These were originally posted on a different blogging site in February. I list them here in order, starting from the one that I think is most likely to be achieved, down to the most difficult to achieve.
1. STAY IN THE BLACK. At the beginning of the year my bankroll was sliding back down towards the break-even point. Since then, things have got better. Even though I'm currently in the middle of a bad run of losses, I'm still reasonably confident of staying on the winning side of the equation.
2. PLAY FIXED LIMIT HOLDEM. This would be item number one if it wasn't for the fact that there have been no FLH games available recently on my online poker night. However, I note that there are games available at a higher buy-in level, and this is still within my buy-in limit. I had hoped to play at a lower level until until I got used to the game, but if necessary, I'll move up a level.I'm determined to play this game at least once a week and, hopefully, figure out how to win.
3. LEARN THE ODDS. I've just recently revisited the pot odds tables for different numbers of outs and I think I have that pretty much memorised. The next step is to get into a bit more detail with the odds for different starting hands. I just need to get the right book or visit the right website. So I'm headed in the right direction.
4. PLAY LIVE GAMES. This didn't look very likely at the start of the year, but I've started playing the Friday pub game again and it looks likely to continue. I'm also working on getting a game going at the club where I play pool, but it's early days yet.
5. READ SUPER SYSTEM. Doyle Brunson's Super System is a poker classic and I'd really like to read it. In theory, nothing could be simpler; I just need to order it from the library, go down and pick it up, then take it home and read it. In practice, my free time seems to be taken up with a lot of other stuff, not least of which is actually playing poker rather than reading about it. I'm going on holiday later in the year. Maybe I'll do it then.
6. DOUBLE MY BANKROLL. This is looking increasingly unlikely. A couple of months with net losses means that I'm playing catch-up. June is also not looking good at the moment. So I'll have to have a couple of spectacular results to get anywhere near this target.
7. START A HOME GAME. At the start, doubling my bankroll was always going to be the most difficult goal. But now, I'm nearly halfway through the year and the likelihood of getting a home game going seems remote indeed. It's a shame because I really used to enjoy the home games I played with my Pool Club mates up until a couple of years ago. But they've all lost interest now and I don't see any other likely prospects. I think this one is going on the back burner for now.
Looking at this list, I'm reasonably happy with my progress so far. I'm well on my way towards achieving the first four goals, and should be able to fit in number five. That just leaves the last two. Doubling my bankroll is entirely dependant on me developing my skill as a player; something I keep working on. As for number seven; well, I still have six months...
1. STAY IN THE BLACK. At the beginning of the year my bankroll was sliding back down towards the break-even point. Since then, things have got better. Even though I'm currently in the middle of a bad run of losses, I'm still reasonably confident of staying on the winning side of the equation.
2. PLAY FIXED LIMIT HOLDEM. This would be item number one if it wasn't for the fact that there have been no FLH games available recently on my online poker night. However, I note that there are games available at a higher buy-in level, and this is still within my buy-in limit. I had hoped to play at a lower level until until I got used to the game, but if necessary, I'll move up a level.I'm determined to play this game at least once a week and, hopefully, figure out how to win.
3. LEARN THE ODDS. I've just recently revisited the pot odds tables for different numbers of outs and I think I have that pretty much memorised. The next step is to get into a bit more detail with the odds for different starting hands. I just need to get the right book or visit the right website. So I'm headed in the right direction.
4. PLAY LIVE GAMES. This didn't look very likely at the start of the year, but I've started playing the Friday pub game again and it looks likely to continue. I'm also working on getting a game going at the club where I play pool, but it's early days yet.
5. READ SUPER SYSTEM. Doyle Brunson's Super System is a poker classic and I'd really like to read it. In theory, nothing could be simpler; I just need to order it from the library, go down and pick it up, then take it home and read it. In practice, my free time seems to be taken up with a lot of other stuff, not least of which is actually playing poker rather than reading about it. I'm going on holiday later in the year. Maybe I'll do it then.
6. DOUBLE MY BANKROLL. This is looking increasingly unlikely. A couple of months with net losses means that I'm playing catch-up. June is also not looking good at the moment. So I'll have to have a couple of spectacular results to get anywhere near this target.
7. START A HOME GAME. At the start, doubling my bankroll was always going to be the most difficult goal. But now, I'm nearly halfway through the year and the likelihood of getting a home game going seems remote indeed. It's a shame because I really used to enjoy the home games I played with my Pool Club mates up until a couple of years ago. But they've all lost interest now and I don't see any other likely prospects. I think this one is going on the back burner for now.
Looking at this list, I'm reasonably happy with my progress so far. I'm well on my way towards achieving the first four goals, and should be able to fit in number five. That just leaves the last two. Doubling my bankroll is entirely dependant on me developing my skill as a player; something I keep working on. As for number seven; well, I still have six months...
Friday, 15 June 2012
Fulltilt
My wife and I went to play in the Friday night game last night, but it didn't happen. Some of the regular players had gone out to dinner and they hadn't turned up by 9.30, so we went back home. At least my wife had fun; she had a good win on the pokies.
While I was sitting at the bar a couple of guys came in to ask about the poker game. I got talking to one of them and he told me that he'd lost about $500 when the Fulltilt poker site was shut down. This made me thankful that I'd only had $US43 in my account when the shutdown happened. This is the first time I've met someone else who got ripped off by Fulltilt Poker.
