I ran pretty good in my five sports bets this weekend. I feel lucky to go 3-2, and another bet that would have been a loser didn't process correctly.
Here's the rundown:
USC (-11.5) vs. OhioSt: Win. Ohio St. sucks, and if they win the Big 10 it will only go to show how pathetic that conference is.
SMU (+36.5) vs. Texas Tech: Win. Call me a sports betting fish, but I see value in some of these huge lines. Won this one by a half point.
NorthTexas (+42) vs. LSU: Win.
Georgia (-7.5) vs. S. Carolina: Lose. The half point screwed me in a 14-7 game. Whatever.
Auburn (-10) vs. Miss. St.: Lose. Maybe this was the best 3-2 game in history, but it was still a shitty game.
USC-Ohio St, Over 44.5: Tie. Somehow this bet didn't register, and I would have lost because USC only won 35-3 and couldn't score that last TD. Weeeee.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
HUJ10: Getting coached
I got a poker coach, and it was completely worth it.
Thanks to DeucesCracked for setting me up with cowpig, whose grasp of the heads-up game humbled me. With a coach sweating me as I played, I felt like I could take on anyone.
I wanted to sit at a couple of $5/10 tables for my coaching session, but the action was a bit slow and I couldn't find any good games. But after a few minutes, I settled in for two $2/4 tables against an aggressive player who 3-bet and fired two bullets way too much.
I wish I could retain all the lessons I picked up, but it will take time and practice for these details to sink in.
I'll recount a few of them in hopes that they stick:
On a dry A5x flop, I check-raised with a set of 5s and went for a second check-raise on the turn or river. Unfortunately, my opponent didn't bite with his A3o. I missed a little value, but perhaps the value is made up for in those times when I can check-raise and get paid off.
There were also many times when I was told I needed to slowplay more. Previously, there were many hands that I would slowplay on the flop but show my true intentions on the turn. The problem with this strategy is that it makes my strong hand pretty transparent and misses out on value from hands that might bet into me or call a bet on the river.
Too often, I sacrifice value because I feel like I need to protect my hand, but that doesn't make sense when I'm up against a fairly narrow range that can hit on the river. I shouldn't fear the flush draw so much, and I should be more nimble in my re-evaluation of my hand strength on successive streets.
A final point is that exploitative strategies can have far more value than so-called optimal strategies. By that I mean that if you find a clear pattern in your opponent's game, it makes so much more sense to take advantage of it than trying to otherwise balance your range. For example, against a player who folds to 4-bets too frequently, I should 4-bet with weaker hands while cold-calling with premium hands.
Too often, I miss value because I've trained myself to make my bluffs and value bets look alike all the time.
I picked up many other tips too, and I feel like my profitability has instantly jumped a few BB/100. As my coach said, this kind of instruction will rapidly boost my learning curve, making it so I gain knowledge in a couple of hours that would otherwise take me thousands of hands and lots of thought to acquire.
Thanks to DeucesCracked for setting me up with cowpig, whose grasp of the heads-up game humbled me. With a coach sweating me as I played, I felt like I could take on anyone.
I wanted to sit at a couple of $5/10 tables for my coaching session, but the action was a bit slow and I couldn't find any good games. But after a few minutes, I settled in for two $2/4 tables against an aggressive player who 3-bet and fired two bullets way too much.
I wish I could retain all the lessons I picked up, but it will take time and practice for these details to sink in.
I'll recount a few of them in hopes that they stick:
On a dry A5x flop, I check-raised with a set of 5s and went for a second check-raise on the turn or river. Unfortunately, my opponent didn't bite with his A3o. I missed a little value, but perhaps the value is made up for in those times when I can check-raise and get paid off.
There were also many times when I was told I needed to slowplay more. Previously, there were many hands that I would slowplay on the flop but show my true intentions on the turn. The problem with this strategy is that it makes my strong hand pretty transparent and misses out on value from hands that might bet into me or call a bet on the river.
Too often, I sacrifice value because I feel like I need to protect my hand, but that doesn't make sense when I'm up against a fairly narrow range that can hit on the river. I shouldn't fear the flush draw so much, and I should be more nimble in my re-evaluation of my hand strength on successive streets.
A final point is that exploitative strategies can have far more value than so-called optimal strategies. By that I mean that if you find a clear pattern in your opponent's game, it makes so much more sense to take advantage of it than trying to otherwise balance your range. For example, against a player who folds to 4-bets too frequently, I should 4-bet with weaker hands while cold-calling with premium hands.
