Friday, December 30, 2005

Going Amateur

Playing poker for a living was fun while it lasted, but I'm glad that eight-month experiment has come to an end.

Poker is tiring, especially when you depend on it just to get by. You have to play every day, even if you don't want to. I still have a lot of fun playing poker, but I think many of the cliches about poker being a grind are also true.

I didn't feel like I had a hard time dealing with the pressure of having to make money (or else get broke). But I still didn't like feeling like I had to produce on most days. When I was losing, I cut back on spending. When I was winning, I was more likely to be a little less frugal. This isn't the best way to handle a bankroll, but I told myself I wanted to have fun while living off poker, so I felt like it was worth it when times were good.

I worry a little bit that my play will actually decline once I'm working a real job (next week!). Because there will be less pressure, I may not force myself to study and practice as dillegently. I'll certainly have a lot less poker time. And I won't have the huge advantage that I now enjoy of being able to be fresh any time I sit down at the tables. Work is tiring, and that could erode my poker game.

But then again, I'll be more active and won't have to worry about poker as much. That may outweigh the disadvantages.

One of the main reasons I'll be happy to not be playing poker with real-life money is that I won't feel like such a bum. Poker is a selfish game meant for self-enrichment. It doesn't do anybody any good except for the person playing. And I've been living in my parents' basement for the last six months, and that it way too long. Way too long.

Now it's time to rebuild the bankroll rather than spend it! That makes me happy -- new limits, new fish and new profits.

Empire Bonus: 100 percent to $100 on Jan. 1 and Jan. 2

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Donk Hand of the Day

Button is 47/4/2. He goes to showdown about 30 percent of the time.
Is this river bet by me a total donkey move? It only needs to work one in seven times for me to get paid ...

PokerRoom 5/10 Hold'em (5 handed) FTR converter on

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Ac, Jd.

Hero raises, 1 fold, Button calls, 2 folds.

Flop: (5.50 SB) Kd, 5s, 2s (2 players)

Hero bets, Button calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) Qd (2 players)

Hero bets, Button calls.

River: (5.75 BB) 4c (2 players)

Hero bets, Button calls.

Final Pot: 7.75 BB

Yahtzee! Poker

It's almost too good to be true -- the combination of both Texas Hold 'em and Yahtzee, also known as The Best Game Ever Made. Don't mess with Yahtzee. The Dice Gods will mess you up.

Sham got me Yahtzee Hold 'em (or whatever the hell it's actually called) for Christmas. It's a perfect gift for me.

Matt, Brandie, Marie and I tried out Yahtzee Hold 'em on Friday night. The rules of the game are just like you'd imagine. Each person has a starting chip stack, and it's a 10/20 limit game. There are 20 dice, five of each color. Each color represents a suit. The dealer gives each player two "hole" dice, which are like their down cards in hold 'em. Then three dice are rolled as a "flop," one more for the turn and a final die for the river. Then you make the best five-dice hand, and the winner collects the pot.

The hand values are a little bit screwy. The best hand is a Yahtzee Flush, which is all the same number on all the same colored dice. A straight beats a full house because it's harder to get in this game. All the hand values are printed out in the rules.

The thing that surprised me most about the game is that it's so identical to poker. Really, the rules are pretty much self-explanatory.

I want to figure out the odds better. Because each die only has six sides, the possibilities of making a good hand are much more limited. No starting hand has significantly more preflop value than any other because just about everything is dependent on the flop. That's when your hand is truly defined and when you can start to really bet. My impression was that preflop bets and raises in Yahtzee Hold 'em are mostly a wasted effort. For that reason, the betting feels a little bit like stud games, where you want to bet when the betting limits go up so that you can punish your opponents and maximize your chance of winning the hand.

It's weird to me to think of dice rolls in terms of outs. I don't know if that even really works because any die could hit a one through six on any roll. There is not such a limited supply of each card type. For example, with 20 dice, you could roll a one on each die if you tried long enough. In a regular deck, there are only four Aces.

Anyways, we didn't play for too long. After we got the hang of the game, we boosted up the betting limits to 10/20 no limit. That brought some action!

It's hard for me to say how much I actually like the game itself. It's certainly interesting, but it's hard to gauge how engaging it will be on a second or third try. I think I'll like it a lot more if I can find people to put real money on the line instead of just playing for chips!

The Dice Gods love the action.

Monday, December 26, 2005

Son of Marknet

I've played poker on just about every holiday. I always figure that there will be tons of fish who ate too much food, got fed up with relatives and drank too much beer before deciding to play poker. Sometimes playing on holidays works out, other times it feels like a wasted effort.

But I must say, Christmas Eve has got to be one of the best times to play poker. I logged in several times throughout the day, and I repeatedly saw incredibly fishy moves at $100 buy-in no limit games. People called me down with weak pairs, or they called large preflop bets in hopes of catching a miracle flop. Sure, fish do silly things all the time, but Saturday seemed to be an extreme example of holiday merriment spread around from the fish to the sharks.

Thanksgiving week I was much less lucky. I got my ass handed to me.

I can't say whether it's perception or reality that holidays are a better time to play online poker. There are always plenty of fish to be found at the tables. And even if the games are good, anyone could run into a bad run of cards and lose money. Whatever.

In other news, I bought a new laptop in celebration of getting my new Hawaii job! I decided to name it Junior because my desktop computer (which is currently not working) is the Godfather of computers. That one is named Marknet. So far, Junior is making the family proud. This laptop is a Toshiba with a 2.0 Ghz Celeron M processor, 1 GB of RAM and 100 GB of hard drive space. It's kicking ass. It's a lot of fun to set up a new computer and get it just the way you want it. Soon, all my poker programs will be installed, and then the fish will pay.

