I didn't win much money in 2009. I made a little bit, but only a little. It was my worst year of poker in terms of profits since my rookie year of online play in 2004.
What went wrong? How did I go from winning so much in each of the last three years to barely making a profit this year?
There's no single answer to this question, but here are a few plausible explanations:
1. The games have gotten tougher. There are still plenty of fish around, but overall, everyone is improving their games. Even the fish are more likely to be aggressive than loose-passive, which was more common in the years immediately after the boom.
2. My efforts to improve have sacrificed short-term profits for long-term gain. Over the last 18 months, I've changed a lot of things about my game. I played heads-up for a while, tried to become more of a LAG, forced myself to make more postflop decisions and dropped down in stakes to 2/4. It's essential that I continue to learn new things and incorporate them into my game, but those efforts don't always pay off immediately.
3. I played poorly. My efforts to reduce spew were replaced by leaks that led me to pay off too often. As I loosened up my game, I wasn't as comfortable playing aggressively because I was playing a weaker range of hands. I lost my ambition to keep moving up in stakes, which cut into my motivation.
4. I switched to shorthanded NL exclusively, cutting the one or two full ring tables I previously played. There are just too many shortstacks in full ring games, and game selection becomes tedious.
5. Full Tilt stopped allowing data mining of observed hands. Data mining observed hands wasn't something that I abused by leaving the client running when I wasn't playing, but it definitely helped me decide what tables to sit at because I could wait 10 or 20 hands to get an idea for how they were playing.
I'm comforted a little bit to know that I was unlucky this year, according to the Showdown Equity Calculator, which figures out street-by-street equities and compares them to results. SECT showed that I ran about 40 buy-ins below expectation this year. I guess that makes up for my good fortune in previous years.
For 2010, I need to do better. I need to pay off fewer value bets, play fewer hands out of position and refocus on game selection.
Good luck to you all in the new year!
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label review. Show all posts
Friday, December 25, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
State of the Games
The characteristics of the NL games I play on Full Tilt change slowly as the regulars learn new tricks, the fish bust out and new challengers attempt to break through.
What follows are some observations based on my recent impressions, not hard statistics:
I'm seeing more cold-calling preflop in position rather than rampant 3-betting. Players are realizing that frequent 3-bets will get 4-bet by savvy opponents, forcing a fold and sacrificing equity. The value of position is so great that it makes sense to see flops with hands that hold some value. Position is more valuable in a single-raised pot than in a reraised pot.
Postflop play is always becoming more sophisticated. I'm encountering plenty of check-raise bluffs and check-raise value bets, which get very expensive when I incorrectly read one check-raise for the other.
Everyone is trying to play optimally. They all want to make the right move at the right time based on the situation instead of playing the player. There's a bit of both in everyone's game, but more strong regulars are defaulting to the book play rather than making what could be a profitable move against an easy-to-read opponent.
My understanding of optimal play is that it can't be defeated, which means the best strategy against these opponents is to play more optimally than they do. Put simply, that means playing mistake-free poker, which is difficult to do for hours on end.
Fish continue to swim in the 3/6 and 5/10 waters. I don't know where they come from, and there certainly aren't as many guppies as there used to be, but some show up every day. There's still easy money around if you look for it.
Some of the worst players now are those who go off the deep end when it comes to aggression, raising and check-raising every bet they can. Those players may look solid at first, but they almost always end up hanging themselves.
The game is continuing to evolve, which says to me that it remains healthy. Many players are working to learn more and improve their game, but I don't think NL games are too much closer to becoming "solved" (whatever that means).
A solid player will still win, and there are soft spots to be found. But to make the most of the games and maximize your winrate, it's best to change with the times.
What follows are some observations based on my recent impressions, not hard statistics:
I'm seeing more cold-calling preflop in position rather than rampant 3-betting. Players are realizing that frequent 3-bets will get 4-bet by savvy opponents, forcing a fold and sacrificing equity. The value of position is so great that it makes sense to see flops with hands that hold some value. Position is more valuable in a single-raised pot than in a reraised pot.
Postflop play is always becoming more sophisticated. I'm encountering plenty of check-raise bluffs and check-raise value bets, which get very expensive when I incorrectly read one check-raise for the other.
Everyone is trying to play optimally. They all want to make the right move at the right time based on the situation instead of playing the player. There's a bit of both in everyone's game, but more strong regulars are defaulting to the book play rather than making what could be a profitable move against an easy-to-read opponent.
My understanding of optimal play is that it can't be defeated, which means the best strategy against these opponents is to play more optimally than they do. Put simply, that means playing mistake-free poker, which is difficult to do for hours on end.
Fish continue to swim in the 3/6 and 5/10 waters. I don't know where they come from, and there certainly aren't as many guppies as there used to be, but some show up every day. There's still easy money around if you look for it.
Some of the worst players now are those who go off the deep end when it comes to aggression, raising and check-raising every bet they can. Those players may look solid at first, but they almost always end up hanging themselves.
The game is continuing to evolve, which says to me that it remains healthy. Many players are working to learn more and improve their game, but I don't think NL games are too much closer to becoming "solved" (whatever that means).
A solid player will still win, and there are soft spots to be found. But to make the most of the games and maximize your winrate, it's best to change with the times.
Friday, November 21, 2008
StoxEV is sick
Damn, this StoxEV program is insanely useful for hand evaluation. How did I not know about it before?
Basically, StoxEV starts with the functionality of PokerStove and then allows you to make a decision tree for any hand using hand ranges, board textures and likely betting actions. Then it calculates the EV of each decision you make.
I've only been using StoxEV for three days, but I've already learned a lot. It's an incredible tool for reviewing hands after a session to determine whether you made the right play, or if there are alternate lines that may have been better.
For example, I plugged in the hand from my last post to determine how the hand might have progressed if I had called the flop. What kind of turns should I bet? What kind of hands should I call if my opponent shoves?
The program also comes in with a few example hands, like a QQ in position behind two preflop raisers and an AQ that shoves on the flop with a gutshot.
You really have to fool around with this program to comprehend its value.
Try the free download, watch the video tutorial and then play around with it. It took me a little time to get used to, but it's very much worth it.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
I'll keep 3-betting preflop, thank you very much
I'm a big fan of reraising a wide range of hands preflop in position: my suited connectors gain value because they can win the dead money in the pot, and my premium hands are more likely to get called when my opponents know I could have low cards.
Several training sites advocate this kind of preflop strategy, but pro player Samoleus recently repeated his claim that it's inherently flawed.
"If someone raises and you have a hand like King-Jack suited on the button or 87 suited on the button, that's not a reraising hand. That's a hand that plays so much better when you have more of a stack to pot ratio," Samoleus said on the Cash Plays podcast. "The CardRunners style ... I know they teach this rampant aggression and this 3-betting with suited connectors and stuff, which I really think is such a flawed technique. ... The whole philosophy, the approach to this, is completely wrong."
While it's true that speculative hands gain value when they can see flops for cheap, Samoleus failed to explain why cold calling is a better play in this era of poker in which the blinds are likely to run a squeeze play when they see a raiser and a button caller.
Sure, cold calling would work well in passive games with very little 3-betting.