Too often, I miss value because I've trained myself to make my bluffs and value bets look alike all the time.
I picked up many other tips too, and I feel like my profitability has instantly jumped a few BB/100. As my coach said, this kind of instruction will rapidly boost my learning curve, making it so I gain knowledge in a couple of hours that would otherwise take me thousands of hands and lots of thought to acquire.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
HUJ9: One-table wonder
I usually single-table heads-up games so that I can get a feel for the flow of the match and look closely for exploitable situations. Heads-up requires more attention that six-max or full ring games, and I lose more value than I gain from multitabling.
One common-sense trick that I've started using is opening up my opponents' other tables as I play them on a single table.
On the other tables, I can see how my opponent is doing. If he has a tough decision on his other table, I can bluff more easily because he's less likely to play back. If he recently suffered a bad beat on another table, he may be more likely to be tilting.
This kind of information results in easy money. Give it a try because it can pay off immediately.
One common-sense trick that I've started using is opening up my opponents' other tables as I play them on a single table.
On the other tables, I can see how my opponent is doing. If he has a tough decision on his other table, I can bluff more easily because he's less likely to play back. If he recently suffered a bad beat on another table, he may be more likely to be tilting.
This kind of information results in easy money. Give it a try because it can pay off immediately.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
HUJ8: Postflop play
A lot of the money in hold'em cash games is made postflop, which is how it should be. Everything can change with the turn of a card or two, and later streets are also when the big bets go in. It's also appropriate that it's not easy to play postflop.
I remember before I played in my lone WSOP event, a $1,500 six-max tourney last year, my plan was to see some flops and "outplay my opponents postflop."
In retrospect, it's pretty funny that I uttered that phrase because I was probably a below-average player postflop. Instead, I tried to play preflop pots and in position to give myself an edge. But that edge didn't mean I knew how to handle relative hand strengths on various flop textures.
I'm getting a better idea of postflop play. That's one area where this heads-up challenge is vastly improving my game.
I'm working on recognizing the difference between top pair and second pair, between inducing a bluff and betting for value, between continuation betting on a paired flop and checking behind, between pot control and fastplays. Each hand is circumstantial, but I'm getting a better handle on how I should be thinking.
For example, on a dry flop, it's less likely that either you or your opponent hit a piece of it. At the same time, it's more likely that a player who hit a piece of the flop is going to see a showdown. So it becomes easier to bluff against a non-thinking opponent who will fold to pressure, and it becomes more difficult to bluff opponents who know the strength of Ace-high on a 722 flop.
Then I have to ask myself: if I have A6 on a 722 flop, do I want to continuation bet because my hand figures to be best and I'm happy to take it down? Or do I check behind and either bet or call the turn? What would I do with K6 in that situation? What would I do with 77? The idea that I should bet-bet-bet has gotten me in big trouble in the past.
Video: pr1nnyraiding ep. 7
As a more typical "sweat" type video, I felt more entertained by it but less educated than by previous episodes of the series. There were certainly a few nuggets that I want to remember:
_ Against an opponent who 3-bets frequently, his general cold-calling range can be something like 78-QT and low pockets.
_ Unconnected, unsuited hands with 9s in them _ K9, Q9 and J9 _ don't fare too well when cold-calling out of position. Just folding is usually better.
I remember before I played in my lone WSOP event, a $1,500 six-max tourney last year, my plan was to see some flops and "outplay my opponents postflop."
In retrospect, it's pretty funny that I uttered that phrase because I was probably a below-average player postflop. Instead, I tried to play preflop pots and in position to give myself an edge. But that edge didn't mean I knew how to handle relative hand strengths on various flop textures.
I'm getting a better idea of postflop play. That's one area where this heads-up challenge is vastly improving my game.
I'm working on recognizing the difference between top pair and second pair, between inducing a bluff and betting for value, between continuation betting on a paired flop and checking behind, between pot control and fastplays. Each hand is circumstantial, but I'm getting a better handle on how I should be thinking.
For example, on a dry flop, it's less likely that either you or your opponent hit a piece of it. At the same time, it's more likely that a player who hit a piece of the flop is going to see a showdown. So it becomes easier to bluff against a non-thinking opponent who will fold to pressure, and it becomes more difficult to bluff opponents who know the strength of Ace-high on a 722 flop.