I still don't really know what happened with that site, and I've never gone to the trouble of trying to get the full story. All I know is that the American FBI closed the site down and that I was unable to get any reply from the Fulltilt website in the brief period when it re-opened with a UK URL. From the little that I've heard from various poker websites I gather that the local Gaming Authority revoked their license after that and nobody got paid back.
My understanding is that the US authorities shut the site down because they were admitting American players. Apparently they were getting around financial transaction regulations related to online gambling by channelling the money through shell companies and by making false declarations about the origins of the money. Or something like that. All I know for sure is that I ended up out of pocket.
This is the reason why I stick with 888poker, despite the problems that I sometimes have with the software updates. Fulltilt Poker was the first poker site I played on, so after that experience I went looking for the safest site I could find. I checked out a few websites that rate the different poker sites and 888 seemed to be the best option. Not only is it a licensed online casino but it is also (apparently) listed on the UK stock exchange. Or something like that. In the end you can't really tell how reliable any information that you get from the internet may be. After all, anyone can get published online. Even me.
Anyway, the wife and I went home and, even though I'd been drinking, I played in a couple of Sitngos. As everyone knows, playing poker and drinking is a sure way to lose. Just to prove that there's an exception to every rule, I came third and first in the two games I played, so not a bad night after all.
Maybe one day I'll look into the whole Fulltilt thing. Then again, maybe I'll just move on.
While I was sitting at the bar a couple of guys came in to ask about the poker game. I got talking to one of them and he told me that he'd lost about $500 when the Fulltilt poker site was shut down. This made me thankful that I'd only had $US43 in my account when the shutdown happened. This is the first time I've met someone else who got ripped off by Fulltilt Poker.
I still don't really know what happened with that site, and I've never gone to the trouble of trying to get the full story. All I know is that the American FBI closed the site down and that I was unable to get any reply from the Fulltilt website in the brief period when it re-opened with a UK URL. From the little that I've heard from various poker websites I gather that the local Gaming Authority revoked their license after that and nobody got paid back.
My understanding is that the US authorities shut the site down because they were admitting American players. Apparently they were getting around financial transaction regulations related to online gambling by channelling the money through shell companies and by making false declarations about the origins of the money. Or something like that. All I know for sure is that I ended up out of pocket.
This is the reason why I stick with 888poker, despite the problems that I sometimes have with the software updates. Fulltilt Poker was the first poker site I played on, so after that experience I went looking for the safest site I could find. I checked out a few websites that rate the different poker sites and 888 seemed to be the best option. Not only is it a licensed online casino but it is also (apparently) listed on the UK stock exchange. Or something like that. In the end you can't really tell how reliable any information that you get from the internet may be. After all, anyone can get published online. Even me.
Anyway, the wife and I went home and, even though I'd been drinking, I played in a couple of Sitngos. As everyone knows, playing poker and drinking is a sure way to lose. Just to prove that there's an exception to every rule, I came third and first in the two games I played, so not a bad night after all.
Maybe one day I'll look into the whole Fulltilt thing. Then again, maybe I'll just move on.
Friday, 8 June 2012
Friday at the Phoenix
It looks like I've found a live poker game to play in. Oddly enough, it's the old venue where I used to play. My wife and I used to play at this South Auckland pub on a regular basis when they held Friday night Texas Holdem Tournaments. But then I made the mistake of teaching the locals how to play Omaha Holdem. They liked it so much that the Friday night game became an Omaha ring game. This was unfortunate for me because by that stage I'd come to the realisation that Omaha is the most frustrating and annoying game in the universe. What's more, I'm no good at it. We went along to a couple of the games but gave it up late last year.
I continued looking for a new live game that was within my buy-in limits, but with no success. I like the convenience and variety of playing online, but you can't beat the experience of sitting around a table of actual people and fiddling with your chips. So, in the end I decided to bite the bullet and go back to the Friday night Omaha game.
It was a pleasant surprise to discover that the game was now dealer's choice: Texas Holdem or Omaha. As it happens, everyone was choosing Texas Holdem. We probably played about half a dozen hands of Omaha all night. What's more, this is a low stakes spread limit game, similar to the fixed limit games I'm playing online.
I didn't win in this session but that doesn't matter; I'm sure I'll get my chances in later sessions (although flopping a full house and then having my wife pick up a better full house on the turn didn't help the size of my chip stack). So I'm looking forward to a busy season of online and live poker games.
I continued looking for a new live game that was within my buy-in limits, but with no success. I like the convenience and variety of playing online, but you can't beat the experience of sitting around a table of actual people and fiddling with your chips. So, in the end I decided to bite the bullet and go back to the Friday night Omaha game.
It was a pleasant surprise to discover that the game was now dealer's choice: Texas Holdem or Omaha. As it happens, everyone was choosing Texas Holdem. We probably played about half a dozen hands of Omaha all night. What's more, this is a low stakes spread limit game, similar to the fixed limit games I'm playing online.
I didn't win in this session but that doesn't matter; I'm sure I'll get my chances in later sessions (although flopping a full house and then having my wife pick up a better full house on the turn didn't help the size of my chip stack). So I'm looking forward to a busy season of online and live poker games.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Queen's Birthday 2012
Thinking that we're getting older and wiser, when we're just getting old. David Gilmour
As yesterday was a public holiday, it was the ideal opportunity to play in the 888 Deep Stack Tournament at 10.30 in the morning. I'm working during the week and normally busy doing other things on the weekend, but Queen's Birthday Monday was free. So I cranked up the computer and immediately got a user message: "Please wait just a few seconds while we update the software". I knew what that meant straight away: freeze-out.