They will pay (again)!

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Poker is Funny

Empire came back to town, so it was a good time for a poker reunion.

Empire, known for his tendency to accumulate vast oil fields worth of white chips (and sometimes loose them too), is back for Christmas. We gathered at Drew's house, which was also fun because it was his first day back home after being bed-ridden with a broken ankle.

Hijinks ensued. I tried to play every hand, but people kept raising! Those bastards!

I lost two of my buy-ins by going all-in with AJs and KTo. D'oh. My best hand was pocket Aces. I had told myself I would go all-in if I were dealt either AA or 72, so I felt committed. I pushed, but no one called. Double d'oh. I thought surely by then my table image would have encouraged at least one caller -- probably Drew, Ron or Matt. Come on, guys.

I forget most of the rest of what happened. I know that I had a few beers and then ate a lot of Chinese food, after which I ended up lying on the floor as I tried to digest. I then remember having to crawl to the table to see my hand, but my full stomach wasn't too happy about that, so I laid down again afterward.

There was usually at least one all-in bet every hand, so there was no lack of action.

Congratulations to Doug and Drew for taking home the most money in the poker Christmas special. Congratulations to me for being the biggest donor. Man, I really went through those buy-ins pretty quickly! It was well worth it. Yay, party day!

Happy holidays.

Thursday, December 22, 2005


I remember reading somewhere more than a year ago that poker changes you. Poker alters your outlook on life, your perspective on the value of money and your decision-making.

I'm sure it's different for everyone, but poker -- like everything in life -- becomes a part of what you are. There's no denying that it has an impact.

For me, there are plenty of benefits. Because I play poker, I have a better perspective on the expected value of life. When it comes to making a decision, like asking a girl out or taking a chance -- I think of the costs and benefits, and I make the most +EV decision. Many times, there really is so little to lose and so much to gain that it makes sense to pursue a long shot because you just might succeed.

As for the value of money, I'm not one of those players who thinks that you have to forget about the real-world importance of the money once it's in the form of chips. Of course, to some extent it's important to disregard how many pizzas or what kind of bills you could pay with the money you're gambling with. But I believe that if you treat chips only as pieces in a game, then you run the risk of playing poorly because you don't care about making the right decision. Dealing with the pressure of playing with your own money is a large part of the game, and making optimal decisions for the good of the bottom line is what the game is all about.

Understanding of variance is another perpective-changing lesson of poker. Sometimes the cards run good, sometimes they run bad, but if you keep making the correct choices, you will come out on top.

There are plenty of pitfalls as well -- the potential of gambling addiction, the chance that you will lose, the time away from real life that you spend at a poker table instead.

As long as the pot odds remain in my favor though, I plan to keep playing.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005


I got a job!

I'm moving from Atlanta to Hawaii to take a news reporting job in Honolulu. I will start Jan. 5, which means I only have a couple more weeks of unemployment to enjoy before I go back to the real world.

I've enjoyed my time as a semi-pro, living off a relatively small bankroll since April. I'm always grateful that poker enabled me to travel so much and have a lot of fun in between jobs.

But now I find it's a huge relief to be able to go back to working. Poker is fun and profitable, but it's not very fulfilling work. I get great pleasure out of busting fish, but it's more the pleasure of skydiving than of accomplishing anything significant.

I'm really excited about giving up the life of a poker-playing bum who lives with his parents. I'll get health benefits. I'll have my own apartment. I'll have a chance (a small chance) of picking up girls. I'll be able to rebuild my bankroll and play the games I want. I can finally buy a laptop (I'm thinking of hitting up the after-Christmas sales).

And, of course, I get to live and work in Hawaii. Flights to Cali and Vegas are cheap, and the weather will be warm all the time.

Woo! My days living off of poker money are over! Now poker will be more like a freeroll again -- playing with money I've already won and saving for the future.

Monday, December 19, 2005

The Heads-Up Tourney

Many of my Atlanta poker crowd got together this weekend for the first inaugural Christmas holiday heads-up hold 'em tournament. It was awesome!

We made the tournament double elimination, with a winners bracket and a losers bracket. Matches were designed to last up to an hour each, and three (out of eight) players would place.

I was glad to have a heads-up tournament, because it really is an interesting form of poker that isn't played often enough. Daniel made a good point when he said that it's a very pure form of poker, in that you have all the weapons at your disposal. You can check-raise bluff, limp-raise, open limp, bluff on no streets or four, change gears and read your opponent. I highly recommend a tournament like this -- the action is intense and you really get to know each of your opponents.

I drew the brackets at random. Daniel and I were both disappointed that we had to play each other in the first round. It would have been much more fun to meet him in the finals! It was a good match -- probably the closest match of the evening. Our stacks were very close most of the time. Daniel told me later that he was surprised I wasn't playing looser. But I had told myself at the beginning of the tournament that it would be OK to play a lot of hands, but I didn't want to commit all my chips unless I felt it was necessary.

I believe it was the first hand of the tournament when I held 52 offsuit and called the blind. The flop came 9-2-2. We both bet at the pot, but somehow I was able to get away from the hand. Daniel showed down 9-2 for a flopped boat.

Our match came down to the final hand, when the blinds escalated to 2,000/4,000 (our starting stack sizes were 20,000 each). We both went all-in. I held pocket 10s and Daniel had AJ. I won the race, but Daniel played well and he could have easily won the match.