Then I have to ask myself: if I have A6 on a 722 flop, do I want to continuation bet because my hand figures to be best and I'm happy to take it down? Or do I check behind and either bet or call the turn? What would I do with K6 in that situation? What would I do with 77? The idea that I should bet-bet-bet has gotten me in big trouble in the past.
Video: pr1nnyraiding ep. 7
As a more typical "sweat" type video, I felt more entertained by it but less educated than by previous episodes of the series. There were certainly a few nuggets that I want to remember:
_ Against an opponent who 3-bets frequently, his general cold-calling range can be something like 78-QT and low pockets.
_ Unconnected, unsuited hands with 9s in them _ K9, Q9 and J9 _ don't fare too well when cold-calling out of position. Just folding is usually better.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
HUJ7: Normalizing
This brutal run continued Friday and Saturday, but I seem to be pulling out of it a little today. What's important is that I'm learning and steadily improving.
There have been many times during previous downswings where I felt like I wasn't getting anything out of it, that I'm just wasting my time and money feeding the variance monster. But because heads-up is such a nuanced game, it takes a while to catch on.
To list a few things I've been changing: value betting, starting hands, 3-betting ranges and exercising pot control.
Above all, I'm realizing that heads-up poker is still poker, and it follows most of the general rules of thumb of the game: You can't win every day, even worse players can run good for thousands of hands, you usually need a big hand to win a big pot, and you can't push too hard. I'm also trying to learn patience and not just shove it in when I turn a crappy two-pair.
Videos: pr1nnyraiding eps. 5 and 6.
These vids discuss playing against TAGs and LAGs, two common player types in HU games. Lots of good information about playing scare cards, opening up your range, inducing bluffs, adjusting bet sizes downward.
I also liked the brief talk about the Yeti theorem, which as I understand it says that the third bet on a dry flop is usually a bluff. Of course, if you're playing against an opponent who knows that the third bet is usually a bluff, that opponent may put in that bet for value. Yay, leveling.
There have been many times during previous downswings where I felt like I wasn't getting anything out of it, that I'm just wasting my time and money feeding the variance monster. But because heads-up is such a nuanced game, it takes a while to catch on.
To list a few things I've been changing: value betting, starting hands, 3-betting ranges and exercising pot control.
Above all, I'm realizing that heads-up poker is still poker, and it follows most of the general rules of thumb of the game: You can't win every day, even worse players can run good for thousands of hands, you usually need a big hand to win a big pot, and you can't push too hard. I'm also trying to learn patience and not just shove it in when I turn a crappy two-pair.
Videos: pr1nnyraiding eps. 5 and 6.
These vids discuss playing against TAGs and LAGs, two common player types in HU games. Lots of good information about playing scare cards, opening up your range, inducing bluffs, adjusting bet sizes downward.
I also liked the brief talk about the Yeti theorem, which as I understand it says that the third bet on a dry flop is usually a bluff. Of course, if you're playing against an opponent who knows that the third bet is usually a bluff, that opponent may put in that bet for value. Yay, leveling.
Friday, September 05, 2008
HUJ6: No play
Took a day off.
Videos: pr1nnyraiding ep. 3 and ep. 4.
These videos dealt with adjusting to loose-passive and weak-tight players.
Some of the tips against loose-passives: value bet more and bluff less, make smaller bluffs, continuation bet second pair at times.
Against weak-tights: Bluff more often because they're going to showdown less, fire two bullets, look for scarecards to bluff on the river, 3-bet more preflop.
These DeucesCracked videos are educational. I've noticed I get loose-passives and weak-tight players confused sometimes, and that can get expensive when I'm trying to bluff the hell out of opponents who won't fold.
I'm looking forward to the next videos, which deal with adjusting for TAGs and LAGs. I'm sure they will get into more about evaluating hand ranges, balancing your range and analyzing flop textures. I need to improve at those skills.
Videos: pr1nnyraiding ep. 3 and ep. 4.
These videos dealt with adjusting to loose-passive and weak-tight players.
Some of the tips against loose-passives: value bet more and bluff less, make smaller bluffs, continuation bet second pair at times.
Against weak-tights: Bluff more often because they're going to showdown less, fire two bullets, look for scarecards to bluff on the river, 3-bet more preflop.
