The boys next door,
The mums and dads,
New weds and near-deads,
Have you ever been had in Clubland? Elvis Costello
I play a live poker tournament every Friday night at a local Workingmens Club. It's through my membership of this club that I discovered the Clubs New Zealand North Island Poker Championship. This event is held every year over Queen's Birthday Weekend (a three day weekend at the end of May). It's attended by members of Clubs New Zealand affiliated clubs from all over the North Island. The venue alternates between the southern end of the island, the middle of the island, and Auckland. This year it was played in Auckland, at the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club. When my wife and I found out about this we cancelled our plans to play in the annual pool tournament that we usually attend at this time of year, paid our $40 entry fee, and waited in eager anticipation for Friday 30th May.
FRIDAY
Although the main tourney was on Saturday and Sunday, there was also a separate $20 game being played on the Friday night. So I got my wife to pick me up after work so we could go straight there and avoid the worst of the Friday night rush hour. On arrival we were pleasantly surprised to be given a gift bag containing a number of little gifts, as well as a copy of the tournament rules. The Manurewa 'Cossie' is a pretty flash club. It's very spacious, with a big pool/snooker area, a restaurant at one end, a bistro at the other and a fairly expansive dance floor. The poker tables were set up on the dance floor, with a big screen at one end for the tournament display.
We'd heard that the club had failed to get a late licence for the Friday night and that it was due to close by midnight. As the tourney wasn't due to start until 7.15 pm, we figured it would be a speedy format. Sure enough, we were starting with just a stack of 10,000. With the opening blinds at 100/200, this amounted to a short stack of just 50 big blinds. So clearly, there was going to be plenty of action.
My early hands were pretty poor but I knew I had to get active earlier rather than later. So I raised with KT on the button and got two callers. The flop was AAK so I bet and got called again. Getting nervous, I checked and so did the other two players. The river was a third spade and one player put in a big bet. The other player, 'B', one of the Friday night regulars, folded his hand and I reluctantly called. My two pair lost to a flush. Then B revealed that he'd folded an Ace. Now that's what I call a disciplined fold. Knowing when you're beat is an important skill in poker.
A little later, getting short-stacked, I limped in with 99, hoping to hit a 9 on the flop. I got my wish; a 9 hit but there were three spades on the board. Player 1 bet at it and I called. After a nothing turn player 1 bet again and I folded, wondering if I'd made the right decision. Obligingly, my opponent showed his Ace-high flush. Now that's what I call a good fold.
With about eight big blinds left I checked in the big blind with Q8. When a Queen hit the flop I pushed all-in and got called by someone with QT. I lost most of my stack and was left with 1 1/2 big blinds. So with Q2 in the small blind I pushed my last chip into the middle. After the cards were dealt out there was two pair on the board. My Q high was beaten by another player's K high. I'd played for about an hour and came around 70/76. After that I hung around with some of the other also-rans and listened to their bad beat stories (everybody's got one, right?). We were keen to start up a cash game but there didn't seem to be any spare chips available. My wife was eliminated not long after me, so we decided to call it a night and go home.
SATURDAY
On Saturday there are two tournaments played. They both offer cash prizes but they are also qualifying events for the main tournament on Sunday. If you make the top 48 in the morning tourney, you qualify for Sunday. If not, you play in the second tourney and you qualify if you make it into the top 16. My wife and I arrived in plenty of time for the start of the first qualifying tournament which was due to start at 10.30. On arrival we learned that R, one of the Friday night regulars, had won the previous night's tournament. Saturday's tournament started out with a much better starting stack size of 100 BB (20,000/200). However it soon became apparent that the blind structure was somewhat challenging. It was structured like this: 100/200, 200/400, 300/600, 400/800, 500/1000, 1000/2000, 2000/4000.... So you start out with a doubling in the blind levels, then it's quite gentle for three rounds before you hit two double-ups in a row. It was obviously going to get very interesting after the first couple of hours. With 120 players seated on the dance floor the tournament got under way.
With all the out-of towners in the tourney, I ended up sitting at a table full of Auckland Inter-club regulars. I'd thought a bit about how to approach this kind of tournament but in the end decided to just play my natural game without thinking too much about trying to limp across the qualifying threshold. Things started out pretty slowly. I was getting a few big hands early on, things like AJ, AQ, AT suited etc, but couldn't seem to hit anything on the board. So I was sitting on a stack of around 17,000 for quite a while. Just before lunch I nearly got busted out and ended up with one 500 chip left, with the big blind at 2000. It was not looking good at all. The only good news was that the organiser was chipping up. So all the 500 chips were getting taken out of play, which meant I would get bumped up to 1000. The bad news was that the blind levels would be 2000/4000 after the break. So I'd still have just 1/4 of a minimum bet.
After lunch, on returning to the table, I was in the 'under-the-gun' position (first to act) so I went all-in without looking at my hand. There were two callers and one went all-in on the flop, the other folded and I turned over 89 of hearts. I was up against a made hand and needed a ten for a straight. The turn was a heart so now I needed a ten or a heart. The river was a ten, a perfect result for me as I now had one big blind! I was in the big blind next anyway, putting me automatically all-in. It was a nothing hand and I hit nothing, busting me out after sitting back down for about five minutes. I finished 75/120.
There were a couple of cash games going on but I didn't want to play in those as the 'second chance' qualifier was due to start at about 2 pm. While I was waiting B told me (and anyone else who would listen) his bad beat story. It went something like this:
'I have pocket Kings so I raise and get one caller. The flop is [something like] K 8 5. I push all-in with my trip Kings, the stone-cold nuts. The other player has QT. Absolutely nothing. No draw, no pair, nothing. Why would you call? The turn is a 9, then a J hits the river, giving him a straight. Can you believe that?'
I have to admit, it's a pretty good bad beat story.
My wife got knocked out before qualifying as well so we both entered the afternoon tourney. This was held in a room adjacent to the dance floor area, and once again, it was a short stack tournament. I was playing pretty conservatively at first, just looking for a good spot, but not much was happening. With just 20 BBs left I started looking for a chance to push the action but I was card-dead for a while. Once I got down to 10 BBs I started pushing all-in with any half decent hand. I managed to pick up the blinds a couple of times before finally doubling-up and bouncing back up to 20 BBs. It was at this stage that I realised that there were only 25 players left, putting me nine places away from the qualifying mark. I changed tack and decided to try and fold my way to the 'bubble'.
Even though I'd vowed to fold even Aces, I just couldn't resist playing AT suited in position and ended up losing some chips when I missed the flop. So I closed up shop again and played the waiting game. The player to my left was in a worse position than me, with just 1 BB left. When someone went all-in on the bubble on the other table he went over to watch, along with a couple of others. One of those players was eliminated and I passed the qualifying mark with just 3 BBs. Then I decided to go all out for the win, but it was too late for a last minute charge. I ended up all-in with A6s against JJ and lost. I finished 10/62. Never mind; at least I qualified.
The first tournament was still going, but there were only four players left at this stage. I went over to take a look and witnessed the following play:
Player 1 is all-in, player 2 is all-in and player 3 is considering whether or not to call. The board reads A A T T J. After thinking for a while, she calls and shows 44. WTF? What could she possibly think they were going all-in with? Did she really think they were just playing the board? Player 1 had a ten and player 2 had an Ace, so there you go. In the end the players that came first and second were both Friday night regulars; another good result. There were some cash games going and some entertainment due to start later, but my wife and I both decided to pike out and go home and get some rest.
SUNDAY
We arrived fresh and eager on Sunday morning. Some others were not looking so fresh. Apparently some of the cash games went on till quite late the previous night and some others took a trip into the city to check out the casino. Many had opted to have breakfast at the club but we just hung out over by the courtyard and waited for the action to start. There were two tournaments to be played that day; the main event and a consolation tournament for those who didn't qualify. These tourneys were set to run at the same time and were both set up in the dance floor area. My wife hadn't qualified so she was playing in one and I was in the other.
There were 64 players in the main game and we started with a 100 BB starting stack. As usual I started out playing fairly conservatively and managed to pick up some chips here and there. My best result was when I was doing a little 'set mining'; limping in with 77 and hoping to flop another 7. When I flopped my set I called big bets on the flop and turn, then raised on the river and got paid off by someone who was over-valuing her top pair. That was a big chip-up.
After the lunch break, having gone through the roughest part of that brutal blind structure, I was starting to get short-stacked. Having seen three players lose badly with AQ so far, I figured it was time that hand paid off, so I went all-in with AQ. My AQ held up against A9, winning with A high. This tripled my stack and put me in a much more comfortable position. By this time my wife had been knocked out of the other tourney and was playing in a cash game off to the side. When she came over to have a look she was most impressed by my big stacks of 1k chips. Actually it looked better than it really was - I'd ended up with a lot of 'small change' while many other players had smaller stacks that were made up of 5k chips.