But the reality of today's games is that you're going to get squeezed frequently, and the best way to defend against the squeeze is for you to raise in the first place. Most of the time, a preflop 3-bet with suited connectors will either pick up the blinds or allow you to see a flop in position.
Samoleus sounds like he's upset at how the games have evolved rather than adjusting to them.
Other pros take a more measured, constructive approach.
In the new DeucesCracked series "Parallels," Krantz addresses a similar situation when he holds KQs from the button.
He says that you should call more and 3-bet less with hands like KQs when your opponents fold too frequently to raises.
I can infer several pieces of information from his statement:
1) 3-betting with KQs and similar hands is better when your opponents are more likely to call a raise with lesser hands. KQs has enough value postflop to call a raise rather than attempt to steal. That's probably why Leatherass called from the button with AQs in my recent hand with him.
2) Suited connectors gain value from a 3-bet in games with opponents who are likely to fold to a raise.
3) If there's a caller in the middle, a 3-bet with many different hand types makes more sense because there's more dead money in the pot.
What Samoleus should have said is that he's disenchanted with the mindless 3-betting that occurs so often these days.
He shouldn't have made the sweeping statement that this kind of 3-betting is frequently wrong and bad for the game. There are many situations where a preflop reraise is the best play with hands like KJs and suited connectors, despite how much Samoleus wishes it weren't so.
Several training sites advocate this kind of preflop strategy, but pro player Samoleus recently repeated his claim that it's inherently flawed.
"If someone raises and you have a hand like King-Jack suited on the button or 87 suited on the button, that's not a reraising hand. That's a hand that plays so much better when you have more of a stack to pot ratio," Samoleus said on the Cash Plays podcast. "The CardRunners style ... I know they teach this rampant aggression and this 3-betting with suited connectors and stuff, which I really think is such a flawed technique. ... The whole philosophy, the approach to this, is completely wrong."
While it's true that speculative hands gain value when they can see flops for cheap, Samoleus failed to explain why cold calling is a better play in this era of poker in which the blinds are likely to run a squeeze play when they see a raiser and a button caller.
Sure, cold calling would work well in passive games with very little 3-betting.
But the reality of today's games is that you're going to get squeezed frequently, and the best way to defend against the squeeze is for you to raise in the first place. Most of the time, a preflop 3-bet with suited connectors will either pick up the blinds or allow you to see a flop in position.
Samoleus sounds like he's upset at how the games have evolved rather than adjusting to them.
Other pros take a more measured, constructive approach.
In the new DeucesCracked series "Parallels," Krantz addresses a similar situation when he holds KQs from the button.
He says that you should call more and 3-bet less with hands like KQs when your opponents fold too frequently to raises.
I can infer several pieces of information from his statement:
1) 3-betting with KQs and similar hands is better when your opponents are more likely to call a raise with lesser hands. KQs has enough value postflop to call a raise rather than attempt to steal. That's probably why Leatherass called from the button with AQs in my recent hand with him.
2) Suited connectors gain value from a 3-bet in games with opponents who are likely to fold to a raise.
3) If there's a caller in the middle, a 3-bet with many different hand types makes more sense because there's more dead money in the pot.
What Samoleus should have said is that he's disenchanted with the mindless 3-betting that occurs so often these days.
He shouldn't have made the sweeping statement that this kind of 3-betting is frequently wrong and bad for the game. There are many situations where a preflop reraise is the best play with hands like KJs and suited connectors, despite how much Samoleus wishes it weren't so.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Shortstack Fail
I believe that while a strong shortstacker can achieve consistent winrates playing a tight, mostly formulaic style, a skilled deeper-stacked player can make even more money.
There's no doubt that shortstacks can win in no limit cash games. As long as they accurately evaluate how their ranges fare against their opponents' range for calling 3bets and folding to 3bets, they'll profit. This evaluation is pretty easy to do using programs like PokerStove.
The most profitable situations for shortstackers come when they can collect pots from players who make an initial raise but can't call a 20 BB shove. They also make money if they can target a player who calls or folds to their preflop shoves too frequently.
These situations create advantages for the shortstacker that a deeper-stacked player doesn't have. In heads-up situations, however, a deeper-stacked player can adjust his raising and calling range to mostly negate the shorty's stack advantage.
The problem for shortstackers is that they must play a tighter range than their deeper-stacked opponents. If a shorty plays too loose, he'll bleed equity that's essential to his profitability.
The deeper-stacked player gains from many situations that the shorty misses out on. Deep stacks can play a much wider range of hands, creating more stealing opportunities. They get more play postflop, which provides more chances to get larger amounts of money in with a bigger equity advantage. In essence, deeper stacks are in a better position to take advantage of other, less-skilled deep-stacked players.
In a world of shortstacks, the deep-stacked player loses because he's forced to play their game. But in tables with several deep stacks, you want to maximize your earnings when you have an edge against the other deep stacks.
I'm biased against shortstacks because they prevent me from playing the style of poker I want to play. I'll concede that their brand of poker is valid, but it's far from ideal.
Plus, it must suck to sit around and play a tight, push-or-fold strategy all day.
There's no doubt that shortstacks can win in no limit cash games. As long as they accurately evaluate how their ranges fare against their opponents' range for calling 3bets and folding to 3bets, they'll profit. This evaluation is pretty easy to do using programs like PokerStove.
The most profitable situations for shortstackers come when they can collect pots from players who make an initial raise but can't call a 20 BB shove. They also make money if they can target a player who calls or folds to their preflop shoves too frequently.
These situations create advantages for the shortstacker that a deeper-stacked player doesn't have. In heads-up situations, however, a deeper-stacked player can adjust his raising and calling range to mostly negate the shorty's stack advantage.
The problem for shortstackers is that they must play a tighter range than their deeper-stacked opponents. If a shorty plays too loose, he'll bleed equity that's essential to his profitability.
The deeper-stacked player gains from many situations that the shorty misses out on. Deep stacks can play a much wider range of hands, creating more stealing opportunities. They get more play postflop, which provides more chances to get larger amounts of money in with a bigger equity advantage. In essence, deeper stacks are in a better position to take advantage of other, less-skilled deep-stacked players.
In a world of shortstacks, the deep-stacked player loses because he's forced to play their game. But in tables with several deep stacks, you want to maximize your earnings when you have an edge against the other deep stacks.
I'm biased against shortstacks because they prevent me from playing the style of poker I want to play. I'll concede that their brand of poker is valid, but it's far from ideal.
Plus, it must suck to sit around and play a tight, push-or-fold strategy all day.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Building Blocks
I've picked up some strategic gems from a couple of recent shows. I'll put them down here in hopes that they stick.
Cash Plays: Limit Hold'em with Death Donkey
1) Death Donkey mentions that when the pot is larger, the purpose of your value bets is more to protect the pot. When the pot is smaller, the purpose of your value bets is more to get paid by a worse hand.
2) In limit hold'em, Death Donkey discusses his style of never 4-betting/capping when out of position against an in-position 3-bettor. The reason is that he'll extract that extra small bet on the flop anyway when his opponent continuation bets, and his check-raise on the flop represents a wider range than a 4-bet preflop would.
In position, Death Donkey goes ahead and 4-bets his premium hands preflop.
