A couple days ago I pissed away the last of the bankroll I had built off a $2 freeroll win. Hate to admit it. Since my last update I went on a great run, building my bankroll from $18 to $70 in two weeks. But the downfall was precipitous and this time I didn't find the discipline to reign myself in. A lesson learned - I'm not the dispassionate killer I thought I was.
And that's okay. In the end I just decided to have fun. I'm not entirely sure you can play like a pro and still have as much fun as you do as a recreational player. maybe I'm wrong.
The bright side is I get to play in my favourite charity tournament tonight and no matter what happens I know I'll have fun.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
The 42FB
When I make notes on other players, one of the things I look for is how they behave in "four to the flush" situations. By this I mean I like to see how they react when four cards of the same suit are on the board, because it reveals a great deal about their character, and the more you know about your opponent's character the better.
A few years ago I was in Vegas, playing poker against real people at real tables for virtually the first time. I was nervous and it probably showed. One day I was playing at the Mirage when I found myself in a hand where by the river there were four hearts on the board. I was first to act and since I didn't have a heart I checked. My opponent checked as well and when we flipped our cards I saw he had a better pair than mine - but no heart. As my opponent was gathering his chips the player on my left leaned over to me.
"I would have bet the river there," he said.
"But I didn't have a heart," I replied.
"Yeah, but he probably doesn't have it either."
This is what first got me thinking about the four-to-the-flush bluff, which I will hearby refer to as the "42FB", since that is the shorthand I use when making notes.
Is it a good idea to make the 42FB? Generally speaking it is. From a pure odds perspective, it is a good bet that you opponent does not have a card in the suit - four of them are already on the table, which leaves only nine out of the remaining 45 cards you haven't seen to complete the flush. With two random cards in his hand, that means he has only about a 40% chance of having a flush.
This is one of those cases where it really depends on your read of your opponent. Against cautious, passive players, the 42FB is a good move. However if he is an aggressive guy, and is well aware of the odds himself, he may just decide to put you to the test with a re-raise. A slow-player might check-down with the flush, expecting a bluff. A "by-the-book" guy would have made bets to chase the flush draw away if he doesn't have it himself. What you should do is entirely dependent on your read of your opponent,
Pay attention to hands you are not involved in for when the 42FB situation comes up and see how the players react. This will give you valuable information on how to play against them.
A few years ago I was in Vegas, playing poker against real people at real tables for virtually the first time. I was nervous and it probably showed. One day I was playing at the Mirage when I found myself in a hand where by the river there were four hearts on the board. I was first to act and since I didn't have a heart I checked. My opponent checked as well and when we flipped our cards I saw he had a better pair than mine - but no heart. As my opponent was gathering his chips the player on my left leaned over to me.
"I would have bet the river there," he said.
"But I didn't have a heart," I replied.
"Yeah, but he probably doesn't have it either."
This is what first got me thinking about the four-to-the-flush bluff, which I will hearby refer to as the "42FB", since that is the shorthand I use when making notes.
Is it a good idea to make the 42FB? Generally speaking it is. From a pure odds perspective, it is a good bet that you opponent does not have a card in the suit - four of them are already on the table, which leaves only nine out of the remaining 45 cards you haven't seen to complete the flush. With two random cards in his hand, that means he has only about a 40% chance of having a flush.
This is one of those cases where it really depends on your read of your opponent. Against cautious, passive players, the 42FB is a good move. However if he is an aggressive guy, and is well aware of the odds himself, he may just decide to put you to the test with a re-raise. A slow-player might check-down with the flush, expecting a bluff. A "by-the-book" guy would have made bets to chase the flush draw away if he doesn't have it himself. What you should do is entirely dependent on your read of your opponent,
Pay attention to hands you are not involved in for when the 42FB situation comes up and see how the players react. This will give you valuable information on how to play against them.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Quick Disaster and Slow Recovery: The Jesus Challenge, Day 45
I look back wistfully at my last JC post; day 18 when my bankroll was over $40. Sigh. Twice I managed to break up over $50 before, once again, things went terribly wrong. I went on a terrible run over a two week period where I lost money almost every single day. Usually the loses were small, but sometimes the loses were dramatic. When the two weeks were over my poor little bankroll was down to under $10.
I felt mentally broken. I had a great urge to just toss it all away and start again, going back to playing freerolls. Instead I decided I needed to play even more disciplined. My new plan was to aim for smaller targets- to break things into 50 session segments and to aim for coming out ahead in each segment. If I suffer a bad loss, I can usually recover that loss over the course of the segment. This new method has, so far, worked well. My gains have been modest, but consistent. I have taken some big losses (both by bad play and bad beats) but theses have been offset by my long-term positive play. My bankroll is just over $18 now.
Because I am taking this long term approach, I don't think I'll be giving you any bankroll updates for a while. It's just to boring to write and read about. I will write posts that I think might give you some insight into the game of poker (should I have any insights), but I'm going underground on the JC posts until I either break $100 or go bust.
I felt mentally broken. I had a great urge to just toss it all away and start again, going back to playing freerolls. Instead I decided I needed to play even more disciplined. My new plan was to aim for smaller targets- to break things into 50 session segments and to aim for coming out ahead in each segment. If I suffer a bad loss, I can usually recover that loss over the course of the segment. This new method has, so far, worked well. My gains have been modest, but consistent. I have taken some big losses (both by bad play and bad beats) but theses have been offset by my long-term positive play. My bankroll is just over $18 now.
Because I am taking this long term approach, I don't think I'll be giving you any bankroll updates for a while. It's just to boring to write and read about. I will write posts that I think might give you some insight into the game of poker (should I have any insights), but I'm going underground on the JC posts until I either break $100 or go bust.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
How to Lose 45% of Your Bankroll in 2 Minutes - The Jesus Challenge, Day 18
Two weeks into my little personal challenge, things were going just swell. I had built my $2 up to over $36. I thought, Hey why not try a higher level? I'll play it super tight and if things don't go well I'll come back down to these 2 cent tables. I think you know where this is going. I took $5 to a table and waited for a good hand....and waited...and waited....finally I got dealt pocket sixes - the kind of hand I like to play. (If you want to know why I like these hands, read Small and Medium Pocket Pairs). Someone raised ahead of me so I called and the flop could not have been better: Kd 6c Jd. I bet the pot and the other gut re-raised. I re-re-raised. He's all-in. I call. He turns over pocket aces. Ha! The fool! With only two outs he's up the creek! The turn is another king. And the river is an ace.
