Fear and greed are two sides of the same coin - the coin of self-doubt. Fear is born out of the suspicion that the universe has it in for you - that the gods see through your shammy pretense and are going to hit ya with that big ol' mallet. Greed is thinking those gods are looking the other way and that now you can steal something you really don't deserve - and that the possessing will be proof of your worth.
Fear and greed have the same root - a lack of self confidence, or being comfortable with your role in the universe.
Embrace your true nature.
Let the chips flow to you.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Friday, August 24, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Winning is Wonderful...(finis)
Up to around $900, I was determined not to make the mistake I have often made when I have a big stack in front of me - I get too loose, play too many marginal hands and donk off a bunch of chips. So I went into super-tight mode.
Fold fold fold.
While I was folding three other guys at the table were trying to out-crazy each other. Finally they decided to "roll" for a $100 each - each guy put up $100 in chips and agreed not to bet the hand after the flop - in essence they wanted to just let luck decide the winner, which is kinda dumb because the casino would take a rake. Why not just flip coins for it in the parking lot?
Fold, fold, fold.
Finally I was dealt pocket 10's in late position. A double-straddle was on and there were a few callers before me. I just called and six players saw the following flop Ac 6c 10c. The small blind checked and the guy in the big blind raised it to $55. This dude was one of the maniacs - he was the one who had instigated the $100 roll. He had been losing pretty heavily and had just re-bought for $300. What to make of his bet here? It could be a "steam raise" - an overly aggressive move from a guy who has been losing, It folded to me. I decided my opponent was semi-bluffing - that he had something like Kc Qd. I dismissed the idea that he might have the flush already. I was sure my set was ahead. He had just under $200 left so I raised it to $255. He snapped called.
"You have a set, huh?" he asked and I nodded. With no more betting to be done, he flipped his cards over - Kc 9c. The nut flush. How could I have walked right into that?
"Nice hand," I said, turning over my tens.
The dealer flipped over a Jack on the turn and then another Jack on the river, giving me a full house.
To his credit he only let out a soft mutter of "Unbelievable" instead of the usual loud profanity that follows a bad beat. As the dealer pushed the chips my way I offered an apology. My opponent was very gracious and I distinctly got the feeling he was hoping I would stick around so he could get his chips back.
Even though I won another big hand, I was unsettled. I had badly mis-read an opponent - a sign I was not on top of the game anymore.
About a half hour later I lost a pot when I chased a flush draw with bad pot odds. I was very lucky that I missed the draw because another big stack was drawing to a higher flush - if we both hit I could have been wiped out.
Even after that modest loss I had well over a thousand dollars in front of me. I realized I was no longer playing well and it was time for me to leave - but it is just so hard to leave! I stuck around for another dozen hands, folding them all, until at last the voice of reason won over and I left.
Fold fold fold.
While I was folding three other guys at the table were trying to out-crazy each other. Finally they decided to "roll" for a $100 each - each guy put up $100 in chips and agreed not to bet the hand after the flop - in essence they wanted to just let luck decide the winner, which is kinda dumb because the casino would take a rake. Why not just flip coins for it in the parking lot?
Fold, fold, fold.
Finally I was dealt pocket 10's in late position. A double-straddle was on and there were a few callers before me. I just called and six players saw the following flop Ac 6c 10c. The small blind checked and the guy in the big blind raised it to $55. This dude was one of the maniacs - he was the one who had instigated the $100 roll. He had been losing pretty heavily and had just re-bought for $300. What to make of his bet here? It could be a "steam raise" - an overly aggressive move from a guy who has been losing, It folded to me. I decided my opponent was semi-bluffing - that he had something like Kc Qd. I dismissed the idea that he might have the flush already. I was sure my set was ahead. He had just under $200 left so I raised it to $255. He snapped called.
"You have a set, huh?" he asked and I nodded. With no more betting to be done, he flipped his cards over - Kc 9c. The nut flush. How could I have walked right into that?
"Nice hand," I said, turning over my tens.
The dealer flipped over a Jack on the turn and then another Jack on the river, giving me a full house.
