Post-Vegas tilt

Sure, you got drunk. That's the best excuse in the world for losing. No trouble losing when you got a good excuse. And winning! That can be heavy on your back too. Like a monkey. You drop that load too when you got an excuse. All you gotta do is learn to feel sorry for yourself. It's one of the best indoor sports: feeling sorry for yourself -- a sport enjoyed by all, especially the born losers.
"The Hustler"

Gah, teh Internet poker is getting its revenge!

Oh, how quickly I forget the differences between Vegas and the pixelated land of fast action and bad beats, where the average level of play is a little higher and the term "tourist" is more derogatory than factual.

The first two days back have been atrocious, where I've quickly erased all my Vegas winnings and then some.

Unfortunately, I have no one but myself to blame. I jumped into a 15/30 6-max game on Monday, reasoning that if I just single-tabled with some fish I'd be fine. And while that logic isn't completely off, it neglects the idea that I should be playing my best game, which is no limit (at least for now).

Then on Tuesday, I played some serious donkey poker at the NL tables where I was a bit too aggressive and a little tilty. I took a break, came back, hit a set, and lost to the nut flush. That was enough for me.

So ... nothing's new under the sun. There are ups and downs, and I hope I'm getting better at avoiding the downs. Although after these last couple of days, I begin to wonder if maybe I'm destined to tilt every once in a while, thus erasing the steps forward I thought I had been making.

But that's just negativity talking. Shit happens, but it usually doesn't last long. The main thing is that I stopped playing when I realized I wasn't at my best.

Hell, it's a two-day losing streak. I shouldn't even be complaining after how good I ran through all of June and the beginning of this month.

Note to self: quit bitching and just play gut.

Three Hands

I just had to show those creeps and those punks what the game is like when it's great, when it's really great. You know, like anything can be great -- anything can be great ... I don't care, bricklaying can be great. If a guy knows. If he knows what he's doing and why, and if he can make it come off. I mean, when I'm goin' -- when I'm really goin' -- I feel like...

... like a jockey must feel. He's sittin' on his horse, he's got all that speed and that power underneath him, he's comin' into the stretch, the pressure's on him -- and he knows -- just feels -- when to let it go, and how much. 'Cause he's got everything workin' for him -- timing, touch. It's a great feeling, boy, it's a real great feeling when you're right, and you know you're right. It's like all of a sudden I got oil in my arm. Pool cue's part of me. You know, it's a -- pool cue's got nerves in it. It's a piece of wood -- it's got nerves in it. You feel the roll of those balls. You don't have to look. You just know. Ya make shots that nobody's ever made before. And you play that game the way nobody's ever played it before.

"The Hustler"

LAS VEGAS _ The Mirage owed me.

It's a nice poker room -- It's like an ancestor of the Bellagio and the Wynn. A place that definitely wasn't built so Doyle and Chip could get rich. A place that was built for the poker player.

The under the gun player min raised to $10, a middle position player called, and I peeked down at the prettiest pair of pocket rockets. I raised to $40, and both players called.

The flop came 7 high, it was checked to me, and I bet about half the pot. The under the gun player check-raised me all in, and I called.

He flipped over 77. I was dead.

---

When I busted out of the blogger tourney, I headed to Bally's and sat in a $1/$2 no limit game. After an hour of folding and watching fish swap their money, I was down $7. That wouldn't do.

So I walked back over to Ceasar's and bought into the $2/$5 no limit game.

Four players limped, and I popped it on the button with AQo. Two players called. The flop came QJ7 rainbow. I bet, and the under the gun player called.

The turn paired the board with Jacks.

---

In the first hand, I suffered a good beat!

The turn brought an Ace, a magical two-outer, a 22- or 23-to-1 shot of catching up when way behind. I scooped in a large pot.

In the second hand, I checked the turn, hoping to induce a bluff, or, at worst, minimize my losses to three Jacks. When the villain bet the full amount of the pot on the river, I called pretty quickly, nearly positive that he was bluffing. He mucked his cards without showing.

I've already written about the third hand.

Those are the only three big hands I had all weekend. It was all I needed. One suckout and two premium hands holding up.

When your good hands hold up and your bad hands don't cost you, you're bound to win some money.

Perry

Steam vents at Volcanoes National Park

LAS VEGAS _ After a delicious steak-and-wine dinner at Binion's steakhouse, our crew headed to the Excalibur to drop hammers and bluff all-in against bloggers.

I had been looking forward to the game, where I could play against players including metsfan, absinthe, biggestron, Shane, Veneno, JoeSpeaker, Zeem and many others. Hell, even David Williams' mom, Shirley Williams (who I had played with before in Vegas) was there.

But many obstacles stood in our way: the waiting list was pretty long, the floorman was treating everyone like shit, there was no guarantee I would get into one of the tables I wanted, and the Excal poker room has been moved to a more crowded and noisy area of the casino.

So we walked over to the MGM Grand. After chatting with glyphic for a minute, I got a seat in what looked like a loose, jovial 2/5 no limit game. Daniel sat at the table two seats to my left a few minutes later.

There was this one dude in the four seat wearing a Full Tilt jersey.

Helixx walked by our table and filled me in -- that was tiltboy Perry Friedman!

Despite the presence of a World Series of Poker bracelet winner, we were clearly at one of the best tables in the house. Most everyone was drinking, telling some hilarious dirty jokes and kidding with the flirty chick at the table. I asked this guy to my right, Carlos, who had won the Ken Shamrock UFC fight earlier in the day.

Carlos asked if I was a UFC fan, and I told him I watch it when I can.

"Do you like Matt Hughes?" he asked. "He'll be at this table in a few minutes. We reserved it for him."

Sweet!

I got up to tell Drew that Hughes was coming, and when I got back, Daniel had doubled his stack. He had gotten all-in preflop with Aces against AK. Hell of a start.

Meanwhile, the table was rocking. Perry and the gang were cracking the table up with double entendres aimed at the chicky, the drinks kept coming and the game stayed juicy.

From the hijack, Perry raised to $20, and it folded around to Daniel in the big blind. He tossed out a call. The flop brought 10-3-3. Daniel checked, Perry bet, Daniel raised to $100, and Perry pushed.

Daniel called, showing the Snowman Taterlegs (83s) to take down a big pot. Perry showed AT, and he couldn't believe he had been beaten by such a crappy hand. That's the power of SMTL.

Then Daniel ordered a beer. If he's drinking at the table, I know it's so on.

I didn't have to wait too long for my chance to join the "bust Perry Friedman club." I called a raise in a six-way pot with pocket Twos and hit a set on the Jack-high flop. Perry bet about $55. I asked how much it was to call.

"That $55, and the rest of my stack, because I'm pot committed," he said. He only had about $75 more in front of him.

I just called and got the desired result -- one of the remaining players behind me pushed in, Perry called, and I called. Perry had something like second pair with a couple of backdoor draws, and the other player showed JQs for top pair. The turn brought a Q, but my three of a kind held up to take down the big pot.

Fishies came and went, Perry rebought, and the table was still going strong when I left. Hughes didn't show up, but I had a blast at one of the most enjoyable tables I've played at in a long time.

Impressions

I was in this bar last week and I ran into this guy I've met a couple of times. I swear I didn't even bring poker up, but he was talking about how addicted he was to his Playstation poker game (not sure which one).

Turns out, this guy had called in sick to work before because he had stayed up all night playing poker for fake money.

"Dude, I got up to like 2 billion in chips," he said.

"Man, if you're missing work in a fake money game, that's pretty sad," I said.

A couple of days later, some co-workers were talking about gambling. Most of them seemed to think that poker -- like all gambling -- is an unwinnable game. I spouted off some line about how you aren't playing against the house in poker, but mostly I kept my mouth shut.

Then, riding in a car with a photographer to an assignment, he asked how much I expect to make in Vegas. I told him it's a kind of pointless venture to anticipate how much money you're going to make because it's impossible to know. I gave him the old saying about how poker is all luck in the short run and all skill in the long run.

"I don't think I could deal with that," he said. "It seems to me like it's all luck all the time."

Sometimes I want to yell, "How bout these Benjamins."

---

I'm in the San Francisco airport now waiting for my connecting flight to Vegas. Almost there!

Aggression Frequency

The problem with Aggression Factor has always been that it doesn't give you enough information.

Postflop Aggression Factor provides a ratio of bets and raises to calls. (It's calculated as [Raise Percentage + Bet Percentage]/Call Percentage). It's more a measure of how rarely someone calls than a way of telling how aggressive someone is overall (because folds are excluded from the equation).

But postflop Aggression Frequency, a newer statistic available in PokerAce HUD's layout manager, accounts for every possible action except for checking (because the action of checking isn't necessarily a passive play -- it could represent a check-raise attempt). The formula is (times bet + times raised)/(times bet+ times raised + times called + times folded). It's expressed as a percentage instead of a ratio.

I took most of this information from this 2+2 thread.

It seems like Aggression Frequency is a more accurate way of characterizing a player's tendencies, and I started using it tonight. I think I like it a lot. I've placed the Aggression Frequency number directly next to where Aggression Factor is displayed so I can see both at once.

It's useful to know if someone will raise on 90 percent of his actions (in the case of a maniac), or if someone rarely raises and has a high Went to Showdown Percentage (in the case of a calling station). I love finding better metrics.

In other news ...

Vegas is going to be awesome! Hopefully with the way I've been playing recently, I've gotten a reputation as a donkish idiot. That's what I'm going for, anyway.

