In the middle of a losing session at the Casino I made a remark about how much easier it was to play against monkeys and ninjas than against real people. I was just trying to loosen myself and the others up a bit, but this one guy turn to me with a very serious expression.
"Never play on-line poker," he admonished me. "It will ruin your live game."
I have given a lot of thought to that remark. There is something to it, but at the same time internet poker is a way to get a lot of experience in a relatively short period of time. Annette Obrestad, a twenty two year old Norwegian on-line phenom, claimed she played more hands of poker than Doyle Brunson. For anyone who has been playing for six years to say they have seen more hands than a professional with over sixty years experience seems ridiculous, but when you realize that on-line poker sees about four times as many hands per hour than live poker and then factor in that some players are able to play as many as ten tables simultaneously then it doesn't seem so far fetched.
The one big worry I have is that playing on-line I don't worry about physical tells. I let myself express happiness and anger without fear that others can get a read on me. This is the greatest danger in playing live after playing Card_Monkey69 and pokerninja1985. Pursed lips and furrowed brows can be deadly if your opponent can make a guess at the thoughts behind them.
The one big myth I'd like to explode is that live poker for money is much tighter than on-line poker for money. I disagree. I have played about the same amount of $1-$2 NLHE in both the real and virtual worlds, and in my opinion the on-line game is significantly tighter. I think this is because it easier to be patient on-line, where the next hand is one minute away, than in live poker where you have to wait much longer. I know a lot of people disagree with me, but that's the way I see it.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Math + Psychology = Poker
A couple of posts back I talked about playing medium and small pocket pairs. I said that if you missed the flop with these hands you should not continue on: "no set, not bet." I am now going to contradict myself and say that sometimes you can profitably continue playing such a hand, but your success will depend largely on the read of your opponent.
Once, playing $1-$2 NLHE, I was dealt pocket fours in early position. I believe I had established a tight table image, so I put in a raise that I thought might win the pot right there $15. I got called by the one player I feared the most, Mr. Cool (that's what I called him in my head anyway) a fellow who always seemed to win every pot he played. Everyone else folded. The pot was $33 and the flop was something like Kc 7h 5h. I checked and he fired out $30 and I quickly re-raised to $100. He thought long and hard before folding. "Nice bet," he said as the dealer push the pot towards me. I hope I didn't look too relieved.
So, on the face of it this look like a pretty dumb bluff on my part, but I had a good reasons for playing the hand the way I did. Some reasons were psychological, some math based. Whenever you are heads up to see the flop, chances are that the flop will not improve your hand. The good news is that the flop probably won't help your opponent either. I wasn't just hoping Mr. Cool didn't have a king, I knew it was mathematically unlikely.
When he called my pre-flop raise, I put him on a pretty narrow range AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10, 99, AK, AQ, AJ. Had the flop contained an ace instead of the king, I would have not put another penny into the pot. I figured it was a 50-50 chance he had an ace-something. Actually, if my read on his range was correct, then there was a greater than 50% chance he had the ace. Remember my last post? There are 6 different combinations that make each pocket pair - so there are 6 combinations that make AA. There are 16 combinations that make AK, so 48 different combinations that make AK, AQ or AJ. In total that is 54 possible combinations for the range I put him on that give him an ace and only 30 that don't (6 each for KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10 and 99) so if an ace hits the flop I have to think it's likely I'm behind AND there is little chance I can push him off the pot. Of course at the time I couldn't do these calculations in my head, but the point of my writing this now (and you reading this now) is to give us a feel for the math so we can make better guesses when the time comes.
So I feel better about continuing with a king-high flop. If I could have done the math at the table, I would have found there were only 22 combinations on his range that included a king (16 for AK and 6 for KK) plus 6 for AA (which, obviously, he would not fold) out of a total 84 combinations. So if I strongly represent a king, it is likely I'll take down the pot. Even if I'm not ahead, I can still push him off hands like QQ, JJ and 10 10 if he is convinced I have a king.
I thought a check-raise would be more effective than a straight continuation bet for purely psychological reasons. A continuation bet might be seen as an attempt to buy the pot, whereas a check raise is much less expected. It has the big benefit of rewarding me with a $63 pot instead of a $33 pot, and should win against everything but AA, AK, KK or one of those "invisible" sets.