He says something like, "If you could choose to only play large pots in position and smaller pots out of position, you'd make a lot of money."
Spaceman in a Cowboy Hat: Episode 4
1) The theme of this heads-up NL powerpoint video is that you should try to see how much you can get away with as you adjust to your opponents.
If your opponent will fold as much out of the BB to a minraise as he does to a 3X raise, you risk less to make the same amount with the minraise. If your opponent doesn't distinguish between a 5X and 3X raise preflop, it makes sense to raise bigger with premium hands for value and smaller with lesser hands. Of course, many opponents will catch on if you do this all the time, so you have to pick your spots.
2) The purpose of making larger than 3X 3bets preflop is to reduce your opponent's implied odds. You can raise bigger -- to 10 or 11 BB preflop -- against someone who calls 3bets too frequently, while raising smaller -- like 3X/9BB preflop -- against someone who folds to 3bets too much.
---
On an unrelated note, I have to mention the shenanigans in PokerStars Triple Draw games.
PokerStars has changed the rules of the game without previously informing the players.
Read the 2+2 thread, Ed Miller's take on it and Random Shuffle's reaction.
Cash Plays: Limit Hold'em with Death Donkey
1) Death Donkey mentions that when the pot is larger, the purpose of your value bets is more to protect the pot. When the pot is smaller, the purpose of your value bets is more to get paid by a worse hand.
2) In limit hold'em, Death Donkey discusses his style of never 4-betting/capping when out of position against an in-position 3-bettor. The reason is that he'll extract that extra small bet on the flop anyway when his opponent continuation bets, and his check-raise on the flop represents a wider range than a 4-bet preflop would.
In position, Death Donkey goes ahead and 4-bets his premium hands preflop.
He says something like, "If you could choose to only play large pots in position and smaller pots out of position, you'd make a lot of money."
Spaceman in a Cowboy Hat: Episode 4
1) The theme of this heads-up NL powerpoint video is that you should try to see how much you can get away with as you adjust to your opponents.
If your opponent will fold as much out of the BB to a minraise as he does to a 3X raise, you risk less to make the same amount with the minraise. If your opponent doesn't distinguish between a 5X and 3X raise preflop, it makes sense to raise bigger with premium hands for value and smaller with lesser hands. Of course, many opponents will catch on if you do this all the time, so you have to pick your spots.
2) The purpose of making larger than 3X 3bets preflop is to reduce your opponent's implied odds. You can raise bigger -- to 10 or 11 BB preflop -- against someone who calls 3bets too frequently, while raising smaller -- like 3X/9BB preflop -- against someone who folds to 3bets too much.
---
On an unrelated note, I have to mention the shenanigans in PokerStars Triple Draw games.
PokerStars has changed the rules of the game without previously informing the players.
Read the 2+2 thread, Ed Miller's take on it and Random Shuffle's reaction.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Top Podcasts
I bought a cheap Sansa mp3 player exclusively to listen to poker podcasts in my car as I drive to work. There's some high-quality content out there that I really like.
2+2 Pokercast: This is one of the most engaging poker podcasts, with lots of news, strategy and interviews with top players. When I listen to these guys, I get up to date on the latest events, tournament action, trends and funny forum posts.
Ante Up Magazine Podcast: The Ante Up crew is one of the oldest poker shows out there. The show's hosts, Chris Cosenza and Scott Long, recently branched out on their own to publish the Ante Up Magazine, which they're distributing in card rooms across Florida. They also started print magazine subscriptions, which I plan to support.
Cash Plays: Host Bart Hanson talks cash game strategy and interviews some of the top live and online pros. He gets a lot of perspectives and discusses ways to improve your game.
Those are the three I listen to on a regular basis, but I saw that High on Poker also suggested PokerRoad Radio.
2+2 Pokercast: This is one of the most engaging poker podcasts, with lots of news, strategy and interviews with top players. When I listen to these guys, I get up to date on the latest events, tournament action, trends and funny forum posts.
Ante Up Magazine Podcast: The Ante Up crew is one of the oldest poker shows out there. The show's hosts, Chris Cosenza and Scott Long, recently branched out on their own to publish the Ante Up Magazine, which they're distributing in card rooms across Florida. They also started print magazine subscriptions, which I plan to support.
Cash Plays: Host Bart Hanson talks cash game strategy and interviews some of the top live and online pros. He gets a lot of perspectives and discusses ways to improve your game.
Those are the three I listen to on a regular basis, but I saw that High on Poker also suggested PokerRoad Radio.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Simple/System
I was thinking about how I used to play no limit hold'em when I first started beating the .10/.25 games. I played a simple, tight style that managed to turn a profit.
1) I loved set mining. I would call a raise or open for a raise myself with any pocket pair from any position. Then I would bet strongly and watch the cash flow.
2) Only get all-in preflop with AA or KK. There were so many donks out there willing to go all-in with far less, and my equity advantage in those situations was enormous. They weren't paying attention to my range. They were thinking, "I've got QQ or AK. Push!"
3) Bet pot and only make high percentage bluffs. By betting large amounts and bluffing rarely, I got good value for my made hands while reducing the risk of being outplayed by opponents with more experience than me.
Maybe this playing style was weakish. I'm not even sure if it would still work in today's lower-limit games. But it was a reliable way to make money, learn patience and get the most money in with the widest equity edge.
1) I loved set mining. I would call a raise or open for a raise myself with any pocket pair from any position. Then I would bet strongly and watch the cash flow.
2) Only get all-in preflop with AA or KK. There were so many donks out there willing to go all-in with far less, and my equity advantage in those situations was enormous. They weren't paying attention to my range. They were thinking, "I've got QQ or AK. Push!"
3) Bet pot and only make high percentage bluffs. By betting large amounts and bluffing rarely, I got good value for my made hands while reducing the risk of being outplayed by opponents with more experience than me.
Maybe this playing style was weakish. I'm not even sure if it would still work in today's lower-limit games. But it was a reliable way to make money, learn patience and get the most money in with the widest equity edge.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Self Improvement
I had a pretty awful run at the tables last weekend, and it's taken me a few days to figure out how I could do better next time.
Sure, there were a few coolers and bad beats. But I should to take responsibility for my wins and losses, and I want to learn from my mistakes. By writing them down, I hope to avoid making the same errors in the future.
_ I realized I was giving off some pretty obvious timing tells by betting too quickly. Observant players will be able to read my too-fast bets and abuse me when I'm running on autopilot. Some of these timing tells were created by a reliance on Full Tilt Shortcuts, which is a cool problem but one which I haven't learned to use properly. For now, I've turned FTS off.
_ I got a little bit lax on table selection. I still looked for good tables, but I found myself settling for tables with a bunch of average-type players. I'd rather be at a table with one fish and a bunch of solid players than a table with no fish and a few guys playing their hands for value.
_ I targeted halfstackers and shortstackers too much. I hate these players because they prevent me from playing the type of poker I want to play. When you're forced to decide your hand preflop or on the flop, you're going to end up taking a few too many coinflips. The best defense against shorties is to refuse to sit with them.
_ I stubbornly kept trying to play despite my losses because I believed I was still playing my best. I should have realized that sometimes, it's just not my day. And how can I really be playing my best when I'm yelling "Goddammit!" after every beat?