I will show most all of my bluffs if I'm playing with bloggers. I will play the Hammer stronger than Snowman Taterlegs. I will go for silly trick plays. It'll be fun!

Vegas coming

First off, doubleas book has been published. My copy is already on the way. I bet $23.99 it will be great.

Vegas will be a lot of fun this weekend. I wish I didn't have to deal with work days in between now and then. I'm telling myself that I'm going to take it easy and spend some time just hanging out when I get there, but I know from experience that I'll end up at the tables most of the time. I definitely want to drink and meet people, but I will really enjoy playing with some of you too.

I'm staying at the Sahara, which will require me to make much use of the monorail, which I like. I imagine my time will be divided between the Excaliber, MGM, Sahara, Bellagio, Wynn, Treasure Island and whatever other casino comes up. Those are the ones I definitely want to make it to, though.

Here's my hope: I want to hit it pretty big as soon as I sit down and then allocate part of that money to try and get even luckier. Like if I win $1,000 right off the bat, I might try to spend some of that money on winning some blackjack, roulette or craps. I could treat it like a sticky bonus.

But that probably won't happen. Even if I get off to a good start, I probably wouldn't let myself blow much of the money on -EV games. Probably.

I plan on playing whatever games come my way. At a guess, I think my time will probably be evenly split between limit and no limit. I want to play no limit games between $200 and $500 buyins, and limit games between 2/4 up to 20/40. I might not play $20/$40. We'll see.

It's been almost a year since I was last in Vegas. That was a great trip, after I had just returned to the States from Chile. I'm ready to get back.

Harrington, Vol. 2

Was it good? Yeah, "Harrington on Hold 'em, Vol. 2" was good. But I haven't suddenly started winning a lot of tournaments after reading it.

The first 119 pages deal with making moves, which is actually my favorite part of the book. Harrington talks about bluffing preflop, continuation bets, probe bets, squeeze plays, semi-bluffs, check-raise bluffs and dark-tunnel bluffs. This section is really informative because it seems like other books don't go too much into the details of bluffing.

The rest of the book is spent on inflection points and the concept of M, which has been popularized to the point of over-saturation in poker tournaments. That's with good reason; the concept of the move-in zone is basic and essential end-game strategy.

So all that is well and good, but I still don't seem to do well in multitable tournaments except on occasion. I suppose that's perfectly natural, because the chances of making a final table are proportional to the number of entrants in the tourney. Still, I haven't had a major cash in a tournament in a long time, and I've never final tabled one of those damned Full Tilt guaranteed tournaments. I would have thought I would have been able to do that at least once by now.

I guess I'll have to be patient.

What am I doing wrong? Here are some possibilities: I'm unlucky, I'm too tight, I'm too loose, I'm a donk at the wrong times, I don't get a good feel for the table, I try to play too much of a cash game as opposed to a tourney game, I don't have enough faith in my tourney skills or I worry that if I play too many tourneys I'll lose my feel for the cash games.

Eh. I'll get there eventually. I make my money at cash games anyway.

Poor play

For some reason, I'm playing shitty poker. I can't seem to concentrate and my reads are off.

Bad beats aren't the problem. I am.

Fortunately, unlike my Atlanta Braves, I don't have to play when I know I'm not playing well. I can just bide my time and hop in when I'm ready. I'm sure it won't be long.

In the meantime, my friend Owen's brother has started a company that publishes an e-mag called The Blog Reader. Check it out.

Baseball and the Palomar

I'm sitting in the Los Angeles airport after a great, fun, exciting weekend of baseball, cards and friends.

After hitting up the Hustler when I got in on Saturday, I met up with JoeSpeaker , metsfan, A.J., Owen and Erin to go to the Dodgers-Pirates game. It was awesome, and the home team won. A.J. kicks ass -- he can talk your head off, and I loved listening to him.

I liked Dodger Stadium a lot. It was built in 1962, but it still looks nice and has a fun atmosphere. I had heard about the legendary beach balls that bounce around at the games. There was also a blow-up doll being hit around in the stands, which cracked me up. Metsfan is already talking about the World Series. The Mets are a great team, but it might be a little early to be thinking about late October.

I also saw the San Diego Padres lose to the Seattle Mariners on Sunday, and then the Anaheim Angels beat the Colorado Rockies in a thriller on Monday. Petco Park in San Diego is beautiful -- I've been to 13 MLB stadiums so far, and Petco is in my top four.

After the Padres game, I figured I couldn't pass up the opportunity to hit up one of the San Diego card rooms. So I hopped on the Internet and found that the Palomar was only four miles away from downtown, toward Escondito.

It's unlike any card room I've ever been to. The Palomar is a storefront on the side of El Cajon Boulevard -- a rare Sunday night light amid fast food restaurants and sleeping businesses. I guess when poker is legalized, there's no reason for the glitz of Vegas. All you need is card tables and dealers for people who want to waste away a few hours and maybe get lucky.

There were about six tables inside with four games running. There were two 1/2 no limit tables with a $100 buy-in, one 5/10 no limit table and one 3/6 limit game. Some guys in the corner were playing Pai Gow. The rake was $5. The people seemed a little down on their luck but generally friendly. I sat in the 1/2 no limit game. I didn't want to push my luck, especially after a long day where I had already had several drinks.

The game was friendly and fun. One old guy came over from the limit table and started playing like a maniac. Maybe that's how he thought no limit was supposed to be played, but he busted out in about 10 minutes. Another guy was talking about his spinal tap. One rounder wearing headphones liked to slow play every single hand, which made him easy to read. A Vietnamese woman to my right was smiling and having a good time.

I only picked up one decent hand, A9s, which I raised from middle position. I usually wouldn't play A9s from MP in an online game, but I felt I had a strong read on this table.

I got a few callers, and two 9s fell on the flop to give me trips. A shorter stack pushed all in after I made a smallish bet, and he turned over J9 for a lower three of the kind. I cashed out shortly afterward for a $19 profit. Good enough for me.

I can't wait for the Vegas trip in two weeks!

Aloha from the Hustler!

I got in to Cali this morning and had a couple of hours to kill, so I knew I had to hit a card room while I had the chance.

I sat in at a 2/5 no limit game at the Hustler, which I don't like quite as much as the Commerce, but it's still decent. The game was filled with loose-passive players who limped into a lot of pots and avoided confrontations -- my favorite kind of table.

I won an early hand with Aces, then lost a pot when I bet with pocket 88 on a raggy looking board.

Later, I called a short stack who pushed all in with an A on the board when I had AK, but unfortunately he hit his Q on the turn for two pair, KQ. Then I got close to even by bluffing with a suited hammer.

This guy who looked like an exhausted biker was getting killed directly to my right. He kept whining about how his Aces and Kings never held up, but I didn't once see him raise during the whole session.

In one hand, I limped in a multiway pot with ATs. I picked up two of my suit on a paired flop, called a min bet, and then hit an Ace on the turn. The river gave me the A-high flush, and I made some money from a guy who made his straight and another guy who called my large bet but didn't show what he had.

The whiny biker had KK again.

I was up $207 after two hours, so that was a good start to my yearly baseball trip!

I'll see a Dodgers game today, a Padres game tomorrow and an Angels game on Monday with a couple of friends and select poker bloggers. I'll be sure to post photos later on!

Mahalo

I'm so thankful for all the fish.

The poker boom is still going on, and who knows when it will end. I'm damn lucky that the Internet and poker came together at a time in my life where I'm able to take full advantage of it.

I haven't been playing online poker long -- only a little over two years -- but the games are still almost as good as I thought they were when I first started. It's easy to find donkeys. Fish litter the tables. There's dead money everywhere.

I can pull up a random 2/4 no limit table and have a better-than-even-chance that the first seat I sit in, I'll have some gamblers to my right who are dying to share their stacks.

I'm not a great player. But I'm convinced that a tight, aggressive player who has the ability to lay down hands when he knows he's beat can make a good earn. Rakeback and an endless stream of poker and blackjack bonuses keep padding the bankroll to the tune of hundreds of dollars a month.

I know this won't last forever. Hell, Congress could vote to make Internet poker illegal, and I don't know what we'd do then. I guess we'd be shit out of luck.

I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts. Maybe it will last a long time.

Fish must be nocturnal ...

Because these tables just get better the later I stay up. It's about 11:30 p.m. here, which means it's 5:30 a.m. on the East Coast. Maybe all these people still awake are the ones trying to get even or sleep-deprived.

I made one of the worst moves I can remember last night. It was terrible. I won't go into the gory details because I'm too embarrassed, but let's just say that I pushed all in with a low pocket pair on the flop against a set. Woops.

I thought at the time that I had good reason for what I was doing because I had extensive notes on my opponent. I made a read that this was the kind of situation he was bluffing at repeatedly, and I decided my pocket pair had a better than even chance of winning the hand.

Of course, this play led me to question myself and my seemingly awful play. Where did I go wrong?

Obviously, my read was wrong.

But I don't think I was incorrect in trusting my analysis of the hand. Unfortunately, that analysis was flawed.

I made a snap judgment based on my read without fully considering that my read was based on a small sample size. I didn't account enough for the chance that my read was incorrect.

I relied on what I thought my opponent didn't have rather than what I thought was the range of hands he could have had. Bush league. Whatever.

Ach. I'm ready to sleep, but if there were ever a time for toothpicks to prop my eyes open and keep me at the table, this is it. I'll give these tables a few more minutes...

