I win!

Stop the presses! I had my first winning day of the month!

I finished up $101 on the $40 monthly William Hill bonus, plus I had $286 in rake returned to me from WPEX.

Of course, I haven't played for about four days out of the first 11, so I've really only lost seven days out of April. Whatever. I just want to slow down a little bit. I can't be obsessive about reaching bankroll goals all the time.

Kuro helped me work through a significant psychological difficulty I had to my game with his post above and through talking with him about it.

My problem is that I rely too much on data tracking software, which helps a lot, but it makes me lazy about the rest of my game. In fact, it makes me distrust my own instincts because I find that the data is so much more accurate.

But it doesn't have to be like that. The two can work together.

So I think my new resolution will be to increase my note-taking by a whole lot. The object is to increase the attention I pay to the game that surrounds me when I'm sitting at the table, and not necessarily just the hands that I'm involved in. If I take more notes, I'll be gathering a lot of information that PokerTracker doesn't see, and I'll also help my observational and hand-reading abilities.

That is, when I get back to the poker tables. I might just work off some blackjack bonuses and low-limit poker bonuses for a few days.

Separately, this time next month, my cat, Poncey, will move from my parents' house in Atlanta to my apartment in Honolulu! It will be great to have my kitty poker R2 unit back by my side, although I know he'll just make me play a lot of poker.

That's OK -- I miss him. Although I bet he'll miss my parents more once he realizes he's switching from a full house to a small apartment with a dude who leaves for work every day.

Tough shit, cat.

WPEX Update

WPEX credited the rakeback to its customers accounts by noon Eastern time on Tueday.

I received about $280, which is a really nice boost.

Despite the temporary problems with the site, I encourage more people to play there. It's good for everyone to save money and pay less to play poker on the Internet.

In this case, you're paying nothing, which is as good as it gets.

WPEX Impressions

While the promise of a rakefree poker site is difficult to refuse, the World Poker Exchange isn't quite there yet.

They started their 100 percent rakeback program last Monday, and said that the first payments would be made yesterday. That didn't happen, as they cited technical difficulties.

Now, I don't think WPEX is ripping poker players off. This site is primarily a sportsbook, and it seems to handle that part of its operation reasonably well. And the whole point of this rakefree promotion is to try to lure poker players to the sportsbook in hopes that they will place additional bets there.

But it seems really slimy for them to make this deal, and then not be able to implement it when they said they would. It's dishonest to tell people they will get their money on Monday, and then later tell them they'll have to wait another week.

Hopefully, this will all be worked out soon.

It's disappointing that poker sites treat their customers so terribly. Customer service is a joke. It isn't just Party Poker; it's the entire industry. From PokerStars to Full Tilt to Ultimate Bet to Pacific Poker. Sure, some are better than others. But they all have serious problems when it comes to responding to customer complaints, managing relationships with affiliates, handling rakeback deals, offering attractive promotions, maintaining their software and investigating cheating accusations.

It's pathetic. The industry is a mess, and there's little or no accountability.

That's why this rakefree deal got me so excited. It has the potential to really shake things up and drive down rakes at other sites as well. It shows that rakes are inflated, and that poker players don't need to take it.

Apparently, these things take time. I hope WPEX gets its act together.

Game play at the site is OK. It seems like the games are tougher than I'm used to, but there are still quite a few players that love to call with gutshot draws or cold call three bets preflop with medium pocket pairs. There aren't as many of those kinds of players as at other sites, but they're still around.

Also, data collection software doesn't work automatically on WPEX, at least not yet.

One guy has put together this kick-ass app that converts WPEX's e-mailed hand histories to a format that PokerTracker can read.

I plan on using it in real-time when I play there again, which won't be until they give me my rakeback as promised. The way I'll use it is to request that they e-mail hand histories to me once every half hour (100 is the max you can request), then convert them into PokerTracker as I'm playing. From there, I'll manually copy the player's playing tendency into their on-screen notes.

I only have a small sample of data so far, but my impression is that the games are not great, but they're probably good enough to play in if I put forth a little effort toward game selection. I would hope that I could at least break even before receiving rakeback even in a tough game.

We'll have to see. I hope the site grows to the point where play there is a little bit easier and it's more reputable.

For what it's worth, I haven't observed any evidence of bots in the limit games I have frequented. All I've seen is a few too many rocks.

Bad Beats

I opened up my car door at 1 a.m. to find papers strewn across the seats, my glove compartment ransacked, my change drawer emptied.

I'd been robbed. Again.

And for what? These assholes can't take anything from me. This time, the only thing they got away with was my portable tape recorder, which was a replacement for the original one that I bought with $60 I won playing Acey-Duecy in college almost a decade ago.

They didn't get a CD player, because I didn't have one installed. They didn't steal the car. They didn't get any money. They didn't damage anything. These bitches didn't do anything to me, except piss me off.

That's fine. This robbery is comical at best. They didn't get jack shit from me.

It helps put things in perspective. None of these assholes can get anything from me.

I haven't had a winning day at the poker tables this month. Not one stinking day. But so what? My bankroll is still in good shape, and I stepped way down in limits before this month started. So take that, bitches. You can put me on a losing streak, but you can't really harm me. This money is all winnings anyway.

I played poker with some friends tonight, which is where I was when my car got broken into. I dominated the table in a fun home tourney, but I lost it all on three of the final hands when I failed to hit coin flips.

Big freakin' deal. So I lose out on the $40 pot, which I don't need anyway and will make this girl much happier than it would have made me. So I lose some coin flips. So I decide that I'd rather take some chances than eventually grind out the victory over the next 30 minutes to an hour.

I might be kind of tilty, and I might not be playing my best game in general.

But the point is that these beats can't touch me. Even if I lost all ability to play poker, I would cash out my accounts long before I lost all my money.

Shit happens. I can deal with it just fine.

WSEX

Rakefree!!!

I didn't hear about this until today, but apparently this offer started Monday.

This is big news. Rakefree is something that poker players have dreamed of since online poker was born.

Do you have any idea how much money you pay every month in rake? I often top $2,000 a month in rake. That's a LOT of money that I could be getting back.

I've downloaded the WSEX software, and I'll begin playing on it tonight. I'll report back on how it goes.

A couple of notes just based on what I've seen so far:

_There aren't many players or games, but I'm sure that will change once word of this deal gets around. Right now, at 5:15 p.m. Eastern, there are 1,160 players.

_WSEX doesn't work with PokerTracker yet, but I know several people are working to fix that issue.

_WSEX still collects rake as you play, but then the site refunds that amount to your account at the end of the week.

A site that offers rakefree poker definitely deserves a good, hard look. We're talking about added profits of 1.5 BB/100 or more.

I think I could just grind and play thoughtless, simple poker, and still make a great earn when I'm getting so much money back.

Good Times

Today was great. The only downside is that I forgot to bring my camera!

I left this morning on a tour of farms around the island for an article I'm working on. I started out at the Dole Plantation, then saw a boutique farm in the mountains. On the way to a fish farm, we picked up a nice (and pretty) hitchhiker who needed a ride for about a mile.

The pineapple plants in the shadow of the towering mossy mountains were beautiful. Even when it started drizzling, it seemed so picturesque.

Later on, I talked to an herb and salad farmer whose entire crop had been wiped out by recent heavy rains. Even so, his rows of spoiled greenery set in front of these huge swaying trees was awesome. The farmer said the rains left waterfalls cascading off the mountains into the valley below. Looking at the ridges, I could believe it.

At the end of the day, I had dinner at a nice restaurant in Ala Moana Mall. I had the roast chicken, which was made with local-grown vegetables and produce. It was so good. It was the best meal I had eaten since getting steak at Happenings, an Argentine steak house in Santiago, almost a year ago.

Last night, I heard some musicians and a singer at a club called Jazz Minds. It was very cool. The performance and atmosphere kept reminding me of other places I'd been: an underground jazz club in Montgomery where the bartender shot a jackass and the coffee shops of Amsterdam.

No poker today. It feels good to take a break.

Time Out

I should probably take a break from poker, at least for a couple of days.

Everything has been going OK, with small losses today and yesterday. But several things make me think that I'm not at my best.

_The testimonial from cc's site and the similar post from Mrs. PSH make me worry that I'm wasting my life on poker. Fortunately, I'm not neglecting relationships (because I don't have many), but I think I should read some more fiction.

_I find myself going on tilt in everyday life for no real reason. A car honks at me. The elevator smells like trash. Someone doesn't answer the phone when I call. This pizza is cold. What's wrong with me? I need to chill out if these stupid things are getting to me.

_The newness of living in Hawaii is starting to wear off. Don't get me wrong; everything kicks ass here, and it's only getting better. But it's not as special as it was when I first got here. I'm getting used to it.

_Baseball season is here, and I think that's more important than poker, at least for now.

_I'm scared of being an addict loser.