I faced my brother, Michael, in the second round. I don't remember much of what happened. He played better than I expected, but I was able to outmaneuver him until his stack had deminished.

For the finals of the winner's bracket, I had to take on Drew. Drew always throws me because he likes to play wild starting hands, and he's not at all afraid to bet out or check-raise his draws.

I made a large all-in bluff with 10-3 offsuit, which he called with a pair of Queens. He later said he wasn't paying that close attention, and he didn't realize there was a pair on the board. But I got it back with two suckouts. First I went all in with pocket 8s vs. pocket Qs, and I caught an 8 on the flop. Then I flopped a straight to Drew's flopped flush. We both got all-in on the turn, but I caught a fourth suited card on the river to give me a slightly higher flush.

Drew moved to the losers bracket, where he took care of Sham in the first hand. That meant I had no time to relax before our rematch. I needed to win one; Drew needed to win two in a row.

I got all in with QQ, which Drew called with AQ. He caught an Ace on the flop, and we headed to the final game.

I really have to commend Drew for his aggressive play in the finals. He pushed a lot of hands, and I couldn't bring myself to call with second pair without any redraws. Drew whittled away at my stack until I felt like I had to make a move at the end of the 500/1,000 blind level. I pushed with KJ offsuit preflop, and he called with J9. My hand held up.

A few hands later, I had finally gotten my stack to the point where I didn't necessarily have to push preflop. I raised with AJ, and Drew called. The flop brought K-J-x. I pushed all-in, Drew called with K7 for top pair, and it was all over. Drew won!

I had never played a heads-up tournament before, and I was glad that it lived up to my hopes. You have to constantly keep your head in the game. At the end, both Drew and I were mentally exhausted.

That didn't matter much though -- we weren't too tired that we couldn't play a full ring game for a few hours!

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Back in Business

I'm back from my European vacation, which was awesome. I got to play a small amount of poker, and my impression is that the stereotypes of loose, rich, crazy European poker players is absolutely true. If you ever get a chance to play poker at the casinos over there, you should jump at the opportunity. They're all characters.

Now it's time to get back to the real work of earning poker money and planning for the future job-wise.

One concept I've been spending some time with is the idea of betting out a hand rather than check-calling or check-raising on the flop. Traditionally, my strategy has been fairly simple: I usually bet out two pair or better on the flop because I want to encourage callers and raisers. I want to build a pot. If I have top pair or second pair combined with a draw, I strong consider check-raising.

I think that's all well and good for the most part. But poker isn't about generalizations. Poker is about making the best possible move at the time. What got me thinking about this was this Card Player magazine column.

In the Card Player example, betting out the hand is appropriate for many reasons -- the straight draw, the backdoor flush possibility, the overcard. A hand with that much potential can be treated as a strong hand.

Additionally, betting out puts a lot of pressure on other players with lesser draws or naked overcards. In the example above, a bet puts four bets in the pot. It's an easy call for anyone with a flush or a straight draw, but any lesser draw should fold.

I'm just babbling here. The point is that betting out a hand -- especially against two or fewer opponents in a smallish pot -- can force your opponents to make incorrect calls that aren't justified by the odds. When your opponents make incorrect moves, you win.

Here are some links that I've found useful recently:
The Law School Dropout's Poker Blog
Getting Back to Shorthanded, from PokerSweetHome
Shorthanded Play, from Sound of a Suckout
The Twelve Commandments Of Short-Handed LHE, from the Bad Beat Blog

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

I'm Off!

I'm going on a vacation to Europe for a few days, so I won't be updating the blog regularly. I hope to find some games if I have any free time, and if so, I'll definitely post about them.

Good luck!

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Bluffing with the Best Hand

There are a few milestone moments in limit poker when you figure out a new concept and start making more money off of it. I remember about a year ago when I first started using the concept of hand protection. Then came rampant check-raising, ram-and-jam tactics and shorthanded play.

I found shorthanded play to be especially valuable because you could get in a large number of hands in crucial situations -- playing hands from middle position, defending hands from the blinds, manipulating pot odds to your liking.

I always thought one of my problems in shorthanded play was that I often kept betting into calling stations. I tried to tell myself the mantra, "Don't bluff a calling station."

But it ain't bluffin' if you got the best hand. And sometimes, King high is the best hand -- especially against a player that's so loose he'll call with anything.

Ed Miller wrote an excellent article on the subject in this month's 2+2 Magazine.

It has motivated me to go back and play some of those shorthanded games to get some practice while I'm burning bonuses and waiting for money to arrive back at the U.S.S. Neteller. It'll be fun! I like no limit games, but I miss shorthanded limit action, which is essential for poker development. I also recently realized that I was playing a little too loosely in these short games -- a few posters on 2+2 said that a 22 percent VP$IP is about right. See you at the $3/$6 and $5/$10 tables on Party.

Monday, December 05, 2005


I'm frequently reminded of Jennifer Harmon, who has said in interviews that her longest losing streak lasted six months. She said a poker player can be measured more by the times when things are going badly than when they are going well.

I have been winning small amounts recently, and I've also tried to keep Harmon's words in mind. Bad runs compound themselves when ego and emotions get involved. I'm guilty of stubbornness and a refusal to accept realities until some time has passed.

What I realize now is that while aggression is a fundamental trait for a successful poker player, it needs to be closely moderated to ensure that it doesn't get out of hand. When I had the worst run of my poker career at $15/$30 limit hold 'em during Thanksgiving week, I was trying to force good hands beyond their value. I still believe that a fair portion of my losses were due to bad luck, but I could have done better.