I'm back on my A game now, and quickly on my way to recovering the weekend's mistakes.
Sure, there were a few coolers and bad beats. But I should to take responsibility for my wins and losses, and I want to learn from my mistakes. By writing them down, I hope to avoid making the same errors in the future.
_ I realized I was giving off some pretty obvious timing tells by betting too quickly. Observant players will be able to read my too-fast bets and abuse me when I'm running on autopilot. Some of these timing tells were created by a reliance on Full Tilt Shortcuts, which is a cool problem but one which I haven't learned to use properly. For now, I've turned FTS off.
_ I got a little bit lax on table selection. I still looked for good tables, but I found myself settling for tables with a bunch of average-type players. I'd rather be at a table with one fish and a bunch of solid players than a table with no fish and a few guys playing their hands for value.
_ I targeted halfstackers and shortstackers too much. I hate these players because they prevent me from playing the type of poker I want to play. When you're forced to decide your hand preflop or on the flop, you're going to end up taking a few too many coinflips. The best defense against shorties is to refuse to sit with them.
_ I stubbornly kept trying to play despite my losses because I believed I was still playing my best. I should have realized that sometimes, it's just not my day. And how can I really be playing my best when I'm yelling "Goddammit!" after every beat?
I'm back on my A game now, and quickly on my way to recovering the weekend's mistakes.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Stacking off with AA: Right and Wrong
Paying off a set with an overpair can be one of the most expensive plays in poker, largely because sets are hard to read.
Here are two hands from today where I got all-in with AA, one in which I'll happily stack off and another where I screwed up royally.
Hand 1:
5/10 full ring
Hero is dealt Ac As
UTG calls $5
2 folds
Villain raises to $45
2 folds
CO calls $45
Hero raises to $180 from button
3 folds
Villain calls $135
CO folds.
Flop 7h, 8h, 2s
Villain checks.
Hero bets $355
Villain goes all-in.
Hero calls all-in.
Turn 5c
River Jh
Hero shows a pair of Aces.
Villain shows 7s, 7d for three of a kind, sevens.
Villain wins $2,151
I'm glad to get all in to someone who is willing to call off 1/5 of his stack preflop and can only win if he hits a set. Since he'll only flop a set about 1/8 of the time, I'm making immediate money any time he makes this preflop call. Even if I pay him off every time, I'll win lots of money in the long run.
This next hand should have been more avoidable.
Hand 2:
5/10 6 max
Hero is dealt Ad Ah from the button
Villain raises to $40 from UTG
1 folds.
Hero raises to $120
2 folds.
Villain calls $80
Flop Jh, 7d, 3s
Villain checks.
Hero checks. (I should have bet to give myself a way to get away from the hand. By checking behind, I'm going for a trap that commits me because I plan to raise if he bets out the turn.)
Turn Td
Villain bets $210
Hero raises $600 (I follow through with my plan. I could have tried calling here, but my fate was sealed in my mind. The only hand I beat if called is QQ)
Villain goes all-in.
Hero calls $265
River 2c
Hero a pair of Aces.
Villain shows Jd, Jc three of a kind, Jacks.
Villain wins $1,983 with three of a kind, Jacks.
What a poorly played hand on my part. Right or wrong, many players will call a 3-bet preflop with QQ-TT. I should have seen the possibility of the JJ set.
If I had bet the flop, I may have been able to fold to a check-raise. When the T came on the turn, I should have known sets made up a significant part of his range.
Here are two hands from today where I got all-in with AA, one in which I'll happily stack off and another where I screwed up royally.
Hand 1:
5/10 full ring
Hero is dealt Ac As
UTG calls $5
2 folds
Villain raises to $45
2 folds
CO calls $45
Hero raises to $180 from button
3 folds
Villain calls $135
CO folds.
Flop 7h, 8h, 2s
Villain checks.
Hero bets $355
Villain goes all-in.
Hero calls all-in.
Turn 5c
River Jh
Hero shows a pair of Aces.
Villain shows 7s, 7d for three of a kind, sevens.
Villain wins $2,151
I'm glad to get all in to someone who is willing to call off 1/5 of his stack preflop and can only win if he hits a set. Since he'll only flop a set about 1/8 of the time, I'm making immediate money any time he makes this preflop call. Even if I pay him off every time, I'll win lots of money in the long run.
This next hand should have been more avoidable.
Hand 2:
5/10 6 max
Hero is dealt Ad Ah from the button
Villain raises to $40 from UTG
1 folds.
Hero raises to $120
2 folds.
Villain calls $80
Flop Jh, 7d, 3s
Villain checks.
Hero checks. (I should have bet to give myself a way to get away from the hand. By checking behind, I'm going for a trap that commits me because I plan to raise if he bets out the turn.)
Turn Td
Villain bets $210
Hero raises $600 (I follow through with my plan. I could have tried calling here, but my fate was sealed in my mind. The only hand I beat if called is QQ)
Villain goes all-in.
Hero calls $265
River 2c
Hero a pair of Aces.
Villain shows Jd, Jc three of a kind, Jacks.
Villain wins $1,983 with three of a kind, Jacks.
What a poorly played hand on my part. Right or wrong, many players will call a 3-bet preflop with QQ-TT. I should have seen the possibility of the JJ set.
If I had bet the flop, I may have been able to fold to a check-raise. When the T came on the turn, I should have known sets made up a significant part of his range.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Failed Experiment
If I can fight and win hard-earned money playing three 5/10 tables, could I make almost as much with fewer swings playing nine softer 1/2 tables?
I tiled the nine 1/2 tables on my 24-inch monitor to find out last night.
Unfortunately, these 1/2 players kicked my ass! I lost at a faster rate than I can ever remember, dropping 10 buy-ins in just two hours. How can this be possible? I thought these games were supposed to be easier?
There's an simple answer: massive multitabling reduces my winrate so drastically that I become a huge fish. I can't read hands well when I have to make quick decisions at several tables at a time. I can't tell the difference between my opponents' bluffs and value bets when I haven't been watching them. I hit the call button way too often when there's no reasonable hand that could beat my overpair, only to be shown some kind of unreasonable junk hand that I paid off in full.
There were some atrocious bad beats mixed in there as well: set over set, rivered flush vs. my set, AK beats my AA, etc. But there's no doubt that I played extremely poorly as well, getting all in several times with hands like pocket 99 and JJ on the flop, which is rarely a good move without a solid read.
This nine-tabling experiment wasn't a wasted effort though. I learned a lot:
_ I can't handle too many tables. It turns me into a losing player. I'm sure some people can do it, but I'm not a fast enough decision maker to effectively play more than three tables, or four at the most.
_ The old saying that you revert to your novice game when playing poorly proves true once again. I found myself overplaying strong preflop hands and paying off lightly when I knew I was beaten but couldn't put my opponents on a hand.
_ Just because my opponents make -EV preflop plays doesn't always mean I should justify their actions postflop by gifting them my stack. Loose calls of preflop 3-bets with low pocket pairs and suited connectors are usually unprofitable plays in the long run, but that doesn't mean I have to call them.