_The only thing I could think while watching "High Stakes Poker" is how terrible those players must feel about small wins, when if they had played the hand a little bit different, they could have had a big win. Then I wondered if I'm just recognizing one of my own traits. When small wins aren't good enough, then that's just a recipe for psychological torture.

OK, I'll quit my whining.

Have fun at the tables!

Baseball!

I don't have anything useful to say about poker. The play has been decent, and I'm glad there's a new month of blackjack bonuses to help pad the ol' bankroll. Someone e-mailed me a while ago, and one of the questions he asked was about how much time I spent and how much I wagered. I responded that I like playing multihanded -- the swings aren't much worse by making those extra bets, and it sure does take much less time to clear.

Sunday was Opening Day of another great baseball season. There's always a controversy, but there's a lot of other fun stuff going on as well. I don't dwell on the steroids issue because to me, it's old news. Opening Day is the beginning of a long summer. It means good times have arrived and winter won't come back until the last out of the World Series.

I hung out with some Philadelphia fans this weekend. They're cool people, but I can't stand the way Phillies fans are such assholes to everyone else. It's like talking to a fifth grader. They say, "Well, if you don't like the Phillies, then stay the hell out of Philadelphia." Or, "I love the Phillies, but how about Donovan McNabb?" Or, "Screw the Phils. They suck."

It's just a bad attitude that isn't good sportsmanship for their opponents or themselves. I hope they never win.

But Jimmy Rollins is exciting. He's continuing his 36-game hitting streak from the end of last season in pursuit of Joe DiMaggio's 56-game record. I doubt Rollins will get there because it's a very hard record to break and Rollins has a long way to go, but it would be cool if he could even come close.

The most exciting thing about the beginning of the season is that it seems like more teams than usual have a chance to win. Even the worst teams seem to have a bunch of young players that will be around for a long time.

Barry Bonds chase of the home run record will be interesting. He only needs seven homers to break Babe Ruth's record, and then he would need 40 more to tie Hank Aaron's 755. I don't like Bonds any more than the next guy, but I respect him as one of the best baseball players ever, with or without steroids.

To me, Bonds symbolizes the super-sized, home-run happy 90s. It was a silly but fun era where chicks digged the long ball and baseball fans hoped for a rare pitching duel.

As Bonds ages and approaches the home run records, his generation is quickly retiring. There are more new faces this year than I've seen in a long time, and they'll be a lot of fun.

Palmeiro, Sosa, Boone, Grissom, Leiter, Henderson and others are gone. Felix Hernandez, Liriano, Marte, Francoeur, Howard, Young, Kendrick and Cain are just getting here.

Entry

Heh. I went to look in my spreadsheet, and it turns out that March has been a profitable month after all. I'm amazed sometimes at how much I seem to lose but still come out ahead. I'll take it.

So now I'm back in relaxed bonus-hunting mode. Why wouldn't I be? Bonuses have made me tons of money throughout my poker career. If not for bonuses, I would have busted out a long time ago.

Here are the ones I'm hitting up:

_Empire Poker is offering a 40 percent to $200 bonus with a 7X workthru. Pretty good deal if you ask me. The deadline for this one is midnight on April 1, and you only have three days to clear it.

_Casino-on-Net has a 20 percent to $50 bonus on blackjack if you use Moneybookers as your deposit method. Thanks to Daniel for alerting me to this one. What's amazing about this bonus is that it only has a 2X bonus workthru! It took me about 15 minutes to clear. If you've never played at Casino-on-Net before, be sure to also take advantage of their initial deposit bonus.

_Betfred is offering 100 percent to $250. This one comes courtesy of Scurvydog.

It's nice to be bonus whoring again -- it takes less concentration, but it's still rewarding to be making money.

I'm glad I stopped playing when I did yesterday. I was grouchy/surly when I started playing, and near the end I was getting pretty angry.

The bad cards continued today, but I was playing in easier games (read: lower limit/no limit), so I was able to make a little money.

It's strange how runs of cards feel like they have some individuality to them. I know that's just the human tendency to try to make order out of randomness, but I can't help it if that's the way my mind works.

For example, this run of cards is not filled with too many bad beats. It's more like my premium hands are running into other premium hands, I'm missing the flop, I can't bluff successfully, I'm losing coin flips and any hand better than one pair is a rare occurrence. When I lose, it's happening slowly rather than in too many gut-wrenching disasters. The same goes for my winning sessions.

I'm not complaining about it. More like I'm just babbling about it. This kind of streak feels less swingy and more steady. I wonder how much of that is a function of randomness, and how much is caused by my tight betting? I think randomness is more likely.

The next WSOP qualifier tournament for bloggers will be held Monday. I wish I could play in this one (the first one is where I finished in 2nd place), but I'll be at work when this one starts. For the rest of you, sign yourself up so you can win a bracelet!

Blogger WSOP Satellite Tourney
PokerStars - Private Tab
April 3rd - MONDAY
9PM EST
$30 +3
No Limit
Password: socoshot

Bad Timing

I picked a fine time to run bad -- right when I was starting to feel like I could settle in to 15/30.

It pisses me off because I feel like I was playing well. I think I was playing better limit poker than I ever have. My reads were good, I was making strong calldowns as well as prompt folds when I knew I was beat.

But what can you do. I can't control when I get good cards and when I get bad ones.

Fortunately, my bankroll is still in pretty good shape. I think March will probably turn out to be a slight losing month, but whatever. And I don't feel like I'm stuck or anything, or that I have a big hill to climb to get back to where I was a few days ago.

I just need to take it easy and do the things I know that you're supposed to do when you aren't running well.

Stop playing the game that's beating you. Play a game that has always made you money. Relax. Don't push it.

Really, what it comes down to is that I lost a few big pots. If I had won those pots, I'd be writing about how well I've been running recently.

It's just annoying.

Who to believe?

For starters, check out cc's recent posts about relationships and poker.

-------------------------------------

When it comes to poker advice, trust no one. Don't trust me, don't trust Ed Miller, don't trust 2+2. You never know who knows what they're talking about, and who is just some assclown with a mistaken opinion. At worst, some people have been known to give bad advice on purpose to mislead people into bad play.

Read whatever you can about poker, but don't take anything anyone says as the truth until you decide on its validity for yourself. When I talk about poker, I feel like it's important to be honest and informative.

In that spirit, let's rip apart an article in a recent edition of Card Player magazine!

This piece is titled "Misplaying A-K," by Mark Gregorich. In my opinion, you'll be misplaying A-K if you follow what he says.

First of all, Gregorich recommends cold calling if a solid player raises UTG and you hold AK. He says a three-bet will drive out the rest of the field and likely leave the hand between you and the UTG player.

Umm ... yeah. That's kind of the point. AK is a premium hand that plays well in many situations, but it plays especially well heads-up. Against a tough player raising UTG, what is his hand range? AK, KQs, AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AQ, AJs, ATs, maybe QJs or KJs. AK beats or is virtually tied with most of those hands, which directly contradicts Gregorich's claim that a three-bet will isolate your AK against a better hand. He also says that a three-bet will commit you to the pot, which is simply not true. If you can't let go of AK when you think there's a high probability you're beat based on your read and the board cards, then playing AK is the least of your worries.

Let's move on to turn play. Gregorich makes the sweeping generalization that you should keep betting with an AK that missed the flop on the turn if you bet it on the flop in a shorthanded situation. There are many times when this is the right move. There are also plenty of times when this is a waste of money. Especially in shorthanded games with a rag flop, players love to check-raise on the turn after you've shown strength both preflop and on the flop. Then you're screwed.

A bet may be right more often than not, especially if you get it heads-up on the turn, but the idea that "Many players will call the small flop bet out of principle" is not necessarily true.

Finally, on the river, Gregorich says that betting with A-high on the river is a mistake. Once again, this is an overgeneralization, especially in those occasional situations when you've committed to go to a showdown with your A-high hand.

If you know that you want to see a showdown and you're out of position, a bet is correct most of the time, depending on whether you think you have any fold equity. If you think your opponent might let go an underpair-type hand, you're sacrificing a lot of money by not betting in this situation. Of course, if you get raised, you must fold. But in those times when you would call one bet anyway on the river, it's more often better to be the better than the caller, because most players will bet the river if you check to them.

Gregorich is right when he says that AK is a tricky hand to play. It gets more tricky when you don't think about the situation you're in before acting.

Peaking

I'm not going to say "mission accomplished," but I've broken in to $15/$30 limit!

It was kind of silly how I got my bankroll there. I had a 35 bet down day, followed by a 20 bet up day. Then I made a withdrawal to one of my online accounts, and I noticed that my overall bankroll column didn't add up to what it was before the withdrawal. My total bankroll wasn't including my Neteller, Firepay and Moneybookers money!

So that was $1,500 in "found" money, even though it was sitting there in a different column on my bankroll spreadsheet all along. The money wasn't missing, but it wasn't added up correctly.