These DeucesCracked videos are educational. I've noticed I get loose-passives and weak-tight players confused sometimes, and that can get expensive when I'm trying to bluff the hell out of opponents who won't fold.
I'm looking forward to the next videos, which deal with adjusting for TAGs and LAGs. I'm sure they will get into more about evaluating hand ranges, balancing your range and analyzing flop textures. I need to improve at those skills.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
HUJ5: Turn betting
I've gotten myself into some cool situations recently with my turn bet-sizing.
The idea is that if you want to get your opponent all-in, it makes sense to size your turn bet at an amount that will leave one pot-sized bet left for the river. This often results in strange-looking, small turnbets that your opponents feel obliged to call (or raise). Then they either have to fold the river or make an atrocious call.
Here's an example where my small turnbet induced my opponent to raise all-in with top pair:
Full Tilt Poker, $2/$4 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $1,029.50
Hero (BB): $440
Pre-Flop: 6
8 dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $12, Hero raises to $40, SB calls $28
Flop: ($80) 4
7 5 (2 Players)
Hero bets $60, SB calls $60
Turn: ($200) Q (2 Players)
Hero bets $90, SB raises to $929.50 and is All-In, Hero calls $250 and is All-In
River: ($880) 3
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: $880 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
SB showed 8 Q (a pair of Queens) and LOST (-$440 NET)
Hero showed 6 8 (a flush, Queen high) and WON $879.50 (+$439.50 NET)
---
I had a -5 buy-in session at 2/4 yesterday, which blew.
I want to review a few of my losing all-in hands, especially since I got it in bad several times:
Hand 1: I call a 3bet from the button with QJo and call a continuation bet on an AT7 flop. Then when I hit a J on the turn, I raised and got it in with my pair and gutshot. I was up against AJ. In retrospect, this is horrible poker (got it in with a 9 percent shot), but I was thinking at the time that I could get my opponent off AK or AQ.
Hand 2: K3 vs. 44 that peeled a K53 flop and turned his set. Standardish.
Hand 3: T9 vs. Q5s. Weird hand where I check-raised the turn with top pair and got it in good, but he rivered a Queen.
Hand 4: AK vs. K8s. I got him in with a naked flush draw on the flop, which of course he hits.
Hand 5: T8s vs. 44. I had 15 outs on the turn and got it in vs. a flopped set.
Hand 6: 76o vs. A6s. I hit my straight and he hit his flush on the turn, and I called down.
Hand 7: AQ vs. 99. I flopped top pair on a drawy flop, check-raised and got it in against a set of 9s.
Hand 8: 67s vs. QTo. I fired a second bullet when I turned a flush draw and got it all-in vs. a turned two pair.
Hand 9: 99 vs. TT, all-in preflop.
I made lots of turn mistakes especially. I don't know what to say except for that I need to be more careful, and I'm probably overestimating my fold equity.
The idea is that if you want to get your opponent all-in, it makes sense to size your turn bet at an amount that will leave one pot-sized bet left for the river. This often results in strange-looking, small turnbets that your opponents feel obliged to call (or raise). Then they either have to fold the river or make an atrocious call.
Here's an example where my small turnbet induced my opponent to raise all-in with top pair:
Full Tilt Poker, $2/$4 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $1,029.50
Hero (BB): $440
Pre-Flop: 6
8 dealt to Hero (BB)SB raises to $12, Hero raises to $40, SB calls $28
Flop: ($80) 4
7 5 (2 Players)Hero bets $60, SB calls $60
Turn: ($200) Q
(2 Players)Hero bets $90, SB raises to $929.50 and is All-In, Hero calls $250 and is All-In
River: ($880) 3
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: $880 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
SB showed 8
Q (a pair of Queens) and LOST (-$440 NET)Hero showed 6
8 (a flush, Queen high) and WON $879.50 (+$439.50 NET)---
I had a -5 buy-in session at 2/4 yesterday, which blew.
I want to review a few of my losing all-in hands, especially since I got it in bad several times:
Hand 1: I call a 3bet from the button with QJo and call a continuation bet on an AT7 flop. Then when I hit a J on the turn, I raised and got it in with my pair and gutshot. I was up against AJ. In retrospect, this is horrible poker (got it in with a 9 percent shot), but I was thinking at the time that I could get my opponent off AK or AQ.
Hand 2: K3 vs. 44 that peeled a K53 flop and turned his set. Standardish.