To his credit he only let out a soft mutter of "Unbelievable" instead of the usual loud profanity that follows a bad beat. As the dealer pushed the chips my way I offered an apology. My opponent was very gracious and I distinctly got the feeling he was hoping I would stick around so he could get his chips back.
Even though I won another big hand, I was unsettled. I had badly mis-read an opponent - a sign I was not on top of the game anymore.
About a half hour later I lost a pot when I chased a flush draw with bad pot odds. I was very lucky that I missed the draw because another big stack was drawing to a higher flush - if we both hit I could have been wiped out.
Even after that modest loss I had well over a thousand dollars in front of me. I realized I was no longer playing well and it was time for me to leave - but it is just so hard to leave! I stuck around for another dozen hands, folding them all, until at last the voice of reason won over and I left.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The October Nine
The October Nine.
It doesen't quite have the same alliterative ring as the November Nine does it? But in a year when the players making up the final table at poker's biggest tournament are, shall we say, less than a dream team, perhaps it is fitting. This year, as we got down to thirty or so players, all the big names had gone but there was still plenty of excitement as it looked certain that one - and quite possibly two - women would be making the final table. Norway's Elisabeht Hille looked very strong but a bad run of luck put her out in 11th place - two spots from glory. One of the hands that sealed Hille'd fate was when she doubled up Frenchwoman Gaelle Baumann. Baumann made an impressive charge but also fell just short, finishing in 10th. So instead of a final table with two European ladies, we once again get an all-male group. And if that were not bad enough, all but one of the fellows is American. Just when it looked like poker was becoming a truly international game, we get a final table that has little appeal to viewers outside of the USA.
So who are the October Nine?
Jeremy Ausmus, a 32-year-old Vegas poker pro, will be the short stack with 9,805,000 in chips. A native of Colorado, where he earned an economics degree, he has been making his living playing poker for the last six years.
Jacob Balsinger, a 21-year-old political science student at Arizona State, is the youngest and least experienced player at the final table, and with 13,115,000 in chips he is not seen as a threat to win the whole shebang. But stranger things have happened.
Although only 27, Robert Salaburu has been playing since he was 16. He has 15,155,000 in chips going into the final table. "It's awesome to have a chance to win a shit-ton of money," he says.
At 58, Michael Esposito is an old-school grinder. He doesn't play on-line. He doesn't tweet. He's a commodities broker from Seaford New York. For an older amateur to make it in the day of young pros is a story-line that will probably be pushed for want of other story lines. He has 16,260,000
Stephen Gee, 56, won a WSOP gold bracelet two years ago in a smaller NLHE event, so he is definitely one of the sharks. With only 16,860,000 going into the final table, his experience still makes him a very legitimate threat. verbose (at least away from the table) he is a likable guy who would make a good champion.
Russell Thomas, 24, is a part-time pro who is now, probably going to be a full time pro. With a healthy 24,800,00 he can push the smaller stacks around.
Also 24, Greg Merson is an on line player who has moved to Canada to be able to keep playing on line. He has already won a bracelet at this years' 10K six-handed NLHE event, so he is running hot. But will he still be hot a few months from now? 28,725,000 in chips will help.
Andras Koroknai, from Hungary, is the lone non-American at the final table. He is no stranger to big tournaments, having won the 2010 WPT LA Classic event - a win worth 1.7 million. He has 29,375,000.
The big chip leader is Jesse Sylvia with 43,875,000. A 26-year-old pro currently living in Vegas.
So, one of these nine will be the next champion. Let's go, Stephen Gee!
It doesen't quite have the same alliterative ring as the November Nine does it? But in a year when the players making up the final table at poker's biggest tournament are, shall we say, less than a dream team, perhaps it is fitting. This year, as we got down to thirty or so players, all the big names had gone but there was still plenty of excitement as it looked certain that one - and quite possibly two - women would be making the final table. Norway's Elisabeht Hille looked very strong but a bad run of luck put her out in 11th place - two spots from glory. One of the hands that sealed Hille'd fate was when she doubled up Frenchwoman Gaelle Baumann. Baumann made an impressive charge but also fell just short, finishing in 10th. So instead of a final table with two European ladies, we once again get an all-male group. And if that were not bad enough, all but one of the fellows is American. Just when it looked like poker was becoming a truly international game, we get a final table that has little appeal to viewers outside of the USA.