I attempted more blind steals from two off the button. I tried more semibluff raises, only to miss and then get called down. In short, I lost patience waiting for good hands and went too far with medium-strength hands. I became the kind of overplayer that I'm always trying to value bet. Instead, I was the one being check-raised on the river.

Specifically, I want to analyze a few things about my game to find out whether they were effective, or if I was just spewing chips. I like to tell myself that aggression is not a crime, but sometimes it is a waste.

I need to find out whether my isolation raises preflop show a greater expected value than if I had simply called a limp bet. Do I show a greater profit with Axs from late position when I raise a limper immediately to my right or if I limp?

I've also noticed that I show a greater profit from early position than from middle position. It seems unnatural that this would be the case. I want to examine the statistics I have on other winning players to see if their positional profits exhibit the same pattern. Even if they do, I think there's room for me to tighten up from middle position and perhaps loosen up from late position.

For now, though, it's time to get more free money through bonus whoring! I recently finished the Poker Players Alliance bonus at Party Poker, and I'm about halfway through the Eurobet 100 percent matching bonus up to $600. Now I'm going to try out the bet365 monthly bonuses (which are easy to clear and don't require a deposit). Then it will be back to Party for an account-specific bonus.

All this bonus money is nice. I just wish the bonuses would keep up with my life expenses! I need a job.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Turning the Radar Off

Warning: I'm about to draw conclusions based on a small sample size.

That said, I've been finding that I win more in no limit games when the radar is turned off. When I let my PokerTracker headgear off and play my normal tight-aggressive game, I've been doing well.

And it's fun. It's nice to abandon the statistics and the computer-generated personality profiles of all my favorite fish. I like looking at my opponents as a mass of faceless fish who I don't even need information on.

Now, the most likely reason for this limited success without my data is that I play similarly with or without my real-time stats (I use PokerAce HUD, but Gametime+ and PlayerView.Net are also good programs). But I wonder if perhaps the statistical overlay actually hurt my game, in that I made decisions based on limited information.

Maybe you need more hands on file before you can reach a conclusion about no limit players. It could be that because there is generally less action on the turn and river in no limit games than in limit games, it takes a longer time to gather accurate information for statistical categories like Went to Showdown Percentage and Aggression Factor.

Don't get me wrong -- I've had a lot of success with making reads and acting on them based on the data. It's a very valuable tool, especially in limit hold 'em. But I'm not sure how useful that information is in the no limit hold 'em game.

For now, though, I'm happy to be making money while flying off the grid.

Friday, December 02, 2005


Am I starting to get pissed off? You're damn right I am.

How could anyone not get frustrated when they're on a streak like this? It's one thing if you suck at poker and you lose, it's another thing when this kind of bad run comes out of nowhere, you're making optimal decisions and you quit playing when you start to tilt.

I have a strong faith in my game, so in reality I have nothing at all to worry about. If I know that I'm a winning player, then I can come to the logical conclusion that the cards will turn around after I play enough hands. Whatever enough is.

It would be a lot easier if I were a poker playing computer that didn't care about losing. But that's the thing. I do care about losing, even if it's a relatively small amount because I've stepped down to $100 buy-in no limit games for now.

Maybe it's a leak that I hate losing so much. But I also think it's a strength because that competitive spirit always forces me to analyze my game and play even smarter the next time.

There's no point in recounting bad beat stories. I hope there is a point in venting my frustration.

I want to bust each and every one of these fish. I want to leave them with no money at all. I don't care if it is good for the poker economy that the fish get lucky. From my perspective, the best thing would be for me to win every game, every time. What do I care for the individual fishes? They can go back to their everyday jobs and then reload their accounts so I can bust them again.

Poker is fun, but it's also a brutal game. I'm starting to think that the only correct attitude to have is one of unrelentless aggression and no mercy. There's plenty of bitching in poker, but very little room for sympathy.

So screw you, fish. I'm coming for you.

Thursday, December 01, 2005


Man, I'm damn glad November is over! It was definitely my worst month of poker so far, but I'm not too down about it. Shit happens, and then you recover.

I'm looking forward to December. It should be fun to do some bonus whoring (like the Poker Players Alliance bonus at Party), and I get to take a vacation to Europe next week! I've never been to Europe, so I'm really looking forward to it. Maybe I can find some tournament or side game action.

Over the next few days, I should learn whether I got the job I want. If I did get it, I can go out and buy a laptop, which would be very convenient to have while on my travels. If I didn't get the job, I have a backup plan.

So I'm feeling good. The games are still plenty fishy. My bankroll isn't where I want it to be, but it's still OK. Several friends will be in town for Christmas, and then I'll be off to another new city somewhere. I'll write about where that will be as soon as I know.

Good luck, and have a happy holiday season.

Wednesday, November 30, 2005


In high school, I was on the cross-country running team. I asked one of my friends on the team what his goals were for the season. "I don't set goals," he said. "I just try to do my best."

That seemed odd to me because I thought you should always have a plan about where you want to be and what you need to do to get there. I thought I would always try to have specific objectives for myself.

But then when reading Alan Schoonmaker's latest article in Card Player magazine, I realized that I haven't set out a specific plan for what I want to do with poker.

So far, my only goals have been to climb the limit ladder, improve my game and keep making enough money to live on until I find a job.

Now I realize I need a more specific outline for my poker career.

1) I want to beat $15/$30 for 1.5 big bets an hour on a regular basis. For this to happen, I need to be playing $15/$30 as my regular game for at least 50,000 hands before I can come to any initial conclusion about my winrate.

