Things to do when losing:
1. Step down in stakes.
2. Buckle down, review hands and study harder.
3. Tighten up.
4. Refocus on hand reading and hand ranges.
Showing posts with label variance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label variance. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
What if you started online poker with a bunch of beats?
Some follow-up thoughts to my last post:
My point was that an overpair with a flush draw on a coordinated, single-suited flop is often a dog heads-up against an opponent who pushes all in on the flop. I didn't mean to suggest that the overpair is always behind, but it does tend to trail the range of possible hands.
This is when hand reading, pot odds and table image become important. Many times, a call will be the correct move. But in the two hand histories I posted, I think it was fairly clear that I should have folded. The pots weren't exceedingly large and the hand ranges of my opponents were pretty narrow.
---
I should be posting more often, but it gets hard to write about poker when good cards seem so evasive. I've been winning one day and losing the next, which has put me close to even over the last few weeks. I can't get much action, sets don't hold up, double-ups seem to be canceled out by beats, blah, blah, blah.
I'll say this: the games are good, and I'm playing well. Results will come.
I'm reminded of a topic that Kuro and I used to talk about a couple of years ago.
We were both primarily limit hold 'em players at the time, and we were discussing when to move up and how much bankroll is needed to support each limit. The accepted wisdom at the time was that 300 big bets were required, but I've now come to believe that 500 bets should be the minimum. The reasoning for having 300 bets is that it would minimize your risk of ruin because deep downswings are not only possible, but they're actually likely in the long run.
Anyway, the question in our conversation was: "What if a new online player started their poker career on a 300 bet downswing?"
Surely there are many players out there with a lot of potential who just get crushed when they start playing, even at the low limits. They may know poker from live games but can't seem to beat internet poker because they didn't anticipate the long-term swings of the game.
Most players who start on a 300 bet downswing would simply stop playing after coming to the conclusion that they're not good enough to beat the online game. They may never realize their potential because they aren't prepared to accept that results only accurately mirror skill over tens of thousands of hands.
As Mike Caro says, the goal of poker isn't to win money. The goal of poker is to make correct decisions. If you keep making the right choices, the profits will follow in the long run. Unfortunately, the long run can be a long time coming.
My point was that an overpair with a flush draw on a coordinated, single-suited flop is often a dog heads-up against an opponent who pushes all in on the flop. I didn't mean to suggest that the overpair is always behind, but it does tend to trail the range of possible hands.
This is when hand reading, pot odds and table image become important. Many times, a call will be the correct move. But in the two hand histories I posted, I think it was fairly clear that I should have folded. The pots weren't exceedingly large and the hand ranges of my opponents were pretty narrow.
---
I should be posting more often, but it gets hard to write about poker when good cards seem so evasive. I've been winning one day and losing the next, which has put me close to even over the last few weeks. I can't get much action, sets don't hold up, double-ups seem to be canceled out by beats, blah, blah, blah.
I'll say this: the games are good, and I'm playing well. Results will come.
I'm reminded of a topic that Kuro and I used to talk about a couple of years ago.
We were both primarily limit hold 'em players at the time, and we were discussing when to move up and how much bankroll is needed to support each limit. The accepted wisdom at the time was that 300 big bets were required, but I've now come to believe that 500 bets should be the minimum. The reasoning for having 300 bets is that it would minimize your risk of ruin because deep downswings are not only possible, but they're actually likely in the long run.
Anyway, the question in our conversation was: "What if a new online player started their poker career on a 300 bet downswing?"
Surely there are many players out there with a lot of potential who just get crushed when they start playing, even at the low limits. They may know poker from live games but can't seem to beat internet poker because they didn't anticipate the long-term swings of the game.
Most players who start on a 300 bet downswing would simply stop playing after coming to the conclusion that they're not good enough to beat the online game. They may never realize their potential because they aren't prepared to accept that results only accurately mirror skill over tens of thousands of hands.
As Mike Caro says, the goal of poker isn't to win money. The goal of poker is to make correct decisions. If you keep making the right choices, the profits will follow in the long run. Unfortunately, the long run can be a long time coming.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Break Time
The last thing I want to do when running bad is take a break.
But it's the right thing to do. Even though I still feel like I'm playing well, I'm too easily tilted right now.
I like to think I've gotten better at handling downswings, but it's hard to lose 20 5/10 buyins over six weeks, most of them due to bad beats that I won't recount here. Before this, I had never lost more than 10 buy-ins in a row in no limit play.
Once again, I'm thankful for the cushion of my bankroll.
Bleh. Stupid poker.
But it's the right thing to do. Even though I still feel like I'm playing well, I'm too easily tilted right now.
I like to think I've gotten better at handling downswings, but it's hard to lose 20 5/10 buyins over six weeks, most of them due to bad beats that I won't recount here. Before this, I had never lost more than 10 buy-ins in a row in no limit play.
Once again, I'm thankful for the cushion of my bankroll.
Bleh. Stupid poker.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Confusion over Variance
Variance as it relates to poker is difficult to understand, both because the element of luck is hard to quantify and the mathematical function for variance doesn't provide many answers.
What does variance mean exactly?
In my mind, the term variance is used in poker to describe the amount of luck in any given game -- not the amount of swings. So when you say a game is high variance, that means the game's results are more likely to be determined by the cards that are dealt than by players' decisions.
Here are some definitions of variance:
1. Variance is the statistical measure of dispersion, or just how widely your results will be distributed. When variance is high enough, a small advantage may be of no use during your lifetime. When variance is low enough, a small sample will be much more likely to reflect your real advantage (or disadvantage). In other words, variance describes just how long the long haul is. In poker terms, high variance means that a small number of hands will not be very representative of your long-term expectation.
--Seriouspoker.com
2. The distribution of your results over a a set of hands or sessions, or the swings in a positive or negative direction of cash flow.
--Mike Caro University.
