I keep thinking about two seemingly competing strategies, both of which are preached by solid pros. One strategy would have you cold call in position with many playable hands, and the other advocates frequent 3-betting.
I remember Samoleus arguing for making more calls in position with hands that have implied odds. He differed with some CardRunners pros who reraise many playable hand types in position.
Dan Harrington writes in his cash game books about calling with a wide range of hands for cheap in position. The deeper-stacked you are, the more hands you want to play from the button, he says.
Finally, I stumbled upon a column by BalugaWhale that lays out a reasonable compromise: 3-bet with strong and weak hands, while call with high implied odds hands. This line of thought makes sense. If you're going to call preflop with low pocket pairs in position, why not do the same with JTs? Sure, you can 3-bet these hands when the circumstances call for it, like when you're up against a player who folds to raises too much or never 4-bets. But seeing flops with drawing hands while not spending too much money seems reasonable.
One big problem with this style comes when you're up against frequent squeezers from the blinds. To balance your range against these types of players, you need to occasionally cold call with premium hands from late position in hopes of 4-betting a squeezer all-in.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Harrington on Cash Games: How to Win at No-Limit Hold 'em Money Games: Vol I
I think I know what Harrington is trying to do in a large part of his first cash game book: He's demonstrating a strategy that attempts to avoid exploitation by mixing up his play.
The fundamental problem with this approach is that it's almost always better to make the highest percentage play rather than sacrifice value in a misguided effort to obfuscate your hand for potential future profits. Harrington attempts to mix up his play based on the second-hand of his watch instead of balancing his play based on the game situation.
For example: If you hold Ks Kc on a Ac Ts 4s flop, Harrington recommends checking 80 percent of the time rather than making a continuation bet.
I argue for betting the vast majority of the time. In addition, I definitely wouldn't decide whether to check because the second-hand of my watch as Harrington would. He'd have you take the 80 percent action if the second-hand is in the first 48 seconds and check if it's in the last 12 seconds. Does anyone do this in real life cash games?
I would bet because I know my opponent probably didn't cold call with an Ace preflop, I can bluff him off the hand if I think he did cold call with a weak Ace, and I'm just as happy to take down the pot right now. Those are all legitimate, practical reasons for betting completely dependent on what I believe to be the strongest play, and there's no reason to ever do anything different from what I think is right.
A whole chunk of the book is dedicated to these deception plays at the expense of analysis of gametime decisions. It's better to consider whether my opponent is a calling station, bluffer, check-raiser, maniac, regular, weekend warrior, squeeze player, blind stealer or blind folder than it is to try to make ambiguous fancy plays.
At least one hand example in the book illustrates an approach I'm more comfortable with. With ATo from the cutoff, Harrington supports raising a limper to 5X and then continuation betting nearly every time on a Kc Qc 4h flop.
See? That wasn't so hard. Continuation bet based on the flop texture, your position, your read on your opponent and the previous action. There's no reason to do anything differently for deception or meaningless variation.
I don't think I'm overstating this point. In other hand examples, Harrington goes for variation plays preflop, with random limps as well. That's not going to work in most of today's games, both online and live.
On top of that, the ATo hand is used to make an argument for a terrible "general rule":
That rule is not true. When you have more outs, you want to bet because it gives you more ways to win. You'll either take down the pot with a continuation bet, or you build the pot while controlling the action, retaining fold equity and potentially hitting the well-disguised nuts.
I want to say something positive, so I'll say this: I enjoy learning about new styles so that I can better understand what my opponents may be thinking.
But there aren't many new tactics from this book that I'll be incorporating into my game.
The fundamental problem with this approach is that it's almost always better to make the highest percentage play rather than sacrifice value in a misguided effort to obfuscate your hand for potential future profits. Harrington attempts to mix up his play based on the second-hand of his watch instead of balancing his play based on the game situation.
For example: If you hold Ks Kc on a Ac Ts 4s flop, Harrington recommends checking 80 percent of the time rather than making a continuation bet.
I argue for betting the vast majority of the time. In addition, I definitely wouldn't decide whether to check because the second-hand of my watch as Harrington would. He'd have you take the 80 percent action if the second-hand is in the first 48 seconds and check if it's in the last 12 seconds. Does anyone do this in real life cash games?
I would bet because I know my opponent probably didn't cold call with an Ace preflop, I can bluff him off the hand if I think he did cold call with a weak Ace, and I'm just as happy to take down the pot right now. Those are all legitimate, practical reasons for betting completely dependent on what I believe to be the strongest play, and there's no reason to ever do anything different from what I think is right.
A whole chunk of the book is dedicated to these deception plays at the expense of analysis of gametime decisions. It's better to consider whether my opponent is a calling station, bluffer, check-raiser, maniac, regular, weekend warrior, squeeze player, blind stealer or blind folder than it is to try to make ambiguous fancy plays.
At least one hand example in the book illustrates an approach I'm more comfortable with. With ATo from the cutoff, Harrington supports raising a limper to 5X and then continuation betting nearly every time on a Kc Qc 4h flop.
"Given that Player D is a loose, weak player and he checked, this flop probably missed him, and in addition should look pretty scary with the king and queen out there. Make a continuation bet almost 100 percent of the time. Unless Player D caught a piece of the flop, he'll go away."
See? That wasn't so hard. Continuation bet based on the flop texture, your position, your read on your opponent and the previous action. There's no reason to do anything differently for deception or meaningless variation.
I don't think I'm overstating this point. In other hand examples, Harrington goes for variation plays preflop, with random limps as well. That's not going to work in most of today's games, both online and live.
On top of that, the ATo hand is used to make an argument for a terrible "general rule":
"The more outs you have to a big (or winning) hand, the less you want to make a continuation bet."
That rule is not true. When you have more outs, you want to bet because it gives you more ways to win. You'll either take down the pot with a continuation bet, or you build the pot while controlling the action, retaining fold equity and potentially hitting the well-disguised nuts.
I want to say something positive, so I'll say this: I enjoy learning about new styles so that I can better understand what my opponents may be thinking.
But there aren't many new tactics from this book that I'll be incorporating into my game.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Self Improvement
I had a pretty awful run at the tables last weekend, and it's taken me a few days to figure out how I could do better next time.
Sure, there were a few coolers and bad beats. But I should to take responsibility for my wins and losses, and I want to learn from my mistakes. By writing them down, I hope to avoid making the same errors in the future.
_ I realized I was giving off some pretty obvious timing tells by betting too quickly. Observant players will be able to read my too-fast bets and abuse me when I'm running on autopilot. Some of these timing tells were created by a reliance on Full Tilt Shortcuts, which is a cool problem but one which I haven't learned to use properly. For now, I've turned FTS off.