Well that sucks.
So. I go down to the level I belong at, right? Um, no. I go up another level, bringing $10 with me. I am determined to win that $5 back!
The very first hand I'm dealt QQ and some idiot makes a monster raise in front of me. Perfect! I re-raise. He goes all-in. I call. He shows....AA. Oh, damn. No miracle saves my from my foolishness, and my bankroll goes from $36 to $21 in two hands.
So. I go down to the bottom level again, and that's where I've been for the last four days, grinding it out. I'm happy to say I've got my bankroll back to $37. It's taken me about seven hours of poker over those four days - and I've had to play about 1,600 hands of poker to win back what I lost in only 2.
The question is - will I ever learn?
Well that sucks.
So. I go down to the level I belong at, right? Um, no. I go up another level, bringing $10 with me. I am determined to win that $5 back!
The very first hand I'm dealt QQ and some idiot makes a monster raise in front of me. Perfect! I re-raise. He goes all-in. I call. He shows....AA. Oh, damn. No miracle saves my from my foolishness, and my bankroll goes from $36 to $21 in two hands.
So. I go down to the bottom level again, and that's where I've been for the last four days, grinding it out. I'm happy to say I've got my bankroll back to $37. It's taken me about seven hours of poker over those four days - and I've had to play about 1,600 hands of poker to win back what I lost in only 2.
The question is - will I ever learn?
Monday, July 8, 2013
The Dumbest Poker Hand Ever Played On Earth.
Last year I played some poker at Cowboys Casino during Stampede, and I was blown away by the craziness. If you've ever played Zynga poker for fake money and found yourself wishing that real poker could be like that, then I would highly recommend playing poker on the Stampede grounds during the Calgary Stampede.
I went down there Saturday night and played for about four hours. Even though I left with a modest win, I still felt mildly nauseous about the out-of-control gambling I had witnessed. I had built my $100 to about $500 in three hours, whittled it back down to $400 in half an hour, and then I participated (and lost another $100) in what can only be described as The Dumbest Poker Hand Ever Played On Earth. Remember that hand in Casino Royale when everyone has Full houses or Quads or Straight flushes? Well, this hand was the exact opposite - with every one betting like they had monsters but no one had a hand at all.
It starts, of course, with a $5 stradle. A Crazy Asian Dude (who had lost about $300 in the last 20 minutes) calls. (Oh, I should mention we're playing $1/$2 NLHE). Next to act is a guy whose stack is down to $60 - and he pushes that $60 in. The next player folds. I'm next to act. I've been dealt pocket 10's and I figure I'm quite likely ahead of the all-in. I know this sounds dubious, but I've been at this table for hours and I know that pocket tens is good against this guy's range. But then the next guy calls the $60 bet, and so does the next guy. What the heck is going on? The guy in the small blind raises to $100...and the big blind calls! Then the stradle calls!! Then the Crazy Asian Dude Calls!!! The pot is now well over $600, with four guys betting $100 each ahead of me, and three more with $60 in and the option to call (or raise!) behind me. I know that somebody, probably more than one person, must have AA or KK. Nothing else makes sense. I also know I have to call - the pot odds are so great. So I put in another $40 and call. The three guys acting after me do the same.
So eight players have each payed $100 to see the following flop: 9d Qh 4s. Well damn, no set. With the crazy pre-flop action, I'm sure AA and/or KK is still out there, and now QQ AQ and even KQ are possible hands someone might pay to see the flop with. There is really no way my hand could be good. Or, so I think.
It checks to Crazy Asian Guy, who sticks in another $100. I fold. The next guy (who just sat down- this is first hand) calls and the remaining four guys fold. The pot is now exactly $1,000.
The turn is a 6c, making the board 9d Qh 4s 6c.
Both players check.
The river is a 3h, making the board. 9d Qh 4s 6c 3h.
Crazy Asian Guy thinks for about thirty seconds, then bets $100.
The New Guy calls with his last $100.
"Turn'em over," says the dealer. The New Guys flips over Ad 4d - he has a pair of fours!!!!!
The Crazy Asian Guy throws his hand in the muck.
Oh, and what about that guy who went all-in with $60 to started this whole crazy thing? He had KJ - so he lost too.
And some donkey with a pair of fours wins a $1,200 pot.
I went down there Saturday night and played for about four hours. Even though I left with a modest win, I still felt mildly nauseous about the out-of-control gambling I had witnessed. I had built my $100 to about $500 in three hours, whittled it back down to $400 in half an hour, and then I participated (and lost another $100) in what can only be described as The Dumbest Poker Hand Ever Played On Earth. Remember that hand in Casino Royale when everyone has Full houses or Quads or Straight flushes? Well, this hand was the exact opposite - with every one betting like they had monsters but no one had a hand at all.
It starts, of course, with a $5 stradle. A Crazy Asian Dude (who had lost about $300 in the last 20 minutes) calls. (Oh, I should mention we're playing $1/$2 NLHE). Next to act is a guy whose stack is down to $60 - and he pushes that $60 in. The next player folds. I'm next to act. I've been dealt pocket 10's and I figure I'm quite likely ahead of the all-in. I know this sounds dubious, but I've been at this table for hours and I know that pocket tens is good against this guy's range. But then the next guy calls the $60 bet, and so does the next guy. What the heck is going on? The guy in the small blind raises to $100...and the big blind calls! Then the stradle calls!! Then the Crazy Asian Dude Calls!!! The pot is now well over $600, with four guys betting $100 each ahead of me, and three more with $60 in and the option to call (or raise!) behind me. I know that somebody, probably more than one person, must have AA or KK. Nothing else makes sense. I also know I have to call - the pot odds are so great. So I put in another $40 and call. The three guys acting after me do the same.
So eight players have each payed $100 to see the following flop: 9d Qh 4s. Well damn, no set. With the crazy pre-flop action, I'm sure AA and/or KK is still out there, and now QQ AQ and even KQ are possible hands someone might pay to see the flop with. There is really no way my hand could be good. Or, so I think.
It checks to Crazy Asian Guy, who sticks in another $100. I fold. The next guy (who just sat down- this is first hand) calls and the remaining four guys fold. The pot is now exactly $1,000.
