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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)