Blackjack Disco

About a year ago, before I started playing any blackjack, it looked like the bonus scene was dying. All the major poker sites were cutting back on their monthly bonuses except for Absolute Poker, which I've always found to be a chore to play at.

Little did I know that the blackjack sites were giving away lots of free money.

And they still are today.

This month, I've played bonuses at 32red, Linesmaker, Superbook, Betsson, Planetluck, Aceclub, Intercasino, William Hill and Littlewoods. And that's just the start to all the bonuses that are currently available.

One benefit I have now is that my bankroll is larger than it was when I started playing blackjack bonuses last fall, making it more comfortable for me to make larger wagers and more quickly clear the workthru requirement of each bonus. Betting more money on each turn of the card raises your variance for sure, but it doesn't decrease the real value of the bonus at all.

Anyways, I always recommend the blackjack bonuses. Some of these sites offer bonuses on a monthly basis, but most of them are one-time sign-up bonuses.

Some notes:

_Daniel mentioned to me that he heard the IGM-Pay bonuses (20 percent up to $100 with a 3X deposit+bonus workthru) would stop being offered at the end of this month. These bonuses apply to Starluck, Planetluck and Aceclub casinos. I had to talk to customer support each time to get them to credit me with the IGM-Pay bonus, but they didn't hesitate to do so.

_Daniel also found a cool blackjack site that lists strategy charts for each casino. It's called Casinodave.com. It also has a lot of other useful info.

_Scurvy deserves credit for getting me into blackjack bonuses to start with. He has published "A Beginner's Guide to Casino Bonuses" as well as a more recent list of cashable blackjack bonuses. One thing to note is that some of these bonuses have high workthru requirements that severely cut into their EV. I like the bonuses that have a higher upside, and I probably won't bother with some of the sites that require wagers totalling $14,000 for a $100 bonus (for example).

Harrington, Vol. 1

I know I'm probably the last person in the world to read "Harrington on Hold 'em, Vol. 1," but I'll weigh in anyway.

I liked the style it was written in and the practical advice given. The hand examples are the most valuable part of the book. They're well-illustrated and easy to understand, and they convey general principles in a game where everything seems to depend on the situation.

A few of the details struck me as odd.

I don't know what to make of his occasional probe bets. Harrington suggests tossing out bets of about 1/3 of the pot every once in a while as bluffs to try and pick up the pot with minimal expense. Perhaps this move is more effective in live tournaments, but it seems to me that underbets in online tournaments are rarely successful. I prefer to bet 1/2 of the pot size so that I don't appear so weak and have a greater chance at success.

I also might quibble (only a little) with some of Harrington's play on the flop when he has a big draw. In one example, Harrington flops a straight draw and a flush draw, but he's unsure how clean his outs are. He suggests calling the flop and seeing what the turn brings.

I almost always play my monster draws very hard on the flop unless I have a good reason not to. I feel like I give up value if I play my drawing hands too passively, and I like to get all in when I have such a potentially strong hand. That gives me two streets to hit one of my 15 outs by the end, which is usually good enough for at around 50 percent equity. But of course that's entirely situational.

Overall, I liked Vol. 1 a lot. It's hard to find good books on no limit strategy, and this one is the best I've read. I don't think it will make me a tournament master, but it will help my overall no limit game.

Vol. 2 is up next.

Jopke

I'm sitting here, a little tipsy after a few drinks, playing a 2/4 no limit game because I'm an idiot who couldn't find an acceptable sit-n-go despite my state of mind.

And I'm telling myself, "I'll just double up once and then sit out. Just once is all I need."

So when the 58 percent maniac raises to $20 preflop and I have 55 one off the button, what do I do? I call and intend to raise the flop on a bluff unless it's a very scary flop.

The flop comes 7 high ... with a 5 on it! I hit big. I called the $40 flop bet.

Then on the turn, some weird rag comes, the donkey bets, I raise, and he goes all in. I call his turned straight, which he made with 76o.

I start yelling, "Pair the board! Pair the board! Pair the board!"

Then the river brings that perfect card: the 6 of clubs to pair the board, give me a boat and crush his straight for a $500 profit. Hell yeah.

That's just how I've been rolling.

I want to remember this -- what it's like to be making good money when I'm playing well and getting lucky when I happen to be behind. (Fortunately, I thought of most of what I was going to write before I went to the bar.)

The main thing is that I'm taking more notes than I ever have before, and I'm listening to my instincts because they feel right. I'm not deluding myself when I feel like I can read my opponents' hands; I'm right a high percentage of the time, and I'm not getting sucked out on either.

Here's what I'm doing differently:

_As mentioned, I'm taking more notes. I'm trying to put a note on someone every hand if possible.

_I'm keeping track of all the action from start to finish.

_I'm being patient.

_I'm only playing two or three tables at a time.

_I'm thinking as I'm playing and applying my reads properly.

I know good runs never last forever, but I'm going to live it up while it does.

Sets

For the most part, I don't fear sets. I don't worry about them; I don't want to think about them. If someone has a set, then so be it. I'll make more money overall by playing strongly against the possible hands I can see than the imagined hands I can't.

There's only one problem with my reasoning -- it's a bit naive. I think it's a good strategy in many games, especially when playing against unpredictable players that like to run a lot of weird bluffs or nonsensical all-ins.

But to entirely discount the possibility that your opponent holds a set undermines your ability to read his hand. You can't put your opponent on an accurate hand range unless you consider the chance that he does hold that perfect pocket pair to bust your Aces in the hole.

The probability that anyone holds a set in any given hand is relatively small. That said, I believe it's possible to anticipate when you're beat based on betting patterns and reads. An obvious example is when you hold AK with an A on the flop vs. a very passive player who suddenly raises and re-raises. He might have connected his low pocket pair with the rags on the flop.

There is more danger in overestimating the chance that you're up against a set than underestimating it.

But ignoring the feasibility of a set entirely is thoughtless, -EV poker.

Flamingo

I arrived in Vegas with the crew last July, having recently returned to the States and ready to gamble.

I sat in a no limit game at the Flamingo. I was probably a bit too eager to get some hands in. It was a $300 buy-in game, and I had come to play.

After almost a round, I raised prelop with AQ. It was folded around to the big blind -- A calm, kind of talkative guy who I had pegged as a gambler. He called.

The flop came Axx. No draws.

He checked to me, I bet, he put in a check-raise. I thought for about three seconds before pushing all in.

"I have to call," he said, turning over AK.

The turn brought a King to add insult to injury, and I was out before I had barely started.

The guy reached his hand out and shook mine.

"Nice hand," he said. "Just a little too aggressive."

I wasn't sure if he was mocking me or not, but I was getting the hell out of there. I hate the Flamingo. It's like playing at some ratty third-rate online site with crappy software.

I was pretty tilty, so there was only one thing to do -- go to the 2/4 limit game at the Sahara and gamble it up!

I was thinking about this hand because I felt so fishy about it. I didn't think it through, and it should have been obvious that many players will cold-call AK in the big blind when facing an UTG raise. I assumed at the time that he would have re-raised.

I've improved my game tremendously since then, and I'm struck by how many little things there are to consider. But each of them can be taken one at a time, and most decisions can be made with plenty of time to spare.

My game is getting better because I'm thinking harder about what I'm doing before I act. I'm not mindlessly 10-tabling while waiting for the nuts. I'm not ramming AK all-in unless I have a good reason to do so. I'm not playing AA like a kamikaze pilot going for bust.

If I had it to do over again, there's no way I would make the same mistake of running my AQ into AK like that. It's a slow process, but little by little, the percentage points of EV are adding up.

Chicken or feathers?

Isn't this always the way it seems to go?

The moment I'm ready to start bitching about every river suckout or invisible set, I suddenly start to run good again. Either I should start bitching sooner, or I need to not complain at all.

I try to be patient, but the beats still get to me! Whatever, whatever.

I started out today losing $200 on blackjack bonuses after a brutal run last night on Party Poker and World Sports Exchange. It was going to be another beginning of another losing run.

But then things started to turn around. I didn't change anything about my game; I wasn't in a better mindset or concentrating harder. Luck just decided it was my turn to win today.

I flopped a boat and let a guy catch a runner-runner flush. Double. I had AA vs. KK. Double. I hit a set. Double.

In all, I doubled up about five times today -- nearly entirely erasing the futility of the previous two weeks.

If there's one sin I'm more guilty of than any other in poker, it's that I have no faith that bad runs will end, or that I haven't completely forgotten how to play the game. I always worry that I'll turn out like Steve Blass, a baseball player made famous because he inexplicably lost all ability to throw a strike. Nobody knows exactly what went wrong -- he just lost it.

I haven't forgotten how to play. I'm still learning, but I know what I'm doing out there.

Surfing before work

Mama never told me there were so many fish at 2/4 no limit.

I never would have thought there are so many players who don't know what they're doing. In general, it seems looser and more aggressive than many lower limit games, but those are the only real differences. There are plenty of donks.

I only moved up a couple of days ago, after I decided that I really should try to play higher no limit games. It's just a natural. Despite my obsession with limit over the last year and a half, no limit has always been my best game. I don't know what's wrong with me -- I should have done this a lot sooner.

To start, I hit a bad run where KK ran into a five-outer on the river, and fortunately it got checked through. Then I lost with a boat vs. quads, and I missed out on a $1,100 pot.