As the number of players diminished I was down to about 10 BB again, but actually still above the average stack, so extreme caution was required. We were sitting at eight-player tables so with just two tables left we were down to playing five-handed and the blinds were coming around real fast. Finally one more player was eliminated and we were on to the final table. At this stage I had 190k in chips with the blinds at 20k/40k. A seriously short stack. B had bought his fancy ten-sided polished wood poker table for the final, so there were nine players and the tournament organiser, who was doing the dealing. But we had to take a break while the final table was set up.
They had the area roped off and there were quite a few onlookers standing around the edges. R, one of the Friday night regulars, had also made the final table. As we waited to be seated I made the comment to her that, after all that build-up, it would be funny if I got knocked out in the first hand. We drew for seats and I was in the big blind. One player limped in and I checked my option with KT. The highest card on the flop was a King so I immediately went all-in and was immediately called. The caller had AK so I was drawing very thin. The miracle card didn't come and it was all over. Having hardly sat down, I got back up and was greeted by a round of applause from the spectators. It must have been ironic applause surely. So I slunk off to the bar to get a beer and then went to check out the cash games.
My wife and I played in a cash game for a while as the final table played on. There were now quite a few railbirds over there. The cashie was a fun game but it trailed off after a while. By this stage we'd had enough poker for a while so we headed off home without waiting to see who would collect the $2000 first prize and championship cup. We found out later that R had made the money in 5th place (the top six got paid) and that the winner was one of the Auckland Inter-club regulars.
I was pretty impressed with this whole event which was very well run and at a terrific venue. My wife and I had a very enjoyable time and I'm pretty happy about qualifying and going deep in the main event. It was a fun social event and there was plenty of poker to be played. The only regret is not staying on Saturday night and getting into those cash games (and also taking my camera three days in a row and never using it). Next year it's being held at Lower Hutt, down Wellington way and we will definitely be headed south to have another crack at it. Only 50 weeks to go.
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
Tuesday, 6 May 2014
Cashie
Yes there are two paths you can go by,
but in the long run,
There's still time to change the road you're on Led Zeppelin
When I first started playing poker online (four years ago) I began by playing Texas holdem no limit cash games (ring games) on Fulltilt Poker. This was in the days when I didn't have a proper bankroll management plan and I jumped into the 10c/25c games and bought in for $US25. I played in these games three times in a row, losing my buy-in each time within a matter of a few hours. After that I decided that 'cashies' were not for me and moved on to playing tournament poker. The cash games at this level were a lot tighter than I had expected, with a lot of hands being decided pre-flop. After that the only cash games I played online were fixed limit poker variants and pot limit Omaha.
But now, after getting plenty of poker playing experience under my belt, I've started playing no limit holdem cashies again. Once again I'm playing at the same level as before, but this time $25 is well within my buy-in range. I could have started at a lower level but I felt confident enough in my abilities to have a crack at the 10c/25c games. I figured I'd just start out nice and slow, playing cautiously and feeling my way. As I mentioned previously, I have accounts with both 888poker and Pokerstars, so I thought I'd play one site for a month, then the other, and see how they compare.
I went into the games on 888 knowing that they had a reputation for being loose games and also that the rake on the game is pretty high. So I was interested to see whether the looseness of the games would compensate for the high rake. The games on 888 are actually 10c/20c games, so I bought in for the maximum of $US20. There are generally just a couple of games available at this level, and sometimes only the one. I found the games to be tighter than tournament games but generally moderately loose, with three or more people typically seeing the flop and quite a lot of 'limping in'. I had some success playing in these games; in fact I came out ahead in all four of the sessions I played in, making a tidy $160 profit. So I entered the Pokerstars month with some optimism.
To say that Pokerstars was a 'different kettle of fish' would be misleading, because fish are actually hard to find on this site. At the 10c/25c level there are a large number of games available, probably in excess of twenty (I didn't bother to count them) with a lot of players moving from table to table or playing multiple tables. One of the features on Pokerstars is the 'find this player' tab, which allows you to see if a player is also playing on other tables. But there is also a 'hide' function that allows you to prevent others from conducting such a search. Nearly every player I checked out was hiding other tables but I moved around enough to see the same names cropping up over and over on table after table. So there is clearly a lot of multi-tabling going on. As for me, I just stuck to one table.
These tables are a lot tighter. Typically in these games hands get folded around to the button, there is very little limping in, and hands often end without anyone seeing the flop. I didn't do nearly as well in these games. There is also a lot more raising and re-raising pre-flop. Although I kept my head and avoided most difficult situations, I always seemed to get caught out playing big bets with very good hands up against monster hands. So I would win a few small pots here and there and then lose one big one. I played five games on Pokerstars: I lost two, won two and barely broke even in the other. In the end I came out $14 ahead.
Finding the right table to play on is quite a challenge on Pokerstars. In the game lobby there is a list of games which includes information on the percentage of players who see the flop. This is generally a good indication of the looseness of the table: the higher the percentage, the fishier the table. The players-to-the-flop percentages on 888 are typically anywhere between 15% and 40%. On Pokerstars, the percentages range between 5% and 25%. But tables over 20% are rare and most of them are under 15%. Like me, there are a lot of players looking for the loosest tables. So the higher the players-to-the-flop percentage, the more players there are on the waiting list. A table with over 20% might have as many as seven players waiting to get in on the action. So you essentially have a bunch of sharks circling the fish ponds. Of course, as soon as a couple of the tight players make it on to the table the percentages go down. If you're number five on the waiting list you're going to find yourself on a table full of sharks with a 5% average.
Nevertheless, I managed to find tables within a decent range of 10-15% and kept an eye on the stats for my current table. You just have to be ready to jump ship from time to time to stay in the right zone. Now and then I would see a particularly fishy player at my table, and they would usually find themselves busted out in fairly short order. It's clear to me that there are a lot of 'grinders' multi-tabling at this level. As a result, the competition is pretty tough.
After two months of play my decision was easy; I'll be playing on 888poker from now on. Ideally, I'd like to play on a site with a few more games available, but that consideration is outweighed by the easier, more profitable games. So I'll be playing 888 over the next few weeks, one table at first, and then I'll take a shot at playing two tables, provided that they are available. Hopefully I'll be able to keep up the good results.
I reckon a little research goes a long way.
but in the long run,
There's still time to change the road you're on Led Zeppelin
When I first started playing poker online (four years ago) I began by playing Texas holdem no limit cash games (ring games) on Fulltilt Poker. This was in the days when I didn't have a proper bankroll management plan and I jumped into the 10c/25c games and bought in for $US25. I played in these games three times in a row, losing my buy-in each time within a matter of a few hours. After that I decided that 'cashies' were not for me and moved on to playing tournament poker. The cash games at this level were a lot tighter than I had expected, with a lot of hands being decided pre-flop. After that the only cash games I played online were fixed limit poker variants and pot limit Omaha.
But now, after getting plenty of poker playing experience under my belt, I've started playing no limit holdem cashies again. Once again I'm playing at the same level as before, but this time $25 is well within my buy-in range. I could have started at a lower level but I felt confident enough in my abilities to have a crack at the 10c/25c games. I figured I'd just start out nice and slow, playing cautiously and feeling my way. As I mentioned previously, I have accounts with both 888poker and Pokerstars, so I thought I'd play one site for a month, then the other, and see how they compare.
To say that Pokerstars was a 'different kettle of fish' would be misleading, because fish are actually hard to find on this site. At the 10c/25c level there are a large number of games available, probably in excess of twenty (I didn't bother to count them) with a lot of players moving from table to table or playing multiple tables. One of the features on Pokerstars is the 'find this player' tab, which allows you to see if a player is also playing on other tables. But there is also a 'hide' function that allows you to prevent others from conducting such a search. Nearly every player I checked out was hiding other tables but I moved around enough to see the same names cropping up over and over on table after table. So there is clearly a lot of multi-tabling going on. As for me, I just stuck to one table.
These tables are a lot tighter. Typically in these games hands get folded around to the button, there is very little limping in, and hands often end without anyone seeing the flop. I didn't do nearly as well in these games. There is also a lot more raising and re-raising pre-flop. Although I kept my head and avoided most difficult situations, I always seemed to get caught out playing big bets with very good hands up against monster hands. So I would win a few small pots here and there and then lose one big one. I played five games on Pokerstars: I lost two, won two and barely broke even in the other. In the end I came out $14 ahead.
Finding the right table to play on is quite a challenge on Pokerstars. In the game lobby there is a list of games which includes information on the percentage of players who see the flop. This is generally a good indication of the looseness of the table: the higher the percentage, the fishier the table. The players-to-the-flop percentages on 888 are typically anywhere between 15% and 40%. On Pokerstars, the percentages range between 5% and 25%. But tables over 20% are rare and most of them are under 15%. Like me, there are a lot of players looking for the loosest tables. So the higher the players-to-the-flop percentage, the more players there are on the waiting list. A table with over 20% might have as many as seven players waiting to get in on the action. So you essentially have a bunch of sharks circling the fish ponds. Of course, as soon as a couple of the tight players make it on to the table the percentages go down. If you're number five on the waiting list you're going to find yourself on a table full of sharks with a 5% average.