The turn is a 6c, making the board 9d Qh 4s 6c.
Both players check.
The river is a 3h, making the board. 9d Qh 4s 6c 3h.
Crazy Asian Guy thinks for about thirty seconds, then bets $100.
The New Guy calls with his last $100.
"Turn'em over," says the dealer. The New Guys flips over Ad 4d - he has a pair of fours!!!!!
The Crazy Asian Guy throws his hand in the muck.
Oh, and what about that guy who went all-in with $60 to started this whole crazy thing? He had KJ - so he lost too.
And some donkey with a pair of fours wins a $1,200 pot.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Don't Play at Too High a Level! - The Jesus Challenge, Day 12
A week into the "Jesus Challenge", I had built my original $2 up to just over $18, and in only three more days had nearly lost it all.
What happened? It was the usual story - I started out very disciplined, only playing 2 cent big blind ring games. For five days I kept to this level and was a consistent winner, growing my bankroll to over $12 in six days. In fact, winning was so easy that I didn't see the harm in stepping up to the 5 cent game. This seemed like a good move at first - day 7 saw me grow to over $19 before finishing near $18 - but I gave it all back the next day and finished my first week at $12.05.
I took the weekend off and started Monday with the intention of sticking to the 2 cent game, but I got off to a bad start and then, stupidly, moved back up to the higher level to try to quickly win back what I lost. A bad bankroll decision, followed by over-aggressive play and, in my own defense, some rather crappy luck, saw my losses spin out of control. I was in a complete nose-dive but somehow found the will to walk away before I lost it all. I had only $3.33 left.
It's really hard not to throw your whole bankroll away after losing 5/6th's of it in a single day. The downward momentum is just so great, and your attitude becomes so defeatist. I tried to tell my self that $3.33 was still more than the $2 I started with, but I still felt like a stupid donkey who deserved to lose. The one thing that kept me from crashing completely was the thought of having to write a blog about what an idiot I am.
So.
So, the next day I started grinding it out at the 2 cent tables, playing super-tight and folding a lot of hands that I called with the day before. That day I built the bankroll back up over $6.00
The next day a miracle happened. I played three tables (all 2cent BB's) simultaneously. My reasoning was that multi-tabling would keep me from losing my patience and playing too loose. It worked. After about 2 1/2 hours my bankroll had grown to an impressive $30.04.
So. Here I am, very lucky to tell you how my Jesus Challenge didn't end an embarrassing two weeks from the start. And I hope I can find the discipline to keep grinding at the 2cent level.
Wish me luck.
What happened? It was the usual story - I started out very disciplined, only playing 2 cent big blind ring games. For five days I kept to this level and was a consistent winner, growing my bankroll to over $12 in six days. In fact, winning was so easy that I didn't see the harm in stepping up to the 5 cent game. This seemed like a good move at first - day 7 saw me grow to over $19 before finishing near $18 - but I gave it all back the next day and finished my first week at $12.05.
I took the weekend off and started Monday with the intention of sticking to the 2 cent game, but I got off to a bad start and then, stupidly, moved back up to the higher level to try to quickly win back what I lost. A bad bankroll decision, followed by over-aggressive play and, in my own defense, some rather crappy luck, saw my losses spin out of control. I was in a complete nose-dive but somehow found the will to walk away before I lost it all. I had only $3.33 left.
It's really hard not to throw your whole bankroll away after losing 5/6th's of it in a single day. The downward momentum is just so great, and your attitude becomes so defeatist. I tried to tell my self that $3.33 was still more than the $2 I started with, but I still felt like a stupid donkey who deserved to lose. The one thing that kept me from crashing completely was the thought of having to write a blog about what an idiot I am.
So.
So, the next day I started grinding it out at the 2 cent tables, playing super-tight and folding a lot of hands that I called with the day before. That day I built the bankroll back up over $6.00
The next day a miracle happened. I played three tables (all 2cent BB's) simultaneously. My reasoning was that multi-tabling would keep me from losing my patience and playing too loose. It worked. After about 2 1/2 hours my bankroll had grown to an impressive $30.04.
So. Here I am, very lucky to tell you how my Jesus Challenge didn't end an embarrassing two weeks from the start. And I hope I can find the discipline to keep grinding at the 2cent level.
Wish me luck.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The Jesus Challenge
I haven't put any money into online poker for quite a while, but I do play occasional freerolls hoping to cash-in at long odds. Last Saturday I entered a freeroll with about 1,100 other players, with only the top 27 places getting paid. It took about five hours and all the skill, patience and luck I could muster, but when the smoke cleared I finished in 19th place and won myself $2.
This may not seem like a big deal, but cashing in one of these things is damn hard. A few years back Chris "Jesus" Ferguson announced that he was going to try to win $10, 000 playing poker online without depositing a penny - he would start by cashing in a freeroll. It took him about a year and a half but he did it*, and the hardest part was cashing in the freeroll to get started.
The Jesus Challenge is the goal I want to set for myself - except without the year and a half time line. I don't have that much time to play everyday. But if I can build this up to $10, 000 within, say, ten years I'll be pretty happy.
And what's more, if I achieve my goal I'll do what Chris did and donate it all to charity.
I'm at almost $7 now. I'll keep you posted.
* - Given the fact that Chris seems to be somewhat deeply involved in the FullTilt legal problems, it is not unrealistic to doubt if he is telling the truth about this. Still whether or not he did it, I'm going to try.
This may not seem like a big deal, but cashing in one of these things is damn hard. A few years back Chris "Jesus" Ferguson announced that he was going to try to win $10, 000 playing poker online without depositing a penny - he would start by cashing in a freeroll. It took him about a year and a half but he did it*, and the hardest part was cashing in the freeroll to get started.
The Jesus Challenge is the goal I want to set for myself - except without the year and a half time line. I don't have that much time to play everyday. But if I can build this up to $10, 000 within, say, ten years I'll be pretty happy.
And what's more, if I achieve my goal I'll do what Chris did and donate it all to charity.
I'm at almost $7 now. I'll keep you posted.
* - Given the fact that Chris seems to be somewhat deeply involved in the FullTilt legal problems, it is not unrealistic to doubt if he is telling the truth about this. Still whether or not he did it, I'm going to try.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Did I make the right move?