2) I need to analyze my assets and liabilities. My assets are that I constantly study the game, I am focused on my play and that I have the discipline to resist tilting away unnecessary bets. My liabilities are that I don't have a steady primary source of income, and I have a hard time growing my bankroll because of life expenditures.

3) My plan is to get a job by the end of this year. I will play a lot of poker up until then, and after I get a job, I hope to continue playing for about 2 hours a day. I will rebuild my bankroll at the lower limits, and I may need to rejuvenate it with money from a real job. Normally I would resist using real-life money for poker playing, but the only reason I've dropped down in limits from $15/$30 already is because my bankroll has shrunk due to life expenses. I would like my bankroll to roughly reflect my poker earnings so that I can play at limits where I feel like I have the most profit potential.

4) I will review where I am once a month, starting Jan. 1. My goals are attainable if I successfully land the job I want. If I don't get that job, I will need to continue playing at limits within my bankroll before I can afford to take another shot.

It's disappointing that I hit a bad run of cards shortly after moving up to $15/$30. I'm not afraid of that game -- it seemed quite fishy to me. Without the bankroll for it, though, I have no business playing there.

I'm not worried. I'll be back soon, and then the fish will pay.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005


I had just gotten back above my original buy-in at the weekly game when I heard yelling at the other table. I thought a fight had broken out. This was much worse.

I peaked into the entry room, where I saw everyone on the ground, hiding wherever they could. Then I ran into the bathroom so I could hide in the bathtub with one other guy.

One of the robbers charged into the bathroom with a gun pointed at my head.

"Get the fuck out of the bathroom! Get on the ground with your hands in the air!"

I moved onto the floor and put my hands over my head. I laid that way for what seemed like a long time, but it was probably more like six or seven minutes. I stayed still and listened to the robbers yelling and banging on furniture as they looked for the money. It was locked in a closet.

There were four robbers. One by one, they moved all of us into a corner near the kitchen. There were about 18 of us total -- about 12 players, two dealers, two game organizers and a few of their friends. I crouched down at the back of the huddle and put my hands on top of my head. The robbers were cursing and looking for the person who had the key to the money closet.

"I just play poker here," one guy said. "This isn't my place."

Then they emptied everyone's pockets. They only took my wallet. Most people also lost their keys and cell phones.

They tied up our hands with rubber cord. Then they started jamming all of us into the bathroom. On the way there, one of the thieves hit me in the back with the butt of his gun. "Don't fucking move," he said.

They were terribly disorganized. The whole robbery must have taken at least 20 minutes, and I was surprised they wasted so much time tying people up when they could have left as soon as they got the house's money.

The bathroom was full. It was a pile of sweaty, tied-up guys. One of them whispered that he couldn't breathe.

The bastards closed the door and jammed one of the poker tables up against it. A minute later, they were gone.

Fortunately, no one was hurt. And I think most people lost more than I did. I'm out about $400.

It was a scary experience. I had been robbed twice before tonight, but never at gunpoint. The silver lining is that I'm unhurt, and the lost money is like taking a bad beat. Lord knows I'm used to those.

I won't be playing live poker again outside a casino for the foreseeable future. For those of you who do play in home games, please insist that the hosts provide adequate and competent security. Anything less is unacceptable. You don't want to have a gun to your head before you realize you should have taken precautions.

Daniel was also at the game. I'm sure he'll also write about the hold-up. Be safe.

Monday, November 28, 2005

How do you know?

Am I playing bad cards, or am I just running bad?

I wish there were a PokerTracker filter that would let me know the definitive answer. I wish I had a Noted Poker Authority as my chief adviser. I wish there were an optimal amount of money I should have won or lost based on the cards I was dealt, and then I could compare that to reality.

But there's not. All I have are some clues.

So how can I tell how much of this downswing is due to variance, and whether I have previously unknown leaks?

Here are some tests to determine how cold the deck has been:

1) Are my premium pocket pairs (AA and KK) holding up less than usual? In 9,217 hands before this losing streak (sorry about the small sample size -- my current database was only started then), AA won 82 percent of the time, and KK won 67 percent of the time. In 8,683 hands since, AA has won 76 percent of the time, and KK has won 70 percent of the time. So Aces have done a good bit worse, and Kings have been a little better.

2) Am I losing more hands at showdown? Before this downswing, I was winning 55.8 percent of the time at showdown. Since then, I've won 52.1 percent at the end. I'm not sure how significant that 3.7 percentage point turn is, but it certainly costs me money.

3) What hands have been losing? In my case, AJs, QJs, A8s, A6s and A5s have been losers. I think AJs and QJs are probably anomalies, but the others I should probably play less often from middle position.

4) Have I been losing more money than necessary on losing hands, or winning less money than I should with winning hands? This can only be measured by reviewing individual hand histories in PokerTracker, and I think my playing habits are closely in line with historic norms. Fortunately, there's always room for improvement!

I have come to the conclusion that I'm playing well. Even if I could have saved some bets over this time, it would still be a pretty dry run of cards.

Now it's time to recover as quickly as possible. The best way to do that is to get in more hands, play well and stay focused. I think I should play more no limit games because I believe they have less severe swings. I hate to shy away from profitable limit games, but now seems to be the time for bankroll restoration.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005


I decided to figure out the probability of any one of three cards falling on the flop. I wanted to figure this probability out after I won $100 by betting that an Ace, a Three or a Five would be flipped up. I knew the odds were in my favor, but I didn't know by how much.