That was enough to put me over the 300 bets I needed before I wanted to give $15/$30 a try for the first time since my November failure.

I kind of feel like I don't deserve to be here. I mean, I know that I do by virtue of the fact that I earned all this money and I'm following my plans.

But I only won a very small amount at $10/$20 limit, and now I'm moving up. Plus, for the first time in a while, I don't feel comfortable at a limit I'm playing.

The amounts of money I'm betting gets to me a little bit, even after all the thousands I've wagered.

It's an odd sensation. If I had a big losing day at any lower limit, I felt mad about losing but driven to recover. At this level, I don't feel the dollar amount as much. I just feel a little dizzy and out of touch. It doesn't feel like real money.

This has to be some form of tilt.

I just need to keep reminding myself of that anecdote I heard a long time ago:

A fishy player at a $10/$20 table asks an old-timer what the difference is between that game and much higher limits.

"The color of the chips," says the old-timer.

The fishy player takes offense, thinking that the old-timer is poking fun at him. No shit, the chips are different colors, he thinks. That wasn't the question.

But the old-timer insists that's the main difference between the games. The fishy player didn't understand.

The moral of the story is that the games play the same way regardless of the limit. Of course the players are tougher at higher limits. But the concepts of what it takes to win remain the same.

Lee Jones says that the magic of poker in the Internet age is that we've speeded up time. Hands come faster; swings come and go in days, not months.

I'm adjusting quickly to the $15/$30 landscape. But maybe I shouldn't push it now that I can.

Hassle

I went to a lot of trouble to get that damn 25TO100MARCH bonus at Party Poker.

I figured it would be worth it for the potential $300 reward. It was a 25 percent bonus up to $100. If you cleared the first $100 over 1,000 hands in fewer than three days, you would get another $100 bonus to clear over 1,500 hands in the next three days. Then there would be a final $100 that would take 2,000 hands.

What a deal, I thought. I can work off that bonus in my sleep, especially if I play five or six no limit tables at a time.

But I ran into problems.

The first difficulty is that I didn't have any money in my Moneybookers account, which is my only available funding method for Party Poker for various reasons. I couldn't withdraw to Moneybookers and redeposit, because that would invalidate the bonus. I couldn't redeposit from my bank account, because the bonus deposit period would be over by the time my deposit cleared. I couldn't find anyone to make a direct transfer to my account either.

Eventually, an affiliate helped me out by making a deposit into my account with the bonus code. Great!

Except for that Party Poker didn't give me the bonus at first. They gave in after two e-mails.

OK, finally. I could get to work.

I played about 500 hands on the first day, but I thought I had played more. The next day I went out for a drink and watched "Syriana," and by the time I got home, I didn't feel like playing. The third day, I played out the hands I needed to clear the first level of the bonus.

I was getting very sleepy, though. I checked my bonus status, and it said I had cleared 24 hands toward the bonus.

"Oh, I guess that means I cleared the first level and have already started on the second level," I thought.

I woke up in the morning and checked again. It actually meant I had 24 hands left to go to clear the first bonus.

And I was way outkicked: the 3-day time limit to be eligible for the second and third $100 bonuses had elapsed while I was sleeping overnight.

If I had played 24 more hands, I would be $200 richer! So stupid! I went through all that effort and didn't even get the payoff. I was on major tilt, and I hadn't even played a hand.

So I sat down, opened up 10 tables of .10/.25 no limit poker and played the 24 remaining hands needed to clear the first $100 bonus. At least I got that much.

Stupid bonuses.

Shorthanded B.S.

Beware the people who say you should play shorthanded limit hold 'em! For most players, shorthanded limit isn't a good game choice.

Shorthanded play may be all the rage in online play, but in my experience, it's not an effective way to make money.

I write this because I see these games only growing in popularity. There are more shorthanded limit games available than full ring games at almost any site these days. For the record, I am a slight winner in shorthanded games, but I find they aren't as profitable for me as full ring.

Then I saw this recent 2+2 post advocating shorthanded games. I feel like the post is misleading.

First of all, let me acknowledge that the players in these games tend to be pretty bad. It's not unusual to find tables with several players with VP$IPs over 40 or more.

Secondly, these games are beatable.

Additionally, learning to play shorthanded limit hold 'em is an invaluable skill for full ring games. You get lots of experience in stealing and defending blinds, in playing hands out of position, and in contesting heads-up pots.

But consider this:

The variance is so high that recommended bankroll requirements range from 500 to 1,000 bets. Even good players have severe downswings in these games. If you think there are a lot of suckouts in full ring limit hold 'em, you won't be prepared for shorthanded play.

With these kinds of swings, you could go for months without showing a profit, even if you're a solid player. You could go bust.

Think about it: Do you really want to wait until you have a $10,000 bankroll (1,000 bets) before you play $5/$10? That means that you have to have $10,000 saved up, in hopes that you can make 2 bets/100 hands ($20) in the long run. Even if you only go with a 500 bet roll, you'll only get $40/100 hands playing $10/$20 on a $10,000 roll. Compared to full ring, you could be playing $15/$30 with that kind of bankroll, trying to average $60/100 hands. The typical recommended bankroll for full ring games is 300 bets.

And if you say, "Well, I don't need a 500-1,000 bet bankroll because I can beat the game," then you may be setting yourself up a downfall. Seriously.

I don't mind if you want to go broke, but don't think that you can beat the odds. Even the best players on earth are still subject to the whims of fortune. They have bad months or bad years, but I like to think that they're smart enough to bankroll themselves.

Still interested in shorthanded games?

How would you like to have nothing to show for your efforts after weeks or months of play? Would you still be able to believe in yourself and your game? Would you still have the guts to keep at it? How would you even know that you were playing well?

And consider this: the loose fish with high VP$IPs that we all love are playing closer to correctly in shorthanded games because the structure requires that you play more hands preflop. If you just wait for premium hands, you will be destroyed by the blinds, which come around much quicker in 5- or 6-max games than in full ring.

I believe that the potential profitability of shorthanded games is probably close to equal that of full ring games. But the higher variance and the less pronounced preflop advantage of a tight player makes me question whether these games are worth the trouble.

To win in shorthanded games you have to play for the long run to withstand the swings, and I don't have that much patience.

The Big Stack

I looked around at the final table to find that I had 105,000 in chips -- more than double the next-closest player. I was ahead. Way ahead.

I told myself, "Self, don't stop running over the table now. They're on the ropes."

I had been picking up blinds and knocking out shorter stacks for hours in the Sunday blogger tourney for a seat at the World Series of Poker.

The biggest hand of the night was when I had AA against Statikk's AK. I almost felt bad for him ... almost.

The other players kept dropping, one by one. They were in the danger zone. They had only a couple of choices: Fold or get pot committed.

I had a lot more freedom. I raised and called with AQ vs. KJ. I called an all in with A9 vs. 55. I knocked out Alan with AK vs. K5.

I won every coinflip. I won every hand at showdown. I stole the blinds successfully over and over again.

It wasn't always like that. Earlier in the tourney, I felt like I would just get slowly blinded down as I usually do, and then get involved in a hand and lose.

Early on, I had great hands but couldn't make any money from them. I flopped a set of Jacks on an AAJ flop. No callers. I smooth called with KK preflop and then got all in on the flop against Hdouble (I think that's who it was -- Paradise doesn't send tournament hand histories). He also had KK for a split pot. I raised with AA preflop and got no callers.

It felt like I was using up all my luck early on.

But then things started turning around.

In one hand, I got all in by flat calling with AA from the small blind, and then donk betting the Jack-high flop. I got called by JQ.

An important hand came when I was raised from the small blind with J8s and got called by S.t.B. The flop was J8x, giving me two pair. I bet, and he minimum raised. I didn't want to see the turn. I knew this could be all she wrote for me.

I pushed all in. He thought for a while and folded.

That's when I really started picking up steam.

I started stealing a lot. Not so much that I ruined my tight table image, but enough to gain about 1,000 chips a round when the blinds were something like 100/200.

I concentrated very hard on making relatively low-risk bluffs preflop and sometimes on the flop. The last thing I wanted to do was trap myself with a second-best hand. I wanted to pick up pots with as little resistance as possible.

More than playing the players, I played their stack sizes. Tournament poker is such a game of money management, and I tried to evaluate the likelihood that each of the remaining players remaining to act would push or fold.

Who wanted to get their chips in? Who recently won hands? Who was biding their time? Who was desperate? Who would feel committed even if they just called my bet? What would I do if I was called and it was checked to me?

Those steals were the driving force behind my climb from 6,000 to around 40,000. By that time, I was so far ahead of the rest of the field that I could pick my spots.

I wish I had a better memory of the big hands, but really it was just a matter of getting in with the best of it. I can't even remember how many people I busted. I must have dispensed with at least 10 or 15 players on my own. I wish I had that damn hand history!

It was bloody. I felt invincible. For all intents and purposes, I was. I kept getting in with an edge of a few percentage points, and my hands held up every time.