Among the players sitting at the table on Friday was a guy I'd played with several times before - let's call him Doug. Doug talks. A lot. Doug is a "colour commentator". He will evaluate the hand just played and say what the proper move was, or wasn't, at each stage. He will often criticize the other players, saying things like, "I don't know why he bluffed in that situation. Anyone can see the other guy is complete calling station, it's insane to try to bluff a calling station." Doug is annoying as hell, but most of what he says seems to make sense to me. Sitting at a table with him can be an education. He is an astute observer of his opponents and is more than willing to share his observations. After an hour you will have a pretty accurate picture of how he plays the game, which is useful should you have to tangle with him.
I was on the button with 4 5 off - a hand I would normally fold. But someone limped and everyone else (including Doug, who sat two chairs to my right) had called so I figured a $2 call wasn't out of line. The blinds were also in, so all nine of us saw the flop: 4 4 J rainbow. Sweet. It checked around to Doug who put out a $10 bet. I just called and two others called behind me. Doug said "Does everyone have a four?" and it seemed to me that he was trying to send out gee, I'm nervous vibes. Often when a guy asks if you have a particular strong hand, he will be holding that exact hand himself, and this is what I instantly felt Doug was doing. I knew that if Doug had a four, then I might have kicker trouble. So when an eight came on the turn and Doug bet $25 I folded. The other two folded as well. As Doug handed his cards back to the dealer he flipped one over. It was a four. It was nice of him to confirm for me that my read had been correct.
Still, not knowing what the other card was, there is a good chance that had I called we would have split the pot. With a 4 4 J 8 board, we would be splitting the pot if he had a 7 6 5 3 or 2 to go with his 4. And there is a chance a high card on the river would also split the pot.
So did I really make a smart fold? Or was I overly cautious? Should I have called a $25 bet into a $58 pot knowing my opponent probably had a 4, or was folding correct?
You tell me.
I was on the button with 4 5 off - a hand I would normally fold. But someone limped and everyone else (including Doug, who sat two chairs to my right) had called so I figured a $2 call wasn't out of line. The blinds were also in, so all nine of us saw the flop: 4 4 J rainbow. Sweet. It checked around to Doug who put out a $10 bet. I just called and two others called behind me. Doug said "Does everyone have a four?" and it seemed to me that he was trying to send out gee, I'm nervous vibes. Often when a guy asks if you have a particular strong hand, he will be holding that exact hand himself, and this is what I instantly felt Doug was doing. I knew that if Doug had a four, then I might have kicker trouble. So when an eight came on the turn and Doug bet $25 I folded. The other two folded as well. As Doug handed his cards back to the dealer he flipped one over. It was a four. It was nice of him to confirm for me that my read had been correct.
Still, not knowing what the other card was, there is a good chance that had I called we would have split the pot. With a 4 4 J 8 board, we would be splitting the pot if he had a 7 6 5 3 or 2 to go with his 4. And there is a chance a high card on the river would also split the pot.
So did I really make a smart fold? Or was I overly cautious? Should I have called a $25 bet into a $58 pot knowing my opponent probably had a 4, or was folding correct?
You tell me.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The Dumbest Thing I Did on Friday
Poker is a difficult game to learn and teach because it is so situational - while you are trying to outsmart your opponents, they in turn are trying to out smart you. They change their strategies, lay traps, try to induce you to bluff and do all sorts of sneaky things. This is particularly true in No Limit - where a massive bet could be a desperate bluff or a sign of a monster hand. You sometimes wonder, "Why would he bet so much? If he had the nuts he would bet less hoping for a call." So you call the enormous bet only to see your opponent turn over the stone cold nuts. Why did he bet so much? The obvious answer is that he had you pegged as a guy who would suspect he was bluffing by betting so much. He was thinking about what you would be thinking about and he was right. The bastard.
I was playing on Friday at a table with a mixture of professional and recreational players. The pros were making a killing off of the fish, who were calling down marginal hands. I got luck early on when I flopped a straight against one of the pros and extracted maximum value as he was on a million draws and missed them all. I wish I could say it was skill, but unless you can learn to flop straights you have to admit it was just dumb luck.
I made the mistake right then of thinking I had wounded the pride of the pro, and this assumption led me to make a bad decision a few hands later, when I was dealt QQ on the button. There were six guys in for the $2 min-bet when it got to me and I raised it it to $10. It folded back to the guy I had just beaten. He only had about $120 left in chips and he pushed half his stack in making the bet $60. It quickly folds back to me. All I could think is that this guy wants revenge. Well you picked the wrong guy to try push around buddy! I announce "all in" and the guy calls sometime between me saying "all" and "in" - but still I think I'm okay until he flips over pocket aces.
Oops.
81% of the time the aces hold up in this situation. Luckily for me this happened to be one of those 19% occasions. A queen came on the flop and my trips held. But despite the happy ending, I know that I had been out-played. I gathered my chips and hoped I could avoid a mistake like that in the future. The lesson is not to assume a strong player will let emotion dictate their play. Weak players let things like wanting revenge influence them, but pros don't. If a pro re-raises you pre-flop (particularly if you have a tight image), it usually means he has a real big hand.
I was playing on Friday at a table with a mixture of professional and recreational players. The pros were making a killing off of the fish, who were calling down marginal hands. I got luck early on when I flopped a straight against one of the pros and extracted maximum value as he was on a million draws and missed them all. I wish I could say it was skill, but unless you can learn to flop straights you have to admit it was just dumb luck.
I made the mistake right then of thinking I had wounded the pride of the pro, and this assumption led me to make a bad decision a few hands later, when I was dealt QQ on the button. There were six guys in for the $2 min-bet when it got to me and I raised it it to $10. It folded back to the guy I had just beaten. He only had about $120 left in chips and he pushed half his stack in making the bet $60. It quickly folds back to me. All I could think is that this guy wants revenge. Well you picked the wrong guy to try push around buddy! I announce "all in" and the guy calls sometime between me saying "all" and "in" - but still I think I'm okay until he flips over pocket aces.
Oops.
81% of the time the aces hold up in this situation. Luckily for me this happened to be one of those 19% occasions. A queen came on the flop and my trips held. But despite the happy ending, I know that I had been out-played. I gathered my chips and hoped I could avoid a mistake like that in the future. The lesson is not to assume a strong player will let emotion dictate their play. Weak players let things like wanting revenge influence them, but pros don't. If a pro re-raises you pre-flop (particularly if you have a tight image), it usually means he has a real big hand.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Patience, Grasshopper...Part 1
A friend of mine (let's call him Will) came down to the casino to play a little poker. The plan was that we'd sit at the same table, have some fun, and I could maybe give him some advice to improve his game.