So who are the October Nine?
Jeremy Ausmus, a 32-year-old Vegas poker pro, will be the short stack with 9,805,000 in chips. A native of Colorado, where he earned an economics degree, he has been making his living playing poker for the last six years.
Jacob Balsinger, a 21-year-old political science student at Arizona State, is the youngest and least experienced player at the final table, and with 13,115,000 in chips he is not seen as a threat to win the whole shebang. But stranger things have happened.
Although only 27, Robert Salaburu has been playing since he was 16. He has 15,155,000 in chips going into the final table. "It's awesome to have a chance to win a shit-ton of money," he says.
At 58, Michael Esposito is an old-school grinder. He doesn't play on-line. He doesn't tweet. He's a commodities broker from Seaford New York. For an older amateur to make it in the day of young pros is a story-line that will probably be pushed for want of other story lines. He has 16,260,000
Stephen Gee, 56, won a WSOP gold bracelet two years ago in a smaller NLHE event, so he is definitely one of the sharks. With only 16,860,000 going into the final table, his experience still makes him a very legitimate threat. verbose (at least away from the table) he is a likable guy who would make a good champion.
Russell Thomas, 24, is a part-time pro who is now, probably going to be a full time pro. With a healthy 24,800,00 he can push the smaller stacks around.
Also 24, Greg Merson is an on line player who has moved to Canada to be able to keep playing on line. He has already won a bracelet at this years' 10K six-handed NLHE event, so he is running hot. But will he still be hot a few months from now? 28,725,000 in chips will help.
Andras Koroknai, from Hungary, is the lone non-American at the final table. He is no stranger to big tournaments, having won the 2010 WPT LA Classic event - a win worth 1.7 million. He has 29,375,000.
The big chip leader is Jesse Sylvia with 43,875,000. A 26-year-old pro currently living in Vegas.
So, one of these nine will be the next champion. Let's go, Stephen Gee!
Saturday, August 18, 2012
While Winning is Wonderful...(Part 2)
Things, as I said, were getting loose.
At a standard poker table, the dealer sits in the middle of one of the long sides of the oval. In order to allow the dealer to reach as far across the table as possible (to gather chips and cards) a notch is cut into the table in front of the dealer, resulting in the dealer sitting a few inches forward of the players in the #1 seat (on the dealer's left) and the #9 or #10 seat (on the dealers right). As a result players on either side of the dealer can't see each other very well at all.
All this is to explain a strange hand I witnessed at the time the table was loosening up. A new player joined our table at seat 1, bringing the maximum buy in of $300 with him. After a couple of hands the player in the seat to the right of dealer (a guy I call Dr.Detroit) opened the betting with $10 and newbie raised it to $20. It folded all the way back to Dr.Detroit, who announced all in. Just saying "all in" is enough - you don't have to push all your chips forward. This speeds things up, as moving big stacks back and forth takes up valuable time. Still a player needs to put some chips forward so that the security cameras can see a bet was indeed made. After announcing all-in, the dealer then asked Dr.Detroit to move some chips forward. Dr.Detroit had about $800, but he just moved one stack of $100 over the betting line. The Newbie, who could not see Dr.Detroit's chips, assumed this $100 was the remainder of the stack and he called, turning over JJ. Detroit had AK, flopped a king, and won the hand. Only when the dealer asked the newbie to put forward all of his chips did the Newbie realize what had happened - he had called a $300 bet when he thought he was calling only $100. He went ballistic, blaming the dealer for not making it clear to him the size of the bet. But I think Newbie had no one to blame but himself. I hoped if I was ever in the same position as the newbie, that I would not make that same mistake.
I had just over $500 in front of me when I was dealt pocket aces in middle position. There was a double-straddle on and two players made the $10 limp-in when it got to me. I almost always raise in this position, but this table had become so aggressive I thought it was likely someone behind me would raise, so I limped in for $10. Two more guys called and then the guy in the big blind raised it to $55. Hallelujah! One guy called (thank you!) and I thought it over for five seconds before announcing all-in. It folded back to the big blind, who anguished over his decision (or pretended to) before folding. The remaining player had only $200 left. "I shouldn't make this call," he said - and then he made the call. With no more action the dealer quickly dealt the flop, turn and river. My opponent didn't show any reaction to any of the cards, and when I showed my aces he just nodded like that was what he expected and threw his hand in the muck.