3. If
operatorname{E}(X)"> is the expected value (mean) of the random variable X, then the variance is
This definition and equation is meaningless to me, but I like weird-looking variables.
--Wikipedia
As a poker player, I want to know which games maximize my skill edge over my opposition.
I asked the question, "what type of game has 'more' variance between no limit, limit and tournament hold 'em?" in the 2+2 Beginners forum. The responses to that thread, Variance: NL vs. Limit vs. MTT, back up my beliefs.
I only got three responses, but they were in agreement. Multi-table tournament hold 'em seems to have the highest variance, followed by limit hold 'em and no limit hold 'em.
While no limit seems to be "high variance" because you may have to put your entire stack at risk at any time, in reality the ups and downs aren't too extreme. No limit provides the best opportunity to get the most money in with the best odds. It's the game that will separate a fish from his money the quickest. It has fewer suckouts than limit or MTTs.
For a closer look at how to attempt a poker calculation of your variance, I found this article titled, "How much bankroll do you need?" in a search.
I also enjoyed a Mike Caro article published in Bluff magazine a few months ago, in which he argued that your luck may not even out in the long run, contrary to popular belief. Check it out here: "The importance of luck in poker."
What does variance mean exactly?
In my mind, the term variance is used in poker to describe the amount of luck in any given game -- not the amount of swings. So when you say a game is high variance, that means the game's results are more likely to be determined by the cards that are dealt than by players' decisions.
Here are some definitions of variance:
1. Variance is the statistical measure of dispersion, or just how widely your results will be distributed. When variance is high enough, a small advantage may be of no use during your lifetime. When variance is low enough, a small sample will be much more likely to reflect your real advantage (or disadvantage). In other words, variance describes just how long the long haul is. In poker terms, high variance means that a small number of hands will not be very representative of your long-term expectation.
--Seriouspoker.com
2. The distribution of your results over a a set of hands or sessions, or the swings in a positive or negative direction of cash flow.
--Mike Caro University.
3. If
operatorname{E}(X)"> is the expected value (mean) of the random variable X, then the variance is This definition and equation is meaningless to me, but I like weird-looking variables.--Wikipedia
As a poker player, I want to know which games maximize my skill edge over my opposition.
I asked the question, "what type of game has 'more' variance between no limit, limit and tournament hold 'em?" in the 2+2 Beginners forum. The responses to that thread, Variance: NL vs. Limit vs. MTT, back up my beliefs.
I only got three responses, but they were in agreement. Multi-table tournament hold 'em seems to have the highest variance, followed by limit hold 'em and no limit hold 'em.
While no limit seems to be "high variance" because you may have to put your entire stack at risk at any time, in reality the ups and downs aren't too extreme. No limit provides the best opportunity to get the most money in with the best odds. It's the game that will separate a fish from his money the quickest. It has fewer suckouts than limit or MTTs.
For a closer look at how to attempt a poker calculation of your variance, I found this article titled, "How much bankroll do you need?" in a search.
I also enjoyed a Mike Caro article published in Bluff magazine a few months ago, in which he argued that your luck may not even out in the long run, contrary to popular belief. Check it out here: "The importance of luck in poker."
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The Perfect Donkey
After a long road of busting fish, taking small edges and building bankroll, you hope for that golden opportunity in which you'll be able to make a big score.
I stumbled upon that chance at a 10/20 table last night. I can't imagine there was more dead money at any other online table at the time. And it all came from one player, who I will call the Perfect Donkey. I got a seat directly to his left.
Perfect Donkey was loose (55 percent VP$IP), and he spewed chips at every opportunity and in a predictable manner. If he raised preflop and was reraised, he would go all in. If he bet out postflop and was raised, he would go all in with any Ace-high, pair or drawing hand. With made hands, he would minraise.
By sheer luck, he was building a monster stack. In 255 hands, I saw Perfect Donkey win a more than $5,000 pot with King-high, no draw against another player's flush draw with overcards. He got in with a flush draw on the turn and hit on the river against KK. He pushed with A6o on a 579 flop and hit his gutshot on the turn against JJ. He pushed an open-ended straight draw on the flop against QQ and hit on the turn.
I knew I would have a chance soon to pick a spot in a large pot.
It's funny -- after learning and playing day after day, the situation that I've been waiting for is to the left of an idiot with money. Everyone else at the table is a shark, but they didn't even bother to play against each other most of the time as they salivated over the thought of getting it in against Perfect Donkey. If Perfect Donkey wasn't in a hand, no one was.
Against this guy, I would happily take a potential coinflip because I could also have him completely dominated.
So when I was dealt AK, I reraised Perfect Donkey's $80 bet to $240, knowing he would push and I would call.
That's exactly what happened. He turned over KQ, missed a Queen, and I had doubled up!
Now with my double-sized stack, I would have a chance to make some serious money off Perfect Donkey, who somehow kept growing his chips upwards of $10,000 -- five times his initial buy-in of $2,000.
I didn't have to wait long.
I raised from under the gun with A9s. Perfect Donkey called in the big blind. The flop came a beautiful 8d, 9c, 5d to give me top pair with a nut flush draw. My only goal was to get all my money in the middle as soon as possible, and I knew it wouldn't be hard against this guy.
He bet out $60, and I raised him all in to $4,100. He called and turned over J8o for second pair, no draw.
Only a few hands later, Perfect Donkey minraised to $40, and I cold called from the button with KQ. The flop was nice, if a little dangerous: Ts, 7h, Kh. My top pair, middle kicker, no-draw hand was probably good here.
Perfect Donkey bet out $100, I raised to $300, he pushed and I called. He turned over Ah 5d, failed to improve, and I was back in business.
I chipped up to over $5,000 with the hopes of one more strong hand against this guy. One more hand to win the biggest pot of my life. One more hand to erase this month's losses. One more hand to make everything right, put a bad player in his place and feel good until I sit down at the World Series of Poker in less than two weeks.
Perfect Donkey raised to $80, and I found AK again. I know how to play this hand against this guy. I re-raised to $300, and he went all in for his entire $11,000 stack.