I arrived at our agreed upon meeting time but Will had gotten held up and wouldn't be able to show for another hour. I took $100 to a table and lost it in a half hour when my queen high flush lost to an ace high flush. Damn. Luckily I had a reserve buy-in, so I got more chips and decided to play uber-tight. How embarrassing would it be if I lost all my money before Will even got here? A sad excuse for a poker mentor.
When Will arrived my table was full, so he started at a different table and put his name down to be transferred to mine when a seat was available. Luckily this didn't take very long and he soon sitting at the far end from me. This made conversation between us difficult - I'd have to raise my voice loud enough for the whole table to hear. I could see he had only about $50 in chips - the minimum buy in.
He lost a lot of chips when he was dealt pocket jacks and limped in and the flop came with an ace on it. Someone (let's call him Don) bet and Will called. The turn was a blank and the Don fired out another bet and Will called again. Now it seemed to me that Don almost certainly had an ace. If Will was playing standard poker, his two calls would mean he almost certainly had an ace as well. If both these assumptions are correct, the question becomes who has the better kicker? If this were a standard situation, you would assume neither guy had a very high card to go with their ace, otherwise they probably would have raised pre-flop, so each guy is now in that awful position of having no clue if his hand is good or not. The river was a nine. Don, who I assume was worried about the strength of Will's hand, checked. If Will had a big stack he could easily have bluffed Don, but he only had about $15 left. He checked as well. Don turned over his ace with a shitty kicker and Will showed his pocket jacks. The pot went to Don.
What happened here? Will made the mistake that all newbie players make - he couldn't lay down a good hand. He was dealt pocket jacks - a good hand - and couldn't get away from it. Simple as that. All players make this mistake when the first start out. All of them. Every single one of them who ever played. The first step to becoming a good player is learning how to recognize when your opponent has a stronger hand than yours and folding even if your hand is a strong one. Sounds easy, but it definitely is not.
I arrived at our agreed upon meeting time but Will had gotten held up and wouldn't be able to show for another hour. I took $100 to a table and lost it in a half hour when my queen high flush lost to an ace high flush. Damn. Luckily I had a reserve buy-in, so I got more chips and decided to play uber-tight. How embarrassing would it be if I lost all my money before Will even got here? A sad excuse for a poker mentor.
When Will arrived my table was full, so he started at a different table and put his name down to be transferred to mine when a seat was available. Luckily this didn't take very long and he soon sitting at the far end from me. This made conversation between us difficult - I'd have to raise my voice loud enough for the whole table to hear. I could see he had only about $50 in chips - the minimum buy in.
He lost a lot of chips when he was dealt pocket jacks and limped in and the flop came with an ace on it. Someone (let's call him Don) bet and Will called. The turn was a blank and the Don fired out another bet and Will called again. Now it seemed to me that Don almost certainly had an ace. If Will was playing standard poker, his two calls would mean he almost certainly had an ace as well. If both these assumptions are correct, the question becomes who has the better kicker? If this were a standard situation, you would assume neither guy had a very high card to go with their ace, otherwise they probably would have raised pre-flop, so each guy is now in that awful position of having no clue if his hand is good or not. The river was a nine. Don, who I assume was worried about the strength of Will's hand, checked. If Will had a big stack he could easily have bluffed Don, but he only had about $15 left. He checked as well. Don turned over his ace with a shitty kicker and Will showed his pocket jacks. The pot went to Don.
What happened here? Will made the mistake that all newbie players make - he couldn't lay down a good hand. He was dealt pocket jacks - a good hand - and couldn't get away from it. Simple as that. All players make this mistake when the first start out. All of them. Every single one of them who ever played. The first step to becoming a good player is learning how to recognize when your opponent has a stronger hand than yours and folding even if your hand is a strong one. Sounds easy, but it definitely is not.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Anatomy of a Bad Poker Day: Part 2
So, here I am with $45 in chips at a loose aggressive table playing $1/$2 NLHE. I have a few options now, which I will lay out from smartest to dumbest:
Option 1: The smartest thing to do might be to just call it a bad day, go home and save that $45. But I've only been playing poker for an hour and I just don't feel like leaving yet.
Option 2: I could buy more chips with the $60 in my pocket, which would bring my back to that ideal starting stack of around $100.
Option 3: I could just keep playing with the $45 and hope I can double up.
The reason option 3 is the worst is because when your stack gets this small, you don't have many options, particularly at a loose aggressive table where any hand you play may have you pot committed. Your only real move is an all-in preflop which takes us away from the world of skillful poker and towards the world of hope-for-the-best gambling. So which option do I choose? Option 3 of course! This will be mistake #2 for me this day - or #3 if you really hate the call I made in the previous post. So I'll sit here with $45 looking for a hand I can take a chance on. And hoping it won't take too long because even $3 trips through the blinds will whittle me down pretty fast.
I get lucky and catch pocket tens a few hands later. I move all-in, and my heart sinks when I get two callers. Heads-up against two over cards I'm a slight favourite, but with two opponents I might be looking at three or four over-cards, or something even worse - a pocket pair higher than mine. When an ace comes on the flop I know I'm doomed - for sure one of these guys has an ace. Maybe they both do. The turn and the river are small cards and both my opponents check the hand down, which gives me hope. I show my hand and, miracle of miracles, the other two guys toss their cards in the muck. Pure dumb luck and I triple up!
So I survive mistake #2. Now I have $135 -almost as much as I started with. I should see this as a sign to start playing smarter, but mistakes have a way of multiplying - once you start making them they just seem to snowball.
Stay tuned.
Option 1: The smartest thing to do might be to just call it a bad day, go home and save that $45. But I've only been playing poker for an hour and I just don't feel like leaving yet.
Option 2: I could buy more chips with the $60 in my pocket, which would bring my back to that ideal starting stack of around $100.
Option 3: I could just keep playing with the $45 and hope I can double up.