Hand 3: T9 vs. Q5s. Weird hand where I check-raised the turn with top pair and got it in good, but he rivered a Queen.
Hand 4: AK vs. K8s. I got him in with a naked flush draw on the flop, which of course he hits.
Hand 5: T8s vs. 44. I had 15 outs on the turn and got it in vs. a flopped set.
Hand 6: 76o vs. A6s. I hit my straight and he hit his flush on the turn, and I called down.
Hand 7: AQ vs. 99. I flopped top pair on a drawy flop, check-raised and got it in against a set of 9s.
Hand 8: 67s vs. QTo. I fired a second bullet when I turned a flush draw and got it all-in vs. a turned two pair.
Hand 9: 99 vs. TT, all-in preflop.
I made lots of turn mistakes especially. I don't know what to say except for that I need to be more careful, and I'm probably overestimating my fold equity.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
HUJ4: Dropping up
The difference in skill between 2/4 heads-up opponents and 5/10 opponents is truly amazing. I mean, some of these guys blow through their buy-ins at incredible speeds.
I was stubborn to insist on playing 5/10 for the last few weeks. Although I survived, I didn't thrive. But with bigger game selection and enormous fish at 2/4, I feel like it's far easier to pick my opponents' pockets like it's my job.
Of course I want to move up to higher limits because I anticipate bigger profits as long as I can keep winning. I like taking the easier money at lower levels, but I fear stagnation and complacency. I can't stand still for too long or else I may fall behind. You can see many poker players who keep playing the same full ring games or same tournaments, never branching out. That's no way to excel.
For example, I'd rather be a 2ptbb/100 winner at 10/20 ($80/100) than an 8 ptbb/100 at 2/4 ($64/100).
That said, money is money, and I'm not going to concern myself with playing too-high limits right now. What's important is that I keep building my skills and my bankroll so that I'm prepared when the time comes to move up again.
Video watched: pr1nnyraiding ep. 2: This video discusses playing against shortstackers in heads-up games. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but it's a good reinforcement of the idea that one-dimensional players typically follow the "weak bet=strong hand" and "overbet=weak hand" mentality, making them easy to read.
I was a bit enlightened to hear Krantz and WiltOnTilt talk about not being afraid to play shortstackers just because they tend to hit-and-run. If they suck at poker, what should I care if they try to hit and run?
I was stubborn to insist on playing 5/10 for the last few weeks. Although I survived, I didn't thrive. But with bigger game selection and enormous fish at 2/4, I feel like it's far easier to pick my opponents' pockets like it's my job.
Of course I want to move up to higher limits because I anticipate bigger profits as long as I can keep winning. I like taking the easier money at lower levels, but I fear stagnation and complacency. I can't stand still for too long or else I may fall behind. You can see many poker players who keep playing the same full ring games or same tournaments, never branching out. That's no way to excel.
For example, I'd rather be a 2ptbb/100 winner at 10/20 ($80/100) than an 8 ptbb/100 at 2/4 ($64/100).
That said, money is money, and I'm not going to concern myself with playing too-high limits right now. What's important is that I keep building my skills and my bankroll so that I'm prepared when the time comes to move up again.
Video watched: pr1nnyraiding ep. 2: This video discusses playing against shortstackers in heads-up games. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but it's a good reinforcement of the idea that one-dimensional players typically follow the "weak bet=strong hand" and "overbet=weak hand" mentality, making them easy to read.
I was a bit enlightened to hear Krantz and WiltOnTilt talk about not being afraid to play shortstackers just because they tend to hit-and-run. If they suck at poker, what should I care if they try to hit and run?
Monday, September 01, 2008
HUJ3: Reining it in
When I posted yesterday, I was playing way too aggressively preflop. I went over the edge with 3-bets and check-raises to the point where I lost control pot size and got committed too lightly for my tastes.
Once that happens, you know you're in big trouble.
Part of the problem was that I got caught up in 3-betting all of my suited and offsuit broadway hands, which won me some small pots but got me involved in large ones where I was dominated.
Fortunately, I had stepped down to the 2/4 and 3/6 games beforehand (rather than 5/10), but it was still kind of brutal when I got into raising wars with maniacs and lost.
I posted this link yesterday, but I'll post it again today: WiltOnTilt has responded to my question about the differences between playing a fluid and polarized preflop range. Basically, he says that it's a matter of style, and you need to be aware of how your preflop play influences your postflop hand ranges. Fascinating stuff.