Did I have a decision to make here? Was there any doubt about calling another $4,700 and taking a potential coinflip?
No, there was no question. I know full well what this guy is capable of. If I fold a premium hand like AK preflop against Perfect Donkey, I might as well put my bankroll in low-risk bonds and never take another chance again in my life.
This is what I had been waiting for. I knew what I had to do. I called.
I got my coinflip. Perfect Donkey had JJ, I failed to improve, and I had lost my biggest pot. So be it.
I rebought a third time, prepared to stay up all night if that's what it took to bust this guy. But it was no use. He quit shortly afterward, leaving the table with more than $20,000. I went on to a 5/10 table where I made top set of Aces and got it all in on the turn, but an 8 on the river gave my opponent his one-outer for quads. Flopped set over set no good.
Time to rebuild. Time to grind it out. Time to get ready for the next Perfect Donkey, in hopes that I can take those same bets for thousands of dollars but perhaps with different outcomes.
I stumbled upon that chance at a 10/20 table last night. I can't imagine there was more dead money at any other online table at the time. And it all came from one player, who I will call the Perfect Donkey. I got a seat directly to his left.
Perfect Donkey was loose (55 percent VP$IP), and he spewed chips at every opportunity and in a predictable manner. If he raised preflop and was reraised, he would go all in. If he bet out postflop and was raised, he would go all in with any Ace-high, pair or drawing hand. With made hands, he would minraise.
By sheer luck, he was building a monster stack. In 255 hands, I saw Perfect Donkey win a more than $5,000 pot with King-high, no draw against another player's flush draw with overcards. He got in with a flush draw on the turn and hit on the river against KK. He pushed with A6o on a 579 flop and hit his gutshot on the turn against JJ. He pushed an open-ended straight draw on the flop against QQ and hit on the turn.
I knew I would have a chance soon to pick a spot in a large pot.
It's funny -- after learning and playing day after day, the situation that I've been waiting for is to the left of an idiot with money. Everyone else at the table is a shark, but they didn't even bother to play against each other most of the time as they salivated over the thought of getting it in against Perfect Donkey. If Perfect Donkey wasn't in a hand, no one was.
Against this guy, I would happily take a potential coinflip because I could also have him completely dominated.
So when I was dealt AK, I reraised Perfect Donkey's $80 bet to $240, knowing he would push and I would call.
That's exactly what happened. He turned over KQ, missed a Queen, and I had doubled up!
Now with my double-sized stack, I would have a chance to make some serious money off Perfect Donkey, who somehow kept growing his chips upwards of $10,000 -- five times his initial buy-in of $2,000.
I didn't have to wait long.
I raised from under the gun with A9s. Perfect Donkey called in the big blind. The flop came a beautiful 8d, 9c, 5d to give me top pair with a nut flush draw. My only goal was to get all my money in the middle as soon as possible, and I knew it wouldn't be hard against this guy.
He bet out $60, and I raised him all in to $4,100. He called and turned over J8o for second pair, no draw.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2725493The Jack on the river cost me that $8,500 pot when he made two pair. Damn! I would have to rebuy and start over.
pokenum -h ad 9d - 8h jd -- 8d 9c 5d
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing 9c 8d 5d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ad 9d 812 82.02 169 17.07 9 0.91 0.825
Jd 8h 169 17.07 812 82.02 9 0.91 0.175
Only a few hands later, Perfect Donkey minraised to $40, and I cold called from the button with KQ. The flop was nice, if a little dangerous: Ts, 7h, Kh. My top pair, middle kicker, no-draw hand was probably good here.
Perfect Donkey bet out $100, I raised to $300, he pushed and I called. He turned over Ah 5d, failed to improve, and I was back in business.
I chipped up to over $5,000 with the hopes of one more strong hand against this guy. One more hand to win the biggest pot of my life. One more hand to erase this month's losses. One more hand to make everything right, put a bad player in his place and feel good until I sit down at the World Series of Poker in less than two weeks.
Perfect Donkey raised to $80, and I found AK again. I know how to play this hand against this guy. I re-raised to $300, and he went all in for his entire $11,000 stack.
Did I have a decision to make here? Was there any doubt about calling another $4,700 and taking a potential coinflip?
No, there was no question. I know full well what this guy is capable of. If I fold a premium hand like AK preflop against Perfect Donkey, I might as well put my bankroll in low-risk bonds and never take another chance again in my life.
This is what I had been waiting for. I knew what I had to do. I called.
I got my coinflip. Perfect Donkey had JJ, I failed to improve, and I had lost my biggest pot. So be it.
I rebought a third time, prepared to stay up all night if that's what it took to bust this guy. But it was no use. He quit shortly afterward, leaving the table with more than $20,000. I went on to a 5/10 table where I made top set of Aces and got it all in on the turn, but an 8 on the river gave my opponent his one-outer for quads. Flopped set over set no good.
Time to rebuild. Time to grind it out. Time to get ready for the next Perfect Donkey, in hopes that I can take those same bets for thousands of dollars but perhaps with different outcomes.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Pregame
I almost never post before sitting down at the tables for the evening, but perhaps it will put me in the right mindset before I play.
I played pretty damn poorly last night and went on tilt. Don't laugh too hard about the following hand. It was a terrible play:
Dealt to Hero 2h, 2s
Hero raises $35
CO calls $35
Villain/button raises to $180
Hero calls $145
CO folds.
*** Dealing Flop *** 5c, 3s, 9c
Hero checks.
Villain bets $250
Hero is all-In.
Villain calls $673.21
*** Dealing Turn *** Qc
*** Dealing River *** Jh
Villain shows Ac, Ah a pair of Aces.
Villain wins $2254.42 from the main pot with a pair of Aces.