The reason option 3 is the worst is because when your stack gets this small, you don't have many options, particularly at a loose aggressive table where any hand you play may have you pot committed. Your only real move is an all-in preflop which takes us away from the world of skillful poker and towards the world of hope-for-the-best gambling. So which option do I choose? Option 3 of course! This will be mistake #2 for me this day - or #3 if you really hate the call I made in the previous post. So I'll sit here with $45 looking for a hand I can take a chance on. And hoping it won't take too long because even $3 trips through the blinds will whittle me down pretty fast.
I get lucky and catch pocket tens a few hands later. I move all-in, and my heart sinks when I get two callers. Heads-up against two over cards I'm a slight favourite, but with two opponents I might be looking at three or four over-cards, or something even worse - a pocket pair higher than mine. When an ace comes on the flop I know I'm doomed - for sure one of these guys has an ace. Maybe they both do. The turn and the river are small cards and both my opponents check the hand down, which gives me hope. I show my hand and, miracle of miracles, the other two guys toss their cards in the muck. Pure dumb luck and I triple up!
So I survive mistake #2. Now I have $135 -almost as much as I started with. I should see this as a sign to start playing smarter, but mistakes have a way of multiplying - once you start making them they just seem to snowball.
Stay tuned.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Anatomy of a Bad Poker Day: Part 1
I've been losing at poker lately - which explains why I haven't written many posts. It isn't fun to write posts with titles like "I'm an Idiot!" and "Five Stupid Things I Did Today." Never-the-less the results speak for themselves. Time to fess up. Maybe you, Dear Reader, will learn from my mistakes. More importantly, maybe I will. Let's look at the last poker session in which I lost $340 and see if we can learn something from it.
I felt positive going in. I told my bankroll manager I was only taking $100 - a sum that would keep me from playing the loose style that always spells disaster for me. When I arrived at just before 10:00 a.m. there was a table going with bleary eyed hard-core players who had been up all night. I could see beer bottles and high-ball glasses on the small tables beside the players. This looked too good to be true. So I decided to deviate from the plan - being fresh against tired players is a great advantage, so I figured bringing in a little more to the table might just earn me a lot more in return. I went to the cage and bought $140 in chips [mistake 1].
The first hour I folded a lot and just got a feel for how the others were playing - I did pick up a small pot, building my stack to about $155. It was pretty loose. Lots of bluffing and semi-bluffing, over-betting and questionable calls. Perfect. About an hour in, sitting in the cut-off, I was dealt the kind of hand I love to play at a table like this: 6c 6s. Small and medium pairs are easy to fold if you miss the flop and often get paid off big time when they hit - particularly at loose tables like this one. There was a straddle on ( we are talking $1/$2 No Limit Hold 'Em - with a $5 straddle) and three people called before me. I called, the big blind called, and the straddler checked.
The pot was $31, with six players in. The flop came Kh 4h 9d. Big Blind bets only $5. Two players call and two players fold when the action comes to me. Normally, I'd fold without giving it a second thought, but a $5 bet into a $46 pot is pretty attractive odds, particularly since I'm in position and no one can re-raise it. At a tight table I would still probably fold, but at this loose table my implied pot-odds are terrific, so I call.
And I'm very glad I did because the 6 of diamonds came on the turn. Sweet. The board now looks like this: Kh 4h 9d 6d - two flush draws out there now and the action post-flop makes it seem likely that some of my opponents are on draws - gut shot straights and hearts being the most obvious. I think I need to bet big to chase away the draws, but Big Blind must be thinking something similar as he opens with a $25 bet - roughly half the pot. The other two guys fold and I decide that while I don't have the nuts, I'm very likely holding the best hand. I make it $50 and Big Blind calls.
Heads-up to the river with a $150 pot.
The river is the nine of spades. The board is now Kh 4h 9d 6d 9s. Big Blind bets $50.
What should I do? I've got a full house now. I've invested $60 into this hand - not exactly enough to say I'm pot commited. I ask myself, "What hands could he be holding?" He might have a busted flush he is bluffing with - but a $50 bet is only 1/3 the pot and smells more like a value bet than a bluff. Could he have something I can beat, like AK or A9? Yes, I think he could have a hand like that. Could he have something that beats me, like KK, K9, 96 or 99? Yes, I think he could have a hand like that.
Sometimes in poker, you just don't know if you are ahead or behind. I think it is equally likely I will win or lose if I make this call, so a $50 bet on what seems like a 50/50 chance to win $200 seems like the right thing to do. So I call.
My opponent shows K9 - a better boat than mine. He scoops the pot and I look down at the $45 in chips I have remaining.
Did I make a mistake in the way I played my hand? In retrospect that last call doesn't look so smart, but in my defense I think I win that hand a lot of the time against players with a big range. I think the truth is I just got rivered and my opponent made the right value bet to extract maximum value out of his hit.
Did I make a mistake? You tell me. I'm not sure too many players would fold in my position.
More to come.
Let's review my mistakes:
Mistake 1: I went in with a plan, but I didn't stick with it. I have outlined in previous posts why I think starting with a small stack is a good idea but I talked myself out of following my own good advice.
Plenty more mistakes to come! Look for part 2 to this cautionary tale - coming soon!
I felt positive going in. I told my bankroll manager I was only taking $100 - a sum that would keep me from playing the loose style that always spells disaster for me. When I arrived at just before 10:00 a.m. there was a table going with bleary eyed hard-core players who had been up all night. I could see beer bottles and high-ball glasses on the small tables beside the players. This looked too good to be true. So I decided to deviate from the plan - being fresh against tired players is a great advantage, so I figured bringing in a little more to the table might just earn me a lot more in return. I went to the cage and bought $140 in chips [mistake 1].
The first hour I folded a lot and just got a feel for how the others were playing - I did pick up a small pot, building my stack to about $155. It was pretty loose. Lots of bluffing and semi-bluffing, over-betting and questionable calls. Perfect. About an hour in, sitting in the cut-off, I was dealt the kind of hand I love to play at a table like this: 6c 6s. Small and medium pairs are easy to fold if you miss the flop and often get paid off big time when they hit - particularly at loose tables like this one. There was a straddle on ( we are talking $1/$2 No Limit Hold 'Em - with a $5 straddle) and three people called before me. I called, the big blind called, and the straddler checked.
