The Micros

   The first time I played in an online no-limit ring game was back in February 2011. I'd just registered with Fulltilt Poker when I decided it would be a good idea to try the ring games. I played in the 10c/25c game, with a buy-in of US$25 on three separate occasions, and lost my entire buy-in on three separate occasions. The games were not what I expected. My poker reading had suggested that online tables were populated by vast schools of  fish (loose-passive players, also known as 'calling stations'). Far from it. The tables were in fact, pretty tight, and I guess the only fish was me.
   So I gave up on the online ring games for quite a while, finally returning to the no-limit version of the game in March of last year. As detailed previously, I tried out both 888 and Pokerstars and finally decided that the loosest games were to be found on 888 Poker. So I've been playing more or less one session per week on 888 ever since. I started out with a hiss and a roar, winning a significant amount in the Autumn season and showing a 61% profit. After that things went downhill a bit. I had a small win in the following Autumn and the rest of the seasons showed a negative net result. The upshot of it all is that I'm about US$40 in the red after playing in this game type for about a year and a half. A poor result but I guess it could have been worse.
   After that first winning season playing in the 10c/20c games (US$20 buy-in) I decided to start playing two tables at a time. But then, after a few months, as my results took a downturn, I figured I'd better go back to concentrating on a single table again. And then, as the decline continued, around March of this year  I dropped down to the next level, and I am still playing in these 5c/10c games. This is where I intend to stay at least until the end of the year. At that point it will be time to re-assess whether or not I want to continue playing in online cashies, given my less than inspiring results.
   When I first started playing online I'd been reading quite a few poker books, which led me to believe that there was an ocean full of poker fish out there, just waiting to donate their chips. But of course, most of these books were years out of date, and many of them were based on live poker games rather than online games. But after playing in the Fulltilt games and finding tables full of  TAG (tight and aggressive) players, I decided that it must have been because I started at too-high a level. Surely the micro-stakes games would be fish heaven? Reading up on poker strategy on various websites confirmed the generally-held belief that there were loose, fishy sites to be found, if you knew where to look. 888 poker was one of the sites that was frequently listed as being one of the loosest and 'juiciest'.