Nevertheless, I managed to find tables within a decent range of 10-15% and kept an eye on the stats for my current table. You just have to be ready to jump ship from time to time to stay in the right zone. Now and then I would see a particularly fishy player at my table, and they would usually find themselves busted out in fairly short order. It's clear to me that there are a lot of 'grinders' multi-tabling at this level. As a result, the competition is pretty tough.
After two months of play my decision was easy; I'll be playing on 888poker from now on. Ideally, I'd like to play on a site with a few more games available, but that consideration is outweighed by the easier, more profitable games. So I'll be playing 888 over the next few weeks, one table at first, and then I'll take a shot at playing two tables, provided that they are available. Hopefully I'll be able to keep up the good results.
I reckon a little research goes a long way.
Tuesday, 15 April 2014
Deception
Would I lie to you?
Would I lie to you honey?
Now would I say something that wasn't true? The Eurythmics
As we all know, deception plays an important role in the game of poker. In the game itself you can gain an edge over your opponents by disguising the strength of your hand. If you have a strong hand you want others to believe that you are weak so you can lure them into the pot. And if your holdings are weak, the only way you're going to win the pot is if you make the others believe that you have a monster hand.
Of course, at the lower levels of the game, a lot of players are fairly transparent. Typically they will check or call with drawing hands and bet out when they hit something good. I've been playing at this level long enough to know that when a player calls your big bets to the turn and then decides to put in a big bet when a possible flush or obvious straight appears, they've almost certainly hit the hand that they were chasing. OK, so it's always possible that they're just representing a big hand, but most of the time it's not a bluff (I've called enough of these kinds of bets to know). But the thing that really mystifies me is the kind of player who pushes all-in when they hit their monster hand. I just don't get this. Surely the best strategy is to put in a smallish bet that might win you a few more chips. What's the point of chasing that big hand if you just scare off all the callers when you finally hit it? In other words, a certain amount of subtlety is required if you're going fishing.
As for bluffing, that can be a bit of a problem at the lower levels. As the old saying goes, 'you can't bluff a donkey'. However, very passive players CAN be bluffed out of a pot with a little perseverance, provided that the conditions are right. Even the most passive player, after first checking, will think twice about calling a big bet when a scare card hits the board. The trick is to not do it too often and to avoid trying to bluff a group of 'fishy' players. Like they say, 'you can't bluff the table'. However, trying to represent a big hand when someone has hit the board can get pretty expensive. That's just one of the reasons why position is so important.
This is a basic part of any poker game but at another level you have table image. The number of times a player raises, the number of hands they play, the types of hand they play; all this goes to create a particular pattern of play. Although a lot of players pay little or no attention to this sort of thing and just play their hands, there are players around in low level games who take note of the way others are playing. This seems to be especially true in live games where people tend to play each other on a regular basis and get to know each other's games. I've found that my playing style in the weekly tournaments helps to maintain a certain level of deception. I usually play tight in the early stages, and I am usually showing down big hands. I keep bluffing to a minimum and on the occasion when everyone folds to my big bet when I have a monster, I'll sometimes show it, just to maintain the image. Then, when I start to loosen up in the later stages, people are more likely to believe that I have it when I bet big, even if I don't.
Some of the articles I've read have suggested that the way a player dresses and behaves, even the way that they stack their chips, can offer clues to their playing styles. Personally I think that is taking things a bit far, although I think that the amount a player is drinking might well be a useful clue to how loose and/or reckless they might be. But some players are actually keen to tell you about their playing styles or to share their poker philosophy. While rank amateurs are easy enough to spot, there are many other more experienced players who will go out of their way to demonstrate how much knowledge they have of the game, analyse and discuss hands that have been played and generally give you a good idea of their level of experience. This can be quite useful information.
On the flip side of this, I've found myself being very careful about the amount of information I volunteer since I started playing regular live games. I try to avoid talking about playing online, I avoid demonstrating knowledge of the finer points of the game, I never talk about pot odds or use poker jargon, and on occasion where there's been some dispute about a hand, I stay right out of it. In other words, I play dumb. The fact that I'm actually pretty clumsy when it comes to shuffling and still haven't figured out how to separate out side-pots helps to reinforce this general image.
By contrast, there's a player in my regular live tournament who seems to be doing just the opposite. I'd only known this man for a short while when I heard him announce to the table that he was a professional poker player. Since then I've often heard him give other players advise on how they should play, talk frequently about being given the odds to call, offer endless analysis both during and after his own and other people's hands, and crow about how good he is at the game. Now I don't know if this guy is in fact a professional player, but I seriously doubt it. For a start, what's he doing playing in a $20 tournament? But apart from this, would a professional really behave in this way, announcing to all and sundry the level of his poker expertise?
You can't play with the same group of people on a regular basis and not come to know and like a good many of them, especially in a social environment like my regular Friday night tournament. But at the same time, I'm in the game to win it, and giving away too much information is likely to reduce my chances of achieving that. Everyone accepts lying as part and parcel of poker play. And I'm not actually lying to my fellow players about what I do or don't know; merely choosing to be economical about certain facts. When we play poker, we are expected to be deceptive. In the real world, we are expected to be truthful. The question is, where does the game end?
Would I lie to you honey?
Now would I say something that wasn't true? The Eurythmics
As we all know, deception plays an important role in the game of poker. In the game itself you can gain an edge over your opponents by disguising the strength of your hand. If you have a strong hand you want others to believe that you are weak so you can lure them into the pot. And if your holdings are weak, the only way you're going to win the pot is if you make the others believe that you have a monster hand.
Of course, at the lower levels of the game, a lot of players are fairly transparent. Typically they will check or call with drawing hands and bet out when they hit something good. I've been playing at this level long enough to know that when a player calls your big bets to the turn and then decides to put in a big bet when a possible flush or obvious straight appears, they've almost certainly hit the hand that they were chasing. OK, so it's always possible that they're just representing a big hand, but most of the time it's not a bluff (I've called enough of these kinds of bets to know). But the thing that really mystifies me is the kind of player who pushes all-in when they hit their monster hand. I just don't get this. Surely the best strategy is to put in a smallish bet that might win you a few more chips. What's the point of chasing that big hand if you just scare off all the callers when you finally hit it? In other words, a certain amount of subtlety is required if you're going fishing.
As for bluffing, that can be a bit of a problem at the lower levels. As the old saying goes, 'you can't bluff a donkey'. However, very passive players CAN be bluffed out of a pot with a little perseverance, provided that the conditions are right. Even the most passive player, after first checking, will think twice about calling a big bet when a scare card hits the board. The trick is to not do it too often and to avoid trying to bluff a group of 'fishy' players. Like they say, 'you can't bluff the table'. However, trying to represent a big hand when someone has hit the board can get pretty expensive. That's just one of the reasons why position is so important.
This is a basic part of any poker game but at another level you have table image. The number of times a player raises, the number of hands they play, the types of hand they play; all this goes to create a particular pattern of play. Although a lot of players pay little or no attention to this sort of thing and just play their hands, there are players around in low level games who take note of the way others are playing. This seems to be especially true in live games where people tend to play each other on a regular basis and get to know each other's games. I've found that my playing style in the weekly tournaments helps to maintain a certain level of deception. I usually play tight in the early stages, and I am usually showing down big hands. I keep bluffing to a minimum and on the occasion when everyone folds to my big bet when I have a monster, I'll sometimes show it, just to maintain the image. Then, when I start to loosen up in the later stages, people are more likely to believe that I have it when I bet big, even if I don't.Some of the articles I've read have suggested that the way a player dresses and behaves, even the way that they stack their chips, can offer clues to their playing styles. Personally I think that is taking things a bit far, although I think that the amount a player is drinking might well be a useful clue to how loose and/or reckless they might be. But some players are actually keen to tell you about their playing styles or to share their poker philosophy. While rank amateurs are easy enough to spot, there are many other more experienced players who will go out of their way to demonstrate how much knowledge they have of the game, analyse and discuss hands that have been played and generally give you a good idea of their level of experience. This can be quite useful information.
On the flip side of this, I've found myself being very careful about the amount of information I volunteer since I started playing regular live games. I try to avoid talking about playing online, I avoid demonstrating knowledge of the finer points of the game, I never talk about pot odds or use poker jargon, and on occasion where there's been some dispute about a hand, I stay right out of it. In other words, I play dumb. The fact that I'm actually pretty clumsy when it comes to shuffling and still haven't figured out how to separate out side-pots helps to reinforce this general image.
By contrast, there's a player in my regular live tournament who seems to be doing just the opposite. I'd only known this man for a short while when I heard him announce to the table that he was a professional poker player. Since then I've often heard him give other players advise on how they should play, talk frequently about being given the odds to call, offer endless analysis both during and after his own and other people's hands, and crow about how good he is at the game. Now I don't know if this guy is in fact a professional player, but I seriously doubt it. For a start, what's he doing playing in a $20 tournament? But apart from this, would a professional really behave in this way, announcing to all and sundry the level of his poker expertise?