But it was easy to get some of it back tonight. I can only think of one hand where I hit, but I was still able to value bet enough and fold when I was beat to make a little change.

Several other things probably contribute to my feeling that this game is fishy and that I'm playing well. I've been pretty strict with my game selection, I'm holding the tables down to two or three at a time, and I'm taking a shit ton of notes.

It really does help. Multitabling is all well and good, but there's no way I can play my best game 10-tabling. That's not to say it isn't profitable; it's just not as profitable as moving up in limits.

I've had a hell of a week.

Got drunk Friday night.

Hiked around Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island all day Saturday and Sunday.

Sat around Monday.

Went for a hike at Maunawili Falls on Tuesday.

Surfed before work today.

Hawaii rocks. Pictures coming up soon!

Bonuses Rule

I love the B2B sites.

My 600 euro TopRankedPoker bonus was just deposited into my account. With that bonus and a few others for another 100 euro, my total bonus earned from TopRankedPoker is $903.

And that's not including other profits from gameplay.

Hell yeah it was worth it, even if it took a little while to clear.

If it weren't for my bad play, I'd win every time

Thanks to scurvy and grinder for their comments on my limit post. There are plenty of reasons to bet when behind, but I think they're exaggerated and quickly devolve into Fancy Play Syndrome.

I find the string of posts on luck in poker to be pretty interesting. There's no doubt that poker has a ton of luck involved in the short run, and that skilled players always win in the long run.

The difficulty is that we don't know how long the long run lasts except in retrospect. Riding out the bad times while still playing well is one of the main things that separates long-term winners from career losers.

I beat Matt twice in StarCraft today, but he had a big handicap in that he was playing Terran, which is his worst race and my best race. If he's Zerg, I don't stand a chance.

I'm heading off to Volcanos National Park this weekend on the Big Island. It sounds like it'll be awesome. And then I'll have fresh pictures, in addition to the shots from Diamondhead that I haven't posted yet.

Good luck at the tables!

Slowly but surely

Must ... clear ... B2B bonuses ... 700 points to go on Best Poker ...

Limit

I won't be able to play much poker for the next week and a half because a friend is in town. That also means I will only be able to post when I have some random thought while I'm near a computer.

Here's today's overly obvious idea of the moment:

In limit hold 'em, don't bet when behind.

I don't think it's too bad of an idea as a general principle. There are probably plenty of exceptions. But I probably cost myself more than I realize by raising for free cards and trying to force people to fold by making dumb bluffs.

Please leave comments if you think the above statement is wrong.

Parts of my game that suck

1. I can't tell if I'm playing my best game until after I've made some mistakes.

2. I'm willing to go all in with a wide range of hands against a short stack if I think I might bust them. I think Gary Carter said that was neurotic behavior once.

3. I'm predictable,

4. I can't stop myself from betting out on the following street if I got the last bet in on the previous street in a limit game.

5. I don't know what game is my best game.

6. I make obvious mistakes sometimes.

7. If I lead out the flop but check the turn, it means I don't have anything.

8. I hate fish when I should love them.

9. I'd rather defend my play than listen to why it's wrong.

10. I'm pretty bad at tournaments.

11. I feel like I'm entitled to win.

12. I have a low tolerance for losses.

13. I keep playing right after work and in mornings, but I should know better because it takes me a while to wake up.

14. I'm easily distracted by IM, and it makes my game worse.

15. I tell myself that more tables equals higher profits.

16. Like Webb, I don't have the nut.

17. I bluff at the wrong times.

18. I keep letting the cat play. Bad idea.

19. I don't respect other players.

20. I don't know whether I'm trusting my judgment too much or too little.

I'm sure there are plenty more, but 20 is enough for now. (And no, I'm not on a downswing -- I just want to do better.)

Addiction

I read a fair amount of poker content, and it seems to me that the topic of gambling addiction is studiously avoided.

We all love poker. We all like winning. But it's undeniable that the addictive qualities of gambling are at worst life-destroying, and at best a challenge to playing an optimal game.

The seed of addiction is created by the positive mental stimulus created by a win. The bigger the win, the more powerful the feelings of happiness. But as with any stimulant, successive uses result in ever-smaller emotional rewards, feeding the need for bigger and better wins to produce the same result.

This cycle is unavoidable except through self-discipline. Even then, it's a constant challenge to avoid tilt, desperation bets, crying calls and irrational all-ins as a way to try to replicate the feelings of self-satisfaction generated from a remembered victory.

Everyone eventually loses it to some extent. Winning players are able to control their self-destructive impulses by taking time off, playing lower limits, trying a new game and staying within their bankroll. Losing players keep playing until they're broke.

As poker players, we would like to pretend that we could cash out and walk away at any time. Some of us could; some of us couldn't. But few of us would do so unless we had good reason to, and even then it would be a challenge to stay away.

Winning poker players don't get a free pass here. It would be easy to say, "Well, because I'm able to consistently make a small profit, I'm in the clear." It doesn't work that way. Winners face a similar danger of gambling compulsion as losing players. The fact that a winner can show a profit just makes it easier to rationalize.

Poker players and bloggers should make an effort to come to terms with the addictive nature of the game. We need to be more constructive in our conversations about hands, bad beats, game selection, bankroll requirements and paranoia instead of constantly patting ourselves on the back and saying, "It's just variance."

That means being more honest with ourselves and each other, not only so we can improve our poker games, but so that we can ensure poker stays fun.

Better late than never

Tripjax asked these questions, so I thought I'd answer.

1. What is the biggest mistake people make at a NL table?

Calling bets and raises on the river.

2. What is the biggest mistake people make at a Limit table?

Folding in large pots when you have a chance to win.

3. Why do you play poker?

I've said that I play because I like the money, and that's true. But I also play because poker is a lot of fun, and because I want to win. I love busting people. I wouldn't play as much as I do for any one of those reasons, but they all work together.

4. If you weren't playing poker, what would you be doing?

Reading, and I'd probably be more likely to get bored.

5. What is your favorite poker book and why?

Small Stakes Hold 'em, because it seems to give some of the most accurate and well-thought-out advice on limit poker.

6. Who is your favorite poker player and why?

John Juanda, because he's not loud, I like his playing style and I busted him once on Full Tilt.

7. Which poker player do you dislike the most and why?

Mike Matasow. He's an ass, and his antics aren't good for the game.

8. Do your coworkers know about your blog?

I hope not. I don't think so.

9. What is the most you have won in a cash game or MTT (both live and online)?

Cash game: Live $500 or so, Online $1,848
MTT: Live $717, Online $300

10. What is the most you have lost in a cash game or in one day total (both live and online)?

$2,104

11. Who was your first poker blog read?

Chris Halverson.

12. What satisfies you more, your aces holding up for a big pot or a bluff working for a big pot?

A bluff in a big pot is way more satisfying. It's money that you won on your own, not based on the cards you were dealt.

13. Why do you blog?

I blog because I want to improve my game. It helps me solidify my thoughts and stay focused. Of course, I also like to have people read the blog.

14. Do you read blogs from an RSS reader like bloglines or do you visit each blog?

Bloglines. I used to use Google Reader, but bloglines is better.

15. Would you rather play poker for a living than do what you currently do for a living?

Nah, I'd rather be doing what I'm doing than playing poker for a living. Maybe in a few years I would rather play poker for a living, but it's not a very fulfilling lifestyle.

16. Do you wear a tin foil hat on occasion?

Nope. It's not productive.

17. If you had to pin it down to one specific trait, what does a great poker player have (or do) that separates them from an average player?

I would think that great players are excellent hand readers.

18. Is Drizz the coolest person on the planet for naming his baby Vegas?

Yup. It's a very catchy name.

19. What is your primary poker goal and are you close to accomplishing it?

My primary poker goal is still to consistently beat the 15/30 limit games and higher. I may be close to that goal, or I may be farther from it than ever.

My bankroll is at the level where I could play 15/30 regularly, but the problem is that I've been shot down several times when making the jump. I'm at a point where I'll have to come up with a new goal if I don't find some success there. Perhaps I should focus on no limit, which has always been my bread-and-butter game.

20. What is your primary online site and why?

My play is pretty evenly split between Party Poker, Full Tilt and Eurobet. The reason is rakeback. Right now, though, I'm spending most of my time clearing the juicy 600 euro bonuses at the B2B sites.

21. What site do you dislike and why?

I hate Absolute Poker. Its software is maddening.

Blogger tourney

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker!

This Online Poker Tournament is a No Limit Texas Holdem event exclusive to Bloggers.

Registration code: 7330476

Realization

Most players know that aggression is a key to victory in hold 'em. It's such a fundamental concept that it's taken for granted.

But one thing I hadn't fully considered was the interaction between aggression and equity.

Here's the 2+2 post that got me thinking about this topic. Down on the page, W. Deranged makes a point about the difference between betting for value and betting to realize your equity. The concepts are closely related, but they're not exactly the same.

We bet for ostensibly the same reason: we need to find a way to protect and cash in the equity we do have in the pot, even if it's below 50%.

Betting is the best way to do this. When we bet, villain is more likely to put in money with an inferior hand than he is if we check. In other words, betting is a better value play not because we have a pure, logical 50% value bet, but because it is simply better than checking in terms of our return. It "realizes" our equity, while also gaining some extra value from weaker hands that we would not have gained had we checked.

I don't have much to add. Just something to read.