   Any poker book/site/expert will tell you that if you want to find the loosest tables, you need to pay attention to the table statistics that are listed in the site lobby. In particular, the vital stat is the 'percentage of players who see the flop', something that all poker sites list. The more players there are calling and seeing the flop, the looser (and by extension, the more profitable) the table is likely to be. So it makes sense to check out the game lobby and try and get into a game with a high 'players to the flop' figure. However, in the modern era, there is a catch. It seems that every semi-serious player in the world knows this vital fact, and they are all lining up to play in these potentially profitable games, even at the micro-stakes level. As a result, any cash game with a reasonably high PTF %age has a small line-up of players on the waiting list hoping to get in and feed on the fish.
   As mentioned previously ('Cashie', 6th March 2014), I tried both 888 and Pokerstars, and found that Stars was a much tougher (and tighter) site to play on. So I stuck with 888 in the end, trolling around, trying to find the loosest tables to play on. Even here, there were a lot of players putting themselves on the waiting lists for the loosest tables, but I could usually get into a reasonably loose game. But a 'loose game' these days is nothing like the sort of game they talk about in those old poker articles. Typically, there are 5 or 6 'sitters' who wait and wait and wait for some sort of hand to raise with pre-flop, and maybe a couple of loose players who do a lot of calling and/or raising. So I'd join the sitters and wait for a chance to get in on a decent hand with the loosies. But these opportunities were few and far between. Gone are the days of limping into an inflated pot from late position with a drawing hand. It's not very often that you have the odds for that sort of thing.
   A lot of the regular players in these games are multi-tabling. You only have to flip through the player lists for different tables to see the same names turning up time and again. At this level, I don't know how much profit a poker 'grinder' could possibly make, but there still seem to be plenty of them. The margins in these not-particularly-loose games can't be very good. I guess there are positives and negatives to this situation. On the minus side, these guys are not going to get involved in a pot unless they have a positive expectation. On the plus side, if they are multi-tabling, they can't be paying close attention to what's going on at every table, which presumably leaves some sort of opening available for those smart enough to exploit it.
   So far, I have not proved to be smart enough. In fact, in recent games I've played, there has been a disturbing pattern emerging. Often I will start out ok, but then get trapped in a situation where I have a very good hand and my opponent has a better one. This is a classic no-limit trapping scenario, except that my aim is to be the trapper, not the trappee. I usually end up losing most or all of my chips and then spend the next 3 or 4 hours crawling my way back up towards the break-even point. I think the main reason I get into these situations is this: after waiting a long time for what I consider to be a good playable hand I refuse to believe that someone else has started with a better hand, or worse still, out-flopped me. This is one disadvantage of playing tight on a single table. When you finally get a good hand you don't want to release it, even if you suspect that you are behind. It's the old I-can't-believe-he-flopped-two-pair-when-I-hit-top-pair-top-kicker syndrome.
   They say that your playing style should be the opposite of the table playing style. So at a loose table, play tight and at a tight table, play loose (or at least looser than the other players). I've been trying to follow this advice recently. I've taken to playing a much wider range of hands from late position and then, if I'm up against a TAG player, attempting to bluff him out of the pot. This strategy  works sometimes, but of course if your opponent hits, you can end up in a lot of trouble. So a certain amount of caution is required. Basically, I'm just looking for some kind of edge when I play against the 'tighties'.
   The more I look at it, the more I realise that I'm making a mistake in defining a particular table as 'tight' or 'loose' and then adjusting my playing style accordingly. What I should be doing is deciding what sort of player I'm up against and adjusting my playing style to that player. This became obvious to me a few weeks ago when I was in a game that contained one chronic calling station. This player was in nearly every hand and liked nothing more than to limp in to the pot from early position, get raised, and call with virtually any two cards. His play was so obvious that I was able to exploit his weak play and I ended up with most of his chips. Then a few days after that I read an article about the importance of finding the fishy individuals and playing against them as much as possible, preferably in position. So table selection is the first step, and the next step is player selection. This is where taking notes on players becomes so important.
   So now I am working on focusing on individual players and their tendencies. First I need to look for the loosest table available. Then I need to identify who the fish are AND who the tight players are. I figure that loosening up my starting hand range is actually the right thing to do against both of these player types. After all, a looser starting range is still going to be better than the loosies' range most of the time, and it's likely to give me opportunity to play back at the tighties when they miss their high cards. Then it's a matter of adjusting my play to suit the type of player that I'm up against.
   Meanwhile, I keep working on getting my live cashie up and running again. I've played in enough online ring games to know that there is a huge difference between them and live games. Even at the micro level online there are lot more players who know at least the basics of correct play than you will ever find at a live table (at least not at the live games I play in). So it's a matter of looking for that small edge in the online games.
   I fully intend to keep on playing in online ring games on a regular basis. I'm playing at a low enough level that a continued losing streak is not going to hurt my bankroll that much. And in the meantime, I'll keep trying different strategies to get ahead. I'll play in these games at least till the end of the year and then I'll reconsider what type of game I want to play online. The chances are, I'll be looking to play in a different game type, but you never know. Maybe my new plan will turn out to be the answer to cracking the micros.




  
  
  
  
  

The Rebuy Tournament

   Unlike some people I know, I have nothing against rebuy tournaments. Up until recently I've played very few rebuys, but this has nothing to do with the format of this tourney type. In fact, my first couple of years playing in live Texas Holdem tournaments was almost exclusively in rebuys. I used to play most Friday nights at a local pub that held a $10 rebuy poker game; that is, $10 entry, $10 rebuy. After playing in this for the better part of a year I actually started winning a few games and by the time that this event closed down I'd even managed to make a bit of a profit. By this stage I was pretty comfortable with the rebuy format.
   Since then, I've been playing in a different Friday night Texas Holdem tournament but this is usually a standard tourney with no rebuys. There are a couple of other live rebuy tourneys around at the moment but I don't play in them for one very simple reason: they are too expensive. Although these games feature a $20 buy-in, just like my current regular Friday-nighter, they also have a $20 rebuy and a $20 add-on. In other words, they could cost up to $60 to play in; a little too steep for me. However there is a $20 buy-in/$20 rebuy (no add-on) tournament played on a Wednesday night at a local pub, and I've been going to that for the past few months. I actually checked this game out last year ('Winter Bulletin', Tues 02/09/14) but wasn't impressed. The tournament organisation at the time was shambolic and it had a rather odd structure, but things have improved markedly since then.