You can't play with the same group of people on a regular basis and not come to know and like a good many of them, especially in a social environment like my regular Friday night tournament. But at the same time, I'm in the game to win it, and giving away too much information is likely to reduce my chances of achieving that. Everyone accepts lying as part and parcel of poker play. And I'm not actually lying to my fellow players about what I do or don't know; merely choosing to be economical about certain facts. When we play poker, we are expected to be deceptive. In the real world, we are expected to be truthful. The question is, where does the game end?
Thursday, 27 March 2014
Good, Bad, Ugly
Live Tournament. In early position I have K Q. As the table is pretty passive I decide to limp and see what the flop brings. In late position, player R raises. If it was anyone else I would fold but R is a notoriously aggressive player. She could have anything. So I call. I flop a full house: K Q Q. I check and R immediately puts in a big bet. Trying to look reluctant, I call. I check the turn, hoping that R will continue to bet. When she does I put in my best Oscar winning performance and then call. I have no interest in what comes on the river. I'm just wondering whether she will bet again if I check. Rather than take the risk of it being checked back, I put in a minimum bet. I figure she must be getting suspicious by now. She instantly calls and shows Q x. After seeing my monster hand she says she thought I might have A K. As she had trips I guess I could have bet a lot more on the river. After this the other players enter into an analysis of the size of my river bet. Everyone's an expert after the fact.
Live Tournament. At a very passive table I limp in with K Q again (no, I don't usually make a habit of this but when the play is so passive, it's hard to resist). The flop is K x x. Player T checks, as do I. Player G bets and we both call. The turn is an Ace. Now T, who is usually more passive than a jellyfish, puts up a decent-sized bet. I figure if he's betting, he must have the Ace, so I fold. G calls. After the river T shows down K Q and G has K 4! I guess T is not as predictable as I thought.
Online SitnGo. With A K suited, I put in a standard 3x raise and get 3 callers. The flop is A A 7. I check my trips, not wishing to scare anyone off, and they all do likewise. The turn is another 7, giving me a full house. I check again, hoping that one of the others hits a decent hand on the river so I can extract some chips from them. I get my wish. The river is an Ace, putting a full house on the board and giving me quads. Player 1 bets half the pot. He's obviously trying to steal the pot by representing the other Ace. This is a dream result for me. The other two players both now fold, which is quite surprising. I re-raise and p1, who obviously thinks I'm trying to re-steal, calls with 8 9s. The only way this could have worked out better would have been if his bluff had been an all-in push.
Online ring game (10c/20c). I'm in the big blind with 4 2. There is one limper in the pot. The flop is 3 5 7. I bet at it, assuming that the other player also missed a flop like that. They call. The turn is a King. I decide that this might be a scare card for my opposition, so I bet about 3/4 pot and get called again. With bets being called twice, you'd think I'd get the message by now, but when a 2 comes on the river I decide to bet at it again. After all, in the big blind, I could have anything: 2 2, K 5, 4 6. So I bet about half the pot and get re-raised. So I do what I should have done two betting rounds ago; fold.
Online ring game (10c/20c). With A J in the BB there are several limpers and I just check it. I don't want to be raising with this hand from such a poor position and am looking for a pretty flop. The flop is about as pretty as it can get; T Q K, giving me the nuts. I figure it's time to go fishing and check. One player puts in a small bet and I call. The turn is an Ace, which is not great for me; anyone with a Jack now also has an Ace high straight and anyone without a Jack is going to be pretty wary of a bet. Player 1 checks, p2 bets $1.60 and I immediately re-raise them. To my surprise I get two callers. The river is a 7, and now there are 3 hearts on the board. P1 checks, p2 bets and, wary of a possible flush, I just call. P1 then check-raises to $25. Even though I know I have the best possible hand short of a flush, I just can't bring myself to call such a huge bet. Getting drawn out on when the river hits is pretty routine for me, so I reluctantly fold. P2 calls and shows 2 pair. P1 has J 2 for an Ace high straight. A very bad fold. I guess I should have raised pre-flop after all. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
Online ring game (10c/20c). With J 9 in the BB I call a minimum raise from one other player. The flop is 5 8 J. With top pair I put in a bet of 3/4 pot and get called. The 9 on the turn gives me top 2 pair, so I bet again. My opponent now puts in a big re-raise. This player had just recently suffered a bad beat from a worse hand and now had a short stack. I figure he's on tilt so I push hard. He calls me all-in and shows 6 7; he has a straight. Oops. The river is another 9, giving me a full house. I collect a very healthy-sized pot and the other player has another bad beat tale to tell.
Online SitnGo. Early in the tournament I have A Q in the small blind. One player raises x3 and I call. I miss the flop completely; 3 4 8. Noting that the other player is short-stacked, I decide to take a stab at it and push all-in. I figure it will be very hard for him to call without something really good. He calls with K J. He hits nothing and, just to cap it off, I hit an Ace on the river. I love it when a plan comes together.
Live tournament. Mid-way through the tournament, with the blinds at 1200 (they started at 200), I look down at A 2. I limp in and so does player B. The flop is A K 2. I check it and B bets 2400. So I re-raise to 4800 with my 2 pair and get called. The turn is a 9. I figure B must have an Ace, so as long as it's not A K or A 9 I should be OK. I bet 4800 again and he calls. The river is a 2, giving me a full house. Trying to disguise the strength of my hand, I bet the same amount again. B has a good long think about this, staring at me and muttering about what I might have, but eventually he calls. I declare that I have a full house and throw my cards down. To my horror I see that I have A 3, not A 2. Oh no! Then, to my amazement, B turns over K 5. I still win with my baby Ace. I can't believe that B would keep calling those bets with second pair. I also can't believe that I mis-read my hand. It could have been a disaster. In fact, it should have been.
Live tournament. 2 1/2 hours into the tournament and I'm short-stacked. At this stage I'm just looking for a good hand to go all-in with. I push all-in with about 13 BBs left with pocket sixes. I get called by an even shorter stack with T 6. So my opponent has only 3 outs. They hit one of those tens and I'm left with only a handful of chips. A few hands later I go all-in again with 9 9. I get called by A 5 (only one over-card again). There's an Ace in the window (first card exposed on the flop) and I lose again. My last desperate move with just 5 BBs left and I push again with pocket fours. This time my opponent has 6 outs with K 9. There's a 9 on the flop, then another on the turn and that's it. So my pocket pairs lose three times in a row within 30 minutes. Oh well. That's poker.
Online SitnGo. With A K suited, I put in a standard 3x raise and get 3 callers. The flop is A A 7. I check my trips, not wishing to scare anyone off, and they all do likewise. The turn is another 7, giving me a full house. I check again, hoping that one of the others hits a decent hand on the river so I can extract some chips from them. I get my wish. The river is an Ace, putting a full house on the board and giving me quads. Player 1 bets half the pot. He's obviously trying to steal the pot by representing the other Ace. This is a dream result for me. The other two players both now fold, which is quite surprising. I re-raise and p1, who obviously thinks I'm trying to re-steal, calls with 8 9s. The only way this could have worked out better would have been if his bluff had been an all-in push.
Online ring game (10c/20c). I'm in the big blind with 4 2. There is one limper in the pot. The flop is 3 5 7. I bet at it, assuming that the other player also missed a flop like that. They call. The turn is a King. I decide that this might be a scare card for my opposition, so I bet about 3/4 pot and get called again. With bets being called twice, you'd think I'd get the message by now, but when a 2 comes on the river I decide to bet at it again. After all, in the big blind, I could have anything: 2 2, K 5, 4 6. So I bet about half the pot and get re-raised. So I do what I should have done two betting rounds ago; fold.
Online ring game (10c/20c). With A J in the BB there are several limpers and I just check it. I don't want to be raising with this hand from such a poor position and am looking for a pretty flop. The flop is about as pretty as it can get; T Q K, giving me the nuts. I figure it's time to go fishing and check. One player puts in a small bet and I call. The turn is an Ace, which is not great for me; anyone with a Jack now also has an Ace high straight and anyone without a Jack is going to be pretty wary of a bet. Player 1 checks, p2 bets $1.60 and I immediately re-raise them. To my surprise I get two callers. The river is a 7, and now there are 3 hearts on the board. P1 checks, p2 bets and, wary of a possible flush, I just call. P1 then check-raises to $25. Even though I know I have the best possible hand short of a flush, I just can't bring myself to call such a huge bet. Getting drawn out on when the river hits is pretty routine for me, so I reluctantly fold. P2 calls and shows 2 pair. P1 has J 2 for an Ace high straight. A very bad fold. I guess I should have raised pre-flop after all. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
Online ring game (10c/20c). With J 9 in the BB I call a minimum raise from one other player. The flop is 5 8 J. With top pair I put in a bet of 3/4 pot and get called. The 9 on the turn gives me top 2 pair, so I bet again. My opponent now puts in a big re-raise. This player had just recently suffered a bad beat from a worse hand and now had a short stack. I figure he's on tilt so I push hard. He calls me all-in and shows 6 7; he has a straight. Oops. The river is another 9, giving me a full house. I collect a very healthy-sized pot and the other player has another bad beat tale to tell.
