I'm back

I made it back! I've recovered from my Thanksgiving week hit. The downturn was mostly online, but I also include getting robbed at that game in Atlanta and losing a bit at Holland Casino.

Now that I've come back from that monetary drop, my total winnings are approaching all-time highs of about $20,500.

If only my bankroll were that high! Living off of poker winnings shrunk it significantly, but I'm bringing it back. I have about $5,500 in poker money, which is close to the $6,000 (300 bets) that I would want to play $10/$20 limit.

Should I feel relieved that I've gotten my money back? Because I don't. I feel good about my winnings, but I won't be happy until I'm beating $15/$30 limit on a regular basis. And for that to happen, I still need to win about $3,000 more to even play the game, and then I need to be able to beat it without dropping down.

So how do I feel about these last three months of recovery?

I mean, it was a tough climb, and honestly I think I've still been running pretty terribly at the tables. I'm making money, but the suckouts I've seen over the last couple of weeks have left my head spinning. If not for a plague of two outers on the river, I would have made a good $1,000 or $2,000 more.

But that's just the poker mindset talking. It's all bad beats and lucky draws, and nobody ever runs good.

It's like doubleas wrote in a recent post: "I have been running bad, but my bankroll is staying the same."

This comeback was the largest I've ever had to make, but it wasn't the most difficult. The worst was between July 2004 and February 2005. It started when I played $5/$10 no limit game in Biloxi, got smacked for about $750, and struggled to get my bankroll over $2,000 again. That was eight months of just about zero bankroll growth, grinding it out at .10/.25 and .25/.50 no limit.

But that passed. Down times always pass if you're a winning player. Any downturn is a drop in the water compared to the long run.

And the recovery period has been instructive. I spent January playing $5/$10 shorthanded limit, which I beat for 0.5 BB/100. That win rate really pissed me off.

Who knows what my "true" win rate is at that game? My sample size is only 10,000 hands, but I'm not going to wait around to find out. There have been a bunch of posts recently about the extremely high swings in shorthanded play -- swings that can last for several 100,000 hands and up to 1,000 big bets. No, thank you.

I don't think I have the heart to play shorthanded games, even if they are very fishy and profitable. Who cares if a game is profitable if you could be playing for months without seeing any earnings? Damn right, that's results-oriented thinking. I'm not that patient.

So in February, I switched over to $1/$2 no limit, which I liked. It's a pretty good game, and I think I'll use it as an alternate revenue source when I need a break from limit hold 'em. The games are pretty soft, but I did feel like there was a noticeable difference from $0.5/$1 no limit. The postflop play is generally better, and it's harder to trap people when you have a monster hand.

I was thinking earlier tonight that they should just rename no limit hold 'em to "Aces," because all it takes is one Ace on the flop to make everyone fold to your bet. Bluffing when an Ace falls is so easy. They all fold.

I wish I could take a break, sit back and enjoy my progess so far.

But I don't think I'll really have a serious break until I can take Phil Gordon's advice: After making your first $100,000, take a vacation.