It worked for me that time, partially because my tight image had Mr.Cool convinced I had lucked out on the flop and hit the king. But try it too often and sooner or later your opponent will come back at you. So be careful
Once, playing $1-$2 NLHE, I was dealt pocket fours in early position. I believe I had established a tight table image, so I put in a raise that I thought might win the pot right there $15. I got called by the one player I feared the most, Mr. Cool (that's what I called him in my head anyway) a fellow who always seemed to win every pot he played. Everyone else folded. The pot was $33 and the flop was something like Kc 7h 5h. I checked and he fired out $30 and I quickly re-raised to $100. He thought long and hard before folding. "Nice bet," he said as the dealer push the pot towards me. I hope I didn't look too relieved.
So, on the face of it this look like a pretty dumb bluff on my part, but I had a good reasons for playing the hand the way I did. Some reasons were psychological, some math based. Whenever you are heads up to see the flop, chances are that the flop will not improve your hand. The good news is that the flop probably won't help your opponent either. I wasn't just hoping Mr. Cool didn't have a king, I knew it was mathematically unlikely.
When he called my pre-flop raise, I put him on a pretty narrow range AA, KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10, 99, AK, AQ, AJ. Had the flop contained an ace instead of the king, I would have not put another penny into the pot. I figured it was a 50-50 chance he had an ace-something. Actually, if my read on his range was correct, then there was a greater than 50% chance he had the ace. Remember my last post? There are 6 different combinations that make each pocket pair - so there are 6 combinations that make AA. There are 16 combinations that make AK, so 48 different combinations that make AK, AQ or AJ. In total that is 54 possible combinations for the range I put him on that give him an ace and only 30 that don't (6 each for KK, QQ, JJ, 10 10 and 99) so if an ace hits the flop I have to think it's likely I'm behind AND there is little chance I can push him off the pot. Of course at the time I couldn't do these calculations in my head, but the point of my writing this now (and you reading this now) is to give us a feel for the math so we can make better guesses when the time comes.
So I feel better about continuing with a king-high flop. If I could have done the math at the table, I would have found there were only 22 combinations on his range that included a king (16 for AK and 6 for KK) plus 6 for AA (which, obviously, he would not fold) out of a total 84 combinations. So if I strongly represent a king, it is likely I'll take down the pot. Even if I'm not ahead, I can still push him off hands like QQ, JJ and 10 10 if he is convinced I have a king.
I thought a check-raise would be more effective than a straight continuation bet for purely psychological reasons. A continuation bet might be seen as an attempt to buy the pot, whereas a check raise is much less expected. It has the big benefit of rewarding me with a $63 pot instead of a $33 pot, and should win against everything but AA, AK, KK or one of those "invisible" sets.
It worked for me that time, partially because my tight image had Mr.Cool convinced I had lucked out on the flop and hit the king. But try it too often and sooner or later your opponent will come back at you. So be careful
Saturday, September 17, 2011
A Little Math Trick
You are in a tournament and have made the final table; nine players are left all with roughly the same amount of chips. One of your opponents, Jimmy, is a tight player you feel you have a great read on.
While sitting in middle position you are dealt QQ and you open the betting with a wager three times the big blind. Jimmy, on your left, pushes all in and everyone else folds. From your experience you are certain that Jimmy is holding either AA, KK or AK. If you call and he has rockets or cowboys, you are probably looking at a ninth place finish. If you call and he has AK, you are a slight favourite to become the chip leader- an upside that would make you take the gamble if you thought he was likely to have AK. So what do you do?
On the face of it, the answer seems to be "fold". If Jimmy has either AA, KK or AK, then that means there is a 2 out of 3 chance he has AA or KK, right?
Well, no. Actually it is more likely he has AK.
Let's do the math: There are 6 possible combinations of cards out of the deck that give him AA:
While sitting in middle position you are dealt QQ and you open the betting with a wager three times the big blind. Jimmy, on your left, pushes all in and everyone else folds. From your experience you are certain that Jimmy is holding either AA, KK or AK. If you call and he has rockets or cowboys, you are probably looking at a ninth place finish. If you call and he has AK, you are a slight favourite to become the chip leader- an upside that would make you take the gamble if you thought he was likely to have AK. So what do you do?
On the face of it, the answer seems to be "fold". If Jimmy has either AA, KK or AK, then that means there is a 2 out of 3 chance he has AA or KK, right?
Well, no. Actually it is more likely he has AK.