It takes a lot of luck to advance to the final table in any multitable tournament. I wasn't sucking out on anybody (except for once -- QT vs. AK all-in preflop, and I paired up), but I was very lucky to have my 55 percent to 60 percent hands hold up.

Suddenly, there were five players left. I thought, "Maybe I'll be like Doyle Brunson in that one World Poker Tour tournament where he just demolished the final table." It was going that well for me. The players kept going out in a puff of smoke, which is how Paradise illustrates when someone busts.

Suddenly I was heads-up against Gracie.

I had a commanding chip lead of about 105,000 to 45,000 or so. Maybe even a little more.

We played about 10 hands without the chip counts changing that much. I think I got my stack over 115,000 at one point (these are all rough estimates).

I was ready to put this match away.

I was dealt 99. I knew I wanted to commit with this hand preflop if I could.

I got my wish. Gracie flipped up KQo. The flop was safe. And the turn. And the river ... was a Queen! Damn!

That pretty much reversed our positions. It put Gracie at near 100,000 and me around 50,000. For the first time of the tournament, I lost a hand at showdown.

Gracie adjusted quickly to the chip lead. She took over with the aggressive moves where I had left off. I felt like my stack might just fade away if I couldn't get back in the game.

Not every flop was contested, so I knew that I could pick up some blinds if I played my cards right. I raised with Q2o from the button, hoping that she would fold.

She called.

The flop came Q-high, all diamonds. I had the 2 of diamonds for a crappy flush draw to go with my top pair.

I was all in. She called with an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw as well.

For a moment, I thought the offsuit Ace on the river would save me. But no, it completed her straight.

It was over, and I was surprisingly happy.

No, I didn't win the $1,500 prize to go to Vegas and play in the World Series of Poker.

But I did much better than I thought I would, since tournaments are far from my specialty.

I'm OK with finishing second. My heart was pounding, I was nervous and superstitious. I was worried. I was in suspense. I was thrilled to be doing well in a tournament.

I had more fun in a poker game than I have in a while -- more fun even than those days when I book huge wins. Those victories are a product of decision-making and grinding. Tournaments are more like a roller-coaster ride.

I felt like a champ.

Becoming a Better Poker Player

The definition of irrational behavior is to know one thing but to do the opposite. For me, poker is a constant struggle to come up with the rational move, and then have the guts to do it.

Often that means the difference between making a crying call or folding. Between making the big laydown or calling down. Sometimes a player is lucky enough to have large enough pot odds to justify calling with a hand that isn't likely to be best. Many times, the decision isn't that obvious without practice.

Which brings me to my point.

I know how to become a better poker player, so why haven't I done so?

I should find a mentor. I should post on 2+2 daily. I should become a mentor. I should read more books. I should do more hand analysis.

Is that so hard? Apparently, it is. I know these are the things I need to do to advance my play. Now I need to man up and do them.

I'm an OK poker player. But I'm not going to get much better without manning up and seeking help.

Poker is a funny game. All it takes is a few small losses to make me re-analyze my game. Each time, losing gets easier to deal with, but I still get very frustrated.

This swing isn't even that bad -- about 125 bets. It still sucks though.

I'll always hate losing. I don't want to stop hating losing.

I do want to get better at learning from it.

Dead Man's Hand

First of all, check out Kuro's interview with Jeff Williams, who recently won the EPT Grand Final. It's good stuff.

---

I still don't know whether it's easier to play poker now that I have a real job to support myself. I mean, there's certainly less pressure to make money, but then on the other hand, maybe that pressure was a good thing. Maybe I played better because I had to play better. Perhaps I pushed myself harder because the consequences were more serious if I didn't.

Sure, it's harder to play when you feel like you have to win. But maybe that handicap made me a better player.

Now, I sit down for my two-hour sessions every night and just play out the clock. Time's up! Now I'll watch TV!

Overall, though, I'm much happier playing poker separate from real life. I couldn't stand it that my bankroll was always shrinking. And living off of poker wasn't sustainable for me -- I'm lucky I lasted those eight months or so.

Playing poker all the time is exactly the kind of existence that online pros explain it as: unfulfilling. The satisfaction of dragging in big pots only lasts for a short time.

On the other hand, it's one hell of a lifestyle. I had more free time than I knew what to do with, and I had a lot of fun. The only downside (besides the prospect of going broke) was that I felt like I wasn't accomplishing anything at all.

I always think of Wild Bill Hickock in "Deadwood." He arrives in Deadwood wanting to retire. All he wants to do is play cards.

"Won't you just let me die in my own way?" he says.

Playing cards doesn't seem like much of a way to go out, but it's certainly more fun than a lot of other ways to waste your life.

Bad habits, and Microsoft wins again

If I were a better poker player, I wouldn't make the same mistakes over and over again.

I think that's the most annoying thing about my game: when I lose, I feel bad about the decisions I've made. Sure, you can't control bad cards from falling. But you can control how you play them.

Running bad happens. Playing poorly doesn't have to.

Let me confess my sins:

_I get overaggressive when there's no need to. I fall back on the destructive philosophy of relentless aggression until met with resistance. Against calling stations, this is just plain bad poker if you don't have at least something to back it up with. Aggression is all well and good, but it's only a means to an end.

_I get impatient from the blinds and try to force pots come to me, rather than guiding them in my direction.

_I try steal raises from middle position with late position hands.

_I try steal raises with low pocket pairs. Low pocket pairs truly are the suckzor.

_I write lists of things that I'm doing wrong, but really it's over-analysis of small mistakes that could potentially lead to an overcorrection.

---

Microsoft wins again! Bastards!

My computer, MarkNet, had these weird problems since I bought it, and I could never figure out what the problem was. Files would disappear, the file system would eventually become corrupt, and the hard drives would deteriorate until they couldn't function anymore.

I was using a pirated version of Windows XP Pro because Windows XP Home doesn't support dual-processor systems, which is a huge rip. It made me really mad, and I wasn't about to give my money to those bastards.

But it turns out, it appears there was something wrong with the pirated copy of Windows that somehow threatened system integrity. The most damning evidence was that any time I ran Disk Defragmenter, the system became unstable. Disk Defragmenter should not do that!

So I went out and bought a full, legitimate copy of Windows XP Pro. Damn you, Microsoft.

I'm installing Linux soon. That'll teach 'em.

Love the Grind

Just a little hand discussion ...

The last couple of days have been OK, but they've been slow. I haven't been getting many playable hands at all, so I've been pushing the fold button a lot preflop. Which is OK, because I'd rather fold ahead of time than get killed by bad beats. It's much less expensive.

The hands I have played have generally been about average. I only missed two bets (that I know of) tonight. Against one fish who had position on me and saw about 65 percent of all flops, I capped it preflop from middle position with JJ. The flop came 866 with two suited cards, and we capped it again. On the turn, I checked and he bet. Then on the river, we both checked, and he showed down T9o for a busted gutshot straight draw. I think I should have bet the river, which was a blank, or check-raised the turn. But looking back, it's tough to make that kind of move out of position against a player who is trying to tell me I was beat. His aggression factor was 3. I don't think I can check-raise the turn, so that leaves betting out on the river. The more I think about it, the more I think maybe I played it OK. It's hard to say.

On another hand, I had KQo and position on a loose-passive player who saw about 30 percent of flops. He raised, I three bet, he capped and I called preflop. J high came on the flop. He bet and I called. The turn brought a rag, and we both checked. The river was a King. He bet, and I thought about it for a second before raising. I thought his hand range included just about any pocket pair, any paired Jack with a weak kicker, or a premium King hand. He called and showed down AK, and my hand is no good. Again, though, I kind of like my play now that I write about it.

I've been thinking about hands like suited QJ and KJ from early position. I know I want to play these hands because they have three way potential (top pair, straight or flush) from any position, but you need to see the flop to know if they're going to be worth the bother. Also, since these hands thrive on implied odds, I want to get into the hand as cheaply as possible.

What troubles me, though, is that limping from early position gives away that I have a marginal hand. I'm eliminating any chance of winning outright or with a bet on the flop where a high card falls. Maybe if I limp-raised sometimes with AA or AK it could be a good play to also do so with these lesser hands, but I don't limp-raise. I'm not a believer that that play has any value at the limits I play.

So maybe I should raise preflop? I feel like a raise fits my style better.

Of course, it's more likely that the correct answer is the same answer that you get to most poker questions: It depends. Perhaps I'll raise at tighter tables and try to win the hand preflop or on the flop. Maybe with looser players to act behind me, I'll limp in hopes they'll limp right along with me.

Let's leave off with an old Card Player article dealing with an important concept: Way Ahead or Way Behind.

Don't worry -- I plan on being more interesting in my next post!

Scattered Thoughts

I'd like to shout out to some of the quality blogs I've been reading lately. I haven't done this in a while, and there's plenty of content out there that's worth reading.