That's right -- I check-raised all-in with a pocket pair of 2s that missed. At the time, I was thinking there was a good chance my opponent had a hand like AK or AQ. Unfortunately, I was wrong and got stacked for $1,000 when I should have just folded the flop. If there's any silver lining to this hand, it's that I realized how stupid it is to try to represent a set by check-raising all in on the flop. No one is going to believe me, especially when they hold AA!
Let us never speak of that hand again.
So tonight, I'm doing things right. I'm watching a CardRunners video before I play. I'm making sure I'll only play in fishy games. Most of all, I'll tighten up a little until I get ahead.
One problem I've been having recently is dealing with aggressive three-betters out of the blinds. I've been losing every time they have a good hand. Even when they don't have a good hand, they've been hitting the flop. There's an easy solution to this problem. I can just fold preflop with some of my more marginal hands that may well be dominated, or I could reraise all in against the true maniacs.
Another difficulty is that when I try to resteal/squeeze play from the blinds, I seem to get called and lose. Out of position squeeze plays don't seem to be +EV recently against players who know I have an aggressive image. To fix this problem, I'll focus even more heavily on playing in position.
In general, my concentration has been spotty over the last couple of weeks, and it has shown in my results. I always plan on playing my best game when I start a session, but often halfway in I can tell that I'm not at my best. Sometimes I have the discipline to stop right then, but most of the time I'll wait until I've reached the two-hour mark before quitting. I'm such a dumbass.
But I keep telling myself that all that crap is in the past. It has no relevance to how I play tonight, except as a motivational tool.
One of the reasons for my big improvement last fall was that I realized I could win a ton more money if I could eliminate idiotic mistakes from my game. Those errors are starting to creep back in, and I want to choke them off right here and now.
Edit: I played OK and lost a small amount. Hey, you can't make cards come.
I played pretty damn poorly last night and went on tilt. Don't laugh too hard about the following hand. It was a terrible play:
Dealt to Hero 2h, 2s
Hero raises $35
CO calls $35
Villain/button raises to $180
Hero calls $145
CO folds.
*** Dealing Flop *** 5c, 3s, 9c
Hero checks.
Villain bets $250
Hero is all-In.
Villain calls $673.21
*** Dealing Turn *** Qc
*** Dealing River *** Jh
Villain shows Ac, Ah a pair of Aces.
Villain wins $2254.42 from the main pot with a pair of Aces.
That's right -- I check-raised all-in with a pocket pair of 2s that missed. At the time, I was thinking there was a good chance my opponent had a hand like AK or AQ. Unfortunately, I was wrong and got stacked for $1,000 when I should have just folded the flop. If there's any silver lining to this hand, it's that I realized how stupid it is to try to represent a set by check-raising all in on the flop. No one is going to believe me, especially when they hold AA!
Let us never speak of that hand again.
So tonight, I'm doing things right. I'm watching a CardRunners video before I play. I'm making sure I'll only play in fishy games. Most of all, I'll tighten up a little until I get ahead.
One problem I've been having recently is dealing with aggressive three-betters out of the blinds. I've been losing every time they have a good hand. Even when they don't have a good hand, they've been hitting the flop. There's an easy solution to this problem. I can just fold preflop with some of my more marginal hands that may well be dominated, or I could reraise all in against the true maniacs.
Another difficulty is that when I try to resteal/squeeze play from the blinds, I seem to get called and lose. Out of position squeeze plays don't seem to be +EV recently against players who know I have an aggressive image. To fix this problem, I'll focus even more heavily on playing in position.
In general, my concentration has been spotty over the last couple of weeks, and it has shown in my results. I always plan on playing my best game when I start a session, but often halfway in I can tell that I'm not at my best. Sometimes I have the discipline to stop right then, but most of the time I'll wait until I've reached the two-hour mark before quitting. I'm such a dumbass.
But I keep telling myself that all that crap is in the past. It has no relevance to how I play tonight, except as a motivational tool.
One of the reasons for my big improvement last fall was that I realized I could win a ton more money if I could eliminate idiotic mistakes from my game. Those errors are starting to creep back in, and I want to choke them off right here and now.
Edit: I played OK and lost a small amount. Hey, you can't make cards come.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Smacked!
Well, I finally hit a rough patch, which was bound to happen at the 10/20 NL games I've been playing. Thankfully, my bankroll is an adequate cushion for these inevitable swings.
It would be one thing if I lost just because of bad beats, but I made some marginal bluffs and all-in bets myself. I had been running so hot that I almost took for granted that I would hit my flush draws or always get folds to my big bets. I forgot a little bit that I'm playing against some solid players who will make pretty accurate reads and make me pay for -EV plays in the long run.
And the long run is what it's all about anyway. Sure, I lost a few buy-ins. But we all know that it happens, and these downswings are insignificant compared to the big picture. I had a bad few hundred hands in which I didn't play my best and ran into some tough situations.
That's in the past. I'll step down to 5/10 for a few days to recover some of the losses, and then pick up right where I left off in a few days (hopefully).
Now it's back to the grind! You gotta love the grind.
---
In other news, congrats to Slb for taking down cc's heads-up challenge! There were 10 runners. I beat cc in my first match after a tough battle. Then Slb took me down in the next round in another back-and-forth match.
Heads-up play is a lot of fun. Cc said he was going to organize this thing again sometime soon, and I hope to see more people show up! In addition, it's one of the few weekday blogger events I'm able to attend because normally I'm still at work (due to the time change) when they're scheduled. This one didn't start till 11 p.m. EST, so I was able to make it.
It would be one thing if I lost just because of bad beats, but I made some marginal bluffs and all-in bets myself. I had been running so hot that I almost took for granted that I would hit my flush draws or always get folds to my big bets. I forgot a little bit that I'm playing against some solid players who will make pretty accurate reads and make me pay for -EV plays in the long run.
And the long run is what it's all about anyway. Sure, I lost a few buy-ins. But we all know that it happens, and these downswings are insignificant compared to the big picture. I had a bad few hundred hands in which I didn't play my best and ran into some tough situations.