Let's do the math: There are 6 possible combinations of cards out of the deck that give him AA:
Ac Ah, Ad As, As Ah, As Ac, Ah Ad, Ad Ac
There are 6 possible combinations of cards in the deck that give KK:
Kc Kh, Kd Ks, Ks Kh, Ks Kc, Kh Kd, Kd Kc
However there are 16 combinations of cards that give Jimmy AK:
Ac Kc, Ac Kd, Ac Ks, Ac Kh
Ad Kc, Ad Kd, Ad Ks, Ad Kh
As Kc, As Kd, As Ks, As Kh
Ah Kc, Ah Kd, Ah Ks, Ah Kh
Of 28 different combinations of cards that give Jimmy AA, KK or AK 16 of them make the AK and only 12 make an over pair to your QQ. There is a 57% chance you are ahead of Jimmy right now.
Whether or not you decide it is a worthwile call, the point is to remember when calculating your chances against the various hands in your opponents range that the odds of being dealt any two specific cards of different ranks is much greater than the odds of being dealt a specific pair.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Small and Medium Pocket Pairs
In a game like $1-$2 No Limit Hold'em, the difference between a winning session and a losing session usually comes down to one or two big pots you won or lost. I like playing small and medium pocket pairs because they provide me the opportunity to win a big pot with a smaller risk of losing a big pot.
It is difficult to discuss how to play any hand because, as always. so much depends on the read you have on your opponents. Still, small and medium pocket pairs are among the more straight-forward hands to play, which is another reason I like them. Or maybe that's the same reason. Whatever. The point is that I will gladly call a pre-flop raise of four times the big blind (or more!) holding only pocket threes if the conditions are right.
What are theses conditions? Well for starters it helps to have a tight table image. If you are very selective about the hands you play, the other players should notice. When they have you pegged as a tight player, they are less likely to put you on something like pocket threes and therefore you increase the chance they will pay you off. So I'm less likely to play a small pocket pair just after joining a table - better to wait until you've established that tight image.
Another important factor is stack size: both my own and that of the opponent(s) I will see the flop with. If I am in a $1-$2 game with 3-3, and a guy in front of me raises it to $10, then he had better have at least another $100 in chips left for me to proceed. Remember the whole point is to win a big pot, so if your opponent is short stacked then calling him doesn't make sense. The only time such a call makes sense is when you are confident that a loose player with a larger stack behind you will also call.
If in the above example my own stack is less than $100, that too will limit my potential reward enough that I should not play the hand - a good example of why it is not good to play with a stack of less than fifty big blinds in a ring game.
Perhaps the most important condition to consider when playing small and medium pair is how loose your opponent is. The looser he or she is, the better the chance of a pay off. If you have seen this opponent go all-in after the flop with an over pair, or top pair-ace kicker, you know you are in better shape to be paid off if you hit your set. So, the looser the opponent the better.
Which leads us to the next condition: position. Obviously it is an advantage to play from late position as you can see which players, and more importantly how many players, are interested in seeing the flop. Ideally you want to see the flop against several opponents because then if you hit your set it is much more likely one of them will also have hit a hand they can't get away from, and that's when the big pay offs happen.
Which is not to say you should not play small and medium pairs from early position. If I am dealt small pocket pairs in an early position, I will often enter the pot with a modest raise. Everyone says that you should try to see the flop as cheaply as possible with speculative hands, which is why I wouldn't limp in - a raise from early position, combined with a tight image, sends out a message that I'm on a stronger hand and therefore I'm much less likely to have someone re-raise and push me out before the flop. My father called this move The Pre-Emptive Strike and I'm a big fan of it. If you raise the same amount from early position whether you have pocket threes or pocket aces it makes it difficult for your opponents to guess what you have.
Those are some of the things I consider before I play small and medium pairs.
After the flop it should obvious to you whether or not continue. The rule is simply "no set, no bet". This a great thing about a hand like 33 - it is very easy to fold after a flop like A 10 9. Holding a "better" hand like A J might get you into a lot of trouble with a flop like that! If the stars align (as they will do 12% of the time) and the flop brings a third 3, you are now in great shape, and the other sucker holding two pair or an over pair is in danger of losing his stack or doubling you up.
Of course this whole post is a gross over simplification. Hitting a set is no guarantee of winning. I trust you have enough brains in your head to know a set of threes is probably worthless when after turn there are four hearts on the board and your opponent seems very happy.