Human Head Thinks Big: He's been dying to get out of middle-America purgatory, and now his wish has been granted with a new job in Phoenix. Congratulations! This blog is always a good read.

Poker With WillWonka: Wonka's blog is interesting because he talks some strategy and gets inside the poker mind a little bit, which I like. He also talks about limit poker, which is what I'm most interested in. Now if only he'd stop using ellipses so much...

Poker Sweet Home: PSH is taking on his limit challenge to climb the ladder, starting near the bottom and slowly building a bankroll till he can play higher levels. His poker talk is good, but I also really like it when Mrs. PSH peeks in and writes a post. She gives some solid perspective on poker from her standpoint.

Quest of a Closet Poker Player: CC is kickin it online and at his Atlanta home games with his racetrack-style poker table, which is quickly becoming the envy of the blogosphere. He recently started experimenting with stud poker, which is good to hear about. Stud is like the neglected older sibling of poker.

---

For those of you familiar with Atlanta traffic, this Georgia State University video is pretty funny. Check it out.

---

Computer stuff:

I've been playing with the demo of a program called MaxiVista, which allows me to use my laptop as a second monitor for my desktop without having to buy any hardware. It's pretty sweet. I think I'm going to have to buy the full version.

It's so nice to have poker tables on one screen, and all my other crap on the second screen. It really makes a lot of room that I needed for multitasking, chat, etc.

I also seem to have finally isolated the problem with my desktop computer, which is a badass dual processor system that I built with money that I won from my first Las Vegas poker tournament. For some reason, Windows' disk defragmenter wreaks all kinds of havok on the hard disks. I have no idea why -- maybe it has something to do with the RAID controllers, although that doesn't make much sense. Whatever. I just won't defragment. Since I figured that out (it took for-ever), I haven't defragged, and the system is running like a dream.

---

That's all I've got. Play good poker.

Don't Spew

After one week of three-tabling 10/20 limit as my main game, I'm doing alright. My results aren't spectacular, but I have made a small profit.

More importantly, I feel like I'm playing pretty well. I'm not making many mistakes, I'm catching a few bluffs and I'm learning to fold when I know with a high degree of certainty that I'm beat.

One thing that I've always struggled with is balancing aggression with reason. When I first got into limit poker and PokerTracker, I quickly learned that I wasn't playing aggressively enough. That was easy enough to remedy -- razu!

Then, after several stints of experimenting with shorthanded play, the mantra of aggression became even more important. You need to hammer at your opponents with your made hands, while also bluffing at a frequency high enough to steal pots when you can.

But at some point, the aggression is too much. Eventually, you're just throwing money away with little expectation of winning either by having the best hand or by everyone else folding. At that point, the aggressive play is no better than the loose-passive fish who goes to showdown with any hand that has a chance of winning. The calling stations just soak up that fruitless aggression.

So there's a balance to be struck. But how do you know what that balance is?

There are a few rules of thumb that I try to obey:

1) If you have raised preflop from late position, and you miss the flop but it's checked to you, go ahead and bet most of the time if you have a reasonable hope that you can get the pot heads-up or win it outright. At best, everyone will fold. At worst, you'll get re-raised, sending a strong signal that your hand isn't best.

2) If your bet on the flop narrows the field to one other opponent, strongly consider betting again on the turn if you think there's a chance your bluff will work.

3) If it's bet out in front of you in a raised pot and all you hold are overcards, strongly consider folding if the pot is still small. Reading this 2+2 post convinced me that it's OK to fold in that situation. If all you have are overcards with no draws, then you have six outs at best to improve to a top-pair hand. You're only getting about 6.7:1 odds to make a hand that might not be good, so the pot has to contain at least seven bets in it if you want to consider calling or raising. If you do stay in and have no secondary draw, calling is the right play -- not raising.

4) If a passive player bets in front of you, or if you're check-raised by a passive player, don't feel bad about folding top-pair hands.

5) If you're check-raised on the turn, fold most of the time unless you have a strong hand or a good read on your opponent. A check-raise on the turn is a trap far more often than it is a bluff.

6) When check-raised on the river, fold almost always. A check-raise on the river is only a bluff about 1 percent or 2 percent of the time.

7) Avoid raising wars on the turn and river unless you have a very strong holding. It's easy to get carried away with your best hands, but that hidden set or gutshot straight will become very expensive if you keep reraising. The fish are trying to tell you that they hit their hand.

There was an old 2+2 post from Ed Miller (I can't find it right now) where he said that many players' biggest leak is that they fold too much in large pots.

That's good advice, but it's an overgeneralization. You're not trying to avoid folding too much; you're trying to make the best move considering the odds. Folding at exactly the right frequency is the ideal.

I was leaking money because I was calling down too much. Now I have a note on my computer that says, "Don't be afraid to fold." This doesn't mean I will play weak-tight, but I am trying to make the best possible play -- the one that makes me the most money or loses the least.

Cold, hard, cash

"Call this if you don't like money."



I don't know what it is, but I think a fair amount of people don't like money.

If they did, why wouldn't they play within their bankrolls? Why wouldn't they take advantage of monthly blackjack bonuses that add up to an easy $400 or so? Why do they make bad calls when they know they're beaten? Why do they have to see the showdown?

Sure, a lot of players suck at poker. But even they could go out and take advantage of the obvious free bucks floating around out there. Hell, anybody could use the blackjack bonuses -- you don't even know how to play, you just need to follow the instructions.

Here's my theory: People are more attracted to the competition than they are to the earning potential.

Many times, those two interests coincide. It only makes sense -- the whole point of poker is to win the most money.

But I believe that people get too involved in themselves, and they lose sight of the larger objective.

People (myself included at some point almost every session) get tied up with the less important aspects of gambling: Is that guy trying to bluff me? Am I playing too tight? Am I spewing chips? Can I live with myself if I fold this hand and it hits on the river? Are these people messing with me?

Those thoughts lead to a defensive mindset that interferes with making the correct play in a certain situation.

They say poker is a people game -- that you need to read your opponents, play the players and pick up on tendencies.

But more than that, poker is a card game with only one way of winning. It isn't about proving yourself a better player than your opponents; it's about collecting the most chips.

Margins

Poker is a game of such margins, as Daniel pointed out recently.

I win slightly more than half of the time at showdown. I win slightly more than half of the days I play. I win slightly more than half of the tables I play. You get the picture.

The big wins are often balanced out by the little wins, and the scraps left on the table are what make up your win rate.

I like that. The expected value of any one play vs. any other play is relatively small, but over time those decisions add up into something meaningful. If you make a one-bet mistake in a session, that isn't significant. But if you make that same mistake in every session you play, then that does quickly add up. (And most mistakes are more expensive than 1 BB.)

In that way, playing poker against other players is a lot like playing blackjack if you have a bonus included. Your expected return is profitable, but not by a whole lot.

Really, any time you play you're grinding out the hands. I'm lucky that I like the minutiae, the little things, about the game that make it fascinating to me.

It's these little things that make me question concepts of what constitutes a good play. When does something have a positive expected value?

I think I really need to do more of the kind of study described in this article from last month's 2+2 magazine.

I've been trying to do more of this myself, but it's hard to put people on hand ranges on the fly. I guess I need to work on that.

Magical Limit Land

February was good, but I'm eager to get this show on the road.

March will be a month of 10/20 (and some 5/$0) full ring limit games! I'm so ready to get back to limit.

It seems like it's been forever since I played full ring limit seriously. It's been since November, really.

Most of December was spent at 0.5/1 no limit, January was dedicated to 5/10 shorthanded and February was entirely 1/2 no limit. Each of those months was pretty good, but this is a quest to find the most profitable games and move up as quickly as possible. You don't do that by sitting around at the same limit or in the same game all the time.

The goal is to make 2 BB/100 hands, but that will largely depend on how good the cards run. I'll definitely have my game ready.

If I can sustain that level, or something close to it, I estimate winnings should be around $2,400 (by multitabling to 100 hands/hour, $40/hr, 60 hours of play) for the month, excluding bonuses and rakeback, and assuming two hours of poker a day, give or take. Once bonuses are accounted for, I should have the bankroll to step up to 15/30 limit by April.

It will be a challenge, but that's what goals are for. I may not be successful, but I'm pretty optimistic that I will be.

So yeah ... bring on the March Madness.

State of the Sites

In several recent days, PokerStars has seen more than 100,000 players on its system at the same time, which is more poker players than on any other poker room in the world.

PokerStars reached the 100,000-players-at-once milestone before Party Poker did, which some people read to mean that Stars is now the biggest site.

That's not true, as far as I can tell. Party Poker still seems to have many more tables running at once than Stars. A thread on 2+2 seemed to indicate that Stars scheduled three 10,000-seat freeroll tournaments closely together, in addition to many multi-table tournaments.

I logged on to PokerStars when it had about 104,000 players. At that time, there were only two full-ring $10/$20 limit games and three $15/$30 limit games. That's truly pathetic. The Poker Room network can do almost as well with less than a tenth as many players.