So, muttering and cursing under my breath, I went through the now familiar routine. I uninstalled my 888 software, went to the website and started downloading the new version of the program. I knew I'd miss the 10.30 Tourney, but there was another at 12.30. Just after midday I got an error message informing me that the download had failed. Cursing loudly and colourfully, I began the download process all over again. To cut a long and frustrating story short, I eventually got into a tournament at 3.30 pm. The prize pool wasn't anywhere near as good as the Deep Stack Tourney, but at least I got to play. So why do I stick with 888 despite all this crap? More about that later...
Meanwhile I played in a tourney where big pre-flop hands played a large part in my fortunes. First up I put myself at an early disadvantage by forgetting a golden rule that is written in capital letters in my poker notebook on several different pages. With T5 in the big blind I got to see the flop for free. A Ten on the flop gave me top pair. I just called my opposition's small bets on the flop and the turn, then he put in a big bet on the river. There was a possible straight on the board. I called. The golden rule is: IF NORMALLY PASSIVE PLAYERS START RAISING, FOLD. THEY JUST HIT A MONSTER HAND. He had a straight.
I managed to build my stack back up a bit after that, but then I picked up KQ in the small blind. I am seriously considering dropping KQ as an early position starting hand, but in this case I raised three times the blind and got called by one player. Inevitably there was an Ace on the flop, and a Queen, just to keep me from folding. Anyway, the Ace paired on the turn and I convinced myself that that my two pair was good. In the end, most of my chips were in the pot when my opponent showed A7 for trip Aces. Once again I have confirmed my inability to correctly play a paired board. The fact that my opponent made an idiot call is little consolation.
At this stage things were looking grim and with fewer than ten blinds left, I was preparing for an early finish. Then I picked up AK, went all in and, much to my surprise, doubled up. I picked up AK two more times over the next few hands and it came in for me each time. By the time we were approaching the bubble (the last ten players) I had a mid-sized stack. This allowed me to continue playing through the bubble and pick up a few chips from the shorter stacks. By this stage my goal was to continue playing aggressively and set my sights on first place. That's when I hit KQ again.
With 24 blinds I was the third highest stack of six players. I put in a minimum raise and my opponent, with fewer chips than me, re-raised. This should have set off alarm bells. It didn't. I called. The flop was Q J 6, giving me top pair and second kicker. The other player bet 4x blind. What I should have been thinking is this: "With a pre-flop re-raise and now a big bet, he must have something good. I'm in trouble if he has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AQ, or QJ. In fact the only big hands I can beat are AK, AJ and KJ. Do I really want to risk it?" But what I was actually thinking was: "I've got top pair with a King kicker. The only hand I really need to worry about is AQ. Let's put him to the test". So I went all in and he called and showed pocket Aces.
That move left me crippled with just five blinds left. So I waited to get a halfway decent hand to go all in with. A couple of hands later I went all in with QT and got called by a player with... pocket Aces! That was the end of my tournament, finishing 6/86. Not a bad result considering my own efforts to shoot myself in the foot.
As yesterday was a public holiday, it was the ideal opportunity to play in the 888 Deep Stack Tournament at 10.30 in the morning. I'm working during the week and normally busy doing other things on the weekend, but Queen's Birthday Monday was free. So I cranked up the computer and immediately got a user message: "Please wait just a few seconds while we update the software". I knew what that meant straight away: freeze-out.
So, muttering and cursing under my breath, I went through the now familiar routine. I uninstalled my 888 software, went to the website and started downloading the new version of the program. I knew I'd miss the 10.30 Tourney, but there was another at 12.30. Just after midday I got an error message informing me that the download had failed. Cursing loudly and colourfully, I began the download process all over again. To cut a long and frustrating story short, I eventually got into a tournament at 3.30 pm. The prize pool wasn't anywhere near as good as the Deep Stack Tourney, but at least I got to play. So why do I stick with 888 despite all this crap? More about that later...
Meanwhile I played in a tourney where big pre-flop hands played a large part in my fortunes. First up I put myself at an early disadvantage by forgetting a golden rule that is written in capital letters in my poker notebook on several different pages. With T5 in the big blind I got to see the flop for free. A Ten on the flop gave me top pair. I just called my opposition's small bets on the flop and the turn, then he put in a big bet on the river. There was a possible straight on the board. I called. The golden rule is: IF NORMALLY PASSIVE PLAYERS START RAISING, FOLD. THEY JUST HIT A MONSTER HAND. He had a straight.
I managed to build my stack back up a bit after that, but then I picked up KQ in the small blind. I am seriously considering dropping KQ as an early position starting hand, but in this case I raised three times the blind and got called by one player. Inevitably there was an Ace on the flop, and a Queen, just to keep me from folding. Anyway, the Ace paired on the turn and I convinced myself that that my two pair was good. In the end, most of my chips were in the pot when my opponent showed A7 for trip Aces. Once again I have confirmed my inability to correctly play a paired board. The fact that my opponent made an idiot call is little consolation.
At this stage things were looking grim and with fewer than ten blinds left, I was preparing for an early finish. Then I picked up AK, went all in and, much to my surprise, doubled up. I picked up AK two more times over the next few hands and it came in for me each time. By the time we were approaching the bubble (the last ten players) I had a mid-sized stack. This allowed me to continue playing through the bubble and pick up a few chips from the shorter stacks. By this stage my goal was to continue playing aggressively and set my sights on first place. That's when I hit KQ again.