I had about $900 now.
At a standard poker table, the dealer sits in the middle of one of the long sides of the oval. In order to allow the dealer to reach as far across the table as possible (to gather chips and cards) a notch is cut into the table in front of the dealer, resulting in the dealer sitting a few inches forward of the players in the #1 seat (on the dealer's left) and the #9 or #10 seat (on the dealers right). As a result players on either side of the dealer can't see each other very well at all.
All this is to explain a strange hand I witnessed at the time the table was loosening up. A new player joined our table at seat 1, bringing the maximum buy in of $300 with him. After a couple of hands the player in the seat to the right of dealer (a guy I call Dr.Detroit) opened the betting with $10 and newbie raised it to $20. It folded all the way back to Dr.Detroit, who announced all in. Just saying "all in" is enough - you don't have to push all your chips forward. This speeds things up, as moving big stacks back and forth takes up valuable time. Still a player needs to put some chips forward so that the security cameras can see a bet was indeed made. After announcing all-in, the dealer then asked Dr.Detroit to move some chips forward. Dr.Detroit had about $800, but he just moved one stack of $100 over the betting line. The Newbie, who could not see Dr.Detroit's chips, assumed this $100 was the remainder of the stack and he called, turning over JJ. Detroit had AK, flopped a king, and won the hand. Only when the dealer asked the newbie to put forward all of his chips did the Newbie realize what had happened - he had called a $300 bet when he thought he was calling only $100. He went ballistic, blaming the dealer for not making it clear to him the size of the bet. But I think Newbie had no one to blame but himself. I hoped if I was ever in the same position as the newbie, that I would not make that same mistake.
I had just over $500 in front of me when I was dealt pocket aces in middle position. There was a double-straddle on and two players made the $10 limp-in when it got to me. I almost always raise in this position, but this table had become so aggressive I thought it was likely someone behind me would raise, so I limped in for $10. Two more guys called and then the guy in the big blind raised it to $55. Hallelujah! One guy called (thank you!) and I thought it over for five seconds before announcing all-in. It folded back to the big blind, who anguished over his decision (or pretended to) before folding. The remaining player had only $200 left. "I shouldn't make this call," he said - and then he made the call. With no more action the dealer quickly dealt the flop, turn and river. My opponent didn't show any reaction to any of the cards, and when I showed my aces he just nodded like that was what he expected and threw his hand in the muck.
I had about $900 now.
While Winning is Wonderful...
... alliteration is fun!
In my last post I wrote that I wished I could be more emotionally detached - that while I no longer got too depressed after a loss, I still got very elated after wins. The truth is that it had been so long since I had a decent size win that I really didn't know if I'd be elated or not. Well, yesterday was my best day ever at a brick and mortar card room and while I was very pleased with the day, the manic elation I have felt in the past was missing. This is a good thing. I don't want to be a poker player that is motivated by chasing adrenalin rushes - that will usually end in tears.
My poker bankroll had dropped to a pitiful $300 and was in danger of evaporating entirely. I briefly considered ignoring the advice of my bankroll manager (wife) and taking the whole amount to the casino, but then I thought the better of it. The best plan was to just take $100 to limit my downside and give myself two more sessions should this trip end as badly as my other recent sessions. And it very nearly did.
Early on I got myself pot-committed with AJo (garlic!) and the flop came Ah 5d 2h. One fellow made a half-pot bet and there was one caller before me. This was a tricky spot because with so many draws on the board I wanted to bet big to protect my hand but I was not at all sure my garlic was the best hand. What to do? I decided to raise it to $40. One guy called and the other re-raised to $100, which made my heart sink. I was pot-committed now, so with a doomed feeling in the pit of my stomach I pushed the remainder of my stack in.