Stars has done an excellent job of appealing to no limit and tournament players. Stars has much better customer support than Party. Stars has better software than Party.

But Party Poker is still the overall leader. For limit poker, no other site offers anywhere near the game selection you get there. The no limit games are also plentiful and soft.

Don't get me wrong -- Party Poker does suck. Their customer support is terrible, and their recent software upgrade was a slight improvement but a big screw-up for many customers.

In addition, the new software is still clunky and unappealing to look at. It doesn't compare to cleaner sites like Ultimate Bet, Full Tilt and PokerStars. The software still beats many other sites for ease-of-use and utility, but the wait-lists don't work well and sometimes tables randomly slow down.

Party Poker will continue to drop in popularity compared to the other sites.

If not for the great game selection, why would anyone play there? Especially now that Party won't allow passive data mining? Of course, most of the sites don't allow passive data mining, including Poker Stars, but Stars doesn't need to because its customer base is no limit and tournament players, which tend to use tracking software less often.

The rising star is Full Tilt Poker. Full Tilt does allow data mining of observed hands, and the software is much easier to look at. Their customer support is decent, and they offer rakeback without being pricks about it. Their game selection is growing, and they have a wide variety of tournaments that are growing in popularity. Full Tilt's bonuses, which take a little while to clear, are now much better than Party's player points-based bonuses, and Poker Stars only offers re-deposit bonuses rarely.

I haven't played at Full Tilt in nearly a year, but I just deposited some money there to take advantage of their new 50 percent to $300 redeposit bonus. I plan on checking out their full-ring limit games and see if the table conditions are any good.

I'm sure Full Tilt's limit games can't rival Party's for fishiness, but that will change as more players realize that there's less and less reason to stay at Party.

Party had the business savvy to establish the largest player base in the industry, but I don't think Party intends to make the changes it needs to if it's going to hold on to those players.

I'm back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total Dark Side

If you really want to let the real gambler inside of you out, there's a way to do so, and it even has a positive expectation. (But lets not worry about the expected value -- the inner gambler doesn't want to hear about it.)

But it's a shady path.

Oh yes. I'm talking about blackjack sticky bonuses.

I played my first one last night using the Strategy for Sticky Casino Bonuses. It's crazy.

Here's how it works: you deposit something like $100, and get a bonus of between 200 percent and 300 percent. But there's a catch: you can never ever withdraw the bonus money, no matter how much you play.

What's the point? Well, you can use that money to gamble with and try for a big score.

It's risky. You'll probably lose. I lost on my first try.

But math says that if you do it a few times, you'll come out ahead.

And it's fun. It's really fun. It's evil.

Gambooooolll!!!

I almost went bust on my 16th hand -- from $400 to $67 in no time.

But then I went on a rush. From that last $67 to more than $900. Unfortunately, the way you do these things is you set a goal and don't stop until you reach it or go bust. My goal was $1,100 for an $800 profit (because $300 of that money was the sticky bonus).

I never got there. I lasted 18 minutes and wagered a total of $4,573 in that time -- far more than the required $1,600 workthru. The cost to me was $100.

I can't wait to try the next one though. I feel like such a fish, but these bonuses are a pretty good deal if you can handle the swings. I'm up for it.

Batman Kicks Ass

Warning: No poker content. In fact, this is a post entirely about comic books.

It's the end of the universe! DC Comics has pushed the button on the destruction of its multiverse, which will basically reset most of their titles. This time next month, we'll have some new titles, and a few old ones, like "JLA," will be gone (for now).

I love it when this happens. It's a giant crossover involving most series, from Batman to Superman to Aquaman. I haven't bothered buying any of the individual titles, but I have been keeping up with the miniseries that tells the main story, "Infinite Crisis."

The last time DC did something like this was with the "Zero Hour" story, in which Hal Jordan (the original Green Lantern) turned evil, wiped out the Green Lantern Corp and beat up Superman (which is always fun) in a quest to revive Coast City, which was obliterated after the death of Superman in the 90s. I think it's also similar to "Crisis on Infinite Earths," but I don't recall the details.

One character that's involved is Jason Todd -- the infamous second Robin who was killed off by the fans in the 80s. Which was awesome. The fans hated him, so DC set up a 900 number where people could choose whether he would live or die. They voted for the lamest Robin to bite the dust, which he did, at the hands of the Joker.

I was pissed off to see that they brought him back. I hate it when they bring characters back. But especially Jason Todd, whose death was real, final and significant. It encouraged the "Death in the Family" series, which led to years of angst on the part of Batman after his apprentice died at the hands of his worst enemy.

Fortunately, his revival will be explained away in Batman Annual No. 25, which comes out March 8.

In the main storyline, the JLA lobotomized Dr. Light after he raped one of their friends. Batman didn't sign onto the plan, so they erased his memory. Later on, Batman (because he's really smart) caught on to the JLA's undemocratic overpowering of his mere-human memory, and he set up a satellite surveillance system to keep an eye on all the superheroes. Big mistake. It was taken over by mysterious bad guys and turned into a weapon, by creating Sentinel-like robots to target and kill all of Earth's heroes.

Woops. Batman screwed up!

Meanwhile, the rest of the universe is literally falling apart at the seams as the bad guys are trying to eliminate all realities except for one. This is comics, so that means a lot of characters' worlds would be getting the axe.

We can look forward to a few things:

1) Batman will play a key role in saving the day, because that's what he does. Where all the superheros fail, Batman steps up to the plate.

2) Superman will get beaten up. I love watching Superman lose because he's such a one-dimensional character who mostly relies on his powers for natural superiority to nearly everyone else.

3) The comic store guy told me that all of DC's comics will skip forward one year in time, and then the company will come out with 52-issue series (appropriately called "52") to explain what happened. He said there will be a new Batman, too.

4) If there is a new Batman, it will be fun to watch Bruce Wayne make a comeback. Last time, after he had his back broken by Bane more than 10 years ago, he had to redo all his training and then eventually overthrow Azreal, who had overtaken Batman's mantle. Once Bruce Wayne was healthy again, the fight was no contest.

One more note: It's been in the news recently that Batman will take on al-Qaida in an upcoming series done by Frank Miller! I love Miller's Batman -- he's so pissed off, anti-government and intimidating. He's much more of an angry vigilante than a boring do-gooder. If Batman doesn't put the hurt on Osama, then we're letting the terrorists win.

NL Observations

What I like about no limit hold 'em is that it is a game where fish are more likely (than in limit) to be punished quickly. It only takes one wrong move to lose your stack.

Because the game puts that much weight on a small number of decisions, it's easier for me to see the differences in skill levels from .10/.25 no limit to 1/2 no limit. The smaller game was my entry point into online poker, and I think it's one of the best games on the Internet. The 1/2 game, which usually comes with a $200 buy-in, is still pretty good, but the players have more of a clue in general.

But here are some very suspect trends I've seen bad players make repeatedly:

_Limping or cold-calling with big pocket pairs, especially TT through QQ. This makes absolutely no sense. A lot of the value of these big hands lies in the fact that they tend to be favorites preflop. If you limp or cold-call with them, you are putting yourself in a difficult situation postflop, when the bigger bets are made.

Last night, I raised from middle position and had one caller. Undercards flopped, and I bet the pot and got called. On the turn, I again made a near pot-sized bet. The guy folded, saying he had QQ. I had JJ. You could argue that his mistake was folding, but from his perspective, he had no clue whether he was up against AA or KK because he never once put in a raise. That led him to make a huge mistake.

_Folding. These players fold a lot because they've learned that calling big bets -- especially on later streets -- can be very expensive. Because they fold all the time, that makes them very bluffable. I prefer continuation bets on the flop and in position. Turn bluffs also hold value, but they're more risky because it costs more to sell the bluff.

_Limping with big slick. I've seen a few winning players use this tactic to mask the strength of their hand. In my mind, though, it's usually a mistake. AK is another hand that holds a lot of its value preflop, and people frequently fold if an A or a K flops anyway, whether the pot is raised or not. Limping with these cards may avoid trouble, but it also takes away their worth.

_Fearing the raise from the blinds. I've fallen in love with raising and re-raising from the blinds preflop. It's more of a tournament move, but it works surprisingly well in these no limit games too. I'll do it with any hand ATs and up, depending on the strength of my opponents. Even if you fear that you're dominated, raising from the blinds represents so much strength that it puts the fear of God in most players.

Most of the time, they will just fold, and you'll win a decent-sized pot without having to see a flop. But even if you miss the flop, it's a great opportunity to make a bluff and watch them all fold. If they don't fold, you can rest easy, knowing that you can fold and you'll likely get paid next time.

Most of the big pots in no limit games comes through traps laid between two monster hands. But lots of the money in no limit is made in smaller increments, through sheer aggression, value betting and bluffing to build up your stack.