With 24 blinds I was the third highest stack of six players. I put in a minimum raise and my opponent, with fewer chips than me, re-raised. This should have set off alarm bells. It didn't. I called. The flop was Q J 6, giving me top pair and second kicker. The other player bet 4x blind. What I should have been thinking is this: "With a pre-flop re-raise and now a big bet, he must have something good. I'm in trouble if he has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AQ, or QJ. In fact the only big hands I can beat are AK, AJ and KJ. Do I really want to risk it?" But what I was actually thinking was: "I've got top pair with a King kicker. The only hand I really need to worry about is AQ. Let's put him to the test". So I went all in and he called and showed pocket Aces.
That move left me crippled with just five blinds left. So I waited to get a halfway decent hand to go all in with. A couple of hands later I went all in with QT and got called by a player with... pocket Aces! That was the end of my tournament, finishing 6/86. Not a bad result considering my own efforts to shoot myself in the foot.
Thursday, 31 May 2012
May Results
It's May 31 and I've just finished playing in my last games for the month (two unsuccessful SitnGos, in both of which I ended up all-in against AA!). It must be time to review my progress for the month of May.
I played in three Fixed Limit Texas Holdem sessions (7hrs), three Multi-Table Tournaments (6hrs) and seventeen SitnGos (14hrs).
In the FLTH games I had one very small win and two small losses. In total it was only a small loss, mainly because I'm still playing this game at very low limits.
In the MTTs I came 46/263, 10/251 and 78/164, the 10th place giving me a small cash. The overall result was a small loss.
In the SNGs I cashed in seven out of seventeen games and five of those were first places. That tells me that if I make the top three I usually end up winning, which suggests my end-game is pretty good. I ended up well ahead overall in SNGs, which more than made up for the losses in the other two game types.
The overall result for the month was a 6% increase in my bankroll which, as it happens, was my target figure. So I'm pretty happy with that result, especially as this is the third month in a row where I've come out ahead. Lets hope the trend continues.
Apart from the fact that I still haven't worked out how to successfully play FLTH, my biggest disappointment is that I didn't play any live games this month (not counting a couple of NPPL games up at the club, but they don't count as real poker games). So my main goal for June is to find some live poker games to play in. And to stay in the black in the online games. Here's hoping...
I played in three Fixed Limit Texas Holdem sessions (7hrs), three Multi-Table Tournaments (6hrs) and seventeen SitnGos (14hrs).
In the FLTH games I had one very small win and two small losses. In total it was only a small loss, mainly because I'm still playing this game at very low limits.
In the MTTs I came 46/263, 10/251 and 78/164, the 10th place giving me a small cash. The overall result was a small loss.
In the SNGs I cashed in seven out of seventeen games and five of those were first places. That tells me that if I make the top three I usually end up winning, which suggests my end-game is pretty good. I ended up well ahead overall in SNGs, which more than made up for the losses in the other two game types.
The overall result for the month was a 6% increase in my bankroll which, as it happens, was my target figure. So I'm pretty happy with that result, especially as this is the third month in a row where I've come out ahead. Lets hope the trend continues.
Apart from the fact that I still haven't worked out how to successfully play FLTH, my biggest disappointment is that I didn't play any live games this month (not counting a couple of NPPL games up at the club, but they don't count as real poker games). So my main goal for June is to find some live poker games to play in. And to stay in the black in the online games. Here's hoping...
Tuesday, 29 May 2012
My Bankroll Plan
I got a little change in my pocket goin' jing a ling a ling... Georgia Satellites
When I started reading books about poker, one of the first things I learned was the importance of having a dedicated poker bankroll. This means that winnings don't get spent: they go into the bankroll and that money is only ever used for poker play and nothing else. Not only does this help you to keep control of what you spend on poker, but it forces you to keep records of your wins and losses. It is because of these records that I know that I started keeping a poker bankroll in October of 2008.
Unfortunately, I didn't adopt the second part of the equation, bankroll management, until much later. For a year and a half I continued to enter games that required me to buy in with a big chunk of my existing stake. The result was that, with the natural ups and downs of poker, my bankroll would go up for a while, then get busted down to zero again. To be fair, there weren't that many games available to me that offered a reasonably low buy-in. But in March 2010 a local pub started playing Texas Holdem Cash Tournaments for a $10 buy-in. From then on I adopted a bankroll management plan.
Most poker experts suggest that you shouldn't buy in for more than 5% of your stake, and some go as low as 2%. I couldn't afford to do that so I adopted a complex sliding scale to govern my buy-in level, starting at 20% and reducing down to 2% as the size of my bankroll increased. This was less than ideal but was the best I could do as long as I was only playing in live games.