That's in the past. I'll step down to 5/10 for a few days to recover some of the losses, and then pick up right where I left off in a few days (hopefully).
Now it's back to the grind! You gotta love the grind.
---
In other news, congrats to Slb for taking down cc's heads-up challenge! There were 10 runners. I beat cc in my first match after a tough battle. Then Slb took me down in the next round in another back-and-forth match.
Heads-up play is a lot of fun. Cc said he was going to organize this thing again sometime soon, and I hope to see more people show up! In addition, it's one of the few weekday blogger events I'm able to attend because normally I'm still at work (due to the time change) when they're scheduled. This one didn't start till 11 p.m. EST, so I was able to make it.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Back in Action
The FTOPS main event was a big, fun tourney in which several bloggers represented -- brdweb, iakaris, fuel, raveen, lucko, hoyazo, cmitch and probably a few others that I'm missing. Congrats to brdweb for his 38th-place finish!
As for me, I finished about 30 outside of the money in 470-something place. This tourney had the best structure of any MTT I have ever played. Starting stacks were very deep, with 5,000 chips to play with and slow-moving blinds. The large stacks made me feel comfortable to take my time and choose my spots carefully, which is something I often fail to do when the blinds are too high in proportion to my stack.
I started off really hot. I was dealt KK twice, took down a couple of pots with flush draws, hit two pair off the blinds twice and caught two sets. At the high-point, I had somewhere around 25,000 chips.
But then I lost it when I moved in with a flush draw and an overcard vs. top pair, top kicker Tens. I feel good about that play because I had no desire to fold my way into the money. I wanted to keep building my stack, and pushing in with a coin-flip on the flop against a weak made hand is the way to do it. A fold would have been super weak.
At the same time, I was playing in the Big Game, which brought out a very tough field. Thanks to MiamiDon for organizing it.
I held the chip lead heading into the final table, but the second- and third-place stacks were directly to my left -- eventual winner Pauly (congrats!) and Fuel.
The crucial hand came against Pauly. I raised with T9s, and he called from the button. The flop came Qc-Tc-4d. My thinking went like this: Pauly cold called from the button, so it's unlikely that he has a strong Queen. The pot was already pretty large, and I felt like he would bet at the flop with any pocket pair, any flopped pair or any draw. I decided that against that kind of range, a pair of Tens wasn't half bad! Because any bet would basically pot commit him, I decided to check-raise him all in. That's exactly what happened, and Pauly turned over Kh-Qh for the best hand, which held up.
Pauly made a good play. His flat call on the flop made me think he had a low pocket pair or a weak drawing hand rather than high cards. I wonder if I out-thought myself by deciding to play a large pot in this spot. If I had bet out on the flop, it's possible I could have folded to a raise. Meh. I pushed and made (sloppy) quad twos a few hands later against 88. Then I busted with TT vs. an Ace that hit.
---
Here's an exerpt from a comment Hoy recently made on MiamiDon's blog. I post it here because I feel the same way he does, except in reverse. My speciality is cash games rather than tourneys:
Perhaps the bottom line is that we feel the swings most at the games we don't excel at, which makes perfect sense.
---
One of those games I don't excel at is shorthanded limit hold 'em. And yet, I continue to take shots at it every once in a while because I want a change in pace from the daily no limit cash game grind against the same freakin' players.
I read on 2+2 recently that many successful shorthanded limit players see close to 40 percent of flops! Because I view limit as being a more mathematical game, I would imagine that this degree of looseness may be close to correct. I don't know and I don't understand how to see so many flops and still be a winning player. It's that lack of comprehension that will forever keep me from being a winner in limit.
So, unless and until I learn how to play a lot better, I'm swearing off shorthanded limit hold 'em at any level above 5/10. It'll save me a lot of money.
---
The inability to deposit and withdraw money from poker sites remains the biggest issue in the poker world. Ever since Neteller stopped doing business with U.S. players and its assets were frozen by the feds, the games have been dropping in quality.
There's no doubt in my mind that the games will steadily get worse until new payment options gain credibility and widespread acceptance. MyWebATM and Giftcard.com are reportedly filling part of the void, but we're a long way away from the ease of transactions we experienced back in the heyday of the USS Neteller and the USS Firepay.
It's interesting to read and hear about the responses of many poker players to the bleak picture in the poker world. Many players have withdrawn their bankrolls or won't play anymore, and that may be appropriate for their situations.
But for me and many other players, those kinds of actions are decidedly -EV. Sure the games are getting tougher, the fish are busting and it's difficult to turn virtual dollars into real ones. On the other hand, nothing has really changed for the player sitting at the table. We still need to scope out the most fishy tables, find the best values, play our best game and grow our bankrolls to the best of our ability. If you're a winning player, I don't understand why the UIGEA would change your approach to the game itself.
---
These last couple of weeks brought a much-needed break from blogging because I felt like my posts were getting worse. I was also feeling paranoid about writing too much about how I play and about the inherent public nature of a blog.
I toyed with the idea of stopping the blog altogether, but the fact is that it makes me a better poker player. Even if I'm just rambling on about random crap (like today for example), at least I'm putting some thought and effort into reflecting on the game.
Now I plan on getting back on schedule. While the primary purpose of this space is to help me become a better poker player, I hope it's also informative, interesting and instructive for you. I realize I'll frequently fall short in this space of achieving those goals, but I'll nail it sometimes, too.
As for me, I finished about 30 outside of the money in 470-something place. This tourney had the best structure of any MTT I have ever played. Starting stacks were very deep, with 5,000 chips to play with and slow-moving blinds. The large stacks made me feel comfortable to take my time and choose my spots carefully, which is something I often fail to do when the blinds are too high in proportion to my stack.
I started off really hot. I was dealt KK twice, took down a couple of pots with flush draws, hit two pair off the blinds twice and caught two sets. At the high-point, I had somewhere around 25,000 chips.