_ I've wondered at times if 100 BB stacks are deep enough to fight off the pushmonkeys. I now believe they are. There's still plenty of room to maneuver with 100 BB stacks, and stacking off with top pair is usually poor poker for that many bets. I estimate that top pair is worth no more than 50 BB in most situations.
This is kind of obvious stuff. I guess I have to learn the hard way. Good thing it's only two buy-ins at 5/10, but losing so much at a lower limit tilted the hell out of me.
I tiled the nine 1/2 tables on my 24-inch monitor to find out last night.
Unfortunately, these 1/2 players kicked my ass! I lost at a faster rate than I can ever remember, dropping 10 buy-ins in just two hours. How can this be possible? I thought these games were supposed to be easier?
There's an simple answer: massive multitabling reduces my winrate so drastically that I become a huge fish. I can't read hands well when I have to make quick decisions at several tables at a time. I can't tell the difference between my opponents' bluffs and value bets when I haven't been watching them. I hit the call button way too often when there's no reasonable hand that could beat my overpair, only to be shown some kind of unreasonable junk hand that I paid off in full.
There were some atrocious bad beats mixed in there as well: set over set, rivered flush vs. my set, AK beats my AA, etc. But there's no doubt that I played extremely poorly as well, getting all in several times with hands like pocket 99 and JJ on the flop, which is rarely a good move without a solid read.
This nine-tabling experiment wasn't a wasted effort though. I learned a lot:
_ I can't handle too many tables. It turns me into a losing player. I'm sure some people can do it, but I'm not a fast enough decision maker to effectively play more than three tables, or four at the most.
_ The old saying that you revert to your novice game when playing poorly proves true once again. I found myself overplaying strong preflop hands and paying off lightly when I knew I was beaten but couldn't put my opponents on a hand.
_ Just because my opponents make -EV preflop plays doesn't always mean I should justify their actions postflop by gifting them my stack. Loose calls of preflop 3-bets with low pocket pairs and suited connectors are usually unprofitable plays in the long run, but that doesn't mean I have to call them.
_ I've wondered at times if 100 BB stacks are deep enough to fight off the pushmonkeys. I now believe they are. There's still plenty of room to maneuver with 100 BB stacks, and stacking off with top pair is usually poor poker for that many bets. I estimate that top pair is worth no more than 50 BB in most situations.
This is kind of obvious stuff. I guess I have to learn the hard way. Good thing it's only two buy-ins at 5/10, but losing so much at a lower limit tilted the hell out of me.
Monday, April 07, 2008
The strength of folding
I was drinking in a bar this weekend when one of my friends brought up that I play poker. Another guy at the table said he always loses because he's an optimist who believes his hand just has to be the best. So he almost always goes to showdown and loses his stack.
I told him something I try to tell myself:
You always want to play strongly in poker, and you never want to be weak. When your opponent has the better hand, is it stronger to pay him off or to fold? Many times the strongest play is to know when you're beat.
When I'm on any degree of tilt, the most immediate difference in my game that I see is a tendency to call potential bluffs more often. It's one of my biggest leaks. I have a hard time folding when I have a sense that I have the worst hand but my opponent's actions don't make sense. In these situations, my tendency is to call a player who could only have a ridiculous hand to beat mine rather than letting my hand go.
There's no easy fix for this flaw except to play patiently and be constantly aware of my actions. Quit spewing chips. Just fold. Save money and move on. Let the small pots go.
Here are three AA hands from tonight's play. I had to fold them, and I think I was right to do so. Anyone feel differently? Assume 100 BB stacks at a 5/10 NL game.
Hand 1:
Preflop:
Hero raises UTG to $30. Everyone folds except for a loose SB (75/22/.94).
Flop:
Kd 9h 4s
SB checks.
Hero bets $55.
SB calls
Turn:
8d
SB checks
Hero bets $165 into $180 pot.
SB check-raises to $330
Hero folds.
Hand No. 2:
Preflop:
UTG limp (30/6/.5)
CO limp
Button limp
Hero raises to $80 from SB
UTG call
CO call
Button fold
Flop:
5c 3h 9s
Hero bets $200
UTG calls
CO folds
Turn:
4h
Hero checks.
UTG is all in for $734 into $660 pot.
Hero folds.
Hand No. 3:
Preflop:
Hero raises to $30 from MP
BB calls (same player as in Hand No. 2, but about an hour has passed)
Flop:
Ts 9h 8s
BB checks
Hero bets $50 into $65
BB calls
Turn:
9s (Neither of my Aces is a spade)
BB bets $90 into $165
Hero folds.
Those sucked. But calling or raising may well have sucked more.
I told him something I try to tell myself:
You always want to play strongly in poker, and you never want to be weak. When your opponent has the better hand, is it stronger to pay him off or to fold? Many times the strongest play is to know when you're beat.
When I'm on any degree of tilt, the most immediate difference in my game that I see is a tendency to call potential bluffs more often. It's one of my biggest leaks. I have a hard time folding when I have a sense that I have the worst hand but my opponent's actions don't make sense. In these situations, my tendency is to call a player who could only have a ridiculous hand to beat mine rather than letting my hand go.
There's no easy fix for this flaw except to play patiently and be constantly aware of my actions. Quit spewing chips. Just fold. Save money and move on. Let the small pots go.
Here are three AA hands from tonight's play. I had to fold them, and I think I was right to do so. Anyone feel differently? Assume 100 BB stacks at a 5/10 NL game.
Hand 1:
Preflop:
Hero raises UTG to $30. Everyone folds except for a loose SB (75/22/.94).
Flop:
Kd 9h 4s
SB checks.
Hero bets $55.
SB calls
Turn:
8d
SB checks
Hero bets $165 into $180 pot.
SB check-raises to $330
Hero folds.
Hand No. 2:
Preflop:
UTG limp (30/6/.5)
CO limp
Button limp
Hero raises to $80 from SB
UTG call
CO call
Button fold
Flop:
5c 3h 9s
Hero bets $200
UTG calls
CO folds
Turn:
4h
Hero checks.
UTG is all in for $734 into $660 pot.
Hero folds.
Hand No. 3:
Preflop:
Hero raises to $30 from MP
BB calls (same player as in Hand No. 2, but about an hour has passed)
Flop:
Ts 9h 8s
BB checks
Hero bets $50 into $65
BB calls
Turn:
9s (Neither of my Aces is a spade)
BB bets $90 into $165
Hero folds.
Those sucked. But calling or raising may well have sucked more.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
QQ option
Playing QQ doesn't have to be so hard as I think it is sometimes.
I've done plenty of math and written a few posts about how to play QQ preflop and on the flop.
But I neglected to discuss a different option, which is the most obvious move of all. In many situations, it's the best move:
Just 4-bet with QQ preflop and see what happens.
Many players will fold anything but AA and KK at that point. Others will call or push with AK. Some will call or push with even JJ-99 or AQ.
With a read on your opponent, re-re-raising with QQ is often the strongest and most profitable way to go, especially if you can get away from it when it's no good and call an all-in those occasions when it is.
I've done plenty of math and written a few posts about how to play QQ preflop and on the flop.
But I neglected to discuss a different option, which is the most obvious move of all. In many situations, it's the best move:
Just 4-bet with QQ preflop and see what happens.