The pot was $31, with six players in. The flop came Kh 4h 9d. Big Blind bets only $5. Two players call and two players fold when the action comes to me. Normally, I'd fold without giving it a second thought, but a $5 bet into a $46 pot is pretty attractive odds, particularly since I'm in position and no one can re-raise it. At a tight table I would still probably fold, but at this loose table my implied pot-odds are terrific, so I call.
And I'm very glad I did because the 6 of diamonds came on the turn. Sweet. The board now looks like this: Kh 4h 9d 6d - two flush draws out there now and the action post-flop makes it seem likely that some of my opponents are on draws - gut shot straights and hearts being the most obvious. I think I need to bet big to chase away the draws, but Big Blind must be thinking something similar as he opens with a $25 bet - roughly half the pot. The other two guys fold and I decide that while I don't have the nuts, I'm very likely holding the best hand. I make it $50 and Big Blind calls.
Heads-up to the river with a $150 pot.
The river is the nine of spades. The board is now Kh 4h 9d 6d 9s. Big Blind bets $50.
What should I do? I've got a full house now. I've invested $60 into this hand - not exactly enough to say I'm pot commited. I ask myself, "What hands could he be holding?" He might have a busted flush he is bluffing with - but a $50 bet is only 1/3 the pot and smells more like a value bet than a bluff. Could he have something I can beat, like AK or A9? Yes, I think he could have a hand like that. Could he have something that beats me, like KK, K9, 96 or 99? Yes, I think he could have a hand like that.
Sometimes in poker, you just don't know if you are ahead or behind. I think it is equally likely I will win or lose if I make this call, so a $50 bet on what seems like a 50/50 chance to win $200 seems like the right thing to do. So I call.
My opponent shows K9 - a better boat than mine. He scoops the pot and I look down at the $45 in chips I have remaining.
Did I make a mistake in the way I played my hand? In retrospect that last call doesn't look so smart, but in my defense I think I win that hand a lot of the time against players with a big range. I think the truth is I just got rivered and my opponent made the right value bet to extract maximum value out of his hit.
Did I make a mistake? You tell me. I'm not sure too many players would fold in my position.
More to come.
Let's review my mistakes:
Mistake 1: I went in with a plan, but I didn't stick with it. I have outlined in previous posts why I think starting with a small stack is a good idea but I talked myself out of following my own good advice.
Plenty more mistakes to come! Look for part 2 to this cautionary tale - coming soon!
Monday, January 21, 2013
Poker Homophobia
Some guys still think of poker as a man's game. A straight man's game. Women, while nice to look at, really can't compete because they lack the brute force that is so often required, and lisping fairies are similarly disqualified from getting much respect at the poker table.
This point of view. of course, is complete bullshit, but nevertheless an invisible cloud of homophobia often hangs over the green felt. At the poker room last night two guys started in at each other. Both had come from the hockey game which the local team just lost and both had been drinking and losing money - prime candidates for turning into frustrated idiots. One was wearing a cowboy hat, prompting that inevitable Brokeback Mountain comment which led to the predictable reply of "you wish" and things quickly spiraled down until management came over and moved one guy to a different table. I never see this kind of idiocy during the day, when the more serious poker players are around, but on weekends and evenings it is not uncommon.
The yahoos with the fag jokes are the idiots who really have no clue how the game of poker is played - they think it has something to do with manhood. They think drinking Jack Daniels will help them win.
They are fools.
Take their money.
This point of view. of course, is complete bullshit, but nevertheless an invisible cloud of homophobia often hangs over the green felt. At the poker room last night two guys started in at each other. Both had come from the hockey game which the local team just lost and both had been drinking and losing money - prime candidates for turning into frustrated idiots. One was wearing a cowboy hat, prompting that inevitable Brokeback Mountain comment which led to the predictable reply of "you wish" and things quickly spiraled down until management came over and moved one guy to a different table. I never see this kind of idiocy during the day, when the more serious poker players are around, but on weekends and evenings it is not uncommon.
The yahoos with the fag jokes are the idiots who really have no clue how the game of poker is played - they think it has something to do with manhood. They think drinking Jack Daniels will help them win.
They are fools.
Take their money.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
What did you learn?
A quick hand to illustrate the difference between good and bad decision making.
Tom, Dick and Harry are three guys I see in the poker room almost every time I go there. Yesterday I was sitting with Tom two seats on my right, Dick on my immediate left (Dick always wants to sit on my left. I wonder why that is?) and Harry sitting to Dick's left.
I was on the button when the action folded to Tom, who made it $15 to go. I fold. Dick raised it to $40. Harry called and Tom thought for quite a while before calling as well. The flop was A 9 4, rainbow.
Dick checks.
Harry goes all in with about $150.
Tom thinks about his decision, then says. "I should have gone all in preflop. If I had, then one of you would have called me and so then I'd be in exactly the same situation I'm in right now. So, I might as well call," and so, following this bizarre logic, he calls.
Dick picks up his cards, leans over to me and shows me he has KK. Then he throws his cowboys into the muck.
With no more betting possible, Harry and Tom show their hole cards. Harry has A J. Tom has Q Q. The turn and river are blanks and Harry scoops up a big pot.
"I knew I should have gone all-in preflop," mutters Tom angrily. "I let you see that flop too cheap."
Dick just chuckles and shakes his head.
Tom, Dick and Harry are three guys I see in the poker room almost every time I go there. Yesterday I was sitting with Tom two seats on my right, Dick on my immediate left (Dick always wants to sit on my left. I wonder why that is?) and Harry sitting to Dick's left.
I was on the button when the action folded to Tom, who made it $15 to go. I fold. Dick raised it to $40. Harry called and Tom thought for quite a while before calling as well. The flop was A 9 4, rainbow.
Dick checks.
Harry goes all in with about $150.
Tom thinks about his decision, then says. "I should have gone all in preflop. If I had, then one of you would have called me and so then I'd be in exactly the same situation I'm in right now. So, I might as well call," and so, following this bizarre logic, he calls.
Dick picks up his cards, leans over to me and shows me he has KK. Then he throws his cowboys into the muck.
With no more betting possible, Harry and Tom show their hole cards. Harry has A J. Tom has Q Q. The turn and river are blanks and Harry scoops up a big pot.
"I knew I should have gone all-in preflop," mutters Tom angrily. "I let you see that flop too cheap."
Dick just chuckles and shakes his head.
I Believe in a Powerful Force...