But then I lost it when I moved in with a flush draw and an overcard vs. top pair, top kicker Tens. I feel good about that play because I had no desire to fold my way into the money. I wanted to keep building my stack, and pushing in with a coin-flip on the flop against a weak made hand is the way to do it. A fold would have been super weak.
At the same time, I was playing in the Big Game, which brought out a very tough field. Thanks to MiamiDon for organizing it.
I held the chip lead heading into the final table, but the second- and third-place stacks were directly to my left -- eventual winner Pauly (congrats!) and Fuel.
The crucial hand came against Pauly. I raised with T9s, and he called from the button. The flop came Qc-Tc-4d. My thinking went like this: Pauly cold called from the button, so it's unlikely that he has a strong Queen. The pot was already pretty large, and I felt like he would bet at the flop with any pocket pair, any flopped pair or any draw. I decided that against that kind of range, a pair of Tens wasn't half bad! Because any bet would basically pot commit him, I decided to check-raise him all in. That's exactly what happened, and Pauly turned over Kh-Qh for the best hand, which held up.
Pauly made a good play. His flat call on the flop made me think he had a low pocket pair or a weak drawing hand rather than high cards. I wonder if I out-thought myself by deciding to play a large pot in this spot. If I had bet out on the flop, it's possible I could have folded to a raise. Meh. I pushed and made (sloppy) quad twos a few hands later against 88. Then I busted with TT vs. an Ace that hit.
---
Here's an exerpt from a comment Hoy recently made on MiamiDon's blog. I post it here because I feel the same way he does, except in reverse. My speciality is cash games rather than tourneys:
"I still am more or less clueless in any cash game I play of any real worth. If I could really understand why, I'm sure I would have made the necessary adjustments a long time ago. ...On the other hand, I donk it up damn good in multi-table tourneys, but cash games seem to come naturally. He comments that cash games cause more variance that tourneys, which is probably true, but maybe I don't feel the swings as much because wins aren't so far apart. Even when I play well, it's so discouraging to bust out of tournaments.
For me I've proven to myself that I'm a true cash game donk, and there is so much more variance in terms of one's roll anyways, so I just gave up trying after only a brief sojourn to verify that I, in fact, heehaw at the cash games."
Perhaps the bottom line is that we feel the swings most at the games we don't excel at, which makes perfect sense.
---
One of those games I don't excel at is shorthanded limit hold 'em. And yet, I continue to take shots at it every once in a while because I want a change in pace from the daily no limit cash game grind against the same freakin' players.
I read on 2+2 recently that many successful shorthanded limit players see close to 40 percent of flops! Because I view limit as being a more mathematical game, I would imagine that this degree of looseness may be close to correct. I don't know and I don't understand how to see so many flops and still be a winning player. It's that lack of comprehension that will forever keep me from being a winner in limit.
So, unless and until I learn how to play a lot better, I'm swearing off shorthanded limit hold 'em at any level above 5/10. It'll save me a lot of money.
---
The inability to deposit and withdraw money from poker sites remains the biggest issue in the poker world. Ever since Neteller stopped doing business with U.S. players and its assets were frozen by the feds, the games have been dropping in quality.
There's no doubt in my mind that the games will steadily get worse until new payment options gain credibility and widespread acceptance. MyWebATM and Giftcard.com are reportedly filling part of the void, but we're a long way away from the ease of transactions we experienced back in the heyday of the USS Neteller and the USS Firepay.
It's interesting to read and hear about the responses of many poker players to the bleak picture in the poker world. Many players have withdrawn their bankrolls or won't play anymore, and that may be appropriate for their situations.
But for me and many other players, those kinds of actions are decidedly -EV. Sure the games are getting tougher, the fish are busting and it's difficult to turn virtual dollars into real ones. On the other hand, nothing has really changed for the player sitting at the table. We still need to scope out the most fishy tables, find the best values, play our best game and grow our bankrolls to the best of our ability. If you're a winning player, I don't understand why the UIGEA would change your approach to the game itself.
---
These last couple of weeks brought a much-needed break from blogging because I felt like my posts were getting worse. I was also feeling paranoid about writing too much about how I play and about the inherent public nature of a blog.
I toyed with the idea of stopping the blog altogether, but the fact is that it makes me a better poker player. Even if I'm just rambling on about random crap (like today for example), at least I'm putting some thought and effort into reflecting on the game.
Now I plan on getting back on schedule. While the primary purpose of this space is to help me become a better poker player, I hope it's also informative, interesting and instructive for you. I realize I'll frequently fall short in this space of achieving those goals, but I'll nail it sometimes, too.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Advance to Go, do not collect $200
Poker is a funny game, and by funny, I mean it's swingy.
I started out this month on a +$5000 run, then went down to -$2,000, turned that around and worked it up to +$6,500, and now I lost that and am back to even.
I've never dealt with dollar figures this high, but I don't think I'm handling the swings any better or worse than I normally do. That is to say, I get easily frustrated and go on tilt, but I'm not going to start playing like an idiot. Fortunately, I'm pretty good about quitting if I start to tilt.
I don't want to write too much because the ups and downs are such a large part of the game. I know this. But even after playing for a few years now, variance and luck continue to be difficult to grasp on an emotional level. I'm sure that reflects some immaturity on my part, but I do my best to be rational about it.
I keep thinking about the idea that the caliber of player you are is determined by how well you play when you're not winning. It's easy to go all in with the best hand and win a lot of money if someone else calls; it's a lot more difficult to fold a set to a flush on the river or lay down a flopped straight to a flopped flush.
Experts say you should always bring your best game if you're going to sit at the tables. This is hard to do when I feel good but my reads are off, or when I think I'm playing well but I lack confidence because of recent losses.
So I think the smart thing to do is to stabilize my surroundings. If I play in games where I feel the most comfortable and have a greater edge, I'll have a better chance of winning (duh). That means I'll call off my first attempts at 10/20 NL until I grow my bankroll to higher levels. I'll concentrate on my strength, which is no limit games. I'll play shorter sessions in hopes of staying fresh. I'll quit when I'm ahead. I'll return to my tradition of sleeping easy and waiting until the morning to check on my results.