I started playing online in February 2011. At this stage I could have reduced my maximum buy-in because there are so many low-cost games available online. However, I kept operating with a maximum buy-in level of around 20% until May of that year. That's when I stumbled upon an article by poker pro Chris Ferguson that reminded me of the importance of bankroll management. Ferguson's article outlined three simple rules that made a lot of sense to me. I adopted them immediately and have been following them ever since. Here they are:
1. Never buy in to a ring game (cash game) or a sitngo for more than 5% of your bankroll.
2. Never buy in to a multi-table tournament for more than 2% of your bankroll.
3. In ring games, if your chip stack has reached 10% of your total bankroll, leave the game.
I have added some minor modifications of my own to these rules. Firstly, I will buy in to a single table Satellite Tournament for up to 2%, and a multi table Satellite Tournament for up to 1%. I don't actually play in satellites because I think the odds against cashing are too high, but I added this just in case I change my mind one day. Secondly, I apply these rules to a single poker session, rather than a single game. So if my maximum buy-in was $50 and I wanted to play in a single Sitngo, I could buy in for up to $50. But if I intended to play in up to four Sitngos, then I'd buy in for up to $12.50.
So that's my bankroll plan. The beauty of this sort of scheme is that if you have a losing streak, your maximum buy-in reduces along with the stake size. This means that it's very difficult to actually run out of money. You just keep dropping down to lower levels. You'd have to be a consistently bad player to actually go broke. That's good news.
Read more at http://www.chrisferguson.com/article-4
When I started reading books about poker, one of the first things I learned was the importance of having a dedicated poker bankroll. This means that winnings don't get spent: they go into the bankroll and that money is only ever used for poker play and nothing else. Not only does this help you to keep control of what you spend on poker, but it forces you to keep records of your wins and losses. It is because of these records that I know that I started keeping a poker bankroll in October of 2008.
Unfortunately, I didn't adopt the second part of the equation, bankroll management, until much later. For a year and a half I continued to enter games that required me to buy in with a big chunk of my existing stake. The result was that, with the natural ups and downs of poker, my bankroll would go up for a while, then get busted down to zero again. To be fair, there weren't that many games available to me that offered a reasonably low buy-in. But in March 2010 a local pub started playing Texas Holdem Cash Tournaments for a $10 buy-in. From then on I adopted a bankroll management plan.
Most poker experts suggest that you shouldn't buy in for more than 5% of your stake, and some go as low as 2%. I couldn't afford to do that so I adopted a complex sliding scale to govern my buy-in level, starting at 20% and reducing down to 2% as the size of my bankroll increased. This was less than ideal but was the best I could do as long as I was only playing in live games.
I started playing online in February 2011. At this stage I could have reduced my maximum buy-in because there are so many low-cost games available online. However, I kept operating with a maximum buy-in level of around 20% until May of that year. That's when I stumbled upon an article by poker pro Chris Ferguson that reminded me of the importance of bankroll management. Ferguson's article outlined three simple rules that made a lot of sense to me. I adopted them immediately and have been following them ever since. Here they are:
1. Never buy in to a ring game (cash game) or a sitngo for more than 5% of your bankroll.
2. Never buy in to a multi-table tournament for more than 2% of your bankroll.
3. In ring games, if your chip stack has reached 10% of your total bankroll, leave the game.
I have added some minor modifications of my own to these rules. Firstly, I will buy in to a single table Satellite Tournament for up to 2%, and a multi table Satellite Tournament for up to 1%. I don't actually play in satellites because I think the odds against cashing are too high, but I added this just in case I change my mind one day. Secondly, I apply these rules to a single poker session, rather than a single game. So if my maximum buy-in was $50 and I wanted to play in a single Sitngo, I could buy in for up to $50. But if I intended to play in up to four Sitngos, then I'd buy in for up to $12.50.
So that's my bankroll plan. The beauty of this sort of scheme is that if you have a losing streak, your maximum buy-in reduces along with the stake size. This means that it's very difficult to actually run out of money. You just keep dropping down to lower levels. You'd have to be a consistently bad player to actually go broke. That's good news.
Read more at http://www.chrisferguson.com/article-4
Thursday, 24 May 2012
Playing Check 'n' Call
I played in another 6max FLTH session last night and, as usual, came out behind. It's a tricky game and the game-plan I tried last night didn't work. After nine sessions, here's what I've learned about playing online 6max Fixed Limit Texas Holdem at the lower buy-in levels:
*Play is incredibly passive. Players mostly check or call with little raising and not that much folding. It's not unusual to see a hand checked all the way to the river.
*Most players will limp in to see the flop with a very wide range of hands.
*A single pre-flop raise may induce one player to fold, but the rest will all call. A further re-raise (3bet) or cap bet (4bet) will not generally cause anyone to fold. If they come in for one raise, they'll come in for three.
*There are usually one or two players who habitually raise pre-flop with good hands (high pairs, high aces, picture cards). The rest just call.
*3bets almost always get re-raised. If the betting is capped, at least one player has QQ, KK or AA.
*Post-flop most players will call a bet or raise if they have any sort of draw, however unlikely.
*These players can be bluffed out of a pot, but only in the most 'bluff-friendly' situations. Most of the time they hang on like grim death.
*Because there are so many players in most pots, good starting hands get drawn out on A LOT.
*If one of these players starts raising post-flop, it means they have a monster hand. Fold your pocket Kings and run.
*These guys don't like to chat much, and don't appear to have a sense of humour.
I accept no responsibility for any losses that may be incurred by anyone acting on the mixture of facts and wild generalisations set out above.
Now that I have some insight into the way these fixed limit games are played, I have to figure out a way to beat them. That's the tricky part.
*Play is incredibly passive. Players mostly check or call with little raising and not that much folding. It's not unusual to see a hand checked all the way to the river.
*Most players will limp in to see the flop with a very wide range of hands.