No Credit

First things first:

Go check out scurvydog's new poker forum, Kickered. It's pretty damn new, but I think it has a lot of potential for strategy discussion, data sharing and general ways for us to improve our games.

We're all in this together ... until we sit at the same table.

Which brings me to the today's topic:

Mark's Fundamental Theorem of Poker: They're all fish.

I've been questioning my theorem recently, not because I think it's factually incorrect, but because it conveys an outlook that may not be +EV.

Poker shows better than most things in life that people make irrational decisions. Many times, it's because players don't know what the correct move is. Other times, it's because players know the correct move but can't bring themselves to do it. They want to see the showdown, they don't want to be bluffed, they're on tilt, etc.

Those reasons are usually justified by faulty logic. But that doesn't mean that they're senseless.

Most things happen for a reason. That reason may not necessarily be correct, but it's usually not completely irrational either.

It reminds me of my high school German teacher. He liked to talk about current events and stories of his past, and then ask the class what we thought about the people involved and what life lessons they could teach. Many times, the class' response was, "Well, the people in your story are crazy. Why would they do that?"

That drove my German teacher mad because the people weren't crazy. They had motives for everything they did.

There are plenty of non-sensical plays made every day at the poker tables. But each one of them has some kind of reason behind it. People say to themselves, "I'll check-raise the turn and fold to a re-raise." "I'll re-raise this fish no matter what cards I have." "If a suited card falls, I'll fold." "The hammer is a great hand."

I think I got a little off-topic there, but what I'm trying to say is that the perspective that everyone else is a fish could lead you to underestimate your competition. But if your competition is fishy, shouldn't you widen your playing standards, call down more, bluff less and try to get the most out of marginal hands?

Equally as dangerous as underestimating your opponents is overestimating them by folding to re-raises all the time, failing to bet the turn or river or playing weakly when you should be strong.

I don't think I'm going anywhere with this, except to say that it's hard to accurately assess exactly how good or bad your opponents are. In general, know that your opponents will make plenty of bad mistakes, but most players are also usually trying to tell you a straightforward message by their betting patterns.

The challenge of hand reading, one of the most important skills in poker, is to interpret the betting message through fishy glasses.

What are they trying to tell you? Why are they doing what they're doing? There is a reason for their action, no matter how suspect. And that will give you a clue about whether it's appropriate to raise, call or fold.

Pushing It

Band names off the top of my head:

_Waking up with Aces
_Pitchers and Catchers Report
_Fucked by the River
_Toxoplasma (Sorry to whoever I stole this from)

---

When I told Daniel about my plans for trying to get in a lot of hands over the next few days, he warned me that I shouldn't push it. I really want my bankroll back around where it should be before my November downturn and getting robbed at gunpoint at a game.

"I'm going to push it," I said.

I've really been thinking about whether this is a stupid plan or not. It goes to the heart of bankroll management and potential profitability.

My plan is to play $1/$2 buy-in no limit on Party until my bankroll is back to where I want it. I'm usually playing about five tables at a time, which may be foolish. I have about the bankroll to play one $200 buy-in game at a time (5 percent of a $4,000 bankroll), but not five!

I thought I had learned my lesson about bankroll. It's absolutely necessary. Right?

Here's my reasoning:

1) My bankroll is not in danger. I've gone on plenty of downswings in my poker career, but I've never once had a severe losing streak in no limit games. I've never gone on a 10 buy-in downturn, no less a 20 buy-in turn, which is what it would take to bust me right now. I can beat these games, and losing seems unlikely.

2) I'm confident in my game. I do not fear these opponents, who are in general weak and fold happy, but they'll let you know when they have a hand.

3) While losing would be painful, I'm willing to accept that risk and take responsibility for the possibility.

4) This is the fastest way I know of to build my bankroll to levels where I can play the games I want to play. I don't view this as taking a shot; I think this is more like pushing an edge.

5) The game I want to play don't intimidate me. The only reasons I don't have the bankroll to play where I want to is that I had to support myself. Even after losing some money in game play in November, I still would have had plenty to keep playing $15/$30 limit if not for living expenses.

So here's the question:

Am I really stupid? Let me know if I am.

I think I'd be happy playing .5/1 no limit, but not as happy as if I could get to where I want to be over the next month or so. I've been playing 1/2 no limit as my regular game for about two weeks now, and I'm up a few hundred. Nothing conclusive.

Pearl Harbor H.O.R.S.E and overheard conversation

I tried to take down the big cat on the block in an impromptu heads-up H.O.R.S.E tourney, but once again the cat was triumphant.

It was fun. It was such a nice day at Pearl Harbor as we waited for our tour to begin. We found a park bench overlooking the water. I tried to imagine the skies filled with more than 300 Japanese planes raining down destruction on such a peaceful area.

Daniel wrote about it better than I could, though. Check out his recap. Daniel has now won both of our heads-up matches outside of Atlanta -- first in Santiago, now in Atlanta. Good thing I got lucky in the December heads-up tourney, or else I'd begin to think that I could never beat him!

I don't have a lot to say, so I'll leave you with this $1/$2 Party Poker no limit table conversation that I found interesting enough to save:

Hitman010: your on here 8 hrs a day?
Hitman010: crazy
wagz34: almost
Hitman010: clearly this is your bread and butter
wagz34: main income yea
wagz34: do other things but this pays the bills
Hitman010: nice
Hitman010: thats my dream
Hitman010: great job
wagz34: hard to work again after making so much more money doin this
Hitman010: work when u want
Hitman010: yah no lame taxes
Hitman010: no boss
wagz34: i cant imagine working a 40 hour week
Hitman010: my friend plays for a living
Hitman010: envy the XXXX
wagz34: swing r bad sometimes but if u could deal its money in the long run
Hitman010: i lost 70$ last month haha
Hitman010: so not a good job for me
wagz34: ha
wagz34: lost 900 last night
wagz34: won most of it back tonight
Hitman010: thats rough
Hitman010: bad night
Hitman010: thats how this game is tho
wagz34: terrible
wagz34: suked out on like a champ
wagz34: then i lose a few hundred on tilt to
Hitman010: haha
Teddy_KGB_: how many tables u play wag
wagz34: thats my biggest problem
wagz34: 4 at the most
wagz34: i need a bigger screen though
wagz34: i really only like to play 2 at a time
Hitman010: who do u think makes most money at these tables?
Teddy_KGB_: some guy teddy kgb
wagz34: between who
Hitman010: just top players in general
Hitman010: i think dan veaudry and soothsayer
wagz34: always see u with a stack pavel is always winning
Hitman010: they always cleaning up
wagz34: elephant gun
Hitman010: yah he's a winner
wagz34: mortage something or other
wagz34: dr kauffmann n motorguy
wagz34: ha got me looking people up now
Hitman010: hah
wagz34: actually been alot with skrilla to hes a player
Teddy_KGB_: before i started playing recently i was playing 600 and 1000
Hitman010: some guy in forum claiming top players should make 14bb/100 at 200nl
Hitman010: why the drop to 200?
Teddy_KGB_: well i just started again and was on 400
Hitman010: 400 is so tight
Teddy_KGB_: and i lost about 12 two outers in 2 days
wagz34: dont like to play big money if im not seeing the people
Teddy_KGB_: so came here to ride out the bs
Hitman010: ahh
Hitman010: everytime i make the jump to 400..i get raped
wagz34: i won abouit 20 on ub then came over here after losing like 4
Teddy_KGB_: i own soothsayer that little pansy
wagz34: 20g
wagz34: hes another one whos always on here
Teddy_KGB_: how long did it take you to win 20k
wagz34: a few months
Hitman010: i made more at limit then nl..but its so goddamn boring i can't paly it anymore
wagz34: up 22g on here a the past few months
Hitman010: thats pretty good
wagz34: yea not trying to get rish but if i could make 5g a month ill take it
wagz34: rich
Hitman010: yah 5 G's is good..but how long will the poker fad last
Hitman010: thats why i don't quit my job and take this more seriously
Teddy_KGB_: lol
Teddy_KGB_: this place was packed even before the poker fad
Hitman010: fish can only lose so much money before they quit
wagz34: it def aint fading ne time soon
Hitman010: games getting tougher and tougher
wagz34: nah ii dont think so
wagz34: go to the casinos
wagz34: games r terrible there on the weekends n holidays
Hitman010: yah that is very true
wagz34: u could easily makes a few grand over a weekdend in a casnio
Hitman010: live play is so boring...15 hands an hour
wagz34: thats why i play the big limits live
Hitman010: what u play
wagz34: hands r more exciting

Be The Rock

While grinding through hands of blackjack and no limit hold 'em, I've gotten this idea that the way to make the most money is just to play like a rock.

Now, I'm not saying that passive play will make you the money. But I do think that solid, consistent, predictable, disciplined play is the way to go.