---

EDIT: At least one part of the quoted text is doubtful. I do not believe that the "villain is more likely to put in money with an inferior hand than he is if we check." A check on the turn will induce a bet a high percentage of the time.

Let's look at our options:

1) Check-call the turn and river. Cost: 2 bb
2) Bet the turn and river, and be prepared to call a raise if it comes. Cost: 2-3 bb
3) Bet and fold to a turn raise: Cost: 1 bb

I'd rule out option three because I think it's plenty feasible that the villain also has AK for a split pot, or even a lesser hand.

Option one is the safest choice, and it could induce a bluff.

Option two is viable if a worse hand will call or raise, or if the villain would check behind a worse hand. Can we quantify this?

If the villain's hand range is 99 TT JJ QQ KK AA, AK, AQ, AJs and KQs, he has 45 possible hands (if my math is right).

The chance that a worse or tied hand will call or raise only really encompasses the six other AK combinations of 36 worse or tied hands, or 16.7 percent.

The chance that he would check behind with a worse hand that would also call a bet is hard to determine. Really, the only combination that makes sense for this action would be the nine AQ hands, and even that is doubtful after a flop check-raise. I'll estimate downward to six hands out of 36 worse or tied hands, or 16.7 percent.

Add in about 10 percent for a potential bluff raise, and you get a total of 43.4 percent (10 + 16.7 + 16.7). That might still be a bit too high.

You typically need to be ahead at least 50 percent of the time for a bet to be for value, so it doesn't look like we get there. Additionally, we aren't scared of many draw combinations out there except for two outers or a rare gutshot possibility.

I may be looking at this hand the wrong way, but as far as I can tell, a bet on the turn is incorrect.

That would seem to disqualify my initial babble at the top of my post. Now we're only left with the babble at the bottom of the post.

Coin flips

I donked it up to do well in the WBPT Gemini tournament, where we played two tourneys at once on Poker Stars. I took 2nd and 5th place, which should be good for second place overall.

Congrats to Hoyazo for taking down first prize. Other top players who put on great tourneys were individual winners FatBaldGuy, Spaceman and third place overall finisher Doubleas.

Any time I do well in one of these tourneys I'm amazed at how lucky I get. I pushed K2 into QQ and hit a K. I had AA and KK a few times. I flopped sets. It was good.

Most of all, I won races. I hit my overcards and my pocket pairs held up. That's all there was too it. Other than that, the tourney was just deciding when to go in and when to attempt a steal.

I worry that tourneys will rot my brain. The random rivers are like poisoned candy, tempting me to push in with my draws and suck out. Oh, it tastes good when they hit.

Poker's a grind...

... And I love it.

I've been playing for bonuses almost exclusively, which has been fine. There's not much exciting there to report. Multitabling no limit tables doesn't really lend themselves to good or bad beat stories -- all the hands come and go so quickly. Even the spectacular ones sometimes blur together.

As a result of my grinding, I've recovered from my $3,000 April downswing, so my bankroll is back up over $9,000. That's good news. And although I want to hit the limit tables again, I'm going to hold myself back while I continue to clear these bonuses. They're just so profitable with little risk of ruin.

Some people say they play poker for the competition, the learning experience or for fun. And I agree that those are compelling reasons to play poker.

For me, what keeps me coming back is the money. I want to win, and I want to win the most that I can. I want to make consistent profits and maintain my bankroll. I want to steadily grow my earnings while limiting my risk. I want to move up in limits in hopes that I can attain a better hourly rate.

I don't know why I value the money aspect of the game so much. I never thought of myself as a greedy person.

Recently, I've become a little preoccupied with trying to supplement my income and learn to make wise investments. I need to hurry up and save as much as I can now, because I don't want to have to work until I'm 65.

I hope in the future I'll make more money in game play alone than I would by chasing bonuses. For now, the bonuses are just too lucrative to ignore.

Peanut!

Poncey is pleased.

I'm again wondering whether I should just 10 table no limit games all the time. It took me slightly more than two hours to clear the recent $100 MAY06RELOAD20 bonus on Party Poker by 10-tabling .50/1 no limit games.

After two hours, my total profits were nearly $500. I know I couldn't win at that rate every day, but I think I could win a lot just playing rote, basic, boring, conservative, rockish hold 'em. And it's easier in these full ring games (compared to shorthanded games) to tell when you're likely beaten. Your opponents' hand ranges are narrower.

I still want to play higher-level limit games, but lower-level no limit games are still my bread and butter. They're just so soft if you know the basics: continuation bet, fold to aggression most of the time, wait for the near nuts, push strong draws on the flop, check-raise when you can, check-fold the vast majority of the time and don't get fancy.

My plan is to continue playing no limit games to work off the plentiful bonuses I still have to clear, and I'll hit up the limit tables when I'm in the right mindset.

Speaking of bonuses, I saw this 2+2 thread about new cashable blackjack whoring opportunities. I'll definitely have to investigate further.



In other news, I booked my summer flight to Vegas today! I'll get into town around 8 a.m. Friday, July 7 and I'll leave the evening of Sunday, July 9. It's a shorter trip than I would like, but I found a reasonable plane fare and I'll only have to use one of my extremely limited vacation days. I'm siked. My bankroll should be above $12,000 by then, which will give me license to play any limit up to $20/$40. Sweet.

A couple of weeks before then, I'm going on my yearly baseball trip. This year will be a lot of fun, with six teams and three stadiums over three days. I'll hit the Dodgers game in L.A. on Saturday, June 24, with several friends including metsfan, nickerson, JoeSpeaker and his son (tentative). Then it's off to San Diego on Sunday and back to L.A. for the Angels game Monday.

My family finished their visit last night, so it's back to normal life for me. Having family in town is great, but it's kind of tiring to entertain them all the time.

And finally, if you like the TV show "Deadwood," you can try to help save it because it's likely to be canceled after this season, which starts June 11.

Not a fish

My brother and I drove out to the beach, met up with this an instructor named Al, swam out into the ocean and hit the surf.

I had never surfed before. Al's advice seemed fairly clear: mount the board, maintain balance, bring left foot to right knee, pivot right foot and stand up.

Oh, yeah. And paddle. Paddle paddle paddle.

It took me a few tries to get the hang of it, and I'm not a very good paddler, but I was able to stand up and ride out the baby waves until they fizzled.

Surfing is a hell of a good time. My arms are sore, but the feeling of standing up and floating on the board is awesome. The wave propels the board, the fin keeps it in line and somehow I was able to balance. My brother also did pretty well for our first time out.

One time, when I fell off, I instinctually braced myself with my left hand. I scraped it on a rock just beneath the surface. I got up and paddle paddle paddled back to the next wave, hand bleeding.

Now my muscles are sore, I'm tired and I feel good. I'll have to hit the beach again soon.

I didn't think about poker while I was out there.

Cats

My family and cat arrived in town last night, which is pretty exciting.

I missed all of them in the four months since I moved here from Atlanta. We're doing all kinds of touristy things, like going to the Polynesian Center, checking out the beaches, hanging out in Waikiki and getting restaurant recommendations from tour books.

I guess I should know better since I've been living here, but really, I only know of a few places to go. I'm happy to check out the beaten path, just to see what it's like.

Waikiki is a hell of a lot different from the rest of Honolulu. It's just an endless stream of overpriced strip malls, tourists and ABC stores. It doesn't feel like the rest of Hawaii at all, except for the tropical scenery. I guess that's good enough for most visitors. Hey, I'm cool with it. I'm glad they have places to go and things to do.

My cat, Poncey, is getting ready to help me with my poker game. I'm not sure how I ever made money with my poker cat thousands of miles away. I must have been running good or something.

I think Poncey has given me a slight reprieve from the tables, since I have to concentrate on showing my family a good time and making him feel at home.

I'm wary, though. It won't be long until that cat insists I get back at the tables. He has an insatiable appetite for fish.

Fair Ball

I went for a run in the rain tonight. I looped around part of the Makiki neighborhood -- up the hill toward Punchbowl Cemetery, down Prospect and Winder, toward the freeway on Pensacola and then back up the Ward Street artery.

I got this picture in my head of the rain drops representing millions of cards falling from the sky. With that many cards, any number of combinations is possible -- uncountable bad beats, pocket Aces, ugly boards and multiple outs.

I won't take the analogy too far, but what I'm getting at is that over time, with so many hands dealt and so many possible combinations, even the unlikeliest of circumstances will occur. But over the long run, everything comes out relatively even -- you'll get pocket Aces once every 220 hands, you'll hit a set off a pocket pair on the flop roughly one in eight times, you'll hit your flush on the river one in five times.

In its essence, poker is fair.

Of course, outside influences can alter the fundamental equality of poker. The rake causes a constant drag on player revenues, colluders try to get an uneven edge, random number generators used to distribute cards may not be as accurate as they should be.

These are all legitimate concerns.

And while it's important to be aware of them, worrying about them isn't going to solve any of your problems.

Finding patterns when they don't exist will lead to tilt. Rationalizing that you're due for a win induces misguided plays. Paranoia that a site is rigged encourages fatalism. Belief in poker gods distracts from faith in statistics. Results-oriented thinking detracts from making the best play for the right reasons.

There's no way to force poker to do what you want it to do. The only way to play is to do your best. When that isn't good enough, it's time to study your game harder.

It isn't going to stop raining any time soon.

I've got hand

In my last post, I wrote about a hand where I flopped top pair and the nut flush draw with Ah7h on a board of Ac8h3h.