*A single pre-flop raise may induce one player to fold, but the rest will all call. A further re-raise (3bet) or cap bet (4bet) will not generally cause anyone to fold. If they come in for one raise, they'll come in for three.
*There are usually one or two players who habitually raise pre-flop with good hands (high pairs, high aces, picture cards). The rest just call.
*3bets almost always get re-raised. If the betting is capped, at least one player has QQ, KK or AA.
*Post-flop most players will call a bet or raise if they have any sort of draw, however unlikely.
*These players can be bluffed out of a pot, but only in the most 'bluff-friendly' situations. Most of the time they hang on like grim death.
*Because there are so many players in most pots, good starting hands get drawn out on A LOT.
*If one of these players starts raising post-flop, it means they have a monster hand. Fold your pocket Kings and run.
*These guys don't like to chat much, and don't appear to have a sense of humour.
I accept no responsibility for any losses that may be incurred by anyone acting on the mixture of facts and wild generalisations set out above.
Now that I have some insight into the way these fixed limit games are played, I have to figure out a way to beat them. That's the tricky part.
Sunday, 20 May 2012
Ace on the River
I played in three sitngos a couple of nights ago. It was originally supposed to be just two games but I got knocked out of the first one early. Really early. In the first hand. Not in MY first hand but in THE first hand of the game.
I limped in with 4 5 on the dealer button. The flop was A 2 3, giving me the absolute stone-cold nuts. Player X put in a decent sized bet, everyone else folded and I called. I figure maybe he has an Ace. The turn is a nothing card, he bets about half the pot and I call. Then an Ace hits the river. Now a full house is possible (or even quads) so I no longer have the nuts. He puts in a big bet. Maybe he's just rivered trip Aces, which is very good for me, or maybe he just hit a full house, which is very bad for me. In the end I get greedy and go all-in, he calls and shows A 2 for full on Aces. Bye bye.
This is one of those situations where raising is a bad idea. Most of the time you're only going to get called by a better hand. I should have just called. Hopefully, I'll remember this next time.
The second game I played I couldn't hit any decent cards and/or decent boards and got knocked out 6/9. The third game was a real roller coaster. I started out well and was the big stack for a while, then I took a couple of big hits. Eventually, I ended up with just one big blind left. Somehow I was able to claw my way back into the running and eventually took out first place. So in the end I came out slightly ahead. Not only that, but I've set a new personal record for elimination from a tournament. An interesting evening.
I limped in with 4 5 on the dealer button. The flop was A 2 3, giving me the absolute stone-cold nuts. Player X put in a decent sized bet, everyone else folded and I called. I figure maybe he has an Ace. The turn is a nothing card, he bets about half the pot and I call. Then an Ace hits the river. Now a full house is possible (or even quads) so I no longer have the nuts. He puts in a big bet. Maybe he's just rivered trip Aces, which is very good for me, or maybe he just hit a full house, which is very bad for me. In the end I get greedy and go all-in, he calls and shows A 2 for full on Aces. Bye bye.
This is one of those situations where raising is a bad idea. Most of the time you're only going to get called by a better hand. I should have just called. Hopefully, I'll remember this next time.
The second game I played I couldn't hit any decent cards and/or decent boards and got knocked out 6/9. The third game was a real roller coaster. I started out well and was the big stack for a while, then I took a couple of big hits. Eventually, I ended up with just one big blind left. Somehow I was able to claw my way back into the running and eventually took out first place. So in the end I came out slightly ahead. Not only that, but I've set a new personal record for elimination from a tournament. An interesting evening.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Plan C
So much for my plan. I wanted to play fixed limit Holdem tonight, but no-one was playing. So I went to Sitngos, but no-one was playing at my usual buy-in level. After a long wait I ended up playing in a lower level game. Meanwhile, I entered a cheapie tournament, as there were still no limit games going on.
I did ok in the Sitngo but the tournament started while I was still playing, so I had to play two tables. I don't like playing more than one table. I concentrated mainly on the Sitngo and eventually came first. But I didn't pay enough attention to the tournament and was well below the average stack size by the time I was back to one table.
Here are some editted highlights from the night's play:
...Getting short stacked I get AQ in the small blind. Five players have already limped in so I raise 5X the blind. Four players call! There's an Ace on the flop and I go all-in. One player calls with A4 and I collect a nice chip stack. Went from 117/138 to 27th place.
...Suited AK in early position. I raise 4x blind and get re-raised x3. Reluctantly, I call. Flop is J Q *. I bet and get called, then when the J pairs on the turn I end up all-in with nothing but A high and an inside straight draw. The other player has 99. Then the Q pairs on the river giving me two pair with an Ace kicker! Another Dumb Luck Moment.
...I raise with KQ and the big stack calls. When a King hits the flop I raise 3/4 pot and get called. Another 3/4 pot on the turn also gets called. I hit two pair on the river, go all-in and get called again. He had A2 and was calling those big bets with bottom pair. Go figure. This puts me in 3rd place.
...Already in the money, with less than ten blinds left I go all-in with (guess what?) King Jack. I'm called by JT and KT and end up winning with King high. 16/25.
...Finally I fold my way to 10th position, which is the next level where the payout increases. With about six blinds left and bottom of the table I go all-in with KQ against AJ and Ace high wins. I finish 10/251.
Not a bad result I guess but the payout in these tournaments is heavily weighted towards the upper end. I actually made more money playing in the Sitngo for an hour than I did after playing for three hours in the tournament. There must be a lesson there somewhere.