In blackjack, it's a simple matter of following the play chart until you clear the workthru requirement and collect your bonus amount. For anyone skeptical of blackjack bonuses, they're worth a few hundred dollars every month. More information can be found here.

In poker, making money is mostly a matter of getting in a lot of hands as long as you're playing well. But playing well doesn't have to be some kind of elusive struggle. It just means that you try to apply your knowledge consistently and thoughtfully.

In other words: Don't get too fancy. Beware of unexplained big bets. Accept that you'll get bluffed every once in a while, but be content to know that your opponents are almost always just playing the cards they have. Don't worry about metagame principles or trying to mix up your play.

Yes, aggressive play and exceptions to the rule are the essence of poker. But I know that for me, my losing runs are worse than they should be when I get carried away with these concepts.

Maui

This is a picture of the sunrise from the top of Haleakala Volcano on Maui. It was so nice up there, but a little bit chilly by Hawaii standards.

It's really something to see. I don't feel any deep emotions about it, except to try and appreciate the beauty of nature for a few minutes. It reminds me of the other great sunrises I've seen -- from atop Mount Fuji, at Stone Mountain, in Philmont, Arizona.

I liked this sunrise because it was right on schedule at 6:51 a.m., and the sun came up exactly where I expected it to. Sometimes, the sun rises in different parts of the sky from where the lights over the horizon first appear in the still-dark hours. The cloud cover in the Haleakala crater below gave the illusion that this was just another plateau instead of a couple of miles up on a mountain on one of the best islands on Earth.

It's good to take a break from poker and take in the sights and the moments that are much more important to real life. Even when poker's popularity begins to wane, there will still be many fresh fish in the sea.

After the sunrise, Daniel and I went to the beach and did a little snorkeling. The water is very clear, and you can get right up close to the tropical fish. If you feed them frozen peas, several of them will swarm around to get their food. It's a lot of fun. Daniel wrote about it in this post.

Now back to Honolulu! It might not be as stunning as Maui, but it's pretty damn cool.

Awake

Beeping coming from the floor. Shut up! Stupid alarm clock. Why is it dark outside? Damn, it's 5:45 a.m.

OK, where am I? Santiago? Atlanta? Montreal? Amsterdam? Vegas?

I remember now: I live in Honolulu. Sweet. God I hate mornings.

Get out of bed. Limp to the shower. Oh, there's my computer. I wonder how I did in poker last night?

Well, I know I busted two times against sets and one time when I had a set vs. a straight. That's three buy-ins. I know I didn't double up at all. But then again, I won a bunch of little pots -- I still can't believe how damn weak these no limit players are.

Take a shower, then check PokerTracker. What do I expect to find? Did I lose $400? $600? I have no idea. I know I made a little bit back at the end ...

Oh, markNet, tell me the verdict: how much money did I lose last night? I go through this routine every morning because I prefer to check on my winnings and losses after a good night's sleep. I don't want to worry about poker when I should be sleeping. If I won, I feel good about it. If I lost, well, that's in the past.

Then PokerTracker spits out a number: -$35. Woohoo! I lost $35!

My first losing day at no limit for the year out of 12 no limit sessions so far (the rest have been limit).

How did I only lose $35? There's only one answer to that question:

These wimpy no limit players just keep on folding to my continuation bets and bluff check-raises. Most of them are scared money. They probably shouldn't be playing $200 buy-in no limit games, but I don't mind. They can just keep on playing.

NL Again

Limit hold 'em is the game I've spent most of my time playing over the last 14 months, but my return to no limit poker makes me want to make that my game for a while.

No limit is simply too profitable to ignore. I would be foolish not to play no limit because there's more dead money lying around there.

No limit is the game that's popular right now, and that's where most of the fish are to be found. Additionally, the nature of the game means that you can really punish bad players with big bets and bigger pots. You can double up in a heartbeat if you play your cards right.

But limit is still my favorite form of poker. I like the thousands of little decisions you have to make in hopes that they add up to something. I like that your stack is always taking small steps forward or backward, while hopefully moving more ahead than behind.

The fact is that while I've been making money in limit for quite some time now, the pace of the bankroll growth is slower than I would like. Playing shorthanded $5/$10 games, the higher variance makes me question whether it's really worthwhile to fight such tough battles for between 1 and 2 bets per 100 hands.

Ah, the long run. In limit, while winrates and profits regress toward the mean over time, the short term is a real pain in the ass.

Is it worth it? What will make me the most money in the long run?

That's what it all comes down to. I still believe that limit poker holds more long-term earning potential, but for me to feel like it's worthwhile I need to be playing higher limits. And to play higher limits, I need to rebuild my bankroll after drawing on it for living expenses in Santiago, Chile and then in Atlanta.

The goal for now is to make the most money I can as quickly as possible. I've improved my limit game at a steady rate -- I can identify many more of my mistakes now than I could a year ago, when all I could tell myself was that I was confident in my game for whatever it was worth. Knowing how much I still don't know is a sign that I'm beginning to get a clue.

Dammit, no limit is too good of a game to neglect. It's my first game; it's the game I always return to when I need safe earnings. And these $200 buy-in games are so damn soft. Most of the time, those players will fold in large pots to a simple continuation bet or well-placed check-raise. They know just enough to be scared, and I know just enough to put the fear of God in them with a big bet as they throw their cards into the muck.

This means that I'm recentering my goals again.

My plan is to play no limit for at least the month of February with my eye on restoring my bankroll to levels where I can play $15/$30 limit. Once I get to that level, I will have to make a tough decision: Should I stick with no limit or switch back over to the limit ladder?

Strike!

Even though I was in a bowling league for a couple of seasons, it wasn't because I was any good. In fact, I sucked.

One time my team got to the finals, but we skipped out because we wanted to get drunk and go camping instead. I know that's against some sort of bowler's code, but we weren't hard core.

Bowling always pissed me off because I sucked so hard and I have a hard time taking constructive criticism. Every once in a while I could have the patience to learn an idea, but I had a hard time remembering everything as I went up to the lane to throw the ball.

Here's what I was thinking: "Rolllllll the ball ... hit my mark ... keep my wrist firm ... roll it straight ... don't walk sideways ... don't get a gutter ball ... throw it hard ... but not too hard ... keep square ... take five steps ... or was that seven steps? ... I want a drink ..."

The point is that there were so many concepts that I had a hard time applying all of them at once as I approached the lane.

Poker is easier for me because you have more time and I don't have to be coordinated.

The only time pressure is that timer, and I hardly ever come close to using anywhere near my allotted time.

I'm just trying to send a message to myself:

"Hey, self. Here's a message: Poker isn't bowling. Chill out. Slow down. The fish and chips aren't going anywhere."

I can dodge bullets, baby

Nah, I can't dodge bullets. I've been getting my ass kicked over the last couple of days, actually. But it's fun to say.

I was close to having the bankroll I'd need to move up to $10/$20 6-max games, but then I hit a very quick -- but quite steep -- slide. That's OK. It's the nature of the game to have big ups and downs. Fortunately, poker is a game played in the long term, and I've been through enough hills and valleys to know that the ol' bankroll will keep moving up.

I don't really have much else to say about poker. I'm feeling good.

I get to fly over to the Big Island on Friday, which will be a lot of fun. I've been looking forward to seeing the other islands of this amazing state, and the island of Hawaii seems like it has a lot to off. I'll be on the west side of the island near Kona, so I won't get to see Hilo.

Hopefully, I'll be able to get back to Hilo in a couple of weeks to see some of the new museums that are opening. An astronomy museum opens on the 23rd, and the Bishop Museum is only a few months old.

What's cool is that the astronomy museum will show off some of the research of the Hawaii's telescopes, which are some of the most powerful in the world. They say that these telescopes -- along with the ones in Chile -- rival the Hubble telescope.

And of course, there are volcanoes. That should be awesome. I'll be sure to bring my camera.

Mixed Signals

Leaks in your game suck.

One of the worst is that I misinterpret information. Everything in poker is so damn specific, but I always try to turn it into a generality. I think that may be a reason why my game tended to devolve the first few times I went through "Small Stakes Hold 'em": I remembered the concept, but not the situation.

I'm getting a lot better though!

Although I slipped up again recently. I was reading through The Best of the Gerber Baby on 2+2, and one of the examples is about what to do on the river if you bet and get raised.

The advice from shillx is to either three bet or fold. Of course, I took that to the extreme and lost a little more money than I should have in a couple of hands.

It isn't that his advice is wrong; it's that his advice only applies to highly contested pots. His quote: "Bet-calling the river when both you and the villain have shown considerable strength is a HUGE mistake."

---

In other news ... markNet lives! I'm so glad my dual processor badass computer that I built after winning my first and only Vegas tourney is up and running again. This time, it's better than ever. I have a new 19 inch flat screen monitor, a fast (600 kb/s) cable connection and a new motherboard. I'm set.

I played poker on the rejuvenated markNet tonight, and it was fantastic. This computer is so much fun.

Good luck at the tables.