I love my hand, but there were a few problems. Most of them added up to one thing: I thought there was a good chance I was behind in the hand, and the pot was small enough that I could get away from it if I wanted to.

What's interesting about this hand is that most of the time, I want nothing more than to get all in on a flop like this. With any pair and a flush draw, I have as many as 14 outs -- nine for the flush draw, three for two pair and two for three of a kind. My equity in this hand is anywhere between 30 percent and close to 100 percent.

Still, I thought I was beat and didn't have the odds to call an all-in bet on the flop in a small pot. But I need to be very sure I'm beat to fold, and while I trust my reads, it would be a huge mistake to lay this hand down if I were wrong. If I had to do this hand over again, I think I would make the same decision. I was drawing to the nuts, and all my outs were likely to be clean. In addition, it was possible I had some hidden outs if the board paired.

I called.

The villain turned over As3c for flopped two pair. I was actually a favorite -- a 50 percent to 49 percent EV edge, according to twodimes.net!

The turn brought a King of hearts, and my nut flush held up. I usually don't like getting yelled at, but somehow I don't tire of being called a fish. It's a high compliment and a misconception I don't mind fostering among my opponents.

---

I played in the $200K guarantee tournament on Full Tilt today after winning a $8.80 satellite to get there. The field was about 990 $216 seats, with first place paying out $45,000.

I picked up some chips early by flopping the nut straight of 75s against KK.

Then, I limped with pocket Kings under the gun, it got called in several positions, and the big blind raised. I re-raised to about 1,200 chips (starting stacks were 3,000 and the blinds were 50/100), and he called. The flop brought an Ace, and I abandoned ship on the flop when my opponent, a passive player, came out firing.

Shortly afterward, a short stack raised all in and I called with AK. He had QQ, I caught a King on the flop, but he hit his third Q on the river.

A little later, I caught top pair Jacks with QJ, but then I folded to an all-in bet from a late position player.

It didn't take long for me to arrive in push territory, when I ran Q9 into AA. Oh well. I went out around 450th or so.

Full Tilt must have flipped the doom switch on me instead of the luckbox switch. I wish they would tell me before they do these things.

Blogs and an NL hand

The role and purpose of blogs has been a popular topic over the last week or so. These posts have all been made in the poker blog arena, but they also apply to the blogosphere as a whole.

Here's an abbreviated link roundup:

Things I hate about blogs
3-18-22-31-34-39
Integrity
On Blogs
Blog I am
Poker Blogs
Obligation
How to be a poker blogger in ten easy steps

My $0.02: Blogs don't have to follow any rules about their purpose or their content. It's all up to the site creator. The beauty of blogs is that they put the publishing power in the hands of individuals, who can tailor their sites however they see fit. If other people don't like the content, it's easy to simply not read it.

---

I was going to post a hand history with nice graphics, but I need to get to bed soon, so you have to live with the text-only version.

I held Ah7h in the big blind in a six-handed .5/1 euro no limit game on TopRankedPoker. The cutoff min raised, the button called, the small blind called and I called.

The flop came Ac8h3h. It was pretty much an ideal flop. I hit top pair and a flush draw. The small blind led out with a weak bet, I raised to about the pot size (7 euro or so), and the cutoff pushed for about 50 euro, and I had him covered. The other players folded.

I put him on either AK, AQ, A9 or a flush draw.

Let's see what my equity is about each of those hands.

_vs. AK and AQ, I'm about a 45 percent dog.
_vs. A8, I'm a 2:1 dog.
_vs. any unpaired flush draw, I have a huge edge.
_vs. an underpair with a flush draw or a bluff, I'm a big favorite.

The pot was laying me odds of about 64:43 (14 pot+50 bet:Amount I need to call), which breaks down to around 13:9. So that's enough to justify calling if I think he has top pair-high kicker, a naked flush draw or some weaker drawing hand. But I'm in trouble vs. two pair or an unlikely set.

I called.

Was my call a fishy move? I had all those outs and felt justified at the time. I also figured his hand range of worse hands was broader than his range of stronger hands. But then again, I would have much rather have been the one to push all in so I could gain some folding equity, and it certainly looked like the reason he pushed was to fight off any flush draws.

In general, I'm willing to get all my money in on the flop with top pair and a high flush draw. Hell, I'll often get my money in with bottom pair and a flush draw. But maybe I'm wrong in calling when the pot is relatively small like this one.

Comments are appreciated.

Scattered Notes

I have a headache and I'm out of pictures to post. But I've been winning pretty consistently, so go figure.

I'm playing the B2B sites and whoring their bonuses. I'm on the TopRankedPoker 600 euro bonus now, which will take a few days to work off. The sites generally have a few games going (at least shorthanded NL games), but because it's a European network, their peak hours are sometimes hard to catch. Fortunately, I'm so far west that the games start to pick up between 10 and midnight HST.

I'm working the 6:30 a.m. shift during the end of this week, so that encouraged me to find other games since I need to go to bed soon. I felt up for it, so I played a short session at 10/20 limit. I won a few good pots and then got tired.

I've read a couple of columns recently that I think will help my limit game. These kinds of standard strategies are always helpful to have in mind, although of course everything is situational.

_On slow-playing top pair in small pots:
Playing Small Pots Correctly

_On turn decisions vs. an overpair:
Another Fundamental Situation: To bet or not to bet, the turn.

Another thing I was thinking about is that I really need to find a home game. I've been waffling on it because Internet poker is so much safer and has lower rake structures, but now I've decided I want to get some live games in.

Live poker will help my game and my reads. There's no doubt in my mind about that. And live poker is fun.

Finally, I wanted to post this blackjack bonus from Sportingbet. It's a one-day bonus for $50 that probably makes sense to do if it's not a hassle and you regularly do blackjack bonuses anyway.

Ug. I'm going to take some Nyquil and get some rest.

Secret Luckbox Powers

It was only the second blind level in the $8.80 55-player satellite on Full Tilt, and I was already all in. Fortunately I had flopped a set of Tens vs. a pocket pair of sixes, and I doubled up to 2,040 (from a starting stack of 1,500).

A few hands later, I tried to steal with 75o against a short stack in the blind. He smooth called and then pushed for only 55 more chips on a board of KT9. Whatever. I called. Then came a 5 on the turn and a 7 on the river. Runner-runner against his pair of Tens, and it was on.

This was a satellite to the $200K guaranteed tournament this Sunday. I joined it at random when I decided to open up five small buy-in tournaments at once on a whim. The top two players won seats worth $216 to the bigger tourney, third place got his buy-in back, and everyone else got nothing.

I laid low for a while, and then flopped a broadway straight off KJo to double through again.

That would be one of the last legitimate hands I would show down for the rest of the tournament.

It was crazy. It's hard to remember if I've ever run so good as in this tourney, when I repeatedly got in with the worst of it and sucked out.

I should have known that things would go well when I picked up the Kuro (6-3) off the big blind on a flop of Q-6-3. A short stack pushed with AQ, and I was happy to call and win.

I cruised along, winning hands with top pair and stealing blinds when I could, but mostly I was enjoying my stack while it lasted. It slowly shrunk, and before long, I wanted to make a move.

So at the 250/500/50 level, a half stack raised all-in to 3,300, and I decided to push 6,910 chips with AQ. He had AA. Woops.

That was alright though. I luckboxed the nut flush on the river when four flush cards came on the board.

The game got much more challenging at the final table. Knowing that only the top two places were worth a damn, the small stacks reverted to a game of survival while the big stacks raised and re-raised at will.

I was one of the short stacks. I would need a big hand if I wanted to stay alive.

I fell to 7,255 chips and felt like I had to get back in the game. It was five-handed, and the big stacks were running me over. I had to channel the donkey poker gods by moving in with K6 when it was folded to me in the small blind. I ran into AK. A King fell on the flop, a Queen on the turn ... and then a Six on the river to give me two pair! Saved by a two-outer.

When the blinds got to 400/800/100 and there were four players left, I had fallen back to 7,000 chips after folding to several all-in raises preflop. A big stack raised from early position, I pushed my remaining chips with AT, and he called with 99. I caught an Ace on the turn and a gutshot straight on the river for good measure.

Even then, I was still one of the two small stacks against two large stacks. Fortunately, I know how to be a push monkey.

I had good position to stay alive, which was my only goal. When it got to three-handed, I stole most of the time when I had the button. For the most part, I just played my position and waited for big hands that never came. I didn't need them.

Perhaps the deciding hand of the tourney came when I had 14,660 chips and raised with 98o from the big blind vs. an obvious player who had limped from the small blind. The flop brought 445. He checked, I bet 4,000 with nothing, and he folded.

That was enough. From there I avoided any dangerous situations and slowly built my stack based solely on preflop play. I didn't even want to play postflop unless I had a monster.

It didn't take long for the other short stack to ram his two pair into the big stack's flopped straight.

These tournaments are funny because the prize is the same for the last two players, so there's no reason to play for first.

We pushed in for about eight hands, and as luck would have it, I ended up with every one of the 82,500 chips in play.

If I have this kind of good fortunate in the big tourney on Sunday, I won't have any problem.

Bonus

My last post kind of sucked. I didn't put enough thought into it, and my calculations were all based on estimates. So take it with a grain of salt. Thanks to Dave and Wes for pointing out some of the flaws in my reasoning.

I'm glad I wrote the post anyway. This blog is all about spouting off in hopes that we'll get better at poker.