 So after vowing never to go back to the Landmark Bar tournament, why did I change my mind? Well, I came to an important realisation a while ago; that I'd been neglecting the absolutely vital matter of game selection. After looking back at my poker history I realised that I needed to concentrate more on playing live games, because that's where my best results lie. Add to that the fact that Wednesday is my most convenient night for playing poker and that the venue is a five minute bus ride (or a 45 minute walk) down the road and I had to bite the bullet and give the game another shot. As it turns out, this tournament is now being run in a much more professional way and I've realised that some of the peculiarities of the tourney structure may actually be to my advantage. So I'm down there on most Wednesday evenings.
   The Panmure Hotel has been through a few changes over the years, and a few years back was divided into a 'sports bar' and a 'bistro bar' called the Landmark. Then the Panmure RSA (Returned Servicemen's Association) moved out of their old clubrooms and into the Landmark. I'm not sure exactly how this arrangement works, but Wednesday night appears to be RSA club night. This is the night when all the RSA members turn up, and there is karaoke, raffle draws, occasional pool or darts competitions and, of course, poker. The game is usually played at a couple of tables involving 13 to 16 players, and goes on until quite late, if you make it through to the end.
   The game itself is essentially a turbo. For $20 you get 4000 in chips, with the blinds starting at 25/50 (you start with 80 big blinds). After half an hour the blinds increase to 50/100 and this level is followed by a break. After the break the blind period drops down to 15 minutes and the blinds go 100/200, 200/400, 300/600, 400/800. So after the second break the blinds have hit the 500/1000 level, the equivalent of 1/4 of the original starting stack. Clearly, with a relatively short starting stack and the big blind doubling three times in a row this is a structure that promotes action and encourages players to rebuy.
   As for the rebuy, it costs another $20 for a stack of 2,500 chips. I've never seen a rebuy tourney before where the rebuy stack is smaller than the starting stack and this makes for an interesting dynamic. A lot of players like to rebuy but they come back into the game with a significantly short stack. Anyone rebuying at the start of the second period comes back into the game with only 12 1/2 big blinds. And if you come back in at the start of the third period, you have just 2 1/2 BBs ! Amazingly, some players actually do this. The organiser allows multiple rebuys until the prize pool reaches $500. This is the upper limit that is legally allowed for a game of this type and the prize pool usually reaches this level. So the combination of the turbo structure and the short-stack rebuy combines to push up the value of the prize pool.
   It was always my intention when I started playing in this tourney that I wouldn't rebuy. Paying $40 or more is a little over my buy-in limit so I figured that I'd just play with my starting stack and take my chances. As it turns out, I think the unusual structure of this game plays to my advantage. It means that the players who are rebuying are bloating the size of the prize pool and coming back into the game at a distinct disadvantage because of the short rebuy stack. In the long run I think that this is the best possible tournament structure for someone like myself who doesn't want to rebuy.
   The players in this tournament are fairly typical of the pub/club poker tournaments that I've been involved with over the years. There are probably five or six regulars, most of whom have a reasonable idea of basic poker play. The remainder are casual players with little or no idea of how to play well. There are often one or two absolute beginners involved as well. The game usually involves lots of calling, especially pre-flop, and very little raising. If the pot does get raised, many of these loose-passive players will then call any size bet, just to see a flop. The result is lots of very big pots and numerous rapidly diminishing stacks. In other words, a typical 'no-foldem' game (see 'The OMG Hand', 21/09/13).
   The way that this rebuy game plays out is not that much different from any other tournament. After all, the rebuy is simply adding more players to the game, and of course, more chips to the tables. And because I'm not rebuying anyway, I just play it the way I would a 'straight-up' tournament. But on the odd occasion when I do play in a rebuy, the only difference in strategy comes as the end of the rebuy period approaches. That's when I have to decide whether it would be better to push all-in in an attempt double up or whether it would be better to hold on to my current stack. This is something that I generally have worked out before I start, so it's not that much different from a regular game. But as I don't rebuy in this tourney, it's academic anyway.
   The real adjustment that I need to make when I play in this game is to the turbo-style blind structure. With the 80 big blind starting stack and the three level double-up (not to mention the shortening up of the blind period) things move pretty quickly. This means it quickly becomes an action game where you are forced into the position of making a move. But it doesn't mean I'm changing my basic strategy. I still play tight early on and then get looser as my stack/blind ratio increases. The difference with this tournament is that I reach the 'action zone' earlier than I would in a slower-paced game. So typically I'm folding a lot in the earlier stages; mostly just sitting pretty and watching the action. Generally I reach the 'push-or-fold' zone some time after the first break. And then I'm either doubling my stack, giving me a bit more room to manoeuvre, or I'm knocked out, giving me 7 days to figure out where I went wrong.
   My recent results in this game have not been great, but it's way too early to panic. It's in the nature of turbo-type games that luck plays a big part, and all you can do is keep playing the best game that you can. I had a couple of cashes earlier in the year, but the money has dried up since, and I just recently dropped below the break-even point. Nevertheless, I'm reasonably confidant that the results will come in the long run if I keep working at it. I certainly intend to keep playing at least until the end of the year and probably well past that, regardless of the results. Even if I don't get the good results, there's always the karaoke.
  Yeah right.