Basically, I'm not going to push quite so hard.
Maybe this is superstition, but I believe there's a time for pressing your luck and a time for regrouping. I don't know how to tell the difference except by "instinct" and "feel."
I started out this month on a +$5000 run, then went down to -$2,000, turned that around and worked it up to +$6,500, and now I lost that and am back to even.
I've never dealt with dollar figures this high, but I don't think I'm handling the swings any better or worse than I normally do. That is to say, I get easily frustrated and go on tilt, but I'm not going to start playing like an idiot. Fortunately, I'm pretty good about quitting if I start to tilt.
I don't want to write too much because the ups and downs are such a large part of the game. I know this. But even after playing for a few years now, variance and luck continue to be difficult to grasp on an emotional level. I'm sure that reflects some immaturity on my part, but I do my best to be rational about it.
I keep thinking about the idea that the caliber of player you are is determined by how well you play when you're not winning. It's easy to go all in with the best hand and win a lot of money if someone else calls; it's a lot more difficult to fold a set to a flush on the river or lay down a flopped straight to a flopped flush.
Experts say you should always bring your best game if you're going to sit at the tables. This is hard to do when I feel good but my reads are off, or when I think I'm playing well but I lack confidence because of recent losses.
So I think the smart thing to do is to stabilize my surroundings. If I play in games where I feel the most comfortable and have a greater edge, I'll have a better chance of winning (duh). That means I'll call off my first attempts at 10/20 NL until I grow my bankroll to higher levels. I'll concentrate on my strength, which is no limit games. I'll play shorter sessions in hopes of staying fresh. I'll quit when I'm ahead. I'll return to my tradition of sleeping easy and waiting until the morning to check on my results.
Basically, I'm not going to push quite so hard.
Maybe this is superstition, but I believe there's a time for pressing your luck and a time for regrouping. I don't know how to tell the difference except by "instinct" and "feel."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Chasing
My head hit the pillow around 1 a.m. early Sunday morning. Finally, sweet oblivious rest.
Earlier, I had woken up optimistic about a productive day of poker, cleaning, shopping, biking, caffeine, alcohol and warm January sun. I did it right -- I drank some yerba mate, cleaned up the apartment in the morning and got ready to run some errands.
My week had been tiring and frustrating. My poker play was lackluster, Neteller's withdrawal from the U.S. market got me down, I couldn't get a date with this girl I liked and my bike had been stolen. Fortunately, I immediately bought a new bike, and that would be my means of transportation for the summer-like Honolulu Saturday.
After buying a bike seat lock, grabbing fast food for lunch, spilling my drink all over the place and going grocery shopping, I was prepared to log in and win some money. I decided to sit at a couple of 10/20 NL tables. After all, the games won't stay this good for long, I have the bankroll and I was feeling good.
First on Full Tilt, while I was scoping out the games, I found a nice and loose 5/10 NL game. It didn't take long for me to lose my first buy-in. Bad beat story short, I flopped a set of 9s and then got busted by a player on the button who turned a straight off 53s. Wunderbar.
Then I clocked into PokerStars and sat at a 10/20 game. This time, I flopped a set of 3s, bet it out on the flop and turn and lost to a turned overboat. Brilliant. I tilted off the remaining $250 in my stack and signed out.
How embarrassing! That hand reduced my PokerStars balance to $170 with no way to redeposit. I was down $3,000 that I had lost in two hands and a few minutes. The rest of my bankroll is tied up in other sites, but I hate it that my Stars account shrunk to such low levels.
After those beats, I figured I was done with poker for the day. It would be foolish to risk further damage by chasing losses. Not playing was the most +EV decision. So I biked to the mall, bought some new work shoes on sale, watched TV, cooked my crazy pasta and then biked to a bar in China Town to get some drinks.
Unfortunately, I had forgotten to bring my new, bulky bike lock with me. I was used to my lock being attached to my old bike, but I haven't figured out how to hook up the new one. I had no choice but to ride my bike back home. By the time I got back, I decided to forget about the whole bike-riding idea and just drive instead. I'd pay for parking. Whatever.
A word about my crazy pasta: it's delicious, but there's no way I could talk to women after eating it. I mixed in bow tie pasta, shredded garlic, garlic pepper, onions, green peppers, spicy sriracha sauce, mushrooms, mozzarella cheese and olive oil. This stuff is very strong, and it will leave you with horrible breath no matter how much mouthwash you use. I love it.
I had a couple of drinks, tried not to offend anyone with my dragon breath and got home safely. I turned out the lights and flopped down on my mattress, ready for the day to be over.
But then, as I was lying there face-down, I realized I wasn't ready for the day to be over. I was wide awake! And not only was I alert, I was thinking clearly and felt motivated. "Fuck this," I thought. "I'm going to log on to Bodog right now and get my money back!"
So that's what I did.
Over the next hour and a half, I found some nice and terrible players populating all the 10/20 games. I doubled up once when I got all in on a 884 flop with KK vs. TT. A few hands later, I lost most of a buyin with a flopped set of 7s vs. a turned set of Kings.
Eventually, I got up to a little over $1,500, and I could almost taste it. One more double up now and I'd have made up for my earlier losses. But if I lost $2,000 at this point, I'd be worse off than when I started.
I was dealt AQs and called a late position raise from the small blind. The flop came down AQ2. Woot! I had top two pair! There was only one problem -- all three of those cards were hearts, and I only held diamonds.
I checked. My opponent bet $70 into the $140 pot, and I check-raised him to $400. He called. The turn brought a meaningless 7 of spades.
I made my decision. I was going for it -- All-in for $1,526. My victim thought for a second and then called with AJ, and he had the Jack of hearts. I held my breath for the river, which was a beautiful 5 of diamonds. He missed his flush, and I had doubled through!