Use your own judgement. I'm just telling you what I find works for me. If you find you consistently lose more than you win with small and medium pairs then it could be that this particular strategy just doesn't work with your style of play. But you may also find it works very well.
You are on your own.
It is difficult to discuss how to play any hand because, as always. so much depends on the read you have on your opponents. Still, small and medium pocket pairs are among the more straight-forward hands to play, which is another reason I like them. Or maybe that's the same reason. Whatever. The point is that I will gladly call a pre-flop raise of four times the big blind (or more!) holding only pocket threes if the conditions are right.
What are theses conditions? Well for starters it helps to have a tight table image. If you are very selective about the hands you play, the other players should notice. When they have you pegged as a tight player, they are less likely to put you on something like pocket threes and therefore you increase the chance they will pay you off. So I'm less likely to play a small pocket pair just after joining a table - better to wait until you've established that tight image.
Another important factor is stack size: both my own and that of the opponent(s) I will see the flop with. If I am in a $1-$2 game with 3-3, and a guy in front of me raises it to $10, then he had better have at least another $100 in chips left for me to proceed. Remember the whole point is to win a big pot, so if your opponent is short stacked then calling him doesn't make sense. The only time such a call makes sense is when you are confident that a loose player with a larger stack behind you will also call.
If in the above example my own stack is less than $100, that too will limit my potential reward enough that I should not play the hand - a good example of why it is not good to play with a stack of less than fifty big blinds in a ring game.
Perhaps the most important condition to consider when playing small and medium pair is how loose your opponent is. The looser he or she is, the better the chance of a pay off. If you have seen this opponent go all-in after the flop with an over pair, or top pair-ace kicker, you know you are in better shape to be paid off if you hit your set. So, the looser the opponent the better.
Which leads us to the next condition: position. Obviously it is an advantage to play from late position as you can see which players, and more importantly how many players, are interested in seeing the flop. Ideally you want to see the flop against several opponents because then if you hit your set it is much more likely one of them will also have hit a hand they can't get away from, and that's when the big pay offs happen.
Which is not to say you should not play small and medium pairs from early position. If I am dealt small pocket pairs in an early position, I will often enter the pot with a modest raise. Everyone says that you should try to see the flop as cheaply as possible with speculative hands, which is why I wouldn't limp in - a raise from early position, combined with a tight image, sends out a message that I'm on a stronger hand and therefore I'm much less likely to have someone re-raise and push me out before the flop. My father called this move The Pre-Emptive Strike and I'm a big fan of it. If you raise the same amount from early position whether you have pocket threes or pocket aces it makes it difficult for your opponents to guess what you have.
Those are some of the things I consider before I play small and medium pairs.
After the flop it should obvious to you whether or not continue. The rule is simply "no set, no bet". This a great thing about a hand like 33 - it is very easy to fold after a flop like A 10 9. Holding a "better" hand like A J might get you into a lot of trouble with a flop like that! If the stars align (as they will do 12% of the time) and the flop brings a third 3, you are now in great shape, and the other sucker holding two pair or an over pair is in danger of losing his stack or doubling you up.
Of course this whole post is a gross over simplification. Hitting a set is no guarantee of winning. I trust you have enough brains in your head to know a set of threes is probably worthless when after turn there are four hearts on the board and your opponent seems very happy.
Use your own judgement. I'm just telling you what I find works for me. If you find you consistently lose more than you win with small and medium pairs then it could be that this particular strategy just doesn't work with your style of play. But you may also find it works very well.
You are on your own.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Roll is Over
The beginning of the end was when I blew up my on-line bankroll.
Next, I played in a home game (for the first time at my house) and being a generous host I refused to take any of my guest's money. My wife is far more rude. We played three quick tournament style games and the missus won two and came in second in the third. It would be unbecoming for me to complain of the outrageous bad beats and plain bad luck I suffered that night. That would be unseemly. But even when you lose in a home game you usually have a lot of fun. This time the comedy was supplied by the men - fairly experienced players - who seemed to always be the first to be knocked out while the women in attendance did the best. My friend Eric salvaged some of the male pride by winning the last tourney. I won't mention the manner in which he knocked me out of that game. I am a better man than to talk about that.
The last nail in the coffin was when I visited the casino a few days ago. I took half of my small bankroll and lost just about all of it.