Here's how I think you do the calculation:

40/52 * 39/51 * 38/50 = The probability that an Ace, a Three or a Five will NOT be flopped. That comes to 59280/132600, or 0.447.

So the odds that an Ace, a Three or a Five will be flopped is 55.3 percent (1 - 0.447). I had guess that it would be somewhere around 60 percent, but the odds weren't quite that high in my favor.

If my math is wrong, please let me know.


Daniel and I are playing at our weekly no limit game in Atlanta, and the fish are biting. I won my first hand on a bluff, and Daniel racked up a bunch of chips with a set of Queens, pocket K and AK vs. two all-in short stacks. We're both sitting pretty.

Then this guy I call the Unabomber says he wants to play Ace-Three-Five for $100. Ace-Three-Five is a funny prop bet where one person bets that an Ace, Three or Five will come on the flop. It's a sucker's bet because the odds are in favor of at least one of those cards falling. I need to do the math, but I think it's somewhere over 60 percent in favor of the person who bets on the Ace-Three-Five.

"I'll take that bet, if I can take the Ace, Three and Five," I said. The bet is on, and a beautiful three comes on the flop. I collect my $100.

Daniel and I are talking about the changes in the online poker world. Eurobet was about to switch from the Party Poker network to the Poker Room network. They've offered a 100 percent up to $600 sign-up bonus, which I don't think I'll be able to pass up even though I hate the Poker Room software. I also mention that I heard Party Poker would be releasing a new platform sometime after the new year.

This dude to my right pipes up and says he had heard about that, and that the reason for the new platform is that too many people had hacked into Party Poker's card generating engine. Umm ... I don't think so. Sure, it's possible. But I haven't heard of Party being hacked like that, and if there were even a rumor of something like that happening, I would have heard about the controversy. It's much more likely that Party Poker, the largest online site, is finally getting around to making some much-needed upgrades (although I absolutely love the current format, in all its year 2001-esque simplicity).

I kept my mouth shut. Let the fish believe that online poker is rigged if they want.

Then the dealer, who's nice but always tells questionable tidbits about the poker world, mentions that $10/$20 limit is the main game of her friends in Vegas. She said they make $5,000 a week by sitting 40 hours in the casinos.

This time I had to say something. "I don't think they make $5,000 a week at $10/$20," I said. Let's see: that's $125 an hour, or about six big bets per hour. In other words, it's completely impossible for anyone to win at that clip. Either the dealer's friends are lying to her, or she's lying to me.

Whatever. I think she was sincere, and if she can't figure out that she's passing on a falsehood, then that's her loss. It's also the loss of everyone else at the table who believes her. What can I do but disagree and then smile when she reiterates the validity of her point?

There's a lot of bad information out there, and perhaps the ability to separate the truth from rumor is what contributes to the making of a solid poker player.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Hand Protection? Maybe Not

I first read "Small Stakes Hold 'em" by Miller, Sklansky and Malmuth about a year ago. I still consider this book to be the bible of limit hold 'em. When I learned about how to protect your hand, I thought that was the key to playing winning poker. If you can make the odds incorrect for your opponent, how can you lose?

Well, sure. If you can pull it off.

The more I think about hand protection, the more I believe it's utility is limited when compared to a more important concept: value betting.

Now, I'm not saying that trying to protect your hand is wrong. I think it's an important part of any solid poker game. What I am saying is that many times, players cost themselves money because they are more concerned about protecting their hand than they are about getting the most from it.

As a simple example, you may have a hand like AA or two pair that you decide is almost certainly the best hand. Sometimes when you decide to wait until the turn to pop in a raise, you may have improved your winning chances slightly, but the pot will often be much smaller. Instead of winning a huge multiway pot, most players will simply fold or call on the turn.

Here's the problem: It is correct for any hand to continue playing if the odds justify it. Many times, especially in large pots, it is difficult to force out players who have strong draws.

But just because someone has a strong draw doesn't mean you shouldn't make them pay for it. Any time a player has an equity advantage in a hand, he is making money by betting and raising. Any time a player foregos that opportunity to raise, he is reducing his earning potential.

For example, it is difficult to drive out flush and straight draws on the flop. A flush draw (nine outs) only needs 4.1:1 odds to continue, and an open-ended straight draw (eight outs) only needs 4.75:1 to continue. In limit hold 'em, those odds (plus implied odds) usually justify a call, raise or re-raise (especially from late position to try for a free card).

Most of the time, you are not going to have any luck protecting your hand from these and other powerful draws.

The places where you can protect your hand are in pots against more marginal draws. You do want to drive out hands like second pair (up to five outs), bottom pair with a backdoor draw (about 6.5 outs) or gutshot draws (four outs). These are the hands that you can frequently re-raise or check-raise to alter the pot odds to the point where they're making a mistake not to fold.

When you're involved in a hand, your goal is to make the most money over the long run. Many times, this means you want to ram and jam the flop rather than wait for a slightly higher equity advantage on the turn.

Links to columns about hand protection:
"Protecting Hands in Limit HE," from Sound of a Suckout
"Forego Time?," from the 2+2 Small Stakes forum

Sunday, November 20, 2005

Looking for Leaks

I don't believe in luck, but I know what works.

Jumping out of a plane works. I went skydiving yesterday for the second time, hopeful I was correct that this would be a +EV situation. Based on my previous jumping experience, it would kick ass. I risked a 75,000:1 chance of dying in exchange for the intangible benefits of the free fall: fun, an adrenaline rush, life perspective and a guaranteed great day. It makes you feel good to feel alive.