Online SitnGo. Early in the tournament I have A Q in the small blind. One player raises x3 and I call. I miss the flop completely; 3 4 8. Noting that the other player is short-stacked, I decide to take a stab at it and push all-in. I figure it will be very hard for him to call without something really good. He calls with K J. He hits nothing and, just to cap it off, I hit an Ace on the river. I love it when a plan comes together.
Live tournament. Mid-way through the tournament, with the blinds at 1200 (they started at 200), I look down at A 2. I limp in and so does player B. The flop is A K 2. I check it and B bets 2400. So I re-raise to 4800 with my 2 pair and get called. The turn is a 9. I figure B must have an Ace, so as long as it's not A K or A 9 I should be OK. I bet 4800 again and he calls. The river is a 2, giving me a full house. Trying to disguise the strength of my hand, I bet the same amount again. B has a good long think about this, staring at me and muttering about what I might have, but eventually he calls. I declare that I have a full house and throw my cards down. To my horror I see that I have A 3, not A 2. Oh no! Then, to my amazement, B turns over K 5. I still win with my baby Ace. I can't believe that B would keep calling those bets with second pair. I also can't believe that I mis-read my hand. It could have been a disaster. In fact, it should have been.
Live tournament. 2 1/2 hours into the tournament and I'm short-stacked. At this stage I'm just looking for a good hand to go all-in with. I push all-in with about 13 BBs left with pocket sixes. I get called by an even shorter stack with T 6. So my opponent has only 3 outs. They hit one of those tens and I'm left with only a handful of chips. A few hands later I go all-in again with 9 9. I get called by A 5 (only one over-card again). There's an Ace in the window (first card exposed on the flop) and I lose again. My last desperate move with just 5 BBs left and I push again with pocket fours. This time my opponent has 6 outs with K 9. There's a 9 on the flop, then another on the turn and that's it. So my pocket pairs lose three times in a row within 30 minutes. Oh well. That's poker.
Sunday, 23 February 2014
Summer Days
Now I'm sitting here,
Sipping at my ice cold beer,
Lazing on a sunny afternoon The Kinks
WARM-UP
With the beginning of summer comes a change of game. I start playing No Limit Texas Holdem Tournaments online. When I can find them I play in tournaments with fields that are limited to a few hundred players. But most of the time I'm playing in $7 27 player SitnGo tournaments on Pokerstars, because these are readily available. I do OK in two of the larger tournaments that I enter in this period. I come 24/267 in one, just getting my money back, and 6/116 in the other, getting 5 times my buy-in back. But there are several others that I enter where I come nowhere, leaving me slightly ahead overall. All these tournaments are played on 888.
Meanwhile, I'm also playing in the Pokerstars on-demand tourneys. These turn out to be tough nuts to crack. During the period leading up to Christmas I play in 6 of these and my best result is a 7th place finish (only the top 5 get paid). The play in these games is generally tighter than that on 888 and definitely less 'fishy'. Nevertheless, I'm just getting started in this game type and figure that I'll improve with time.
As for the live Friday night tournaments, my recent poor form continues and I finish the last game of the year, on the 21st December, without cashing. This one is the 'Champion of Champions' game, where the top points-scorers from the previous year's tourneys play off for a trophy (and cash prizes of course). On the positive side, after getting knocked out early in one of these games I enter a cash game with some of the other tournament casualties and leave with about $50 in my pocket.
HOLIDAYS
With Christmas day on a Wednesday this year the holidays start late for me. Work doesn't finish until Christmas Eve, but then I can look forward to about 2 1/2 weeks off. Just to prove how much poker is taking over my life, my wife and I go over to her mate's place for a cash game on Christmas Day. It may be the season of giving, but I take about $70 home. Then on New Year's Eve the Workingmens Club holds another tournament. I go deep in this one, making it to 7th place out of 24, but still out of the money.
Typically for this time of year the weather is patchy. We have some nice sunny days, but also quite a lot of wind, so I have some opportunity to play some online poker. I continue to play in the 27 player SitnGos but my results are very poor. Things are going so badly that I have to reload my Pokerstars account, the first time that I've had to do this. I fail to cash in 12 of these tourneys before finally getting a 1st place on the 11th of January, just before I'm due to go back to work. Then I get a 3rd place on the following Wednesday. Is this the start of a new trend?
On Friday 10th I do something that I'd been meaning to do for a while. I get up early in the morning and start playing in Single Table SitnGos on 888. This is the start of my SitnGo Marathon All Day Session. The level I'm playing at means that I'd have to lose 7 games straight before I went over my buy-in limit. I play 7 games straight without winning a thing. Doh! So much for that idea.
On the second Sunday of January my wife and I go to the Inter-club poker tournament. Although I'd previously decided not to play in these, my wife has joined the RSA team and intends to play every month. So I figure I'll go along too and just play it as a social game, not using my precious poker bankroll dollars. After getting knocked out I get into a cash game and come out of it with money in my pocket. So I'm hoping that there are more cash games going at these events in future.
SALAD DAYS
As usual, the weather gets really good once everyone's back at work. At least with daylight savings there's plenty of daylight time after work. Despite all this, I still find time to play a fair bit of poker. I keep plugging away at the 27 player SitnGos on Pokerstars but my results are dismal. After playing a total of 18 games I have one win and one 4th place to show for all that effort. I'm doing so badly that I have to top up the cash in my Pokerstars account twice. These results may seem odd considering that my last post claimed that I'd figured out a good strategy for tournament play. But I still stick by my plan, which is based on pre-flop action. The trouble is, on Pokerstars at least, I'm getting out-played post-flop.
By this stage I've settled into a routine of playing the small-field tourneys on Wednesday night and the larger 888 games on the weekend. I only manage to play three 888 tourneys in this period as the weekends are getting busy, finishing 64/118, 34/104 and 63/360.
I do much better in the live Friday night tourneys, which have re-started by mid-January. In the first game of the year, in a small field of 22 players, I make 2nd place. Then in week two I come 1st out of 27, making for a nice collect. It looks like I've got my mojo back. Then I come 17/32, 12/33 and 28/30 in the following weeks. In this last result the following happens (just another bad beat story):
I push hard pre-flop with KK and get one caller. The flop is J T x and I bet 3/4 of the pot. My opponent pushes all-in and I call. He shows AJ. Then a Jack hits the turn and I'm crippled. The next hand, with 8 big blinds left I pick up AK and go all-in. I get called by J9, a 9 hits the turn and it's goodbye and thanks for coming. That's poker. I'm still very happy with the results so far and hope to get some more deep runs in this tournament.
COOLER
The mornings are getting cooler but during the day there's usually a choice between blazing sunshine or dark heat-cloud and energy-sapping humidity. Meanwhile, I continue to struggle with the online tournaments. Out of 27 players I reach the following places: 22, 11, 2, 7, 13, 13, 11, 19. I have one more Wednesday night session before the end of my summer season so I'm not too confident of a brilliant finish in this game type. On the other hand, on Friday night I make 1st place again in a field of 30. I have no business finishing well in this game but somehow manage to struggle onto the final table, limp across the bubble and drag myself into the big money.
Overall, it's been a pretty enjoyable summer season. Online tournaments have left a lot to be desired but live tourneys and cash games have worked out very well. So it's swings and roundabouts, but my bankroll is still looking better now than it did at the beginning of the season. Now I wonder what Autumn will bring?
Sipping at my ice cold beer,
Lazing on a sunny afternoon The Kinks
WARM-UP
With the beginning of summer comes a change of game. I start playing No Limit Texas Holdem Tournaments online. When I can find them I play in tournaments with fields that are limited to a few hundred players. But most of the time I'm playing in $7 27 player SitnGo tournaments on Pokerstars, because these are readily available. I do OK in two of the larger tournaments that I enter in this period. I come 24/267 in one, just getting my money back, and 6/116 in the other, getting 5 times my buy-in back. But there are several others that I enter where I come nowhere, leaving me slightly ahead overall. All these tournaments are played on 888.
Meanwhile, I'm also playing in the Pokerstars on-demand tourneys. These turn out to be tough nuts to crack. During the period leading up to Christmas I play in 6 of these and my best result is a 7th place finish (only the top 5 get paid). The play in these games is generally tighter than that on 888 and definitely less 'fishy'. Nevertheless, I'm just getting started in this game type and figure that I'll improve with time.