Winning streaks and losing streaks are part of poker. The trick is not to loose everything whenever things go south. Yes my bankroll is half of what it was a week ago, but it is infinitely larger than the nothing it was two months ago. I will just have to buckle down and rebuild.
(cue the Chumbawumba)
Next, I played in a home game (for the first time at my house) and being a generous host I refused to take any of my guest's money. My wife is far more rude. We played three quick tournament style games and the missus won two and came in second in the third. It would be unbecoming for me to complain of the outrageous bad beats and plain bad luck I suffered that night. That would be unseemly. But even when you lose in a home game you usually have a lot of fun. This time the comedy was supplied by the men - fairly experienced players - who seemed to always be the first to be knocked out while the women in attendance did the best. My friend Eric salvaged some of the male pride by winning the last tourney. I won't mention the manner in which he knocked me out of that game. I am a better man than to talk about that.
The last nail in the coffin was when I visited the casino a few days ago. I took half of my small bankroll and lost just about all of it.
Winning streaks and losing streaks are part of poker. The trick is not to loose everything whenever things go south. Yes my bankroll is half of what it was a week ago, but it is infinitely larger than the nothing it was two months ago. I will just have to buckle down and rebuild.
(cue the Chumbawumba)
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Watch You Mouth
At a casino, discussing a hand in play that you are not involved in is a strict no-no. In a home game, openly speculating on who has what might be part of the fun (If it is a very friendly game that no-one is too serious about) but things are more serious at a casino. By saying what you think somebody has you are effectively giving advice to the players still in the hand. This is beyond bad etiquette - it is against the rules.
At the casino yesterday I witnessed a had where two players went all the way to the river. Mr.Hair-Gel was betting as if he had a strong hand - bets of two-thirds the pot on both the flop and the turn. Mr.Loosey-Goosey was just calling and I (and probably everyone else at the table) suspected he was on the flush draw. The river brought a third club to the board and some idiot who was not in the hand turned to Mr.Hair-Gel and said. "You've been rivered!"
This is a bad thing to do. Basically, this moron was telling Hair-Gel how to play his hand. One of the most basic rules of poker is that each player has to make independent decisions. Getting help is cheating and offering opinions is forbidden. Both players in the hand I witnessed hand every right to be upset, but Hair-Gel said in a remarkably calm voice, "You can not comment on hands you are not involved in, Sir." I found this odd if only because Mr. Loosey-Goosey was the one who was being negatively effected by the comment, but I guess the sting of falling behind on the river made Hair-Gel testy.
Play resumed with a noticeable new chill in the air. The idiot behaved himself from then on, but had he continued to break this rule I have no doubt he would have been told to leave.
If you are thinking about making the leap from home games to the casino remember to never talk about what you think other people are holding. Even if you are in the hand, it is only acceptable if you are playing against a single opponent. Saying what you think one player has is giving information to the third player in the hand - and this is every bit as bad as commenting on hands you are not involved in.
At the casino yesterday I witnessed a had where two players went all the way to the river. Mr.Hair-Gel was betting as if he had a strong hand - bets of two-thirds the pot on both the flop and the turn. Mr.Loosey-Goosey was just calling and I (and probably everyone else at the table) suspected he was on the flush draw. The river brought a third club to the board and some idiot who was not in the hand turned to Mr.Hair-Gel and said. "You've been rivered!"
This is a bad thing to do. Basically, this moron was telling Hair-Gel how to play his hand. One of the most basic rules of poker is that each player has to make independent decisions. Getting help is cheating and offering opinions is forbidden. Both players in the hand I witnessed hand every right to be upset, but Hair-Gel said in a remarkably calm voice, "You can not comment on hands you are not involved in, Sir." I found this odd if only because Mr. Loosey-Goosey was the one who was being negatively effected by the comment, but I guess the sting of falling behind on the river made Hair-Gel testy.
Play resumed with a noticeable new chill in the air. The idiot behaved himself from then on, but had he continued to break this rule I have no doubt he would have been told to leave.