_ I got a little bit lax on table selection. I still looked for good tables, but I found myself settling for tables with a bunch of average-type players. I'd rather be at a table with one fish and a bunch of solid players than a table with no fish and a few guys playing their hands for value.
_ I targeted halfstackers and shortstackers too much. I hate these players because they prevent me from playing the type of poker I want to play. When you're forced to decide your hand preflop or on the flop, you're going to end up taking a few too many coinflips. The best defense against shorties is to refuse to sit with them.
_ I stubbornly kept trying to play despite my losses because I believed I was still playing my best. I should have realized that sometimes, it's just not my day. And how can I really be playing my best when I'm yelling "Goddammit!" after every beat?
I'm back on my A game now, and quickly on my way to recovering the weekend's mistakes.
Sure, there were a few coolers and bad beats. But I should to take responsibility for my wins and losses, and I want to learn from my mistakes. By writing them down, I hope to avoid making the same errors in the future.
_ I realized I was giving off some pretty obvious timing tells by betting too quickly. Observant players will be able to read my too-fast bets and abuse me when I'm running on autopilot. Some of these timing tells were created by a reliance on Full Tilt Shortcuts, which is a cool problem but one which I haven't learned to use properly. For now, I've turned FTS off.
_ I got a little bit lax on table selection. I still looked for good tables, but I found myself settling for tables with a bunch of average-type players. I'd rather be at a table with one fish and a bunch of solid players than a table with no fish and a few guys playing their hands for value.
_ I targeted halfstackers and shortstackers too much. I hate these players because they prevent me from playing the type of poker I want to play. When you're forced to decide your hand preflop or on the flop, you're going to end up taking a few too many coinflips. The best defense against shorties is to refuse to sit with them.
_ I stubbornly kept trying to play despite my losses because I believed I was still playing my best. I should have realized that sometimes, it's just not my day. And how can I really be playing my best when I'm yelling "Goddammit!" after every beat?
I'm back on my A game now, and quickly on my way to recovering the weekend's mistakes.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Kinds of bets
I can think of seven types of bets.
Most bets fall under the broad category of value bets or bluffs. In general, you want to either be betting because you have the best hand and you think a worse hand will call, or you think a bet might get a better hand to fold. Some players believe every bet they make should either be for value or a bluff.
Semibluffs fall somewhere between the two. Semibluffing hands have some equity, but they may not be the best hand at the time.
Blocking bets fall under the category of value bets. Players make blocking bets when they want to see a showdown for cheap. They're appropriate especially when you think you have enough equity in the pot to get to showdown, but you don't want to pay off an opponent's expected larger river bet, and you think your opponent won't raise, and you have the discipline to fold on the end when you think you're beat.
Suckbets are blocking bets' evil twin. They're smallish bets on the river meant to look like blocking or weak value bets. A suckbet wants its opponent to raise so then you can call in a larger pot or come over the top.
With information/probe bets, we're starting to get into murky waters. Information bets aren't necessarily value bets or bluffs, and they often return incorrect information. I'm not even certain bets for information have a place in a a solid player's arsenal.
Finally, there are bets to protect your hand. I don't know what to make of these kinds of bets, but I use them all the time.
I usually use them when I'm out of position with a hand like middle pair or a weak top pair. If I were playing my hand purely for value, shouldn't I cold call because my one pair figures to be best against a standard button's steal range, and a raise would only get him to fold worse hands? Or should I donkbet or check-raise the flop, hoping that my opponent will fold or call with a worse hand? If I'm hoping my opponent will fold, then I've essentially turned my hand into a bluff because it no longer has much showdown value in what's getting to be a mid- to large-sized pot. If I'm hoping my opponent calls, I'll probably find myself in a tough situation when my opponent bets, raises or calls on the turn or river. If my opponent calls my flop check-raise and I have a weak pair, usually the best outcome is that my opponent will check it down, but that's fairly unlikely to happen.
It seems like most times when I check-call the flop out of position, I either win a small pot or lose a medium-sized one. I lean more toward betting out or check-raising with these kinds of hands, although I'm not sure how right that is.
Most bets fall under the broad category of value bets or bluffs. In general, you want to either be betting because you have the best hand and you think a worse hand will call, or you think a bet might get a better hand to fold. Some players believe every bet they make should either be for value or a bluff.
Semibluffs fall somewhere between the two. Semibluffing hands have some equity, but they may not be the best hand at the time.
Blocking bets fall under the category of value bets. Players make blocking bets when they want to see a showdown for cheap. They're appropriate especially when you think you have enough equity in the pot to get to showdown, but you don't want to pay off an opponent's expected larger river bet, and you think your opponent won't raise, and you have the discipline to fold on the end when you think you're beat.
Suckbets are blocking bets' evil twin. They're smallish bets on the river meant to look like blocking or weak value bets. A suckbet wants its opponent to raise so then you can call in a larger pot or come over the top.
With information/probe bets, we're starting to get into murky waters. Information bets aren't necessarily value bets or bluffs, and they often return incorrect information. I'm not even certain bets for information have a place in a a solid player's arsenal.
Finally, there are bets to protect your hand. I don't know what to make of these kinds of bets, but I use them all the time.
I usually use them when I'm out of position with a hand like middle pair or a weak top pair. If I were playing my hand purely for value, shouldn't I cold call because my one pair figures to be best against a standard button's steal range, and a raise would only get him to fold worse hands? Or should I donkbet or check-raise the flop, hoping that my opponent will fold or call with a worse hand? If I'm hoping my opponent will fold, then I've essentially turned my hand into a bluff because it no longer has much showdown value in what's getting to be a mid- to large-sized pot. If I'm hoping my opponent calls, I'll probably find myself in a tough situation when my opponent bets, raises or calls on the turn or river. If my opponent calls my flop check-raise and I have a weak pair, usually the best outcome is that my opponent will check it down, but that's fairly unlikely to happen.
It seems like most times when I check-call the flop out of position, I either win a small pot or lose a medium-sized one. I lean more toward betting out or check-raising with these kinds of hands, although I'm not sure how right that is.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Shorthanded game selection
Learning to play shorthanded is a necessary skill to become a well-rounded player. The ability to play shorthanded gives you more games to choose from, and these games allow you to play more hands more aggressively. I know this.
Then why do I find myself playing more full ring tables recently?