I did ok in the Sitngo but the tournament started while I was still playing, so I had to play two tables. I don't like playing more than one table. I concentrated mainly on the Sitngo and eventually came first. But I didn't pay enough attention to the tournament and was well below the average stack size by the time I was back to one table.
Here are some editted highlights from the night's play:
...Getting short stacked I get AQ in the small blind. Five players have already limped in so I raise 5X the blind. Four players call! There's an Ace on the flop and I go all-in. One player calls with A4 and I collect a nice chip stack. Went from 117/138 to 27th place.
...Suited AK in early position. I raise 4x blind and get re-raised x3. Reluctantly, I call. Flop is J Q *. I bet and get called, then when the J pairs on the turn I end up all-in with nothing but A high and an inside straight draw. The other player has 99. Then the Q pairs on the river giving me two pair with an Ace kicker! Another Dumb Luck Moment.
...I raise with KQ and the big stack calls. When a King hits the flop I raise 3/4 pot and get called. Another 3/4 pot on the turn also gets called. I hit two pair on the river, go all-in and get called again. He had A2 and was calling those big bets with bottom pair. Go figure. This puts me in 3rd place.
...Already in the money, with less than ten blinds left I go all-in with (guess what?) King Jack. I'm called by JT and KT and end up winning with King high. 16/25.
...Finally I fold my way to 10th position, which is the next level where the payout increases. With about six blinds left and bottom of the table I go all-in with KQ against AJ and Ace high wins. I finish 10/251.
Not a bad result I guess but the payout in these tournaments is heavily weighted towards the upper end. I actually made more money playing in the Sitngo for an hour than I did after playing for three hours in the tournament. There must be a lesson there somewhere.
Monday, 14 May 2012
The Plan
I'm a man with a plan. Before I started playing online it was a matter of playing in any live game that I could find. But now I can pick and choose. I can choose the buy-in level, the bet limits, the type of game, the number of players etc etc.
My online play last year consisted of two game types: multi-table Texas Holdem tournaments with no rebuys or add-ons and pot limit Omaha ring games (cash games). I did quite well in the first and quite badly in the second. Then, during the summer months (December to February), I played mainly in Sitngos (single table on-demand tournaments) and did reasonably well in them.
This year I am once more playing in two game types: the format that I had the best results from last year - multi-table tournaments - and a new format I haven't played before - Texas Holdem fixed limit 6 max ring games. Having played only no limit or pot limit games before, I wanted to try my hand at fixed limit. The reason I'm playing on six player tables is very simple: no-one is playing on the ten player tables at the lower buy-ins on 888.
However, there is a flaw in this plan. If I'm playing in a MTT I have to allow at least three hours for the game, in case I make it through to the end. Of course, chances are I'll be knocked out in the first hour, but there's no way of knowing where I'll finish beforehand. Likewise, for the ring games, I want to allow about three hours minimum for the session. You really have to allow enough time to balance out the ups and downs that are the norm in any poker game. On top of this, MTTs are played at set times that are not always convenient and the fixed limit ring game tables only fill up at certain times.
The solution to these problems is simple enough. If I'm pushed for time or the game I want to play isn't available, Ill play in a Sitngo. These games, by their nature, are always available and the waiting time for a table to fill up is usually just a matter of minutes. What's more, even if I play all the way into first place, the game only takes about an hour.
So that's the plan for 2012. So far, my results from the fixed limit games have not been good. It's a tricky game. But I'm playing at the lower limits, trying to learn the finer points of the game. Whether I'll succeed, only time can tell.
My online play last year consisted of two game types: multi-table Texas Holdem tournaments with no rebuys or add-ons and pot limit Omaha ring games (cash games). I did quite well in the first and quite badly in the second. Then, during the summer months (December to February), I played mainly in Sitngos (single table on-demand tournaments) and did reasonably well in them.
This year I am once more playing in two game types: the format that I had the best results from last year - multi-table tournaments - and a new format I haven't played before - Texas Holdem fixed limit 6 max ring games. Having played only no limit or pot limit games before, I wanted to try my hand at fixed limit. The reason I'm playing on six player tables is very simple: no-one is playing on the ten player tables at the lower buy-ins on 888.
However, there is a flaw in this plan. If I'm playing in a MTT I have to allow at least three hours for the game, in case I make it through to the end. Of course, chances are I'll be knocked out in the first hour, but there's no way of knowing where I'll finish beforehand. Likewise, for the ring games, I want to allow about three hours minimum for the session. You really have to allow enough time to balance out the ups and downs that are the norm in any poker game. On top of this, MTTs are played at set times that are not always convenient and the fixed limit ring game tables only fill up at certain times.
The solution to these problems is simple enough. If I'm pushed for time or the game I want to play isn't available, Ill play in a Sitngo. These games, by their nature, are always available and the waiting time for a table to fill up is usually just a matter of minutes. What's more, even if I play all the way into first place, the game only takes about an hour.
So that's the plan for 2012. So far, my results from the fixed limit games have not been good. It's a tricky game. But I'm playing at the lower limits, trying to learn the finer points of the game. Whether I'll succeed, only time can tell.
Friday, 11 May 2012
Back in the Game
Well, I'm back in the 888 poker room. After staring at the update message for a while, I uninstalled the program, went to the 888 site and downloaded all over again. If this happens again I'll have to seriously consider playing somewhere else.