Many players will fold anything but AA and KK at that point. Others will call or push with AK. Some will call or push with even JJ-99 or AQ.
With a read on your opponent, re-re-raising with QQ is often the strongest and most profitable way to go, especially if you can get away from it when it's no good and call an all-in those occasions when it is.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Response to 'Poker is About ...'
Quite a few poker players weighed in with their thoughts on the goal of poker. My favorite response came from Drizz:
That seems like great advice to me. Poker doesn't have to be narrowed down into one of three choices I listed in the previous post. Players can win simply by concentrating on playing well, although that means different things for different players.
I was glad to hear a diversity of viewpoints from players who prefer to manage risk, adapt varying styles depending on the game format or avoid tough decisions.
Others suggested their own approaches.
The largest group echoed the idea that poker is about decision-making, which is what I was trying to emphasize in the original post. The way to win the most money is to reason through the hand, analyze your opponents, identify patterns, evaluate the likely outcome and make the best choice given the facts at hand.
Plenty of winning players simply fold in tough situations or forgo small edges in exchange for a better spot. These strategies are OK, but they're not always ideal (at least in a cash game).
My underlying thought is you should always make the play that you think is best, whether it's easy or marginal. I know I'm in trouble when I dodge tough situations because I'm afraid of losing.
---
Recommended Reading: Are you kidding me, Full Tilt?
I just trying to avoid sucking.
People that suck don't normally win.
That seems like great advice to me. Poker doesn't have to be narrowed down into one of three choices I listed in the previous post. Players can win simply by concentrating on playing well, although that means different things for different players.
I was glad to hear a diversity of viewpoints from players who prefer to manage risk, adapt varying styles depending on the game format or avoid tough decisions.
Others suggested their own approaches.
The largest group echoed the idea that poker is about decision-making, which is what I was trying to emphasize in the original post. The way to win the most money is to reason through the hand, analyze your opponents, identify patterns, evaluate the likely outcome and make the best choice given the facts at hand.
Plenty of winning players simply fold in tough situations or forgo small edges in exchange for a better spot. These strategies are OK, but they're not always ideal (at least in a cash game).
My underlying thought is you should always make the play that you think is best, whether it's easy or marginal. I know I'm in trouble when I dodge tough situations because I'm afraid of losing.
---
Recommended Reading: Are you kidding me, Full Tilt?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
10/20 Third Impressions
This one-table SNG with a top-heavy first prize will be awesome:
Fuel, Lucko and myself are already signed up.
---
My third attempt at cracking 10/20 again fell short. Part of it was bad beats; part of it was bad play.
I lasted longer at 10/20 this time than in my previous tries, in part because I came prepared with 30+ buy-ins. I played 10/20 as my main game for all of January and the beginning of February, and I quit down five buy-ins overall. It's a small amount in the grand scheme of things, but I wanted to step down and recoup before I lost any more.
There's a clear difference in skill level between 5/10 and 10/20. I remember when I first started playing 5/10, I thought it was easier to beat than 3/6. That was not the case at all this time.
Sure you'll still occasionally find donks who will make the game good for a short time before they go bust. But in general, most of the players share a couple of common traits: they're relentlessly aggressive and they know their fundamentals. You don't see nearly as many minraisers or passive calling stations.
I could have easily won big if a few key hands had gone differently. I won't waste time recounting the beats. If anything, the coolers reassure me that I'm fully capable of beating this limit, but I may not be quite ready to handle it full-time just yet.
My worst mistake at 10/20 -- and this is a big one -- is that I had a hard time finding the fold button when I had a clue I was beaten. There's more bluffing at higher limits, so I found it easier to rationalize calling with top pair or an overpair. Sometimes I was right, but not often enough.
So until next time, I'll go back to working on shoring up leaks and rebuilding bankroll at 5/10 for a while. I want to get safely into the black for the year before taking another shot at 10/20.
I thought a little about just staying at 5/10 permanently. I could do that and be relatively happy.
But I don't think I can remain stagnant when I feel confident that I can beat the bigger game. Now back to work.
Fuel, Lucko and myself are already signed up.
---
My third attempt at cracking 10/20 again fell short. Part of it was bad beats; part of it was bad play.
I lasted longer at 10/20 this time than in my previous tries, in part because I came prepared with 30+ buy-ins. I played 10/20 as my main game for all of January and the beginning of February, and I quit down five buy-ins overall. It's a small amount in the grand scheme of things, but I wanted to step down and recoup before I lost any more.
There's a clear difference in skill level between 5/10 and 10/20. I remember when I first started playing 5/10, I thought it was easier to beat than 3/6. That was not the case at all this time.
Sure you'll still occasionally find donks who will make the game good for a short time before they go bust. But in general, most of the players share a couple of common traits: they're relentlessly aggressive and they know their fundamentals. You don't see nearly as many minraisers or passive calling stations.
I could have easily won big if a few key hands had gone differently. I won't waste time recounting the beats. If anything, the coolers reassure me that I'm fully capable of beating this limit, but I may not be quite ready to handle it full-time just yet.
My worst mistake at 10/20 -- and this is a big one -- is that I had a hard time finding the fold button when I had a clue I was beaten. There's more bluffing at higher limits, so I found it easier to rationalize calling with top pair or an overpair. Sometimes I was right, but not often enough.
So until next time, I'll go back to working on shoring up leaks and rebuilding bankroll at 5/10 for a while. I want to get safely into the black for the year before taking another shot at 10/20.
I thought a little about just staying at 5/10 permanently. I could do that and be relatively happy.
But I don't think I can remain stagnant when I feel confident that I can beat the bigger game. Now back to work.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
HUCVI: One and Done
Congratulations to Matty Ebs aka NoNotReally for taking me out in the first round of the Heads-up Challenge VI. (Not sure if he has a blog to link to.)
He played an aggressive match that went three games. We finally got it all in on JJ7 flop when I held QQ and he held AK. Of course the Ace on the river screwed me. I'm going to resist posting all the bad beats from Aces falling on the river this weekend.
I almost lost the very first hand of our match when I flopped top pair with 75o on a 627 board with two diamonds. I bet the flop, got raised, and called. I check-raised the turn when a King fell, and Ebs called again. Then I went all-in on the river when an offsuit Ace dropped. I didn't like the Ace because it would give a lot of flush draws top pair, but I thought it was more likely Ebs was on some kind of draw. Since none of the draws got there, I was happy to see Ebs fold.
My early lead didn't last long. I dropped down in chips but then finally came back to win the first game on the strength of two preflop all-ins at the 30/60 level: AK vs. AQ and KT vs. K9. Amazingly, both held up.
The second match went differently. This time I took a commanding lead early when I turned the nut flush, but couldn't hold on. I tried hard to dig in, keep my lead and put the match away, but Ebs clawed back. We were pretty even in chips when I made an all-in move preflop with A6s at the 40/80 level and he called with 33. He flopped a set and it was all over.
The third match was the shortest of the series. I felt good about calling his 4-bet preflop with QQ and then checking to him on the JJx flop. I put him on a strong hand, and I was willing to go out to AA or KK if that's what he had. But if he had AK, I wanted to make sure I still had an overpair before committing my stack. He pushed all in, and I called. The river was not kind.