The explanation is simple: a lot of the people playing shorthanded games have an idea of what they're doing. Many of the true fish who don't even understand the basics of the game test the waters at full ring tables. You won't find a guppy wandering into the shorthanded tables as often as you will find him floundering anonymously with eight or nine other players.
Between full ring and shorthanded games, I prefer shorthanded. But more importantly, I want to play in whichever game gives me the best opportunity to make money.
It's essential to keep your options open so that you can select the most profitable games. Sometimes the best games are shorthanded. But just because the shorthanded games are looser on average doesn't mean they always have the easiest targets.
Then why do I find myself playing more full ring tables recently?
The explanation is simple: a lot of the people playing shorthanded games have an idea of what they're doing. Many of the true fish who don't even understand the basics of the game test the waters at full ring tables. You won't find a guppy wandering into the shorthanded tables as often as you will find him floundering anonymously with eight or nine other players.
Between full ring and shorthanded games, I prefer shorthanded. But more importantly, I want to play in whichever game gives me the best opportunity to make money.
It's essential to keep your options open so that you can select the most profitable games. Sometimes the best games are shorthanded. But just because the shorthanded games are looser on average doesn't mean they always have the easiest targets.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
What's that new poker game all the kids are playing?
I never knew that Texas hold'em was originally called "Hold Me, Darlin'."
Its origin seems to be a bit hazy, but somehow this new poker variant eventually got twisted around to become hold'em, according to a recent CardPlayer article my Jim McManus.
Its origin seems to be a bit hazy, but somehow this new poker variant eventually got twisted around to become hold'em, according to a recent CardPlayer article my Jim McManus.
Hold'em wasn't played until early in the 20th (century) and didn't overtake draw and seven-stud as the most popular game until about 1990. By then, its original name, Hold Me Darling, had long since been abbreviated to Hold Me, and then, via the twanging vicissitudes of cowboy enunciation, to hold'em.I also found it fascinating that the powers that be have decided the name of the game is "no-limit hold'em" -- that's with a hyphen and without a space before the apostrophe, according to Short-Stacked Shamus at Hard-Boiled Poker.
No one knows for sure where and when the first hand of hold'em was dealt. One plausible guess is that a dozen or so Texas ranch hands wanted to play a little stud, but found they had only one deck. The most creative cowboy must've got to thinking: If five cards were shared by all players, as many as 23 of them could be dealt two-card hands. Though every poker variant has roots in the French game of poque, he probably did not drawl, "Voila!"
Who knew?
The meeting concluded with a “style guide” discussion led by Haley. Some people find such discussions of usage and mechanics at best boring and at worst useless. Not this crowd. These are writers, people who care about words and how they are employed. Have to admit I had a little “I’m-in-the-right-place” moment there as we debated whether hyphens have a place in words like “preflop” (no) or “no-limit” (yes). Haley convinced me, actually, that “hold’em” is in fact a contraction (I have always typed it as two separate words).
Friday, June 13, 2008
Just Giving it Away
It's pretty rare that you find a true gambler at the online tables: someone who is more than happy to get all his money in with the worst of it in hopes of getting lucky. I'll take that action.
This opponent was crazy with stats around 65/45. I knew he would never limp a strong hand from the small blind, so I pushed on the off chance that he would call. Amazingly, he did.
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 3 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $685.05
Hero (BB): $1,222.75
BTN: $898
Pre-Flop: A
3
dealt to Hero (BB)
BTN folds, SB calls $5, Hero raises to $1,222.75 and is All-In, SB calls $675.05 and is All-In
Flop: ($1,370.10) 4 2 2
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Turn: ($1,370.10) K (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
River: ($1,370.10) 3 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: $1,370.10 Pot ($1 Rake)
SB showed 5 9 (a pair of Twos) and LOST (-$685.05 NET)
Hero showed A 3 (two pair, Threes and Twos) and WON $1,369.10 (+$684.05 NET)
Then he types in chat something like, "I liked that. Let's do it again."
"OK," I replied.
A few hands later, we were able to get it all in again preflop:
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 4 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: $770
Hero (UTG): $1,901.80
BTN: $873
SB: $308
Pre-Flop: Q
Q dealt to Hero (UTG)
Hero raises to $30, BTN calls $30, SB folds, BB raises to $770 and is All-In, Hero raises to $1,901.80 and is All-In, BTN folds
Flop: ($1,575) 4 A 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Turn: ($1,575) J (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
River: ($1,575) K (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: $1,575 Pot ($2 Rake)
BB showed Q 2 (a flush, Ace high) and LOST (-$770 NET)
Hero showed Q Q (a flush, Ace high) and WON $1,573 (+$803 NET)
Thanks for the gifts, fishy.
This opponent was crazy with stats around 65/45. I knew he would never limp a strong hand from the small blind, so I pushed on the off chance that he would call. Amazingly, he did.
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 3 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $685.05
Hero (BB): $1,222.75
BTN: $898
Pre-Flop: A
3 dealt to Hero (BB)BTN folds, SB calls $5, Hero raises to $1,222.75 and is All-In, SB calls $675.05 and is All-In
Flop: ($1,370.10) 4
2 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)Turn: ($1,370.10) K
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)River: ($1,370.10) 3
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: $1,370.10 Pot ($1 Rake)
SB showed 5
9 (a pair of Twos) and LOST (-$685.05 NET)Hero showed A
3 (two pair, Threes and Twos) and WON $1,369.10 (+$684.05 NET)Then he types in chat something like, "I liked that. Let's do it again."
"OK," I replied.
A few hands later, we were able to get it all in again preflop:
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 4 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: $770
Hero (UTG): $1,901.80
BTN: $873
SB: $308
Pre-Flop: Q
Q dealt to Hero (UTG)Hero raises to $30, BTN calls $30, SB folds, BB raises to $770 and is All-In, Hero raises to $1,901.80 and is All-In, BTN folds
Flop: ($1,575) 4
A 2 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)Turn: ($1,575) J
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)River: ($1,575) K
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: $1,575 Pot ($2 Rake)
BB showed Q
2 (a flush, Ace high) and LOST (-$770 NET)Hero showed Q
Q (a flush, Ace high) and WON $1,573 (+$803 NET)Thanks for the gifts, fishy.
Monday, June 09, 2008
When are you pot committed to calling a preflop all-in with AK?
UPDATE: I'm pretty sure my original calculations were wrong, so I've revised this post throughout to reflect those changes. Thanks to Greylocks for his help, and I apologize for the mistake.
Calling all-in with AK with 100BB effective stack sizes is not a leak in cash games against an opponent who will push with QQ or better and you've already invested only 21BB.