There was further betting between the other two players on the turn and the river, which further convinced me that my hand was no good, however when the dust cleared I saw that player A was chasing a nut flush draw and missed, while player B was holding A4 - top pair with a gut-shot straight draw, which also missed. So my jack kicker held up and I went from $100 to $300 in a heart beat.
Then an hour later lightning struck when I was dealt 33. I really like playing any pocket pair at a loose table, because when players are willing to go all in with hands like two pair or an over-pair, holding a set can win you a monster pot. The trick is you have to flop a set - otherwise you fold. Well on this occasion I flopped quads and what made it even better was that the other card on the flop was a beautiful ace. Sure enough, another fellow had AQ and I just called his two $25 bets on the flop and the turn. He fired another $25 after the river and I re-raised it to $75. He called and I made a tidy profit. Plus the casino paid me $40 for hitting quad 3's. I think I had close to $500 at that point.
Things were getting very loose. Two new guys had joined the table and it seemed they both wanted to become the "table captain", resulting in the game going from $1/$2 NLHE to essentially a $1/$2/$15 game.
(to be continued)
In my last post I wrote that I wished I could be more emotionally detached - that while I no longer got too depressed after a loss, I still got very elated after wins. The truth is that it had been so long since I had a decent size win that I really didn't know if I'd be elated or not. Well, yesterday was my best day ever at a brick and mortar card room and while I was very pleased with the day, the manic elation I have felt in the past was missing. This is a good thing. I don't want to be a poker player that is motivated by chasing adrenalin rushes - that will usually end in tears.
My poker bankroll had dropped to a pitiful $300 and was in danger of evaporating entirely. I briefly considered ignoring the advice of my bankroll manager (wife) and taking the whole amount to the casino, but then I thought the better of it. The best plan was to just take $100 to limit my downside and give myself two more sessions should this trip end as badly as my other recent sessions. And it very nearly did.
Early on I got myself pot-committed with AJo (garlic!) and the flop came Ah 5d 2h. One fellow made a half-pot bet and there was one caller before me. This was a tricky spot because with so many draws on the board I wanted to bet big to protect my hand but I was not at all sure my garlic was the best hand. What to do? I decided to raise it to $40. One guy called and the other re-raised to $100, which made my heart sink. I was pot-committed now, so with a doomed feeling in the pit of my stomach I pushed the remainder of my stack in.
There was further betting between the other two players on the turn and the river, which further convinced me that my hand was no good, however when the dust cleared I saw that player A was chasing a nut flush draw and missed, while player B was holding A4 - top pair with a gut-shot straight draw, which also missed. So my jack kicker held up and I went from $100 to $300 in a heart beat.
Then an hour later lightning struck when I was dealt 33. I really like playing any pocket pair at a loose table, because when players are willing to go all in with hands like two pair or an over-pair, holding a set can win you a monster pot. The trick is you have to flop a set - otherwise you fold. Well on this occasion I flopped quads and what made it even better was that the other card on the flop was a beautiful ace. Sure enough, another fellow had AQ and I just called his two $25 bets on the flop and the turn. He fired another $25 after the river and I re-raised it to $75. He called and I made a tidy profit. Plus the casino paid me $40 for hitting quad 3's. I think I had close to $500 at that point.
Things were getting very loose. Two new guys had joined the table and it seemed they both wanted to become the "table captain", resulting in the game going from $1/$2 NLHE to essentially a $1/$2/$15 game.
(to be continued)
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Poker and Politics
Hey there. How's it going? Sorry I haven't written in so long. You know how it is. Time just flies by. I've been busier at my real job and it is summer so we have been going out a lot more. Time gets away from me and I've hardly even played much poker lately, let alone write about it. And the olympics are on...
I played yesterday and got crushed again. I lost a big hand early on, then spent four hours slowly rebuilding until I was almost unstuck. Then I was felted when my pocket kings got ambushed.