I've since regrouped after I remembered some fundamental truths of NLH, and probably poker in general: Patience is a virtue. Pot control allows you to moderate winnings and losses. There's no need to go for the long ball all the time when a bloop single will do. The small battles add up, and they help you win the big ones later.
I booked a couple of winning sessions last night that helped me get back on track, although I was still down for the day.
Video watched: pr1nnyraiding: Episode One.
This video was exactly what I needed. It outlines the basics of heads-up play in a simple way that helped reinforce to me that tight(ish) play is perfectly acceptable, even when you're playing 40 percent of your hands (as in heads-up games).
The vid goes over starting hand ranges in position and out of position, touches on the goals of postflop play and reviews various opponent types. I can't wait to learn more.
Once that happens, you know you're in big trouble.
Part of the problem was that I got caught up in 3-betting all of my suited and offsuit broadway hands, which won me some small pots but got me involved in large ones where I was dominated.
Fortunately, I had stepped down to the 2/4 and 3/6 games beforehand (rather than 5/10), but it was still kind of brutal when I got into raising wars with maniacs and lost.
I posted this link yesterday, but I'll post it again today: WiltOnTilt has responded to my question about the differences between playing a fluid and polarized preflop range. Basically, he says that it's a matter of style, and you need to be aware of how your preflop play influences your postflop hand ranges. Fascinating stuff.
I've since regrouped after I remembered some fundamental truths of NLH, and probably poker in general: Patience is a virtue. Pot control allows you to moderate winnings and losses. There's no need to go for the long ball all the time when a bloop single will do. The small battles add up, and they help you win the big ones later.
I booked a couple of winning sessions last night that helped me get back on track, although I was still down for the day.
Video watched: pr1nnyraiding: Episode One.
This video was exactly what I needed. It outlines the basics of heads-up play in a simple way that helped reinforce to me that tight(ish) play is perfectly acceptable, even when you're playing 40 percent of your hands (as in heads-up games).
The vid goes over starting hand ranges in position and out of position, touches on the goals of postflop play and reviews various opponent types. I can't wait to learn more.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
HUJ2: Spewy
Well, that didn't go well.
I can't seem to catch a break in the heads-up games the last few days, and I find myself a little bit lost because I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I mean, obviously I'm getting my chips in bad, but that's only a reflection of an underlying judgment problem.
Maybe I should stick to one table at a time (rather than two)? Maybe I need to be more patient, even when it feels like overaggro players will run over me? Maybe I tilt more than I realize, especially in the couple of minutes immediately following a bad beat? Or maybe I'm just running bad, although I have at least five hand histories I could post where I spew off chips in moronic ways.
I'll post one of them, which is among the worst of the bunch.
I've been playing more 2/4 and 3/6 HU since this bad streak started. The downswing began in earnest when I tried to take a shot at 10/20 HU. I got it in good with QJ and a flush draw vs. 86 and a flush draw, but of course the villain rivered his 8. Then this hand came up, which just isn't good at all:
Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (BB): $2,649.50
SB: $4,445.25
Pre-Flop: 7
8 dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $60, Hero raises to $200, SB calls $140
Flop: ($400) J 4 4 (2 Players)
Hero bets $250, SB calls $250
Turn: ($900) 8 (2 Players)
Hero checks, SB bets $600, Hero raises to $2,199.50 and is All-In, SB calls $1,599.50
River: ($5,299) 4 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: $5,299 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed 7 8 (a full house, Fours full of Eights) and LOST (-$2,649.50 NET)
SB showed J A (a full house, Fours full of Jacks) and WON $5,298.50 (+$2,649 NET)
My thinking was that only a strong Jack could call my turn check-raise, and Jacks made up a small portion of his range. I won't try to rationalize my play, but I would like to analyze it with PokerStove:
I'm guessing my opponent's 3-bet calling range looks something like this: JJ-22,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,AQo-AJo,KQo,QJo,JTo
If we assume that he'll call my turn all-in check-raise with all his Jacks or better, he's calling with about 43 percent of his range and folding 57 percent of his range. I didn't know these numbers, but I thought a naked bluff may have enough equity to be profitable because I would win the pot slightly more than half the time. (.57)(1500) + (.43)(-2200)=-$91
I think it's safe to say I poorly estimated both his range and the value of my bluff.