That's my conclusion after running some numbers based on a recent hand in which I had 4-bet raised to $400 preflop (40BB) with AK and then got pushed on in a 5/10 game. I had to call $600 to win $1,400 in the pot. I was up against KK, failed to spike an Ace and lost a buy-in.
The hand got me wondering whether my call was correct against a villain's hand range of AA, KK, AK and QQ.
When am I committed to calling all-in?
AK is about a 60-40 dog against a range of AA, KK, AK and QQ, according to PokerStove:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 39.594% 19.26% 20.33% 110831016 116968584.00 { AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 60.406% 40.08% 20.33% 230565960 116968584.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }
The break-even point for calling comes when your opponent shoves for 121BB, and you have to call 79BB more:
0.395(121) - .605(79) = 0
100-79=21
Therefore, against this range, I have to call after only putting in 1/5 of my stack (21 BB) with AK.
What if my opponent's range is AA, KK or AK?
Then my equity drops to 38-62, and I become committed after investing 24BB.
What if my opponent's range is only AA and KK?
Then my equity drops to 20-80, and I'm not committed unless I've already invested 60BB.
Calling an all-in with AK is far easier against someone with a wider preflop pushing range. That changes the odds substantially.
These numbers show me how hard it is to get away from AK preflop against anything but tight players. Against a wider range, I lose the option of folding unless I have a strong read or I'm deeper-stacked.
Calling all-in with AK with 100BB effective stack sizes is not a leak in cash games against an opponent who will push with QQ or better and you've already invested only 21BB.
That's my conclusion after running some numbers based on a recent hand in which I had 4-bet raised to $400 preflop (40BB) with AK and then got pushed on in a 5/10 game. I had to call $600 to win $1,400 in the pot. I was up against KK, failed to spike an Ace and lost a buy-in.
The hand got me wondering whether my call was correct against a villain's hand range of AA, KK, AK and QQ.
When am I committed to calling all-in?
AK is about a 60-40 dog against a range of AA, KK, AK and QQ, according to PokerStove:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 39.594% 19.26% 20.33% 110831016 116968584.00 { AKs, AKo }
Hand 1: 60.406% 40.08% 20.33% 230565960 116968584.00 { QQ+, AKs, AKo }
The break-even point for calling comes when your opponent shoves for 121BB, and you have to call 79BB more:
0.395(121) - .605(79) = 0
100-79=21
Therefore, against this range, I have to call after only putting in 1/5 of my stack (21 BB) with AK.
What if my opponent's range is AA, KK or AK?
Then my equity drops to 38-62, and I become committed after investing 24BB.
What if my opponent's range is only AA and KK?
Then my equity drops to 20-80, and I'm not committed unless I've already invested 60BB.
Calling an all-in with AK is far easier against someone with a wider preflop pushing range. That changes the odds substantially.
These numbers show me how hard it is to get away from AK preflop against anything but tight players. Against a wider range, I lose the option of folding unless I have a strong read or I'm deeper-stacked.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Holdem Manager
I like the new PokerTracker, but it has a long way to go before it's completely debugged and has all the features I'd like to see. The bugs haven't caused me significant problems, but I know they've been more severe for many players.
So I finally gave in and bought Holdem Manager after hearing so many good things about it. It isn't quite as slick as PT should/will be, but it has lots of features that are just fantastic.
_ You can double click on a player's name in the HUD to flip between their total stats and their current-session stats.
_ You can take notes on players in HM rather than in the poker client.
_ Stats are displayed in a tighter box that takes up less screen space.
_ There are countless popup stats at your fingertips -- far more than PT's default.
_ Easy-to-read hand histories are viewable in a popout window, and they can be exported in several formats (including 2+2 and text).
The heads-up display has always been the most important part of poker database software. Holdem Manager has a clear HUD advantage.
PokerTracker looks like it will be better for away-from-the-table analysis, but it'll take a while for it to catch up with in-game features.
So I finally gave in and bought Holdem Manager after hearing so many good things about it. It isn't quite as slick as PT should/will be, but it has lots of features that are just fantastic.
_ You can double click on a player's name in the HUD to flip between their total stats and their current-session stats.
_ You can take notes on players in HM rather than in the poker client.
_ Stats are displayed in a tighter box that takes up less screen space.
_ There are countless popup stats at your fingertips -- far more than PT's default.
_ Easy-to-read hand histories are viewable in a popout window, and they can be exported in several formats (including 2+2 and text).
The heads-up display has always been the most important part of poker database software. Holdem Manager has a clear HUD advantage.
PokerTracker looks like it will be better for away-from-the-table analysis, but it'll take a while for it to catch up with in-game features.
Monday, June 02, 2008
In defense of Full Tilt
With so many poker players dogging on Full Tilt, you'd think it was a bad site to play on. That's not true.
1) Full Tilt has the best software on the Internet, and it isn't close. PokerStars is OK, but Bodog is awful. Every other site runs from unplayable to mediocre.
2) I've had fantastic response times on cashouts, although I understand some people haven't been so lucky with e-transfers. I've cashed out by check five times this year, and I've never had to wait more than a week for my check to travel across the ocean to my mailbox here in Hawaii. My most recent cashout was Wednesday, and the check arrived Friday. That's a fantastic response time.
3) There are many cash games to choose from at the limits I currently play (from 2/4 heads-up to 5/10). I'm able to find fishy games almost every time I log in these days.
4) Full Tilt recently offered rakeback to many players who have been begging for it for years.
That said, Full Tilt has a significant and glaring weakness in customer support.
The site insists on doing business exclusively by e-mail, and they won't permit their customers to ever call them by phone. I've never had a problem with their e-mail support, although I've heard horror stories about their support personnel being unresponsive. Regular poker players pay large sums of rake, and they deserve to be able to talk to a real person when their money is on the line.
---
Ultimate Bet released inadequate conclusions of its investigation into cheating on the site at high limits. The public still doesn't know the name or position of the perpetrator, how this kind of obvious cheating could be allowed to happen for so long or whether there will be any sanctions from the site's regulatory body, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.
You're a fool if you ever play on UB or Absolute Poker again.
1) Full Tilt has the best software on the Internet, and it isn't close. PokerStars is OK, but Bodog is awful. Every other site runs from unplayable to mediocre.
2) I've had fantastic response times on cashouts, although I understand some people haven't been so lucky with e-transfers. I've cashed out by check five times this year, and I've never had to wait more than a week for my check to travel across the ocean to my mailbox here in Hawaii. My most recent cashout was Wednesday, and the check arrived Friday. That's a fantastic response time.