As for the live Friday night tournaments, my recent poor form continues and I finish the last game of the year, on the 21st December, without cashing. This one is the 'Champion of Champions' game, where the top points-scorers from the previous year's tourneys play off for a trophy (and cash prizes of course). On the positive side, after getting knocked out early in one of these games I enter a cash game with some of the other tournament casualties and leave with about $50 in my pocket. HOLIDAYS
With Christmas day on a Wednesday this year the holidays start late for me. Work doesn't finish until Christmas Eve, but then I can look forward to about 2 1/2 weeks off. Just to prove how much poker is taking over my life, my wife and I go over to her mate's place for a cash game on Christmas Day. It may be the season of giving, but I take about $70 home. Then on New Year's Eve the Workingmens Club holds another tournament. I go deep in this one, making it to 7th place out of 24, but still out of the money.
Typically for this time of year the weather is patchy. We have some nice sunny days, but also quite a lot of wind, so I have some opportunity to play some online poker. I continue to play in the 27 player SitnGos but my results are very poor. Things are going so badly that I have to reload my Pokerstars account, the first time that I've had to do this. I fail to cash in 12 of these tourneys before finally getting a 1st place on the 11th of January, just before I'm due to go back to work. Then I get a 3rd place on the following Wednesday. Is this the start of a new trend?
On Friday 10th I do something that I'd been meaning to do for a while. I get up early in the morning and start playing in Single Table SitnGos on 888. This is the start of my SitnGo Marathon All Day Session. The level I'm playing at means that I'd have to lose 7 games straight before I went over my buy-in limit. I play 7 games straight without winning a thing. Doh! So much for that idea.
On the second Sunday of January my wife and I go to the Inter-club poker tournament. Although I'd previously decided not to play in these, my wife has joined the RSA team and intends to play every month. So I figure I'll go along too and just play it as a social game, not using my precious poker bankroll dollars. After getting knocked out I get into a cash game and come out of it with money in my pocket. So I'm hoping that there are more cash games going at these events in future.
SALAD DAYS
As usual, the weather gets really good once everyone's back at work. At least with daylight savings there's plenty of daylight time after work. Despite all this, I still find time to play a fair bit of poker. I keep plugging away at the 27 player SitnGos on Pokerstars but my results are dismal. After playing a total of 18 games I have one win and one 4th place to show for all that effort. I'm doing so badly that I have to top up the cash in my Pokerstars account twice. These results may seem odd considering that my last post claimed that I'd figured out a good strategy for tournament play. But I still stick by my plan, which is based on pre-flop action. The trouble is, on Pokerstars at least, I'm getting out-played post-flop.
By this stage I've settled into a routine of playing the small-field tourneys on Wednesday night and the larger 888 games on the weekend. I only manage to play three 888 tourneys in this period as the weekends are getting busy, finishing 64/118, 34/104 and 63/360.
I do much better in the live Friday night tourneys, which have re-started by mid-January. In the first game of the year, in a small field of 22 players, I make 2nd place. Then in week two I come 1st out of 27, making for a nice collect. It looks like I've got my mojo back. Then I come 17/32, 12/33 and 28/30 in the following weeks. In this last result the following happens (just another bad beat story):I push hard pre-flop with KK and get one caller. The flop is J T x and I bet 3/4 of the pot. My opponent pushes all-in and I call. He shows AJ. Then a Jack hits the turn and I'm crippled. The next hand, with 8 big blinds left I pick up AK and go all-in. I get called by J9, a 9 hits the turn and it's goodbye and thanks for coming. That's poker. I'm still very happy with the results so far and hope to get some more deep runs in this tournament.
COOLER
The mornings are getting cooler but during the day there's usually a choice between blazing sunshine or dark heat-cloud and energy-sapping humidity. Meanwhile, I continue to struggle with the online tournaments. Out of 27 players I reach the following places: 22, 11, 2, 7, 13, 13, 11, 19. I have one more Wednesday night session before the end of my summer season so I'm not too confident of a brilliant finish in this game type. On the other hand, on Friday night I make 1st place again in a field of 30. I have no business finishing well in this game but somehow manage to struggle onto the final table, limp across the bubble and drag myself into the big money.
Overall, it's been a pretty enjoyable summer season. Online tournaments have left a lot to be desired but live tourneys and cash games have worked out very well. So it's swings and roundabouts, but my bankroll is still looking better now than it did at the beginning of the season. Now I wonder what Autumn will bring?
Monday, 3 February 2014
Tourney Plan
The plan that you make,
that's the one that you rely on,
The bed that you make,
that's the one you gotta lie on Dire Straits
I've played little else but tournament poker since the beginning of December, and prior to that I played in at least one live tourney every week for the last half of the year. This may be a guaranteed way to jinx my results but I'm beginning to have the feeling that I'm learning how to play effectively in poker tournaments. Although there are a lot of important factors involved in deciding how to play, I believe that the most important thing of all is stack size. By stack size I mean the ratio between my chip stack and the size of the big blind. In other words, the number of big blinds (BBs) in my stack.
I always think in terms of the number of big blinds when I consider the starting stack in a tournament. It doesn't matter to me whether the starting stack is 2,000 or 50,000; what matters is how this number compares to the size of the blinds. So a 50K stack may look like a lot, but not if the starting BB is 1000; that amounts to a starting stack of just 50BB. In comparison, a starting stack of 2K with blinds at 20 gives you 100BB to start with. This should be blindingly obvious to anyone but I am constantly amazed by how often people in live games simply can't see the connection. I always prefer to play in a tourney with at least a starting stack of 100BB, preferably more.
I think of tournaments in terms of stages, which are defined almost entirely by the number of big blinds that I have. In the early stages, when I am deep stacked and the blinds are low, I play pretty tight. I'll fold a lot and only play premium hands, or drawing hands if I can limp in with them from late position. In other words, what is generally considered to be 'ABC poker' ; a basic cash game strategy. With the big cards or big pairs I'll generally raise, but not too much, and be prepared to fold if the flop doesn't help me. With small or medium pairs, suited connectors or Ax suited I'll try to limp in, hoping to hit trips, a straight or a flush. I will even call a small raise with one of these types of hands, although I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted with the winning potential of suited connectors.
Another important part of my strategy involves adjusting my play to the type of table. If the table is populated by loose passive players (typical of the Friday night live tournament) then I'll limp in with more marginal hands and from earlier position than normal, hoping to flop a monster. If I hit AA or KK then I'll push hard, very hard (see 'The OMG Hand'). I'll do this for the first couple of levels, while the blinds are still low, then tighten up a bit. If I'm at a tight table, with players who are capable of folding, then I'll look out for opportunities to steal the blinds by raising from late position. But I won't take this too far, the idea being to maintain a reasonably tight table image.
This is essentially the way I'll play for much of the tournament, as long as I've got 20BB or more. If I end up with a big stack then I'll generally tighten up even more. I'm well aware of the possibility of getting too cocky with a big stack and blowing off a lot of chips unnecessarily. If I get down to 20BB, that's when I'll look to get more active, especially if I'm approaching a big increase in the blinds. The idea is to stay above my 'red line' stack size of 12BB. So I'll try to limp in more, try to steal more, and be more inclined to push big hands from late position depending, of course, on the circumstances.
If I get down to 12BB, that's my 'all-in or fold' level. At that stack size, I'm folding everything until I hit a pre-flop hand good enough to go all-in with. Which hands I'm willing to push with depends on the circumstances; how many blinds I have left, my position, how many players are already in the pot, whether the pot has been raised and so on. As a general rule of thumb, in good circumstances I'll push all-in with any Ace and any pair. Obviously, if the situation gets more desperate then my pushing range will get wider. I've noticed that, especially in the live games, many players will try to hang on towards the end even though their stacks are getting shorter and shorter. Although it's tempting to try and limp in and see a flop, I don't do this for one simple reason; fold equity. If you have, say 4BB left and go all-in, you have no fold equity; medium to large stacks are not going to be afraid of calling 4BB. But with a larger stack, you have a much better chance of winning the pot uncontested.
The exception to my 12BB rule is when everyone is short stacked. Sometimes as you approach the end of a tournament the average stack size can actually be 12BB or less. If I'm still above the average despite my short stack and we are near the end then I'm inclined to just play a tight game, try and limp in to a few big pots, maybe even steal the blinds from late position if I think I can get away with it. In general I'll try to pick up a few chips here and there and let the other short stacks fight it out.
If I make it into the money then I tend to just wing it. Or to put it more correctly, I don't play with a set plan; I let the circumstances dictate my style of play. Nevertheless I keep in mind my position regarding stack size compared to other players and also in terms of the number of big blinds that I have. I am also constantly aware of the way that the value of starting hands change as the number of players at the table reduces.