I can't seem to catch a break in the heads-up games the last few days, and I find myself a little bit lost because I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I mean, obviously I'm getting my chips in bad, but that's only a reflection of an underlying judgment problem.
Maybe I should stick to one table at a time (rather than two)? Maybe I need to be more patient, even when it feels like overaggro players will run over me? Maybe I tilt more than I realize, especially in the couple of minutes immediately following a bad beat? Or maybe I'm just running bad, although I have at least five hand histories I could post where I spew off chips in moronic ways.
I'll post one of them, which is among the worst of the bunch.
I've been playing more 2/4 and 3/6 HU since this bad streak started. The downswing began in earnest when I tried to take a shot at 10/20 HU. I got it in good with QJ and a flush draw vs. 86 and a flush draw, but of course the villain rivered his 8. Then this hand came up, which just isn't good at all:
Full Tilt Poker, $10/$20 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
Hero (BB): $2,649.50
SB: $4,445.25
Pre-Flop: 7
8 dealt to Hero (BB)SB raises to $60, Hero raises to $200, SB calls $140
Flop: ($400) J
4 4 (2 Players)Hero bets $250, SB calls $250
Turn: ($900) 8
(2 Players)Hero checks, SB bets $600, Hero raises to $2,199.50 and is All-In, SB calls $1,599.50
River: ($5,299) 4
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: $5,299 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
Hero showed 7
8 (a full house, Fours full of Eights) and LOST (-$2,649.50 NET)SB showed J
A (a full house, Fours full of Jacks) and WON $5,298.50 (+$2,649 NET)My thinking was that only a strong Jack could call my turn check-raise, and Jacks made up a small portion of his range. I won't try to rationalize my play, but I would like to analyze it with PokerStove:
I'm guessing my opponent's 3-bet calling range looks something like this: JJ-22,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,AQo-AJo,KQo,QJo,JTo
If we assume that he'll call my turn all-in check-raise with all his Jacks or better, he's calling with about 43 percent of his range and folding 57 percent of his range. I didn't know these numbers, but I thought a naked bluff may have enough equity to be profitable because I would win the pot slightly more than half the time. (.57)(1500) + (.43)(-2200)=-$91
I think it's safe to say I poorly estimated both his range and the value of my bluff.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Heads-up Journal
I'm going to try doing something a little different in this space by jotting down thoughts about my heads-up game without necessarily making a point.
The reason for this is simple: I need to do everything I can to improve my heads-up game, and one of the best ways I learn is through writing. I hope these posts are interesting to some readers, but they'll mostly deal with the minutia of my heads-up development.
I've been playing mostly 5/10 heads-up cash games since mid-July (about six weeks now). I dropped about 11 buy-ins when I started, but since then I've rebounded somewhat to win back 15 buy-ins. So I'm about +4 buy-ins overall since I started playing heads-up, which is disappointing to me.
I'm being a bit results-oriented on one hand, but on the other hand, there are many many spots where I've made mistakes, and I get frustrated knowing that I need to learn so much more if I'm going to continue advancing my game.
1. Coaching: I'm looking to hire a coach to help me improve my game. So far I haven't had any luck at all.
I have to call out DeucesCracked for failing to help me find a coach. They supposedly offer coaching, but I haven't gotten anywhere with them. In the two weeks since I first wrote them, they've told me they only have one coach available, ColmsUM, and he isn't answering my e-mails. They should feel ashamed for running their business so poorly. They should at least respond to my e-mails.
I also haven't found a coach through a request on the 2+2 Coaching forum.
So if anyone out there plays 5/10 HU games or higher and has coaching experience, please contact me through e-mail at smizmiatch AT yahoo.com.
2. Videos watched:
WiltOnTilt (#1)
FoxwoodsFiend (#2) -$25k Heads Up Championship
The WiltOnTilt vid was especially good. His analysis was centered on hand ranges and reading situations, which are two of the most important skills in any form of poker.
Wilt talks about playing with a "fluid" 3-betting range rather than a "polarized" range, although I didn't understand all the nuances of his discussion. I asked for clarification in this post on the DeucesCracked forums.
I understand that a fluid 3-betting range reraises more for value with broadway cards, compared to a polarized 3-betting range, which reraises more with great hands and crappy hands, and less with medium-strength hands.