If you are thinking about making the leap from home games to the casino remember to never talk about what you think other people are holding. Even if you are in the hand, it is only acceptable if you are playing against a single opponent. Saying what you think one player has is giving information to the third player in the hand - and this is every bit as bad as commenting on hands you are not involved in.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Don't be a Statistic
Gambling addiction has been shown to be linked to depression, divorce and suicide. I say “linked to” rather than “the cause of” because there is always a difficulty in determining causal relationships. Does one gamble because one is depressed? Is one depressed because one gambles? All I can say is that there is a link. According David Phillips, a sociology professor at the University of California at San Diego, the suicide rate in Las Vegas is 60% higher than in an average American city of the same size. Las Vegas, in his words, has the highest suicide rate in the United States. Suicide rates in Atlantic City are 42% higher in the years after gambling was legalized there than they were when gambling was illegal.(1)
This is, of course, not the kind of thing that the tourist board likes to talk about. They like to show pictures of people having a good time. In fact the gambling industry funded another study by the University of California, Irvine that -surprise!- shows no appreciable difference in the suicide rates of Las Vegas and other American cities(2)
Before you sit down to play any game of chance, including poker, you have to know the odds. Now not every gambling addict plays poker, and not every poker player is a gambling addict, but I think there is a slippery slope to be conscious of.
Being deeply in debt is a major contributing factor to suicide. A 2002 joint study by the University of Hong Kong and Melbourne University focused on the causes of financial debt of those who committed suicide in the city of Hong Kong, and found that gambling was the leading cause. The following chart was taken from the study:
Table 1
Main Causes of Debt Associated With Suicides
Causes of debt
Gambling 33.8 %
Business difficulties/Failed business 11.4 %
Overconsumption of goods and services 7.6 %
Residential rent 7.2 %
Investment losses 5.5 %
Overcommitted mortgage 4.1 %
Buying illegal drugs 2.4 %
Unable to meet basic living expenses 2.1 %
Unemployment 1.4 % (3)
Getting hard facts and figures is hard but I’m pretty sure more than one person who has lost everything playing poker has decided to cash in his chips.
Be careful. Monitor yourself. Seek help if you feel things slipping away.
(1) Christian Century; 01/28/98, Vol. 115 Issue 3, p77, 4/9p
(2) Industry engages suicide debate. By: Bhatt, Rob, Las Vegas Business Press, 10/12/98, Vol. 15, Issue 41
(3) Journal of Applied Social Psychology December 1, 2007
Saturday, September 3, 2011
My On-Line Down Fall
Friends, I come before you a shameful man. I have sinned in the eyes of the Poker Gods and I have ignored my our good advice and the council of my bankroll manager (my wife). I allowed the excitement, the rush, to overrule my common sense and it has led to the devastation of my on line bankroll. Here is the sad story.
Just two weeks ago I signed up with 888 poker and received $8 for doing so. I started out with the intention of just playing the 2 cent tables and building the bankroll. And that is just what I did for the first week, building it up to $24. Then I started straying up to the 5 cent tables, and while the results were inconsistent, I still was winning. Two days ago my on-line balance was $57.
Then yesterday I went nuts. I took $30 - a majority of my bankroll- to a table where the big blind was 30 cents .I played very well, and got a bit lucky. After two hours at this table I had turned that $30 into $99. My on line bankroll was now $126. But did I stop? Did I quit while I was ahead? Yes I did! I stopped. I turned the computer off. I took a shower. I swore to myself I was not going to play poker for the rest of the day. I fed the dogs. Then turned the computer back on. Took $120 to a table where the big blind was $1. And I lost it all in five minutes.
Stupid. Dumb. Idiotic.
Please people. Do as I say, not as I do.
I swear, if it takes me ten years I will build this $6 into $126.
Back to the 2 cent tables!
Just two weeks ago I signed up with 888 poker and received $8 for doing so. I started out with the intention of just playing the 2 cent tables and building the bankroll. And that is just what I did for the first week, building it up to $24. Then I started straying up to the 5 cent tables, and while the results were inconsistent, I still was winning. Two days ago my on-line balance was $57.
Then yesterday I went nuts. I took $30 - a majority of my bankroll- to a table where the big blind was 30 cents .I played very well, and got a bit lucky. After two hours at this table I had turned that $30 into $99. My on line bankroll was now $126. But did I stop? Did I quit while I was ahead? Yes I did! I stopped. I turned the computer off. I took a shower. I swore to myself I was not going to play poker for the rest of the day. I fed the dogs. Then turned the computer back on. Took $120 to a table where the big blind was $1. And I lost it all in five minutes.
Stupid. Dumb. Idiotic.
Please people. Do as I say, not as I do.
I swear, if it takes me ten years I will build this $6 into $126.
Back to the 2 cent tables!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)