3) There are many cash games to choose from at the limits I currently play (from 2/4 heads-up to 5/10). I'm able to find fishy games almost every time I log in these days.
4) Full Tilt recently offered rakeback to many players who have been begging for it for years.
That said, Full Tilt has a significant and glaring weakness in customer support.
The site insists on doing business exclusively by e-mail, and they won't permit their customers to ever call them by phone. I've never had a problem with their e-mail support, although I've heard horror stories about their support personnel being unresponsive. Regular poker players pay large sums of rake, and they deserve to be able to talk to a real person when their money is on the line.
---
Ultimate Bet released inadequate conclusions of its investigation into cheating on the site at high limits. The public still doesn't know the name or position of the perpetrator, how this kind of obvious cheating could be allowed to happen for so long or whether there will be any sanctions from the site's regulatory body, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.
You're a fool if you ever play on UB or Absolute Poker again.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Pineapple Maze King
I shattered the previous pineapple maze record today, finishing it in a mere five minutes and regaining my place at the top of the leaderboard.
My run sliced the previous high-mark of 10 minutes in half, and it should last for quite some time. I had slipped to second place after my previous record of 12 minutes set a month ago failed to hold up for long.
It surprised me how easy it was to regain my place as the champion. I'm not a fast runner, but I was able to put down a strong time because I knew the maze so well now that I've been through it six times.
Beating the pineapple maze is a somewhat trivial accomplishment, but it's not much different from winning a poker tournament, race or video game. It's pretty rare to be the best at anything.
My run sliced the previous high-mark of 10 minutes in half, and it should last for quite some time. I had slipped to second place after my previous record of 12 minutes set a month ago failed to hold up for long.
It surprised me how easy it was to regain my place as the champion. I'm not a fast runner, but I was able to put down a strong time because I knew the maze so well now that I've been through it six times.
Beating the pineapple maze is a somewhat trivial accomplishment, but it's not much different from winning a poker tournament, race or video game. It's pretty rare to be the best at anything.
After the flop
Postflop play is where a lot of the money is made in poker. Not coincidentally, it isn't easy to learn.
This isn't a post where I'm going to try to write out my thoughts on how to play postflop, because I don't really know how to play postflop. All I do is try to reason through every previous action of my opponents, set a loose hand range and try to make the most of my equity. If I have an edge or pot odds, I'll bet and raise. If not, I'll fold or evaluate my implied odds.
I wish there were a good book on postflop play for no limit hold 'em. But I wonder if there are too many variables to really develop a framework. So much of postflop play seems to occur on a hand-by-hand basis.
Here's what I know:
_ The key to postflop play is establishing accurate hand ranges.
_ Hand reading online is a an important and acquired skill.
_ Playing out of position postflop is extremely difficult for me.
_ If you don't know where you stand, folding isn't a bad option.
_ Preflop betting patterns go a long way toward narrowing opponents' hand ranges.
_ Solid, straightforward poker wins money.
I'd really like to hear comments from anyone who knows a way to improve hand reading skills beyond experience and deductive reason. Any help is appreciated.
---
I will attempt to reclaim my rightful place as Pineapple Maze champion today. Wish me luck.
This isn't a post where I'm going to try to write out my thoughts on how to play postflop, because I don't really know how to play postflop. All I do is try to reason through every previous action of my opponents, set a loose hand range and try to make the most of my equity. If I have an edge or pot odds, I'll bet and raise. If not, I'll fold or evaluate my implied odds.
I wish there were a good book on postflop play for no limit hold 'em. But I wonder if there are too many variables to really develop a framework. So much of postflop play seems to occur on a hand-by-hand basis.
Here's what I know:
_ The key to postflop play is establishing accurate hand ranges.
_ Hand reading online is a an important and acquired skill.
_ Playing out of position postflop is extremely difficult for me.
_ If you don't know where you stand, folding isn't a bad option.
_ Preflop betting patterns go a long way toward narrowing opponents' hand ranges.
_ Solid, straightforward poker wins money.
I'd really like to hear comments from anyone who knows a way to improve hand reading skills beyond experience and deductive reason. Any help is appreciated.
---
I will attempt to reclaim my rightful place as Pineapple Maze champion today. Wish me luck.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Plotting Vengeance
My reign as Pineapple Maze Champion has come to a quick end.
When Kuro and I visited the pineapple maze at Dole Plantation yesterday, we saw that some dude named Jason Bernard had taken over first place, bumping me down to second. He completed the maze in 10 minutes; my previous record set less than a month ago had been 12 minutes.
This aggression will not stand.
I'll be back at the pineapple maze to regain my throne. It may take several tries, but I will fight hard to set a new record with a single-digit time.
Look out, Jason Bernard.
---
During Kuro's Memorial Day visit, I was reminded of a few pieces of classic poker advice he's given me over the years:
You don't need cards: I have this text message saved on my phone, nearly three years after it was sent. It reminds me to try to play the players more than the cards.
Don't push it: There's no reason to play too often or overplay hands.
Cally cally don't fly in Vegas: Calling down is seldom the best line to take in a hand.
Was it ever in doubt?: Of course I win, fish.
---
Sometimes I feel like a dense idiot for playing poker when I know I can't bring my best game.
I woke up on Memorial Day imagining all the vacationing drunkards sitting down at the online tables. I thought money would materialize in my lap, even though I was still half asleep and cranky.
How many times do I have to learn that it's better to not play at all than to play poorly? I incorrectly tell myself I can fight through it, but I find that it's difficult to elevate my play to its top form by willpower alone.
Of course I lost money (although there were a couple of coolers). I would have needed a suckout to come out ahead in my tired state.
I'd like to think I'm catching on to this trend of bad results flowing from playing while sleepy, but it's hard to remember not to play when all I want to do is play.
When Kuro and I visited the pineapple maze at Dole Plantation yesterday, we saw that some dude named Jason Bernard had taken over first place, bumping me down to second. He completed the maze in 10 minutes; my previous record set less than a month ago had been 12 minutes.
This aggression will not stand.
I'll be back at the pineapple maze to regain my throne. It may take several tries, but I will fight hard to set a new record with a single-digit time.
Look out, Jason Bernard.
---
During Kuro's Memorial Day visit, I was reminded of a few pieces of classic poker advice he's given me over the years:
You don't need cards: I have this text message saved on my phone, nearly three years after it was sent. It reminds me to try to play the players more than the cards.
Don't push it: There's no reason to play too often or overplay hands.
Cally cally don't fly in Vegas: Calling down is seldom the best line to take in a hand.