...and its called the law of averages. And the more poker you play, the greater force the law of averages will hold over your game. The funny thing is most poker players I know don't really understand what the law of averages is all about. They think things like "Well, I missed my last five flush draws, so that means I'm more likely to hit a flush draw here", and then they make a call they should probably not make.
If you are holding two hearts and the flop comes with two more hearts, your odds of hitting a flush if you stay in to the river are just under 35%, and you should play the hand accordingly based on pot odds and implied pot odds, and the likelihood you can get away with a bluff if you miss altogether. If you have missed the last five flush draws the odds remain 35%. If you have hit each of the last five flush draws the odds remain 35%.
The law of averages applies to a very large sample - if you play poker ten hours per week for twenty five years you might see a couple hundred thousand hands and you will have hit your flush draws 34.95% of the time. But a four hour session is far too small a sample size to start demanding that the law of averages must allow you to hit a flush after you've missed two draws.
You should apply the law of averages by trying to make the best play in each situation. Ask yourself, If I had to play this exact hand ten thousand times, what actions would be most profitable? When you think this way, you start thinking about "EV", which is poker shorthand for expected value, then you start putting the law of averages to work for you in a truly meaningful way that will, over the long-term, be advantageous.
If you are holding two hearts and the flop comes with two more hearts, your odds of hitting a flush if you stay in to the river are just under 35%, and you should play the hand accordingly based on pot odds and implied pot odds, and the likelihood you can get away with a bluff if you miss altogether. If you have missed the last five flush draws the odds remain 35%. If you have hit each of the last five flush draws the odds remain 35%.
The law of averages applies to a very large sample - if you play poker ten hours per week for twenty five years you might see a couple hundred thousand hands and you will have hit your flush draws 34.95% of the time. But a four hour session is far too small a sample size to start demanding that the law of averages must allow you to hit a flush after you've missed two draws.
You should apply the law of averages by trying to make the best play in each situation. Ask yourself, If I had to play this exact hand ten thousand times, what actions would be most profitable? When you think this way, you start thinking about "EV", which is poker shorthand for expected value, then you start putting the law of averages to work for you in a truly meaningful way that will, over the long-term, be advantageous.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
What the $%#@ ?
Playing a friendly game last night I witnessed what has to be one of the craziest things I have ever seen. Some beer had been consumed but not nearly had enough that the action could be blamed on it. The truth is that sometimes people just do crazy things.
We were playing no-limit hold'em with .25 and .50 blinds (note to keyboard makers - please put a "cent" symbol on the keyboard somewhere). We had been playing for quite a while when a player we will call Ms.X limped in. The action folded to a player we will call Ms.Y, who pushed all of her chips - a stack of $11.50 into the middle. This was a massive raise for the kind of poker we were playing where a bet of $2 was seen as ultra-aggressive. Everyone started mucking - everyone but Ms.X - and Ms.Y assumed the pot was hers.
"What do you have?" asked Ms.X. "Pocket aces?"
"Yes," replied Ms.Y. She turned over the two red aces, then tossed them in the muck and began pulling in the pot. Technically speaking, Y just killed her hand by mucking but this was a friendly game and she just assumed, naturally enough, that the hand was over.
"I call," said X. Everyone laughed and Y continued raking the pot.
"No, seriously!" X exposed her own hole cards, Kd Qh, "I have a feeling I'm gonna hit a full house! I call!"
It took several seconds to convince Y that X was indeed serious. Y fished her Ad Ah out of the muck and put another $11 into the pot.
"The odds have to be worse than 80/20 for her," remarked one observer. I disagreed, thinking X's hand had a 23% chance here, but calculating the odds now I see I was wildly wrong. In this situation, Kd Qh has only a slim 11.9% chance to win against Ah Ad, with a 0.5% chance the pot will split. It was, in short, an insane call to make.
"I feel good," said X. "I feel a full house coming."
The flop came Qc 9s 4h. As good a flop as X could reasonably hope for, but she was still a big underdog. The odds were now exactly 80/20 in favour of the aces.
The turn was very bad for X because it paired the four: Qc 9s 4h.4c. Now even if a king came on the river, Y's two pair (aces and fours) would beat X's kings and queens. The odds for X hitting one of the two remaining queens was a mere 4.5% but that was the only way she could win.
And, of course the queen hit on the river. Everyone shouted "OHHH!"
Queens full of fours. A full house. Just as predicted.
We were playing no-limit hold'em with .25 and .50 blinds (note to keyboard makers - please put a "cent" symbol on the keyboard somewhere). We had been playing for quite a while when a player we will call Ms.X limped in. The action folded to a player we will call Ms.Y, who pushed all of her chips - a stack of $11.50 into the middle. This was a massive raise for the kind of poker we were playing where a bet of $2 was seen as ultra-aggressive. Everyone started mucking - everyone but Ms.X - and Ms.Y assumed the pot was hers.
"What do you have?" asked Ms.X. "Pocket aces?"
"Yes," replied Ms.Y. She turned over the two red aces, then tossed them in the muck and began pulling in the pot. Technically speaking, Y just killed her hand by mucking but this was a friendly game and she just assumed, naturally enough, that the hand was over.
"I call," said X. Everyone laughed and Y continued raking the pot.
"No, seriously!" X exposed her own hole cards, Kd Qh, "I have a feeling I'm gonna hit a full house! I call!"
It took several seconds to convince Y that X was indeed serious. Y fished her Ad Ah out of the muck and put another $11 into the pot.
"The odds have to be worse than 80/20 for her," remarked one observer. I disagreed, thinking X's hand had a 23% chance here, but calculating the odds now I see I was wildly wrong. In this situation, Kd Qh has only a slim 11.9% chance to win against Ah Ad, with a 0.5% chance the pot will split. It was, in short, an insane call to make.
"I feel good," said X. "I feel a full house coming."
The flop came Qc 9s 4h. As good a flop as X could reasonably hope for, but she was still a big underdog. The odds were now exactly 80/20 in favour of the aces.
The turn was very bad for X because it paired the four: Qc 9s 4h.4c. Now even if a king came on the river, Y's two pair (aces and fours) would beat X's kings and queens. The odds for X hitting one of the two remaining queens was a mere 4.5% but that was the only way she could win.
And, of course the queen hit on the river. Everyone shouted "OHHH!"
Queens full of fours. A full house. Just as predicted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)