I've been thinking that perhaps one of the problems with my flawed April was that I didn't come in with a plan. In previous months, I experimented with shorthanded play, then multi-tabled 1/2 no limit and later moved up to the 10/20 and 15/30 limit games. Then in April, I started losing at 15/30, then at 10/20. I wanted to play well at those limits, but I was shot down. No excuses, no reasons.

As much as I hate to admit it, rakeback and bonuses still account for almost all of my profits. I can consistently kill the lower limits, but I'm a break-even player at 10/20 and a losing player at 15/30 (although in a pretty small sample size). I hope someday I will be able to beat these games without having to rely on rakeback to make up for my losses.

What's frustrating is that I don't know what I'm doing wrong at these limits. I feel good about my game and my reads. So I'll just keep studying and improving.

In the meantime, I have come up with a plan for May that will almost definitely result in lots of profits.

That plan is to bonus whore to the fullest. I plan on hitting up many of the B2B sites. See Sound of a Suckout for more information about their bonuses. I'll play the usual blackjack bonuses, although the only good monthly ones left are at Intercasino, Littlewoods and William Hill. Many of the other blackjack bonuses have shrunk to $25 or less.

I also need to sign up at Titan and Noble, where I have never played. I recently cleared the $250 sign-up bonus at BetFred, which runs on the same software as the aforementioned sites. Then I might create an account at Bodog and others. And I never did finish the juicy and easy-to-clear IGM-Pay bonuses at Starluck, Planetluck and Aceclub casinos.

There's still plenty of free money floating around out there, and I plan on grabbing it.

Winrates

Which is more profitable for the same money investment: limit or no limit hold em?

Winrates for a good limit player are estimated at about 2 big bets/hr. That's the goal that you're supposed to be shooting for.

In a 5/10 game with a standard $250 buy-in, you would hope to average $20/hr. In a 10/20 game, your goal is $40/hr.

Winrates for no limit games are difficult to compare, in large part because there is no standard big bet. The nature of no limit is that you can bet as much as you want at any time.

No limit is such a different game that it's probably not even a fair comparison. But I'm going to try anyway.

Based on my PokerTracker stats and estimates from several Web sites, a good no limit winrate is probably somewhere between 4 and 7 BB/hr. You might be able to do better than that in the microlimit games, but it's unlikely that tougher games are much more winable than that over the long run.

So:

To make $20/hr in a no limit game, you would need to play at least 2/4 with a $400 maximum buy-in. That's more capital needed than in a 5/10 limit game with a $250 standard buy-in. To make $40/hr in a no limit game, you would need to play games between 3/6 and 5/10, with maximum buy-ins ranging from $600 to $1,000, compared to the $500 standard buy-in at 10/20 limit.

This is by no means conclusive, but it seems to me that limit shows more potential to make money than no limit based on a similar investment.

One thing I hear no limit players frequently say is that limit poker is a grind because if you play one hand per hour incorrectly, there goes your winrate.

That's not necessarily true for several reasons, the chief one being that you're losing fractions of a big bet per hour for incorrect play because sometimes you will win. Playing bad poker is detrimental in the long run, but any one poor play is a small percentage of the total number of checks, bets, raises, folds and calls that you make.

Winrates are averages over the long term. Trying to steal with 72o isn't a good play, but it won't ruin your entire game.

In no limit, playing bad hands can be just as harmful. Sure, sometimes you'll hit huge with your 32 suited and double up. But there will be other times when someone has a hidden set, rivers a higher two pair or makes a bigger flush. And then you'll lose a lot and wonder why you even played those crappy cards.

Don't think that fooling around in no limit is any less damaging than in limit.

Raising

Why wait till the turn to raise? Why not just pop it on the flop?

More and more, I'm thinking that putting in a raise on the flop in limit hold 'em is correct much more often than on the turn.

The conventional wisdom is that the primary reason to wait until the turn for a raise is if you have a strong hand that needs to be protected in a large pot. And I agree with that.

The problem is that sometimes the turn will bring a scare card, and sometimes you'll lose value by scaring out too many customers with a raise on the turn, whereas a raise on the flop would have committed them to the pot.

More often, I see raises on the turn in heads-up battles. The action goes like this:

I'm in the small blind and raise with A9o, the big blind calls. Flop comes rags, I bet, he calls. Turn brings a rag, I bet, he raises, I fold. Cost to me: 2.5 BB.

But if my opponent had raised on the flop and I had called, then folded the turn, the cost to me would have been 2 BB.

I don't know how to really reconcile the difference in cost in heads-up battles. The only thing I can figure is that a raise on the flop is ideal if your opponent has some sort of hand, because that often commits them to a showdown. A raise on the turn is better as a bluff against a player capable of folding who may have nothing, or when you suspect he might call you down anyway.

Eh. It's hard to make generalities about this kind of thing. It's all so situational. I should probably try to raise on the turn more often as a bluff, especially in heads-up situations.

Blogroll Updated

I've updated my blogroll to highlight some of my new favorite blogs. Some of them have been around for a while, some are newer, but they're all good. Here's a list. Check them out.

_Biggestron Writes Poker
_Just A Small Pair
_Missives from a Degenerate Underachiever
_Nickleanddimes
_Poker Poison
_Poker with WillWonka
_Sheverb
_Up For Poker
_ZAPLAB's Another Poker/Life/Anything Blog

The only poker I played today was the $8K guaranteed $26 buy-in tournament on Full Tilt. I finished in 20th for a payout of about $57, which is OK, I guess, but I really play these things for a shot at the bigger money.

Fortunately, a good player did make the bigger money! Joe Speaker came in fourth place for a $1,000-plus award. He played really well. The biggest hand he had was when his stack was big enough to limp with 88, and he busted two players after flopping a set. It was ugly.

My tournament wasn't very interesting. I had just about an average stack the whole time, but I was surrounded by deep stacks most of the tournament. That made it harder to steal, which put a serious damper on my game. Then I didn't get any calls when I did finally get dealt some premium hands. Eventually, I had to push with QTs from late position, and I got called by KJo. I got no help.

I ordered four poker books today: Harrington Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (I never finished reading these), "Weighing the Odds In Hold'em Poker" by King Yao and "How Good is Your Limit Hold'em" by Byron Jacobs and Jim Brier. I don't plan on reading these books all at once, but I will probably get through them pretty quickly.

I haven't read a good poker book in a while. Now that I think about it, I haven't read a poker book yet this year. Good thing these are on the way.

Play good poker

I just folded Kings preflop.

I don't know if I've ever done that before. I raised preflop to $3 from early position in this .5/1 NL game, and then a MP player reraised to $13. I made it $30, and he pushed for $150. I had him covered.

It felt good to make that laydown. Maybe I was wrong to do so. But it felt very right. And I would only make that move if I felt like I was playing well.

So I saved my stack for another time, while proceeding to kick ass at the other no limit tables. After making some money there, I opened up two very fishy $10/$20 shorthanded limit tables. I know I've railed about shorthanded play before, but these tables looked just about perfect, and I was playing better than I had been in days.

I got sucked out on a few times at those tables, but I lost the minimum and won the maximum each hand. And I even came out ahead, despite the ugly rivers! How often does that happen in a limit game? Usually the terrible beats negate the profit, but not when you're making perfect reads (one of my favorite opponents showed his hand every time).

I don't know what it is, but poker is starting to make me more superstitious after a long period of forcing me to look at everything from a pure expected value standpoint.

Specifically, it seems like attitude and mindset make a difference that I can't measure by going through hand histories. I'm speaking literally -- when I go through hand histories, it's hard for me to pinpoint where exactly I went wrong on many hands. That isn't to say I didn't go wrong. What I'm trying to convey is that I find even my bad moves are somewhat defensible when given the read on my opponent, the table texture, the range of available hands, etc.

And when I feel like I'm on my game, I don't think I'm using math or taking notes any better than I normally do. It isn't that I want to win any more or less than normal.

It's just that I feel like I can make decisions based on all the details, including the ones that I may not directly realize.

Maybe there's something to be said for intuition when you have some evidence that you're on your game. My only fear is that I would start to use intuition as a justification for suspect plays.

I don't think I will do that, though. That's Level 0 thinking.

Full Tilt Tourney

I finished 39th out of 892 entrants in the $17,000 guaranteed tournament yesterday! The payout was only $64 on a $26 buy-in, but I was glad to do well.

I'm trying to donk up my tournament play a little bit so that I can give myself more of a chance to get lucky without having to risk too many chips. The way I've been doing that is by bluffing more against stacks that may be reluctant to commit, and by raising and re-raising more hands preflop if I know that my opponents aren't at a point where they feel like they have to push in on the flop if they miss.

These strategies helped, but they didn't help nearly as much as getting lucky.

I made small steals early and had about an average stack when the seventh blind level (60/120) came up. I made a standard (steal) raise from one off the button with J7o. Yes, it's a very bad hand. But I wanted those blinds. I never intended to see a flop.

The flop came 7 high, and I bet and was called. I caught a Jack on the turn for two pair, I pushed and was called by a pair of 6s. I don't know what he was thinking, but he got really pissed off and rooted against me for the rest of the tourney. He wasn't the first player who I made mad.

The biggest hand of the tournament came not long afterward, at the 200/400/50 blind level when I had 4,005 chips. My M was 4, putting me on the edge of the move-in zone. An early position player raised to 3X the blinds, and I decided to push with QTo. The button called, and the original raiser called.