When you're dropping from 14,000 feet with an undeployed parachute strapped on, the loud wind creates ripples on your face. The sensations of fear, falling and faith rush through your body, adding up to feelings of exhilaration. The small patchwork world below seems like it might just stop right there.

The adrenaline rush lasts for hours, and its afterglow holds for much longer. The rest of the day is like the fulfillment of a happy prophecy. Everything will be great. I will have a good interview for a job, I will fix Matt's computer, I will cook out, I will get a little drunk, I will have fun hanging out with friends, I will win at poker.

Wishes granted.

Thursday, November 17, 2005


Wouldn't it be cool if you could change your poker site's screen so it doesn't have all those distracting avatars, chairs, dealers and backgrounds? Would you rather just see a black screen, players' names and statistics?

Something like this?

It's pretty easy to do.

The first step is to go to Chip Litre's Poker Mods, select the layout you like and follow the instructions. This will help you get rid of that pesky dealer and those bothersome chairs.

Once that is done, you can get the black background I use by clicking on this link from Other backgrounds are also available on this page and from

But what if you play on PokerStars? Well, they have mods too. Your screen may end up looking something like this:

Basically it's a two-step process to use this background with PokerStars. First, go to the 2+2 thread about modding PokerStars. Right-click on the table image displayed in the thread, and then select "Save Image As" from the dropdown menu. Save it as bg.jpg into this folder: C:/Program Files/PokerStars/Gs.

That step makes the black image your background, but PokerStars won't let you use that background unless you launch PokerStars from the file called "PokerStars.exe" rather than the default, which is "PokerStarsUpdate.exe." The easiest way to launch PokerStars from PokerStars.exe is to simply double click on that file in C:/Program Files/PokerStars. For more information, give a detailed read to the 2+2 thread linked to above.

That should do it! Good luck with your modding.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005


Dad walked down to the basement to watch me play poker for a few minutes before he went to bed. He sweats me so bad I might as well have Mike Matasow standing over my shoulder.

"How could you fold that hand?!? It was suited! You could have made a flush," Dad said about my 75 suited vs. a preflop three bet.

I get the same crap when I hold unsuited connectors.

"Mark, you're passing up all these golden opportunities for straights and flushes," Dad said. "How are you ever going to win if you keep folding all the time."

It gets better.

Sometimes I'll hold a hand like JTs and the board will come AA5 rainbow. The pot gets three-bet to me, and I'll fold.

"How could you fold that? You had a pair of Aces," he said.

"But so does everyone else," I whined.

"Yeah, but you could make two pair if you got a Jack or a Ten," he said.

The Dad will start complaining about taxes or about how I haven't put my empty iced tea glasses in the dishwasher. He knows he can give me a hard time because I tease him all the time just for fun.

I love my Dad, but his poker advice really sucks.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Live Play

I broke one of my rules by playing poker late into the night at the weekly game.

As always, it was a good game. I quickly lost about $200 to two flushes on the river, but I don't mind losing to chasers because they'll pay much more in the long run. I made back a little by bluffing with AK vs. AQ that had made top pair with the Q. It's ridiculous that the guy folded to me, but I'll take it. "Good read," I said.

Most of the regular characters were there. Pipsqueak sucked out on me with a third flush on the river to knock me down a little bit again. Then another time, Pipsqueak sucked out a higher two pair than mine on the river. I bluffed a few pots to make back a little money, and then I busted an aggressive player with QQ that turned into a straight vs. his A-high bluff in a large pot. But what I was really looking for was a big score. It was just a matter of waiting for my chance.

I had my target: this guy who looked like Phil Laak, the Unabomber. He talked a good game and listened to his iPod the whole time, but he was losing. He said I was the only player at the table he was scared of.

Near the end of the night, the Unabomber busted again and rebought for another $250. He was obviously tilting. He told the table he was steaming. He played like it too.

I raised preflop with AKo. He reraised, and I pushed. I figured at best I had him dominated, and at worst it was a coin flip. He turned over pocket 10s, and I got no help from the board. I'm content with my play of the hand and my read of the Unabomber.

I was frustrated that I had lost, but I agonized over trying to figure out why. Here's what I came up with:

1) I hate losing. Even though I played well, losing sucks.

2) I broke my rule of playing relatively short sessions. I was losing patience, but I told myself to stay because the game was still good.

3) I told myself I was ready to double up or go home. I should have just gone home rather than adopt an all-or-nothing attitude.

4) I try not to dwell on minor losses, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Oh well. It feels better to write about it and put the game to rest. Today is a new day and a new session. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

Monday, November 14, 2005


There is in all things a pattern that is part of our universe. It has symmetry, elegance, and grace--those qualities you find always in that which the true artist captures. You can find it in the turning of the seasons, in the way sand trails along a ridge, in the branch clusters of the creosote bush or the pattern of its leaves. We try to copy these patterns in our lives and our society, seeking the rhythms, the dances, the forms that comfort. Yet, it is possible to see peril in the finding of ultimate perfection. It is clear that the ultimate pattern contains its own fixity. In such perfection, all things move toward death.
--from "The Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

There are countless rules of thumb in poker, but one holds true more than the rest. That rule is, "It depends."

One of the most dangerous things you can do in poker is fall into patterns. No situation is exactly the same. No two opponents are the same. No flop texture is the same. Small differences in the previous action of the hand, the table composition and position can change everything. For example, these factors can change an easy fold to a ballsy raise that results in a huge win.