Was it ever in doubt?: Of course I win, fish.
---
Sometimes I feel like a dense idiot for playing poker when I know I can't bring my best game.
I woke up on Memorial Day imagining all the vacationing drunkards sitting down at the online tables. I thought money would materialize in my lap, even though I was still half asleep and cranky.
How many times do I have to learn that it's better to not play at all than to play poorly? I incorrectly tell myself I can fight through it, but I find that it's difficult to elevate my play to its top form by willpower alone.
Of course I lost money (although there were a couple of coolers). I would have needed a suckout to come out ahead in my tired state.
I'd like to think I'm catching on to this trend of bad results flowing from playing while sleepy, but it's hard to remember not to play when all I want to do is play.
Friday, May 23, 2008
UB and Absolute Cheating, and more PokerTracker
Superusers and Silence: How UltimateBet let players get cheated for millions. Check it out.
---
One cool feature of PokerTracker3 is its ability to generate custom reports based on a variety of statistics.
So far there are five custom reports posted in the PokerTrack repository: Flopped Sets, Big Cards Hit Flop, Pocket Pair Hit Flop, Player Performance Summary and Hands Report-Game Notes Replacement.
The Hands Report is the most practical tool because it allows you to easily review your best and worst hands -- something I had immediately noticed was missing from the new PT3.
The other stats are less useful but more fun, especially Hit Flop With Pair because you can see whether you're connecting with the flop as much as you should on average.
Over 142,527 hands in this database, here's what my Hit Flop With Pair stats look like.
Hand One In
AA 8.7
KK 7.3
QQ 9.0
JJ 6.3
TT 6.4
99 7.8
88 9.8
77 7.5
66 8.2
55 8.2
44 7.5
33 7.9
22 6.6
You flop at least a set one in 8.5 times on average, so you can see that 10 out of 13 pocket pairs are hitting more often than they should for me. I run so good.
---
One cool feature of PokerTracker3 is its ability to generate custom reports based on a variety of statistics.
So far there are five custom reports posted in the PokerTrack repository: Flopped Sets, Big Cards Hit Flop, Pocket Pair Hit Flop, Player Performance Summary and Hands Report-Game Notes Replacement.
The Hands Report is the most practical tool because it allows you to easily review your best and worst hands -- something I had immediately noticed was missing from the new PT3.
The other stats are less useful but more fun, especially Hit Flop With Pair because you can see whether you're connecting with the flop as much as you should on average.
Over 142,527 hands in this database, here's what my Hit Flop With Pair stats look like.
Hand One In
AA 8.7
KK 7.3
QQ 9.0
JJ 6.3
TT 6.4
99 7.8
88 9.8
77 7.5
66 8.2
55 8.2
44 7.5
33 7.9
22 6.6
You flop at least a set one in 8.5 times on average, so you can see that 10 out of 13 pocket pairs are hitting more often than they should for me. I run so good.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
PokerTracker3 Impressions
I've been a fan of PokerTracker for a long time because it gives me an edge I wouldn't have otherwise. The ability to analyze my opponents' tendencies as I play has won me countless pots and increased my understanding of the game.
This update to PokerTracker, called PokerTracker3, has been a long time coming. The previous interface had become outdated, while the heads-up display's layout took way too much effort to modify.
The new version of PokerTracker accomplishes its main goals:
1. Hand histories are instantly and easily uploaded, and their data are quickly reflected in the new, integrated heads-up display. PT and PokerAce Hud are now part of the same program.
2. There are countless new statistics to play with, especially details about 3-betting and 4-betting that were unavailable in the previous version. There are also options to compile custom reports based on a wide variety of players, filters and statistics.
3. Graphs showing BB/hands, money/hands, money won with showdown/hands and money won without showdown/hands are available with only one or two clicks.
The Hud and customizable realtime stat display are the most important features, and these work well. I love the interface and all the options.
That said, this new version of PokerTracker needs some improvements. It's still a work in progress, and don't expect this initial commercial release to be without flaws.
I've encountered frequent errors when attempting to display stats for table averages, something that should be fairly simple. I know this will be corrected in an update very soon, based on responses on the PT forums.
There's no option to instantly toggle between overall and per-session stats directly from the poker client screen, a feature that I understand is available in Holdem Manager. I read somewhere that this functionality would also be added later. Even PT's developers acknowledge that HM currently has more features (PT3 costs $90; HM costs $80).
I was also a bit disappointed that there's no "Game Notes" tab in PT3, which I previously used after each session to review how I played my winningest and losingest hands of the day. It's more cumbersome to review individual hands in the new version, although again PT's programmers say they'll correct this shortfall soon.
The TableTracker feature promises to use your database to show stats on players at all tables that you currently have open for an additional monthly fee. This feature doesn't work yet, and I don't think I'll pay for it. I already have SpadeEye for that.
Overall, PokerTracker3 shows a distinct improvement over the old version, with easier hand importation, quicker statistical displays and countless options for analysis. However, it still has some flaws that need to be improved over the next few weeks in order to bring it up to speed.
Fortunately, I have confidence in PT's designers, who have always provided exceptional customer support over the years. They work with the poker community to constantly upgrade their product, and they pay attention to individual difficulties in using the software when problems arise.
Monday, May 19, 2008
FTOPS ME: 146th place finish
The Full Tilt Online Poker Series Main Event is a tournament I always try to turn out for. It's filled with donkeys and has a huge first place payout. I'd love to hit it big someday.
Instead, I'll settle for 146th place out of 4,750 players, for a decent $1,900 payout. I'll take it. The real money is at the final two tables, so I feel OK about busting when I did rather than creeping along for a slightly higher prize. You have to play for the real money.
The story of this tournament for me was success -- and eventual failure -- with AK.
Over 398 hands played, I was dealt AK 11 times, and I won with it all but once, on my bustout hand. Three times when I was called with AK, I flopped an Ace or a King. Once I didn't, on my last hand.
The other impression I'm left with from this tournament is the absolute importance of stealing and restealing, even with mediocre hands. I believe I simply won't get enough good cards in most tournaments to be able to wait for a premium hand. I need to constantly seek out situations where I can force opponents to fold, giving me chips without having to see a flop.
Those steals worked well until I overshoved with 66 with an M of about 7 and got called by QQ for my biggest loss of the tourney.
Other than all those AK hands, it seems like I didn't get dealt many decent cards. I had AQ four times, AJ twice and KK twice (neither of which won me many chips). My next-best hand was TT, which I folded three times preflop (and would have lost all three times).