Ebs made some strong moves and didn't make a few of the mistakes I did (like shoving all-in preflop in hopes of antagonizing him while he was down). His main weakness that I saw was a tendency to call a little bit light.
I'll be pulling for Ebs in Round Two as he faces the winner of Mike_Maloney and Riggstad's match. Go Ebs!
He played an aggressive match that went three games. We finally got it all in on JJ7 flop when I held QQ and he held AK. Of course the Ace on the river screwed me. I'm going to resist posting all the bad beats from Aces falling on the river this weekend.
I almost lost the very first hand of our match when I flopped top pair with 75o on a 627 board with two diamonds. I bet the flop, got raised, and called. I check-raised the turn when a King fell, and Ebs called again. Then I went all-in on the river when an offsuit Ace dropped. I didn't like the Ace because it would give a lot of flush draws top pair, but I thought it was more likely Ebs was on some kind of draw. Since none of the draws got there, I was happy to see Ebs fold.
My early lead didn't last long. I dropped down in chips but then finally came back to win the first game on the strength of two preflop all-ins at the 30/60 level: AK vs. AQ and KT vs. K9. Amazingly, both held up.
The second match went differently. This time I took a commanding lead early when I turned the nut flush, but couldn't hold on. I tried hard to dig in, keep my lead and put the match away, but Ebs clawed back. We were pretty even in chips when I made an all-in move preflop with A6s at the 40/80 level and he called with 33. He flopped a set and it was all over.
The third match was the shortest of the series. I felt good about calling his 4-bet preflop with QQ and then checking to him on the JJx flop. I put him on a strong hand, and I was willing to go out to AA or KK if that's what he had. But if he had AK, I wanted to make sure I still had an overpair before committing my stack. He pushed all in, and I called. The river was not kind.
Ebs made some strong moves and didn't make a few of the mistakes I did (like shoving all-in preflop in hopes of antagonizing him while he was down). His main weakness that I saw was a tendency to call a little bit light.
I'll be pulling for Ebs in Round Two as he faces the winner of Mike_Maloney and Riggstad's match. Go Ebs!
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Blogger Cash
The blogger 4/8 NL deepstack game featured monsters, coolers and bluffs. Several bloggers won money, including Weak Player, who was the big winner with a stack over $4,000 by the time he was through.
The company was great, everyone tried to bring their A games and I had a lot of fun. It gets a little tense playing for not insignificant amounts of money against people who have as good of a chance of seeing through you as you have of them. I don't get that kind of rush playing against no-name opponents.
In addition to Weak Player, Waffles, Fuel55, Bone_Daddy84, Rake Feeder, Cmitch, RecessRampage, Poker Grind and I put some money on the table.
Waffles generated the most action early on, and he did well until he got his shortstack committed preflop and then pushed his 77 into Rake Feeder's AQ on an Ace-high flop.
Weak Player won the largest pots of the night when he flopped a set of 2s against Bone Daddy's pocket Aces. He also flopped a set of Queens against a set of Eights against a non-blogger. Those pots were each worth about $2,400.
My favorite hand of the night came when Waffles and Fuel both flopped flushes, with Waffles' nut flush taking down a $1,137 pot.
Bone Daddy also hit it hard when his KK got in against AK on a K-high flop.
I made money in two medium-sized pots. One came when Poker Grind was shortstacked and pushed his flush draw on the turn into my pair of 8s. Then against Rake Feeder, I called his small blind raise with QT and flopped two pair. He bet pot, I raised, he reraised, and then he folded to my all-in bet. He said he had AQ.
I came out ahead for the night about $900 at the blogger table, and $200 overall after you deduct my stake in Waffles. Even though it didn't pay off this time, he was a worthy investment because he added a lot of life to the game. And I won anyway, so screw it.
If anyone wants me to e-mail or post other hand histories, let me know.
As the game wound down, we talked about when we can have another Blogger Hard Money Game again. A few people suggested moving the stakes to the 2.5/5 deepstack tables. Those limits will appeal to more people while still leaving plenty of room for big wins. We should do this at least once a month as long as enough people want to play.
GG!
The company was great, everyone tried to bring their A games and I had a lot of fun. It gets a little tense playing for not insignificant amounts of money against people who have as good of a chance of seeing through you as you have of them. I don't get that kind of rush playing against no-name opponents.
In addition to Weak Player, Waffles, Fuel55, Bone_Daddy84, Rake Feeder, Cmitch, RecessRampage, Poker Grind and I put some money on the table.
Waffles generated the most action early on, and he did well until he got his shortstack committed preflop and then pushed his 77 into Rake Feeder's AQ on an Ace-high flop.
Weak Player won the largest pots of the night when he flopped a set of 2s against Bone Daddy's pocket Aces. He also flopped a set of Queens against a set of Eights against a non-blogger. Those pots were each worth about $2,400.
My favorite hand of the night came when Waffles and Fuel both flopped flushes, with Waffles' nut flush taking down a $1,137 pot.
Bone Daddy also hit it hard when his KK got in against AK on a K-high flop.
I made money in two medium-sized pots. One came when Poker Grind was shortstacked and pushed his flush draw on the turn into my pair of 8s. Then against Rake Feeder, I called his small blind raise with QT and flopped two pair. He bet pot, I raised, he reraised, and then he folded to my all-in bet. He said he had AQ.
I came out ahead for the night about $900 at the blogger table, and $200 overall after you deduct my stake in Waffles. Even though it didn't pay off this time, he was a worthy investment because he added a lot of life to the game. And I won anyway, so screw it.
If anyone wants me to e-mail or post other hand histories, let me know.
As the game wound down, we talked about when we can have another Blogger Hard Money Game again. A few people suggested moving the stakes to the 2.5/5 deepstack tables. Those limits will appeal to more people while still leaving plenty of room for big wins. We should do this at least once a month as long as enough people want to play.
GG!
Friday, February 01, 2008
I don't think this is right
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Bob Ciaffone, but his "open-book test" in this month's issue of Card Player Magazine seems wrong to me:
In that situation, the player with top pair can expect to win the $900 pot about two-thirds of the time if he pushes in on the flop and the drawing hand calls, giving the top pair player an expected value of $300.
But if the player with top pair waits until the turn, his expected value is only $180 because he'll lose the current $300 pot 20 percent of the time when the flush card hits and win the $300 pot 80 percent of the time.
He's giving up a lot of value!
It's entirely possible that I'm thinking about this problem incorrectly, and please let me know if that's the case. But it seems to me that Ciaffone believes that just because the flush draw has to call given the pot odds, the top pair hand should give the drawing hand a free card.
That just isn't right because the top pair hand will still win most of the time, and the pot will be larger.
---
Don't forget the Ultimate Blogger Cash Game coming up Wednesday during the Mookie. Please let Fuel or me know if you plan to play.