I remember reading somewhere that poker is counterintuitive to the way most people naturally think. People want to look for patterns in their behaviors, and they try to base future actions on their results. Many times, this kind of thinking leads to poker death. It brings about results-oriented thinking and loose, passive play. People are more likely to remember their successes than their failures. A fish will remember the time his 10-2 suited led to a flush and a huge pot, but then that fish will forget the 10 other times that 10-2 suited led to nothing.

It's more correct to learn the correct play, understand the reasons for it, and then disregard the results. The difficulty is that at the end of the year, when you look down at your wins and losses, the bottom line is what's important. But with study and analytical thinking, a poker player's goal is to make the right move at the right time and resist the impulse to do things like automatically call down or always play Aces the same way.

Another pattern that I try not to fall into is the advance action buttons on every site. Those are the boxes where you can place a check mark to automatically bet, check or fold when the action comes to you. These are dangerous because they can give off tells if other people can intuit what your future action will be. More importantly, when you use the advance action buttons, you are making a decision before you know what everyone else has done ahead of you. Sometimes, a folding hand becomes a betting hand if everyone else checks. Or a pot will grow large enough to give you odds to continue that you didn't have previously. I've come to believe that these actions often determine the difference between a winning and losing session. Those one or two pots extra pots are critical to a winning poker game.

Patterns are the easy way out, especially when multi-tabling. But evaluating each situation as an independent event opens doors to +EV plays that otherwise would not have existed.

Friday, November 11, 2005

I'd Better Get Used to It

Well, I knew it had to happen sometime. You can't run that well forever.

Sometimes you have to feed the fish. It's OK ... I'll eat them some other time.

Last night was my first real kick in the ass at $15/$30. No draws came in. Many hands got sucked out on.

This is nothing new. This is poker the way I'm used to it. You can't win them all, no matter how cool that would be.

It was my worst day of poker yet, but I'm not worried at all. How can I worry? I lost one day after making money the previous eight days in a row, and 11 days out of the last 12. I mean, a run like that is just incredible.

The only thing that sucks about it is that it wouldn't have happened (at least not as badly as it did) if I had played the Empire bonus like I planned to. But that's silly talk. The games were soooo fishy on Party's $15/$30 tables last night.

Anyways, I'm off to Maryland for the weekend for a couple of days. Good luck over the weekend!

Thursday, November 10, 2005

20 K

I crossed $20,000 in career poker winnings last night!

This run is really amazing. It was just on Aug. 19 that I wrote about passing $10,000 for the first time. And now, about 2.5 months later, I've doubled my bankroll.

But I'm skeptical. Or maybe I'm just paranoid after watching the movie "Casino" last night.

If gambling is a trap, then maybe it's only a matter of time before I start losing money. Maybe I will develop compulsive tendencies. Maybe I will be tempted to play other games. Maybe I'll go on a bad run and have a hard time stepping down in limits. Maybe I'll lose respect for the money and blow it.

If gambling isn't a trap, then why have I been winning so much for so long? Has my game really advanced that far?

Poker is an anomaly in the gambling world. It's one of the few games where the house isn't necessarily out to get you. The casino usually wants all your fucking money. In poker, the online casino has learned to be content to take a $3 rake from most hands.

The only way to be safe is to stay on guard. I've done damn well so far to stay disciplined and avoid tilt. I've made rules for myself and I stick to them pretty well. I don't play casino games I have no business playing. I limit my sessions to 2 hours. I'm a stickler for table selection. I don't get too emotional about big wins or losses. I play within my bankroll. I concentrate on my game.

Everyone seems to be asking, "How long can the poker boom last? How long before all the fish bust out?"

Perhaps the better question is, "When will my luck run out?"

Without constant vigilance, focus and discipline, anyone could end up as a fish.


New Empire Poker bonus: Use Deposit code PLAYNOV to get a 100 percent bonus up to $100. Link.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Surly Poker Gnome

What's up!

This is the evolution of my former blog, 5,589 Miles From Vegas. I should have changed the blog title after I moved back to the States from Santiago, Chile a few months ago, but I'm just now getting around to it. It seems a little disingenuous to keep advertising "Poker in Chile" when I now live in Atlanta.

This blog will be similar to the old one. I plan on updating the style and links on the site, but most of it will remain the same. Content will consist of random ramblings about what I think about poker, the evolution of my game, funny stories, book reviews, strategy ideas and trip reports. The purpose of this blog is to write about poker to help myself and readers understand the game better. I intend for this blog to be like a poker diary, but one which I will actually keep up with because other people might read it.

A little about myself: My name is Mark Niesse, and I currently live in the basement of my parents' house in Atlanta. I lived in Chile for most of last year and moved back at the beginning of July. I'm a journalist by trade, and I've been looking for jobs in the States. I have several promising leads, and in the meantime I've been living the good life. I've been winning at poker, traveling and having fun. Who knows if I'll ever have such an easy time of life again?

I recently made the jump to playing $15/$30 limit hold 'em on Party Poker, although I wouldn't consider it my main game yet. Previously, I played mostly $5/$10 limit hold 'em, but I now have the bankroll for $15/$30, and the games are much looser than I anticipated. And I'm winning.

I have to give props to Drew for coming up with the title of the blog. His idea was to call it Hal, the Surly Poker Gnome, but I don't know if Hal would be comfortable with that.

If you have a blog, please link to me or update your old link. My linking policy is that I will only link to blogs that I read on a regular basis. This might decrease the number of hits I get, but I don't want to refer people to crappy content.

I'd like to receive comments from readers about what they would like to see from this blog. I've considered putting up more hand histories, but I'm not sure whether that's something that would interest people. Let me know what you think.

Thanks! I hope you come back to read the blog again.