I immediately logged off, self-satisfied with my $600 profit for the day. That's a lot better than a $3K loss.
This time, when I got into bed and pulled up the blanket, I think I was out within five minutes. Maybe my crazy pasta is good luck.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Does luck exist? (pt. 2)
Objectively, there's no doubt that under fair conditions with a random shuffle, each hand is an individual event. Cards have no memory. The last hand is ancient history that has no bearing on the cards that hit the board this hand. Just because you won the last hand doesn't mean you should play your rush, because there's no such thing as a rush except in retrospect.
Cards show no favoritism and obey no master. Two bad beats in a row doesn't make the game rigged. Streaks happen, but their beginning and end can only be observed after they're over.
Luck is an illusion created to explain variance, that element of chance that sometimes causes good players to lose and donkeys to prosper. Over the long run, there is no such thing as luck. Over millions of hands, the best players will win the most money and the worst players will go bust.
I don't see any valid argument against the above statements.
Larry W. Phillips, the author of "Zen and the Art of Poker" suggests that when your luck is running cold, you should take lower risk decisions. When your luck is running hot, you should play more hands in hopes of taking advantage of your good streak, he says.
I believe those suggestions are nonsense, as a couple of commenters pointed out. Making the correct decision and maximizing your EV is almost always the right choice, even if you believe you have some kind of psychic knowledge that a bad beat will smack you on the river.
However...
I also don't think parts of Phillips' advice are completely without merit.
While a poker player should always strive to make the correct move based on his read of the situation, the trend of a table can build on itself, creating an illusion of luck.
For example, if a player tightens up and plays passively after suffering a beat, he may give an opponent free cards by calling rather than raising. If opponents at a table see that a player was bluffed once, they'll be more likely to attempt aggressive bluffs again. If you show that you'll only raise the nuts, your opponents will quickly learn to back down when you raise. If you always raise in position, your opponents will know that your hand range is wider than normal and play accordingly.
Unless you suspect what your opponents know and can empathize with their motives, you might think that your bad luck is accumulating. In fact, luck has nothing to do with it. In these situations, opponents are attempting to exploit your weaknesses.
It does get difficult, though, when you don't understand what is happening. When your opponent detects a flaw in your game that you aren't aware of, it may appear that you are suffering bad luck because you can't find an explanation for what's happening.
As the beats build up, tilt becomes more likely. Once you're on tilt, you can't blame luck anymore because you're beating yourself.
This is when some of Phillips' ideas could be applied logically.
If you're losing, play shorter sessions. Perhaps you're up against tougher competition than you initially believed. Maybe you're distracted. Maybe the table dynamics don't favor your style of play.
If you're winning, play longer sessions. You're likely playing well and confident that you will continue to triumph. As long as you're in the correct mind-set while also making the right decisions, there's a good chance your wins will accumulate.
It may help some players to think of whether and how they should play in terms of luck. But a stronger, more constructive line of reasoning -- as well as an acceptance of factors that may be beyond your control -- allows you to put yourself in better situations.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Does luck exist?
"In my experience, there's no such thing as luck."
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi
___
"Luck in any card game is cyclical -- it comes and goes in a mysterious fashion. Sometimes the cards run hot, sometimes cold. Many players give no weight to this at all as a factor in the game. But if such events are cyclical, perhaps we ought to take a hard look at this as a factor in the game. It must be of some significance that in some games no matter how well we play nothing works, while in others it hardly matters what we do because we can't do anything wrong. It is unlikely that an effect of such magnitude would have no meaning within our own purposes in the game.
Since poker involves so many borderline decisions, often occurring one after another, it doesn't hurt to ask yourself from time to time (when trying to make up your mind about which way to go in a hand): 'How is my luck running?' Asking yourself this can be helpful in maximizing your good days and minimizing your bad days.
As noted, some players ignore this completely. They play each hand independently, regardless of how their luck is running. You see these players betting along nonchalantly, playing each hand by the book, despite being down a lot of money. They have not retreated despite the negative flow of events.
It can't hurt to monitor one's luck and the general trend of it: how hot or cold you are is a legitimate factor in the decision-making process. This is not just a question of academic interest. It has a direct bearing on your fortunes. Use this tool to answer some of the borderline decisions you make in the game.
If your cards are below average, but you've been winning with anything and everything, you might want to play more hands. Conversely, if you've been getting fairly good hands, but you've lost with all of them, you might want to fold some of these."
--"Zen and the Art of Poker," by Larry W. Phillips
-- Obi-Wan Kenobi
___
"Luck in any card game is cyclical -- it comes and goes in a mysterious fashion. Sometimes the cards run hot, sometimes cold. Many players give no weight to this at all as a factor in the game. But if such events are cyclical, perhaps we ought to take a hard look at this as a factor in the game. It must be of some significance that in some games no matter how well we play nothing works, while in others it hardly matters what we do because we can't do anything wrong. It is unlikely that an effect of such magnitude would have no meaning within our own purposes in the game.
Since poker involves so many borderline decisions, often occurring one after another, it doesn't hurt to ask yourself from time to time (when trying to make up your mind about which way to go in a hand): 'How is my luck running?' Asking yourself this can be helpful in maximizing your good days and minimizing your bad days.
As noted, some players ignore this completely. They play each hand independently, regardless of how their luck is running. You see these players betting along nonchalantly, playing each hand by the book, despite being down a lot of money. They have not retreated despite the negative flow of events.
It can't hurt to monitor one's luck and the general trend of it: how hot or cold you are is a legitimate factor in the decision-making process. This is not just a question of academic interest. It has a direct bearing on your fortunes. Use this tool to answer some of the borderline decisions you make in the game.
If your cards are below average, but you've been winning with anything and everything, you might want to play more hands. Conversely, if you've been getting fairly good hands, but you've lost with all of them, you might want to fold some of these."
--"Zen and the Art of Poker," by Larry W. Phillips
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