I used to take losing at poker very personally. I would feel sick after a big loss, and I would berate myself for ever thinking I could play this game. Thoughts like you are not good enough to be a winning poker player would loop in my head and I would feel like I deserved to lose because I was so stupid. Lately, however, I find it easier to shrug off the losses. I don't get that I deservered to lose because I suck thought anymore and this, I think, is a good thing. I think it would also be a good thing if I reacted to my winning sessions with a similar emotional detachment, but I still feel elated after a win. I think my problem is that I still attach a sense of self worth to how I do at the poker table. There is a feeling that if I win big, it is because I deserved to win big and if I busted out it is my own damn fault and I am therefor an idiot. Such thinking is, I think, pretty common. It feeds addiction in gamblers - winners keep chasing that feeling that they deserve to win because God loves them and losers keep punishing themselves because they feel they deserve to be punished. Hmmm...
After my bust-out I met my friend from Nashville at the bar. We talked about various things, including politics, and I quickly forgot about what an idiot I was. While we talked about the U.S.A. it struck me that the "you deserve what you get" mentality that I feel so strongly (although lately less so) at the poker table, is similar to what the right wing in States believe - the myth of the meritocracy; that if you are a good, hard working person you will succeed. And if you don't succeed it is probably because you are not good enough or lazy. It is easy to see why rich people believe this - even those who basically inherited their wealth - because it blames poor people for their own poverty. And poor people are like the losing gamblers who believe they deserve to keep on losing. They become addicted to punishing themselves because they believe they must be flawed in some way.
Let me take the analogy to another level; in America the rich and the poor are not equels competing fairly at the same poker table; no the rich people own the casino. They can not lose. And the reason they can not lose has nothing to do with merit, or hard work, or that Jesus loves them. The reason they can not lose is that they are the house. They have the edge and over time they will always win. So of course they vote to keep the system in place. I have heard a lot of people wonder out loud - why do so many poor and working class people vote Republican? It doesn't make sense! I think they do so for much the same reasons the losers keep going back to the casino - they are dreaming that maybe they will win this time. That maybe they can show that they are good enough too. And when they lose they will not blame the casino, they will blame themselves.
I played yesterday and got crushed again. I lost a big hand early on, then spent four hours slowly rebuilding until I was almost unstuck. Then I was felted when my pocket kings got ambushed.
I used to take losing at poker very personally. I would feel sick after a big loss, and I would berate myself for ever thinking I could play this game. Thoughts like you are not good enough to be a winning poker player would loop in my head and I would feel like I deserved to lose because I was so stupid. Lately, however, I find it easier to shrug off the losses. I don't get that I deservered to lose because I suck thought anymore and this, I think, is a good thing. I think it would also be a good thing if I reacted to my winning sessions with a similar emotional detachment, but I still feel elated after a win. I think my problem is that I still attach a sense of self worth to how I do at the poker table. There is a feeling that if I win big, it is because I deserved to win big and if I busted out it is my own damn fault and I am therefor an idiot. Such thinking is, I think, pretty common. It feeds addiction in gamblers - winners keep chasing that feeling that they deserve to win because God loves them and losers keep punishing themselves because they feel they deserve to be punished. Hmmm...
After my bust-out I met my friend from Nashville at the bar. We talked about various things, including politics, and I quickly forgot about what an idiot I was. While we talked about the U.S.A. it struck me that the "you deserve what you get" mentality that I feel so strongly (although lately less so) at the poker table, is similar to what the right wing in States believe - the myth of the meritocracy; that if you are a good, hard working person you will succeed. And if you don't succeed it is probably because you are not good enough or lazy. It is easy to see why rich people believe this - even those who basically inherited their wealth - because it blames poor people for their own poverty. And poor people are like the losing gamblers who believe they deserve to keep on losing. They become addicted to punishing themselves because they believe they must be flawed in some way.
Let me take the analogy to another level; in America the rich and the poor are not equels competing fairly at the same poker table; no the rich people own the casino. They can not lose. And the reason they can not lose has nothing to do with merit, or hard work, or that Jesus loves them. The reason they can not lose is that they are the house. They have the edge and over time they will always win. So of course they vote to keep the system in place. I have heard a lot of people wonder out loud - why do so many poor and working class people vote Republican? It doesn't make sense! I think they do so for much the same reasons the losers keep going back to the casino - they are dreaming that maybe they will win this time. That maybe they can show that they are good enough too. And when they lose they will not blame the casino, they will blame themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)