Pokernerd turned over AKs, and the button turned over TT. So at least I had one live card! It didn't matter though -- I turned an Ace-high straight, and I tripled up to put me at No. 5 on the leaderboard. The button went out shortly afterward and couldn't stop talking about my play.

"Why would you push there? What were you thinking, you idiot?" he said.

"I knew you would lose most of your chips, so I figured I was getting odds to push," I said.

I kept stacking up until the bubble came along. I wanted to make some moves.

Unfortunately, I lost three hands and cut my stack size from 29,400 to about 15,000. On one hand, there was four to a flush on the board, and I couldn't call. Another time, I had top pair Jacks with a Ten kicker, and I didn't want to call a big bet. The final hand, I tried to steal with 76s and followed through on the flop. A calling station stayed with me, and he took down the pot after checking the turn and river with Jack high.

Then I skated on for a while before I got deep into the move-in zone. I pushed with A9 and was called by AA, and it was all over.

Tournaments are a lottery where you can improve your chances by playing well, but you really need to get lucky to have a shot at winning.

I plan on making a final table pretty soon.

A brief guide to 10 tabling

Online poker is rigged. Why would anyone vote for Phil over Bill?

---

This experiment of playing 10 tables at a time of .10/.25 no limit is a lot of fun. I'm playing all my normal games as well, but these no limit games provide easy money without much effort.

I play a simple, straightforward strategy in these games. Because the action moves quickly, I make decisions quickly. While I may not make the very best decisions that I could make because I have to move quickly, I mostly rely on my opponents to make bad decisions in order for me to make money.

I've played two hours a day of NL25 for the last three days, and I'm still averaging more than $50 an hour. That's not bad, especially considering that it's a nearly no-risk proposition. I'm not going to have many losing days at this level, and when I do, the losses will be minimal. I'm getting in so many hands and playing against so many bad players that it's unlikely any five or 10 bad beats will hurt me much compared to the number of hands that pay off against these fish.

Here's what I do:

_Pot bomb. If I have top pair or better, I will usually bet the pot on the flop. If I get it heads-up to fourth street, I'll usually fire a half-pot bet or pot bet, depending on the strength of my hand. If I'm raised or am cold called by an otherwise aggressive player, sometimes I will simply check-fold. Which brings me to my next point.

_Fold to almost any aggression unless I hold a strong hand. While it's difficult to put bad players on a specific hand, they usually bet in proportion to how good they think their hands are. It's easy and economical to simply fold rather than try to outplay bad players who are trying to send you a message with their big bets. Getting bluffed out simply isn't a big worry.

_Often check-raise top pair hands from early position. If you like your kicker and are up against one or two opponents, bet it out.

_Bet out any hand two pair or better. Bet out big draws.

_Bet in integer amounts. It's much faster than trying to type in cents, and it doesn't make much of a difference.

_Don't worry about how hands turn out. Just move on to the next table.

_Don't bluff except on continuation bets on the flop, or when you have outs and are in position. Bluffing is a terrible idea against calling stations. Don't do it.

_Complete liberally from the small blind.

_Limp with any pocket pair. Only call a normal raise preflop if at least one other player is also in the hand.

As much fun as it is to bang my head against the limit wall, a balanced approach will pad my bankroll.

It's like investing. I want to have a diversified portfolio. Today I played NL 1/2, NL25, 5/10 limit and 10/20 limit. I didn't win in all of those games, but I came out $200 ahead because I won in some of them. Sure, it's not a big score on a one-day basis. But it's a great score if it's consistently repeatable by always playing games that I have an excellent chance of coming out ahead in.

Up tomorrow: back to the blackjack bonuses.

Sometimes you just want to win

Heh.

Kuro was joking with me today, saying I was like a George Costanza of poker. Like a guy who would congratulate himself for winning in the Special Olympics, I feel great about killing the $25 buy-in no limit games. Fine with me!

It would be pretty funny if I found that .10/.25 NL were my most profitable game after playing many other limits. It's just such a beatable game! In no other ring game have I found so many people willing to give away their stacks.

Sure, .5/1 and 1/2 aren't that tough either. But those games aren't like this. These toasters really suck.

It's irrational for me to believe that I can make good money every day, even at low-limit no limit. But it sure would be fun if I could. Instead of Poker Champ, I could be Low Limit Champ.

One thing's for sure -- it's great to have a game to go to when you just want to kick everyone's ass, even if it's not for a lot of money.

Better content to come. Many of you have seen "The Ultimate Showdown," but if not check it out.

Too Many Tables!

I decided to try something new: 11 tabling.

It's a little crazy.

The tables and cards just keep coming -- it's hard to keep up. I decided that if I'm going to 11 table, I should do so at one of the easiest games on the Internet: .10/.25 no limit hold em.

So I have 10 NL tables up at Party Poker, and one 5/10 limit game up at Full Tilt.

These $25 buy-in NL games on Party are just as I remember them. Soft. Like as soft as a large, low buy-in tournament soft.

The whole purpose of this crazy multitabling is to clear a $75 Party Poker bonus they gave me to celebrate their conquest of PokerNow. Others have received similar bonuses if they transfer their balances at Intertops or Multipoker to Party. And of course, Party also ate Empire Poker a little while ago.

It's kind of interesting from an industry perspective. Party Poker succeeded in licensing its software to five other poker sites, and then decided last fall to sever ties with them, effectively snatching away the largest player base on the Internet. The other sites lost value, and Party was there to buy them up. Eurobet was the only former site in the network to escape Party's clutches, instead teaming up with PokerRoom.

So anyways, this $75 bonus is almost cleared. I needed to play 750 hands, and I have about 150 left. All these games makes it really go by fast!

And as always, NL25 has done me right. I've tripled up on three tables in the last hour. I wonder how profitable it would be for me to just play easy NL games all the time? It would be very consistent money, at least, which is more than I can say for the mid limits.

I might seriously consider that. Sure it's unambitious play for small wins. But my winrate must be awesome.

OK, the tables keep beeping at me, so that means I gotta run ...

White Noise

At first this was going to be a whiny bad beat post, then I wanted to write a poker-is-fun post, but now I've settled on a compromise: the rambling post.

Thanks to Easycure for organizing the Hammer Out Cancer WPBT event, and thanks to everyone else for playing in it. The tourney was a lot of fun, although I busted pretty early on. Congrats to Frankl for taking down first place.

My April results are pretty well screwed. I started the month having dropped down from 15/30 limit hold 'em, but the beats kept coming at 10/20, 5/10 and 1/2 NL.

Thankfully, I've been careful with my bankroll, so the hits haven't been too bad. But it sucks to lose.

Is something wrong with my game? Who knows. I would like to chalk my losses up to variance, but that's kind of the easy way out. What bothers me is that I know what I'm doing, I know the odds, I know how to apply my knowledge, and I do so correctly most of the time. The trouble is that I am having a hard time getting a grasp on what I don't know. I suppose that comes in time.

I should buy a poker book just to keep the synapses firing.

I wish I had something insightful to say, but sometimes there's just nothing. The cards fall as they may, the suckouts happen, and in the end, everything regresses to the mean.

I'll keep trying to make those cards pay off, but doing my best sometimes can't overcome bad luck, tricky plays, hidden sets or tilt.

In the meantime, I'm taking it easy. I plan to spend the rest of the month playing $26 multi-table tourneys on Full Tilt. I kind of suck at tourneys, but this will be good practice at minimal expense with the possibility of a decent payoff. I'll also clear some bonuses and continue playing 5/10 and 10/20 limit games if they look good.

I wonder if maybe I need a new plan. January was all 5/10 shorthanded, February was 1/2 NL, March was 10/20 and 15/30. April is just a mishmash of crap.

Eh. Focus will return soon.

</rambling>

The Taxman Cometh

I did my federal and state income taxes last night, and they weren't nearly as bad as I expected.

Because I spent half of last year in Chile, and the other half I was unemployed in Atlanta, poker winnings were my only source of income.

The IRS has some arcane rules about taxes on gambling winnings. You can't simply report your net winnings; you have to add up all your winning sessions and report it as income, then you need to go line-by-line on your losing sessions and list them as itemized deductions.

I put my total winnings on line 21 of the 1040, and then I listed each losing session as a deduction on Schedule A.

This was pretty easy to do because the poker spreadsheet I use has a tab that breaks down poker winnings and losses on a day-by-day basis. I copied that tab and sorted wins from losses. Then I copied the losses to another spreadsheet, ordered them by date and printed out that page as my line-by-line account of my itemized deductions.

A link to the bankroll spreadsheet I use is on the right-hand column of this page.

Here are the totals for 2005:
_Net winnings: $14,752
_Gross winnings: $42,065
_Losses: $27,313
_Winning sessions: 155 (57 percent)
_Losing sessions: 117 (43 percent)
_Federal income tax due: $1,371
_State income tax due: $182
_Total taxes paid: $1,553 (10.5 percent of winnings)

The reason my income taxes weren't higher is because I didn't have any other income, and therefore I fell in the lowest tax bracket.

I recommend that anyone who's reading this report their poker earnings on their taxes, even if you think you won't get caught. I've never been audited, but I've heard it can get pretty ugly.

The feds haven't cracked down on poker tax reporting yet, but it would make sense for them to do so any time now. With millions of people playing poker, that's a lot of income that the government wants to get its hands on.

Like it or not, paying taxes is a requirement. Evade them at your own risk.