There's not much more to say. You have to steal to stay alive, and I felt like I did a good job to accumulate enough chips through steals to build my stack for when those AK hands doubled me up.
Thanks to my backers and railbirds: Kuro, Fuel, RecessRampage, Pirate Lawyer and cmitch.
Friday, May 16, 2008
New PokerTracker and 3bet stats
PokerTracker3 made its commercial release Thursday after many months of development.
I played a lot of hands today to test it out, and I'll write a more complete review soon. The most obvious improvements are an integrated heads-up display (formerly PokerAce HUD), faster hand history uploading and a wide variety of statistics.
Two of the most important stats are 3-bet percentage and fold to 3-bet percentage, which were not available in the previous version of PT. The availability of this information may gradually change the online poker landscape.
Here's why:
If an opponent raises to $35 from the button in a 5/10 NL game, you can now tell how often a resteal from the blinds needs to be successful to show a profit. A reraise to $120 from the BB shows an immediate profit if your opponent folds to your 3-bet more than 70 percent of the time (.70*$50>.3*$110).
Now we can make these resteal raises liberally with a wide range of cards if an opponent's stats show that he folds to 3-bets too often. Against one player tonight, I even made this kind of move with 73s because I was so sure he would fold:
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 1: smizmiatch ($1,000) -
Seat 2: migs2 ($1,142) -
Seat 3: utreg ($1,127)
Seat 4: PekingTokyo ($1,015)
Seat 5: HMM_SURE ($340)
Seat 6: XJUSTRUNX ($1,189) -
PRE-FLOP:
smizmiatch posts small blind $5
migs2 posts BIG blind $10
Dealt To: smizmiatch
FOLD utreg
FOLD PekingTokyo
FOLD HMM_SURE
RAISE XJUSTRUNX ($35)
RAISE smizmiatch ($120)
FOLD migs2
FOLD XJUSTRUNX
UNCALLED smizmiatch ($85)
MUCK smizmiatch
smizmiatch collected $80 from main pot
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $80 Rake: $0
I know these 3-betting statistics have been available for a while via Holdem Manager, but I have no experience with that software. I'll have to give it a try soon.
An observant opponent will catch on to what you're doing and eventually play back at you, so you have to be on top of the action and not get too far out of line. But some players, especially major multitablers, are on autopilot. They might fold 20 times before they realize they're being robbed blind.
By stealing more often and getting more aggressive, the new PT enabled me to move closer to the ever-elusive loose-aggressive style. I ran 20/17 in one session and 25/23 in another, compared to my 2008 average at 6-max games of 16/13.
Because more people will start to take advantage of these tactics, the games will continue to get tougher. Strong players will have to be ready to adjust. The defense against a player who 3-bets frequently is to call and 4-bet more often.
Here's a screenshot of my new PT layout on Full Tilt:
I list my stats on three lines:
VP$IP/PFR/WSD
AF/3bet %/Attempt to steal %
Fold to continuation bet %/Fold to 3bet %/Fold BB to steal %
I played a lot of hands today to test it out, and I'll write a more complete review soon. The most obvious improvements are an integrated heads-up display (formerly PokerAce HUD), faster hand history uploading and a wide variety of statistics.
Two of the most important stats are 3-bet percentage and fold to 3-bet percentage, which were not available in the previous version of PT. The availability of this information may gradually change the online poker landscape.
Here's why:
If an opponent raises to $35 from the button in a 5/10 NL game, you can now tell how often a resteal from the blinds needs to be successful to show a profit. A reraise to $120 from the BB shows an immediate profit if your opponent folds to your 3-bet more than 70 percent of the time (.70*$50>.3*$110).
Now we can make these resteal raises liberally with a wide range of cards if an opponent's stats show that he folds to 3-bets too often. Against one player tonight, I even made this kind of move with 73s because I was so sure he would fold:
Free hand converter brought to you by CardRunners
Seat 1: smizmiatch ($1,000) -
Seat 2: migs2 ($1,142) -
Seat 3: utreg ($1,127)
Seat 4: PekingTokyo ($1,015)
Seat 5: HMM_SURE ($340)
Seat 6: XJUSTRUNX ($1,189) -
PRE-FLOP:
smizmiatch posts small blind $5
migs2 posts BIG blind $10
Dealt To: smizmiatch
FOLD utreg
FOLD PekingTokyo
FOLD HMM_SURE
RAISE XJUSTRUNX ($35)
RAISE smizmiatch ($120)
FOLD migs2
FOLD XJUSTRUNX
UNCALLED smizmiatch ($85)
MUCK smizmiatch
smizmiatch collected $80 from main pot
SUMMARY:
Total pot: $80 Rake: $0
I know these 3-betting statistics have been available for a while via Holdem Manager, but I have no experience with that software. I'll have to give it a try soon.
An observant opponent will catch on to what you're doing and eventually play back at you, so you have to be on top of the action and not get too far out of line. But some players, especially major multitablers, are on autopilot. They might fold 20 times before they realize they're being robbed blind.
By stealing more often and getting more aggressive, the new PT enabled me to move closer to the ever-elusive loose-aggressive style. I ran 20/17 in one session and 25/23 in another, compared to my 2008 average at 6-max games of 16/13.
Because more people will start to take advantage of these tactics, the games will continue to get tougher. Strong players will have to be ready to adjust. The defense against a player who 3-bets frequently is to call and 4-bet more often.
Here's a screenshot of my new PT layout on Full Tilt:
I list my stats on three lines:
VP$IP/PFR/WSD
AF/3bet %/Attempt to steal %
Fold to continuation bet %/Fold to 3bet %/Fold BB to steal %
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Is paying off a flopped set always right when you give your opponent a bad price?
I don't know if this statement is true or not:
When your opponent makes a play that you know to be unprofitable in the long run, you can feel justified in paying him off.
This situation comes up frequently against loose players who call three-bets lightly with low pocket pairs. They're hoping to hit a set and get paid off, even though they don't have the immediate odds to do so, and their implied odds are questionable.
I'm confident that calling a three-bet is usually wrong preflop when you have a low pocket pair. It's only made right when you're highly confident your opponent will gift you his stack when you do hit, and you have to pay less than 1/8 of your stack to see the flop because you'll only hit your set 1/8 of the time.
For example:
5/10 6-max with 100BB effective stacks
Loose fish calls $35 from CO
Hero raises to $120 from Button with AA
UTG folds
Loose fish calls.
Pot is $255
Flop
458 twotone
Should you always stack off here, knowing that your opponent may have called a $85 three-bet preflop with a low pocket pair? He needs to expect an average profit of roughly $680 ($85*8) for this call to be correct. It's unlikely he'll get paid off enough to make that kind of profit, no matter how you cut it.