Essentially, I approach tournaments in the same way that I approach cash games, and if I end up with a short stack then I adjust to that circumstance as far as it's possible to do so. I'm not inclined to panic if my stack size drops below the critical level. In fact, at that point the pressure comes off because the all-in-or-fold stage is pretty simple to navigate. And if I manage to double up then it puts me well and truly back in the game. One thing that I found particularly relevant from my recent tournament strategy study was the idea that you can't win the tournament in the first hour, but you can lose it. Another was the principal that you are not playing the whole field, but the players at your table. So that's the way I look at my position in a tournament these days. It's not about where you stand in relation to the whole field, it's about the table you're sitting at and how many big blinds you have to play with. In other words, keep it simple.
that's the one that you rely on,
The bed that you make,
that's the one you gotta lie on Dire Straits
I've played little else but tournament poker since the beginning of December, and prior to that I played in at least one live tourney every week for the last half of the year. This may be a guaranteed way to jinx my results but I'm beginning to have the feeling that I'm learning how to play effectively in poker tournaments. Although there are a lot of important factors involved in deciding how to play, I believe that the most important thing of all is stack size. By stack size I mean the ratio between my chip stack and the size of the big blind. In other words, the number of big blinds (BBs) in my stack.
I always think in terms of the number of big blinds when I consider the starting stack in a tournament. It doesn't matter to me whether the starting stack is 2,000 or 50,000; what matters is how this number compares to the size of the blinds. So a 50K stack may look like a lot, but not if the starting BB is 1000; that amounts to a starting stack of just 50BB. In comparison, a starting stack of 2K with blinds at 20 gives you 100BB to start with. This should be blindingly obvious to anyone but I am constantly amazed by how often people in live games simply can't see the connection. I always prefer to play in a tourney with at least a starting stack of 100BB, preferably more.
Another important part of my strategy involves adjusting my play to the type of table. If the table is populated by loose passive players (typical of the Friday night live tournament) then I'll limp in with more marginal hands and from earlier position than normal, hoping to flop a monster. If I hit AA or KK then I'll push hard, very hard (see 'The OMG Hand'). I'll do this for the first couple of levels, while the blinds are still low, then tighten up a bit. If I'm at a tight table, with players who are capable of folding, then I'll look out for opportunities to steal the blinds by raising from late position. But I won't take this too far, the idea being to maintain a reasonably tight table image.
This is essentially the way I'll play for much of the tournament, as long as I've got 20BB or more. If I end up with a big stack then I'll generally tighten up even more. I'm well aware of the possibility of getting too cocky with a big stack and blowing off a lot of chips unnecessarily. If I get down to 20BB, that's when I'll look to get more active, especially if I'm approaching a big increase in the blinds. The idea is to stay above my 'red line' stack size of 12BB. So I'll try to limp in more, try to steal more, and be more inclined to push big hands from late position depending, of course, on the circumstances.
If I get down to 12BB, that's my 'all-in or fold' level. At that stack size, I'm folding everything until I hit a pre-flop hand good enough to go all-in with. Which hands I'm willing to push with depends on the circumstances; how many blinds I have left, my position, how many players are already in the pot, whether the pot has been raised and so on. As a general rule of thumb, in good circumstances I'll push all-in with any Ace and any pair. Obviously, if the situation gets more desperate then my pushing range will get wider. I've noticed that, especially in the live games, many players will try to hang on towards the end even though their stacks are getting shorter and shorter. Although it's tempting to try and limp in and see a flop, I don't do this for one simple reason; fold equity. If you have, say 4BB left and go all-in, you have no fold equity; medium to large stacks are not going to be afraid of calling 4BB. But with a larger stack, you have a much better chance of winning the pot uncontested.
The exception to my 12BB rule is when everyone is short stacked. Sometimes as you approach the end of a tournament the average stack size can actually be 12BB or less. If I'm still above the average despite my short stack and we are near the end then I'm inclined to just play a tight game, try and limp in to a few big pots, maybe even steal the blinds from late position if I think I can get away with it. In general I'll try to pick up a few chips here and there and let the other short stacks fight it out.
If I make it into the money then I tend to just wing it. Or to put it more correctly, I don't play with a set plan; I let the circumstances dictate my style of play. Nevertheless I keep in mind my position regarding stack size compared to other players and also in terms of the number of big blinds that I have. I am also constantly aware of the way that the value of starting hands change as the number of players at the table reduces.
Essentially, I approach tournaments in the same way that I approach cash games, and if I end up with a short stack then I adjust to that circumstance as far as it's possible to do so. I'm not inclined to panic if my stack size drops below the critical level. In fact, at that point the pressure comes off because the all-in-or-fold stage is pretty simple to navigate. And if I manage to double up then it puts me well and truly back in the game. One thing that I found particularly relevant from my recent tournament strategy study was the idea that you can't win the tournament in the first hour, but you can lose it. Another was the principal that you are not playing the whole field, but the players at your table. So that's the way I look at my position in a tournament these days. It's not about where you stand in relation to the whole field, it's about the table you're sitting at and how many big blinds you have to play with. In other words, keep it simple.
Monday, 13 January 2014
Avoiding the Rake
If I count up their percentages
I know they're getting rich
But they haven't taken everything
Those paybacks are a bitch Billy Joel
The surest way to make money from a poker game is to run the game and take a cut (or rake ) from the players. People have been doing this probably ever since the game was invented. As we all know, when it comes to gambling, the house always wins. OK, so poker is not strictly a gambling activity, but even the best players have bad runs, and the only one guaranteed a payout is the house. Of course the bigger the rake, the harder it is for the players to get a winning edge: yet another reason why game selection is of vital importance.
The vast majority of the games I've played in have involved some kind of cut for the house, although some have been less expensive than others. Most of the games I've been playing in recently have been tournaments of one kind or another and the commission charged on these types of games is pretty standard. In online SitNGos and tournaments there is generally a 10% charge on top of the entry price, so a $5.00 game costs $5.50 and a $50 game costs $55. I play in a live tournament on Friday nights where the structure is slightly different: 10% comes out of the entry fee, so the $20 game fee is actually the equivalent of an $18 + $2 tournament. This makes the fee slightly higher than 10%, but not by much. The great thing about tournament fees is that the money comes out up front, before you even sit down at a table, and you know exactly how much you're paying.
Not counting freerolls or pub games where the prizes are bar tabs, I have played in a few cash tournaments where there was no house commission. There used to be a Friday night tourney at a pub in Otahuhu where the organisers were the bar managers, and the game was run in order to attract customers and increase the bar take. So there was no extra charge on the entry price and the entire prize pool was paid out. There was a similar tourney at a different pub in Three Kings around the same time, on Wednesday nights, but I only played in a couple of those because of transport difficulties. Neither of these events are going anymore, which is too bad because un-raked games are hard to come by.
The other tournaments that are available to me are the local casino games. However the cheapest tournaments available at Skycity Casino (if you include the cost of rebuys and add-ons) is the $60 Sunday game, and this is way beyond my buy-in limits. But there is a much more compelling reason for not playing Skycity Casino tournaments and that is the tournament fees. The Sunday Game is actually $45 + $15, which amounts to a 33% fee. That's just ridiculous. I see that they are advertising some other tourneys in the lead-up to the Anniversary Weekend Tournament, but the cheapest fee I can see is the 20% charged in the 50+10 game. It's still a pretty big chunk out of any potential winnings. Even though I like the idea of playing in casino tournaments, if I was ever to reach the point of being able to afford to play in a $60 game it would make a lot more sense for me to play in a 50+5 online tournament. Ten percent I can live with.
When it comes to cash games, I've been involved in quite a few different types. The earliest poker games I played in had a minimum bet of $2 and the blind bet for each hand went into the 'kitty' . This money went to the host at the end of the session and each time when we played a different person took a turn at being the designated host. I don't know what this cut amounted to in terms of percentages, but I know that the host always ended up with a pretty healthy payout. As a result, it was hard to come out of these games with money in your pocket unless you were the host. There was a similar game type that I played in at a local pool club. The difference was that this game was always run by the pool club managers, so they always got the kitty. They must have made a healthy profit from running these games.
It was around the time that I was playing in these games that I also started playing occasional cash games at the Skycity Casino. There is a 10% rake taken out of each pot in these games. I don't know enough maths to figure out how much money is coming off the table but it must amount to a fair bit. I guess it means that you'd have to be the best player at the table (rather than say, in the top three) to have a reasonable chance of winning. But I stopped playing in these games anyway; not because of the rake, but because I realised that the buy-in was well above my comfort level.
I also ran a few cash games of my own at the ORSS club that had a different type of rake system. In these games the players were charged a 10% commission on top of their buy-in (this money was donated to charity, as required by law). So with a minimum $60 buy-in, players would pay $66 and get $60 worth of chips, and the same would apply to any top-ups. This is the same as the system commonly used for tournaments and works out much cheaper than raking the pot.
Of course you occasionally get to play in games where no money comes out of the pot. I've managed to run a couple of home games of this type, and on both occasions I still made a profit just from playing poker. The home games run by the group from Poker Meetup ( www.meetup.com/poker-333 ) are also rake-less and I played in one of these a while back. This was an Omaha game and playing in this game finally helped me to realise that I can't play Omaha to save myself, so I didn't go back. This group of home game players also have some Texas Holdem games going but they are run at an inconvenient time for me to play in.