So I missed my Wednesday night poker fix. I entered in a cheapy MTT (multi table tournament) tonight though, and just finished playing. Finished 46/263 after two hours' play. I started out pretty good and was in the top ten for a while, but I slowly lost chips through the middle stages. By the end I was down to less than ten blinds and went all-in with only A high after a flop that looked pretty safe. Turns out my opposition was slow-playing his set. Oops.
Here's my Dumb Luck Moment of the week:
Early on, I pick up QQ, so I bet five times the blind, and get two callers. The flop is Q 5 6, with two spades, so I bet the same amount with my set of Queens and get two callers again. The turn is 7s, so this time I bet seven times the blind. One player folds, the other bets about half their stack. This is bad. It's highly likely that my opponent has hit a straight or a flush and I'm in big trouble. But I can't let go of my trip Queens, so I go all-in. I'm called and the caller shows As 4s for an Ace-high flush. Oops! Then another seven comes on the river, giving me a full house and doubling my stack.
This was an incredibly stupid call and I just got lucky on the river. This is exactly the sort of thing that I curse other players for doing. I guess sometimes playing like a donkey pays off.
So I missed my Wednesday night poker fix. I entered in a cheapy MTT (multi table tournament) tonight though, and just finished playing. Finished 46/263 after two hours' play. I started out pretty good and was in the top ten for a while, but I slowly lost chips through the middle stages. By the end I was down to less than ten blinds and went all-in with only A high after a flop that looked pretty safe. Turns out my opposition was slow-playing his set. Oops.
Here's my Dumb Luck Moment of the week:
Early on, I pick up QQ, so I bet five times the blind, and get two callers. The flop is Q 5 6, with two spades, so I bet the same amount with my set of Queens and get two callers again. The turn is 7s, so this time I bet seven times the blind. One player folds, the other bets about half their stack. This is bad. It's highly likely that my opponent has hit a straight or a flush and I'm in big trouble. But I can't let go of my trip Queens, so I go all-in. I'm called and the caller shows As 4s for an Ace-high flush. Oops! Then another seven comes on the river, giving me a full house and doubling my stack.
This was an incredibly stupid call and I just got lucky on the river. This is exactly the sort of thing that I curse other players for doing. I guess sometimes playing like a donkey pays off.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Locked Out
It's Wednesday night. I should be playing poker. I had plenty of time to start this blog today, on my poker playing night, because I can't get into my online site. Again. I play on 888 Poker. Generally, it's a pretty good site. Even though I have an ancient, steam-powered computer and use ultra-slow dial-up, I don't get many disconnection problems.
However, a few weeks ago, 888 decided to upgrade their software and when I tried to open the program, all I got was a message saying 'Please wait a few minutes while we upgrade the software'. Unfortunately, no matter how long I waited or how many times I tried to reload the program, nothing happened. In the end, I uninstalled the 888 program, went back to the website, and downloaded the 'improved' program. What a hassle!
Now, it's happened again. This is very annoying.
However, a few weeks ago, 888 decided to upgrade their software and when I tried to open the program, all I got was a message saying 'Please wait a few minutes while we upgrade the software'. Unfortunately, no matter how long I waited or how many times I tried to reload the program, nothing happened. In the end, I uninstalled the 888 program, went back to the website, and downloaded the 'improved' program. What a hassle!
Now, it's happened again. This is very annoying.
The Story So Far
I've played live poker games off and on for most of my adult life, but it's only recently that poker has become my main leisure activity. It started five or six years ago when they started showing poker tournaments on ESPN. This was my introduction to Texas Holdem, which I'd never heard of before, and also to the tournament format. Not long after that the poker boom hit New Zealand; all the pubs chucked out their karaoke machines and started running Texas Holdem tournaments for bar tab prizes. I played in a few of these and even went up to the Auckland Casino a few times to try my hand at the games up there, but it wasn't till I read my first poker book that I really got the bug.
After reading a few poker books I realised that there was actually a lot of theory and strategy to poker play and that there were even people who made a living out of playing the game. Well, I read a lot and played in as many games as I could find. Fortunately, a local pub started playing regular low buy-in cash tournaments and my wife and I went to quite a few of those. After about nine months of steady losses I actually started winning a few games.
Then, at the start of last year, I finally entered the 21st century and bought a computer! One of the first things I did was to download a poker program and start playing online. Although its become quite hard to find live games at a reasonably low buy-in, I can play online anytime I like and, most importantly, at any buy-in level I like.
So that's where I am now. I play every Wednesday night and I try to fit in at least one other session during the week if I can. It's my intention to post something on this site every time I play. I hope you'll join me as I try to climb the poker learning curve.
After reading a few poker books I realised that there was actually a lot of theory and strategy to poker play and that there were even people who made a living out of playing the game. Well, I read a lot and played in as many games as I could find. Fortunately, a local pub started playing regular low buy-in cash tournaments and my wife and I went to quite a few of those. After about nine months of steady losses I actually started winning a few games.
Then, at the start of last year, I finally entered the 21st century and bought a computer! One of the first things I did was to download a poker program and start playing online. Although its become quite hard to find live games at a reasonably low buy-in, I can play online anytime I like and, most importantly, at any buy-in level I like.
So that's where I am now. I play every Wednesday night and I try to fit in at least one other session during the week if I can. It's my intention to post something on this site every time I play. I hope you'll join me as I try to climb the poker learning curve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)