Let's look at a similar type of situation in no-limit hold'em. Here is an open-book test: The pot is $100 and both you and your opponent have $400 left. You have top pair and your opponent is drawing. He acts first and bets the pot ($100); what strategy should you adopt if each of you can at this point now see each other's holecards? The proper answer is found by counting the outs. If the made hand will be better than a 2-to-1 favorite with two cards to come, you can lock up the pot by moving in on the flop, as the money odds offered to the draw when a pot-size bet is made are exactly that amount. However, if the made hand is less than a 2-to-1 favorite, the better play is to see what comes on the turn. If the draw hits, you fold. If the draw misses, you move in. This is a good illustration of the scenario that the draw wants to avoid.OK. Let's assume the drawing hand is a flush draw, which is a good example hand because it gives that player close to a one-third chance of winning the pot with two cards to come.
In that situation, the player with top pair can expect to win the $900 pot about two-thirds of the time if he pushes in on the flop and the drawing hand calls, giving the top pair player an expected value of $300.
But if the player with top pair waits until the turn, his expected value is only $180 because he'll lose the current $300 pot 20 percent of the time when the flush card hits and win the $300 pot 80 percent of the time.
He's giving up a lot of value!
It's entirely possible that I'm thinking about this problem incorrectly, and please let me know if that's the case. But it seems to me that Ciaffone believes that just because the flush draw has to call given the pot odds, the top pair hand should give the drawing hand a free card.
That just isn't right because the top pair hand will still win most of the time, and the pot will be larger.
---
Don't forget the Ultimate Blogger Cash Game coming up Wednesday during the Mookie. Please let Fuel or me know if you plan to play.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Don't go bust with one pair
I hate losing with high pocket pairs.
It's great when they hold up against a bluff or underpair. But it sucks to lose lots of bets when my opponent gets his money in good against my transparent holding.
Then there are also times when it's difficult to tell whether getting busted was due to bad play or if it's a setup hand.
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 2: josh3336 ($2,086) This guy is a regular who completely pwns me
Seat 5: smizmiatch ($1,015) -
PRE-FLOP:
cnorgl posts small blind $5
smizmiatch posts BIG blind $10
Dealt To: smizmiatch
3 folds
RAISE josh3336 ($35) from cutoff
1 fold
CALL cnorgl ($30) from SB
RAISE smizmiatch ($150) from BB
CALL josh3336 ($115)
FOLD cnorgl
FLOP:
Pot: $335
CHECK smizmiatch My line in these situations is to continuation bet on flops with an Ace or King in hopes of getting a fold right there, but slow down in hopes of inducing extra bets from hands that I beat like AK, JJ, any flush draw or any straight draw. I believe I'm ahead most of the time but I still give myself room to fold.
BET josh3336 ($200)
CALL smizmiatch ($200)
TURN:
Pot: $735
CHECK smizmiatch
BET josh3336 ($410) This is a pretty strong bet.
RAISE smizmiatch ($665) But I can't get away on such a nondescript flop that helped my hand on the turn.
CALL josh3336 ($255)
RIVER:
Pot: $2065
SHOWDOWN:
smizmiatch:
josh3336:
josh3336 collected $2062 from main pot with two pair, Aces and Twos
I'd like to think this is a cooler, but maybe I could have folded on the turn when josh3336 fired a second bullet. His cold call of my 3bet preflop really screwed me.
Here's another one:
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 1: uglystyles ($621.75)
Seat 2: CheckingAccount ($639)
Seat 3: nyinc ($1,226.15) -
Seat 4: smizmiatch ($585) -
Seat 5: WallyWattz1 ($634) -
Seat 6: chunjung ($243.65)
PRE-FLOP:
smizmiatch posts small blind $3
WallyWattz1 posts BIG blind $6
Dealt To: smizmiatch
1 FOLD
1 RAISE uglystyles ($21)
1 FOLD CALL nyinc ($21)
RAISE smizmiatch ($100)
1 FOLD from BB
FOLD uglystyles
CALL nyinc ($79)
FLOP:
Pot: $227
BET smizmiatch ($165) I have to think I'm ahead, right?
RAISE nyinc ($486) I guess he could have a set, but it seemed more likely at the time he had overcards with a flush draw or some other kind of draw. I certainly didn't expect him to show up with an overpair after cold calling two bets
CALL smizmiatch ($320)
UNCALLED nyinc ($1)
TURN:
Pot: $1197
RIVER:
Pot: $1197
SHOWDOWN:
nyinc:
smizmiatch:
nyinc collected $1194 from main pot with two pair, Queens and Eights
I don't know. I guess I should just fold and move on. Losing money with overpairs to the board like this feels like a big leak.
---
It's great when they hold up against a bluff or underpair. But it sucks to lose lots of bets when my opponent gets his money in good against my transparent holding.
Then there are also times when it's difficult to tell whether getting busted was due to bad play or if it's a setup hand.
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 2: josh3336 ($2,086) This guy is a regular who completely pwns me
Seat 5: smizmiatch ($1,015) -
PRE-FLOP:
cnorgl posts small blind $5
smizmiatch posts BIG blind $10
Dealt To: smizmiatch
3 folds
RAISE josh3336 ($35) from cutoff
1 fold
CALL cnorgl ($30) from SB
RAISE smizmiatch ($150) from BB
CALL josh3336 ($115)
FOLD cnorgl
FLOP:
Pot: $335
CHECK smizmiatch My line in these situations is to continuation bet on flops with an Ace or King in hopes of getting a fold right there, but slow down in hopes of inducing extra bets from hands that I beat like AK, JJ, any flush draw or any straight draw. I believe I'm ahead most of the time but I still give myself room to fold.
BET josh3336 ($200)
CALL smizmiatch ($200)
TURN:
Pot: $735
CHECK smizmiatch
BET josh3336 ($410) This is a pretty strong bet.
RAISE smizmiatch ($665) But I can't get away on such a nondescript flop that helped my hand on the turn.
CALL josh3336 ($255)
RIVER:
Pot: $2065
SHOWDOWN:
smizmiatch:
josh3336:
josh3336 collected $2062 from main pot with two pair, Aces and Twos
I'd like to think this is a cooler, but maybe I could have folded on the turn when josh3336 fired a second bullet. His cold call of my 3bet preflop really screwed me.
Here's another one:
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 1: uglystyles ($621.75)
Seat 2: CheckingAccount ($639)
Seat 3: nyinc ($1,226.15) -
Seat 4: smizmiatch ($585) -
Seat 5: WallyWattz1 ($634) -
Seat 6: chunjung ($243.65)
PRE-FLOP:
smizmiatch posts small blind $3
WallyWattz1 posts BIG blind $6
Dealt To: smizmiatch
1 FOLD
1 RAISE uglystyles ($21)
1 FOLD CALL nyinc ($21)
RAISE smizmiatch ($100)
1 FOLD from BB
FOLD uglystyles
CALL nyinc ($79)
FLOP:
Pot: $227
BET smizmiatch ($165) I have to think I'm ahead, right?
RAISE nyinc ($486) I guess he could have a set, but it seemed more likely at the time he had overcards with a flush draw or some other kind of draw. I certainly didn't expect him to show up with an overpair after cold calling two bets
CALL smizmiatch ($320)
UNCALLED nyinc ($1)
TURN:
Pot: $1197
RIVER:
Pot: $1197
SHOWDOWN:
nyinc:
smizmiatch:
nyinc collected $1194 from main pot with two pair, Queens and Eights
I don't know. I guess I should just fold and move on. Losing money with overpairs to the board like this feels like a big leak.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