I've been able to play in a number of rake-less cash games recently. These are organised by K, one of the players at the Friday night tournament. If he gets knocked out of the tournament early he will usually try to organise a cash game among the other tournament casualties. So if I've exited the tournament early as well, then I'll play in this cash game. K also occasionally runs a home game at his sister's house and this game usually has no rake. So I play in these games whenever I get the chance. K sets these games up with a weird structure, where everyone buys in for $20 each, even though the big blind is $1, giving the players an ultra-short starting stack of just 20 big blinds. But it's just a matter of adjusting to the odd blind structure and being glad you have a cash game to play in.
As for online cash games, I must confess that I haven't been paying much attention to the size of the rake. I've played in Omaha Pot Limit, Texas Holdem Fixed Limit and Seven Card Stud Fixed Limit cash games online but in each case I've had little choice over where I play, so the size of the rake hasn't come into consideration. Looking back at it now, I see that the Stud games on Pokerstars were raked at 4.5% and the Holdem games on 888 were raked at 5%. In both cases that's much cheaper than any live game I've played in where a rake has been involved.
It's my intention to play in online No Limit Texas Holdem cash games later this year, so I thought I'd better compare the rakes on 888 and Pokerstars, as there are plenty of games of this type available on both sites. It turns out that the Pokerstars fees are much lower than 888. Pokerstars charges 3.5% rake for the lowest level games of 1c/2c and 4.15% for the levels above that. The 888 site charges 6% for all lower level games. What's more, both sites have a cap on the fees charged for any one hand. For 888 the maximum rake per hand is $4 across the board, but on Pokerstars it starts at just 30c and goes up to $1.50 at the lower levels. Clearly, if I want to pay the lowest possible rake, then I should play on Pokerstars. However there is a complicating factor. Another aspect of game selection is choosing the loosest or 'fishiest' games where inexperienced players are calling with all sorts of rubbish hands. This sort of game is the easiest to beat and therefore the most profitable. 888 has the reputation of being the loosest, fishiest site around, largely because of the number of players who have drifted across from the online casino. Pokerstars, on the other hand, generally has more solid poker players and has tougher games. So the question is: does the fishiness of 888 make up for its comparatively high rake? This is something I'll have to consider seriously before I decide which site to play cash games on in the coming year.
For the moment at least, I'm pretty happy with the level of fees in the games I'm involved in. The 10% fee on both the online and live tournaments is pretty much standard across the board, and on the odd occasion when I get to play in a live cash game, it's usually rake-free. In the past I've played in some pretty expensive games and ended up contributing to some-one else's pocket but I believe I've learned my lesson now. When I play poker now I try to ensure that I have the best possible edge by not paying any more than I have to. Having done that, all I have to do is play well enough to come out a winner. That's all.
I know they're getting rich
But they haven't taken everything
Those paybacks are a bitch Billy Joel
The surest way to make money from a poker game is to run the game and take a cut (or rake ) from the players. People have been doing this probably ever since the game was invented. As we all know, when it comes to gambling, the house always wins. OK, so poker is not strictly a gambling activity, but even the best players have bad runs, and the only one guaranteed a payout is the house. Of course the bigger the rake, the harder it is for the players to get a winning edge: yet another reason why game selection is of vital importance.
Not counting freerolls or pub games where the prizes are bar tabs, I have played in a few cash tournaments where there was no house commission. There used to be a Friday night tourney at a pub in Otahuhu where the organisers were the bar managers, and the game was run in order to attract customers and increase the bar take. So there was no extra charge on the entry price and the entire prize pool was paid out. There was a similar tourney at a different pub in Three Kings around the same time, on Wednesday nights, but I only played in a couple of those because of transport difficulties. Neither of these events are going anymore, which is too bad because un-raked games are hard to come by.
The other tournaments that are available to me are the local casino games. However the cheapest tournaments available at Skycity Casino (if you include the cost of rebuys and add-ons) is the $60 Sunday game, and this is way beyond my buy-in limits. But there is a much more compelling reason for not playing Skycity Casino tournaments and that is the tournament fees. The Sunday Game is actually $45 + $15, which amounts to a 33% fee. That's just ridiculous. I see that they are advertising some other tourneys in the lead-up to the Anniversary Weekend Tournament, but the cheapest fee I can see is the 20% charged in the 50+10 game. It's still a pretty big chunk out of any potential winnings. Even though I like the idea of playing in casino tournaments, if I was ever to reach the point of being able to afford to play in a $60 game it would make a lot more sense for me to play in a 50+5 online tournament. Ten percent I can live with.
When it comes to cash games, I've been involved in quite a few different types. The earliest poker games I played in had a minimum bet of $2 and the blind bet for each hand went into the 'kitty' . This money went to the host at the end of the session and each time when we played a different person took a turn at being the designated host. I don't know what this cut amounted to in terms of percentages, but I know that the host always ended up with a pretty healthy payout. As a result, it was hard to come out of these games with money in your pocket unless you were the host. There was a similar game type that I played in at a local pool club. The difference was that this game was always run by the pool club managers, so they always got the kitty. They must have made a healthy profit from running these games.
It was around the time that I was playing in these games that I also started playing occasional cash games at the Skycity Casino. There is a 10% rake taken out of each pot in these games. I don't know enough maths to figure out how much money is coming off the table but it must amount to a fair bit. I guess it means that you'd have to be the best player at the table (rather than say, in the top three) to have a reasonable chance of winning. But I stopped playing in these games anyway; not because of the rake, but because I realised that the buy-in was well above my comfort level.
I also ran a few cash games of my own at the ORSS club that had a different type of rake system. In these games the players were charged a 10% commission on top of their buy-in (this money was donated to charity, as required by law). So with a minimum $60 buy-in, players would pay $66 and get $60 worth of chips, and the same would apply to any top-ups. This is the same as the system commonly used for tournaments and works out much cheaper than raking the pot.Of course you occasionally get to play in games where no money comes out of the pot. I've managed to run a couple of home games of this type, and on both occasions I still made a profit just from playing poker. The home games run by the group from Poker Meetup ( www.meetup.com/poker-333 ) are also rake-less and I played in one of these a while back. This was an Omaha game and playing in this game finally helped me to realise that I can't play Omaha to save myself, so I didn't go back. This group of home game players also have some Texas Holdem games going but they are run at an inconvenient time for me to play in.
I've been able to play in a number of rake-less cash games recently. These are organised by K, one of the players at the Friday night tournament. If he gets knocked out of the tournament early he will usually try to organise a cash game among the other tournament casualties. So if I've exited the tournament early as well, then I'll play in this cash game. K also occasionally runs a home game at his sister's house and this game usually has no rake. So I play in these games whenever I get the chance. K sets these games up with a weird structure, where everyone buys in for $20 each, even though the big blind is $1, giving the players an ultra-short starting stack of just 20 big blinds. But it's just a matter of adjusting to the odd blind structure and being glad you have a cash game to play in.
As for online cash games, I must confess that I haven't been paying much attention to the size of the rake. I've played in Omaha Pot Limit, Texas Holdem Fixed Limit and Seven Card Stud Fixed Limit cash games online but in each case I've had little choice over where I play, so the size of the rake hasn't come into consideration. Looking back at it now, I see that the Stud games on Pokerstars were raked at 4.5% and the Holdem games on 888 were raked at 5%. In both cases that's much cheaper than any live game I've played in where a rake has been involved.
It's my intention to play in online No Limit Texas Holdem cash games later this year, so I thought I'd better compare the rakes on 888 and Pokerstars, as there are plenty of games of this type available on both sites. It turns out that the Pokerstars fees are much lower than 888. Pokerstars charges 3.5% rake for the lowest level games of 1c/2c and 4.15% for the levels above that. The 888 site charges 6% for all lower level games. What's more, both sites have a cap on the fees charged for any one hand. For 888 the maximum rake per hand is $4 across the board, but on Pokerstars it starts at just 30c and goes up to $1.50 at the lower levels. Clearly, if I want to pay the lowest possible rake, then I should play on Pokerstars. However there is a complicating factor. Another aspect of game selection is choosing the loosest or 'fishiest' games where inexperienced players are calling with all sorts of rubbish hands. This sort of game is the easiest to beat and therefore the most profitable. 888 has the reputation of being the loosest, fishiest site around, largely because of the number of players who have drifted across from the online casino. Pokerstars, on the other hand, generally has more solid poker players and has tougher games. So the question is: does the fishiness of 888 make up for its comparatively high rake? This is something I'll have to consider seriously before I decide which site to play cash games on in the coming year.For the moment at least, I'm pretty happy with the level of fees in the games I'm involved in. The 10% fee on both the online and live tournaments is pretty much standard across the board, and on the odd occasion when I get to play in a live cash game, it's usually rake-free. In the past I've played in some pretty expensive games and ended up contributing to some-one else's pocket but I believe I've learned my lesson now. When I play poker now I try to ensure that I have the best possible edge by not paying any more than I have to. Having done that, all I have to do is play well enough to come out a winner. That's all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)