I don't know the correct answer. Should you:
a) Get all in on the flop every time I hold a premium hand, knowing that your opponent will lose money in the long run by making these kinds of expensive preflop calls. If he's willing to make a mistake like this, I want to encourage him to do so. It's not like I'm going to have AA or KK in this spot every time I three-bet, which means I'll fold a broad range of lesser hands on the flop, thus reducing my opponent's implied odds.
b) Fold sometimes when your opponent shows unexpected aggression on a flop that was unlikely to hit anything except for a set. After all, stacking off would justify his implied odds, which makes his preflop call almost right.
Is there an absolute answer? Thoughts?
When your opponent makes a play that you know to be unprofitable in the long run, you can feel justified in paying him off.
This situation comes up frequently against loose players who call three-bets lightly with low pocket pairs. They're hoping to hit a set and get paid off, even though they don't have the immediate odds to do so, and their implied odds are questionable.
I'm confident that calling a three-bet is usually wrong preflop when you have a low pocket pair. It's only made right when you're highly confident your opponent will gift you his stack when you do hit, and you have to pay less than 1/8 of your stack to see the flop because you'll only hit your set 1/8 of the time.
For example:
5/10 6-max with 100BB effective stacks
Loose fish calls $35 from CO
Hero raises to $120 from Button with AA
UTG folds
Loose fish calls.
Pot is $255
Flop
458 twotone
Should you always stack off here, knowing that your opponent may have called a $85 three-bet preflop with a low pocket pair? He needs to expect an average profit of roughly $680 ($85*8) for this call to be correct. It's unlikely he'll get paid off enough to make that kind of profit, no matter how you cut it.
I don't know the correct answer. Should you:
a) Get all in on the flop every time I hold a premium hand, knowing that your opponent will lose money in the long run by making these kinds of expensive preflop calls. If he's willing to make a mistake like this, I want to encourage him to do so. It's not like I'm going to have AA or KK in this spot every time I three-bet, which means I'll fold a broad range of lesser hands on the flop, thus reducing my opponent's implied odds.
b) Fold sometimes when your opponent shows unexpected aggression on a flop that was unlikely to hit anything except for a set. After all, stacking off would justify his implied odds, which makes his preflop call almost right.
Is there an absolute answer? Thoughts?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Staying on target
Woohoo! I'm on vacation this week, and I have few plans except to relax, run errands and play poker.
I already played a lot over the weekend, with results in line with expectations. I won on Friday and Sunday, and I lost on Saturday.
The reason I lost on Saturday is obvious to me: I played too much and noticed a decline in my focus, but I kept playing. I should have stopped when I realized that I wasn't as sharp. Gaining awareness of when I'm not playing as well as I should be is something I've been working on for as long as I've been playing poker, and it's not easy. There have been many times when I wasn't able to tell the difference between my A game and my C game.
I picture a graph, with the X axis being the hours I've played and the Y axis being my level of play. In the first hour and a half that I play in a session, I usually can make accurate reads and hold the confidence to act on them -- this is my A game. In the next 30 minutes to an hour, I start to decline into my B game. After that, I tend to run on autopilot, shying away from big pots and falling back on experience rather than analytical thinking, which is my C game.
The graph would look something like this:
It's difficult to attempt assigning winrates to each of my game levels, but I can tell you that my A game is unquestionably profitable, and my C game is borderline depending on game conditions at the 5/10 6-max level.
I intend to play many hands this week to the best of my ability. The way to do that is to break up my sessions into 1.5-2 hour blocks so that I stay fresh, rather than never leaving the computer even to relieve yourself. Sick.
I already played a lot over the weekend, with results in line with expectations. I won on Friday and Sunday, and I lost on Saturday.
The reason I lost on Saturday is obvious to me: I played too much and noticed a decline in my focus, but I kept playing. I should have stopped when I realized that I wasn't as sharp. Gaining awareness of when I'm not playing as well as I should be is something I've been working on for as long as I've been playing poker, and it's not easy. There have been many times when I wasn't able to tell the difference between my A game and my C game.
I picture a graph, with the X axis being the hours I've played and the Y axis being my level of play. In the first hour and a half that I play in a session, I usually can make accurate reads and hold the confidence to act on them -- this is my A game. In the next 30 minutes to an hour, I start to decline into my B game. After that, I tend to run on autopilot, shying away from big pots and falling back on experience rather than analytical thinking, which is my C game.
The graph would look something like this:
It's difficult to attempt assigning winrates to each of my game levels, but I can tell you that my A game is unquestionably profitable, and my C game is borderline depending on game conditions at the 5/10 6-max level.
I intend to play many hands this week to the best of my ability. The way to do that is to break up my sessions into 1.5-2 hour blocks so that I stay fresh, rather than never leaving the computer even to relieve yourself. Sick.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Genie in a bottle
If you could magically acquire one poker skill, what would it be?
John Vorhaus asks the question in this month's Cardplayer.
Would you rather have the ability to reraise bluff on the river, exercise a laser-sharp memory, make plays, be fearless, read hands, manipulate table image or always know the odds?
Vorhaus doesn't answer the question, but I know which of the choices I would pick.
I'd want to be a master hand reader. Of all those skills, pinpoint hand reading would result in the most extreme profits. It would be like being a superuser on Absolute Poker.
Who needs courage if you can consistently narrow your opponent's range to a handful of possible cards? Why worry about your bluffing frequency when you can always force your opponents to fold their weak, transparent hands? What good is memory when you know what your opponent has? Why bother with higher-level math when a basic knowledge of pot odds will do?
Superior hand reading is more important than any of these individual skills. You don't need fancy plays when your opponents' cards are obvious.
John Vorhaus asks the question in this month's Cardplayer.
Would you rather have the ability to reraise bluff on the river, exercise a laser-sharp memory, make plays, be fearless, read hands, manipulate table image or always know the odds?
Vorhaus doesn't answer the question, but I know which of the choices I would pick.
I'd want to be a master hand reader. Of all those skills, pinpoint hand reading would result in the most extreme profits. It would be like being a superuser on Absolute Poker.
Who needs courage if you can consistently narrow your opponent's range to a handful of possible cards? Why worry about your bluffing frequency when you can always force your opponents to fold their weak, transparent hands? What good is memory when you know what your opponent has? Why bother with higher-level math when a basic knowledge of pot odds will do?
Superior hand reading is more important than any of these individual skills. You don't need fancy plays when your opponents' cards are obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