The video made me realize I've been playing heads-up games with a polarized 3-betting range that generally looks like this: Axs+, AQo+, KTs+, 88+, suited connectors. I tend to cold call more with hands like AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, Axo and 22-77.
Is my cold-calling range too transparent to my opponents?
It seems like offsuit Jacks and Tens may be overrepresented in my cold-caling range, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially since I like to check-raise Jack-high and Ten-high flops frequently.
Another point I got out of the video is FoxwoodsFiend's contention that you can increase your continuation bet size on dry flops. I don't fully understand the reasoning for this because it runs opposite of the way I normally play. I usually tend to continuation bet a larger amount on coordinated flops to protect my hand, or at least to represent that I'm protecting my hand and charging draws.
I suppose that bigger c-bets on dry flops may be effective because they get value when you're ahead from hands that have a less likely chance of improving on later streets.
He also talks about betting his small single-pair hands on the turn to protect them from rivered overcards. I like that idea.
The reason for this is simple: I need to do everything I can to improve my heads-up game, and one of the best ways I learn is through writing. I hope these posts are interesting to some readers, but they'll mostly deal with the minutia of my heads-up development.
I've been playing mostly 5/10 heads-up cash games since mid-July (about six weeks now). I dropped about 11 buy-ins when I started, but since then I've rebounded somewhat to win back 15 buy-ins. So I'm about +4 buy-ins overall since I started playing heads-up, which is disappointing to me.
I'm being a bit results-oriented on one hand, but on the other hand, there are many many spots where I've made mistakes, and I get frustrated knowing that I need to learn so much more if I'm going to continue advancing my game.
1. Coaching: I'm looking to hire a coach to help me improve my game. So far I haven't had any luck at all.
I have to call out DeucesCracked for failing to help me find a coach. They supposedly offer coaching, but I haven't gotten anywhere with them. In the two weeks since I first wrote them, they've told me they only have one coach available, ColmsUM, and he isn't answering my e-mails. They should feel ashamed for running their business so poorly. They should at least respond to my e-mails.
I also haven't found a coach through a request on the 2+2 Coaching forum.
So if anyone out there plays 5/10 HU games or higher and has coaching experience, please contact me through e-mail at smizmiatch AT yahoo.com.
2. Videos watched:
WiltOnTilt (#1)
FoxwoodsFiend (#2) -$25k Heads Up Championship
The WiltOnTilt vid was especially good. His analysis was centered on hand ranges and reading situations, which are two of the most important skills in any form of poker.
Wilt talks about playing with a "fluid" 3-betting range rather than a "polarized" range, although I didn't understand all the nuances of his discussion. I asked for clarification in this post on the DeucesCracked forums.
I understand that a fluid 3-betting range reraises more for value with broadway cards, compared to a polarized 3-betting range, which reraises more with great hands and crappy hands, and less with medium-strength hands.
The video made me realize I've been playing heads-up games with a polarized 3-betting range that generally looks like this: Axs+, AQo+, KTs+, 88+, suited connectors. I tend to cold call more with hands like AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, KT, Axo and 22-77.
Is my cold-calling range too transparent to my opponents?
It seems like offsuit Jacks and Tens may be overrepresented in my cold-caling range, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially since I like to check-raise Jack-high and Ten-high flops frequently.
Another point I got out of the video is FoxwoodsFiend's contention that you can increase your continuation bet size on dry flops. I don't fully understand the reasoning for this because it runs opposite of the way I normally play. I usually tend to continuation bet a larger amount on coordinated flops to protect my hand, or at least to represent that I'm protecting my hand and charging draws.
I suppose that bigger c-bets on dry flops may be effective because they get value when you're ahead from hands that have a less likely chance of improving on later streets.
He also talks about betting his small single-pair hands on the turn to protect them from rivered overcards. I like that idea.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
HOTD: Pretty slim
This hand came up in the middle of a very aggressive match. I'm happy with it.
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: $1,919.50
Hero (SB): $1,439
Pre-Flop: 6 8 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20
Flop: ($60) 4 8 J (2 Players)
BB bets $40, Hero calls $40
Turn: ($140) 2 (2 Players)
BB bets $140, Hero raises to $400, BB raises to $1,340, Hero calls $940
River: ($2,820) Q (2 Players)
BB bets $509.50 and is All-In, Hero calls $29 and is All-In
Results: $2,878 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
BB showed T 9 (a straight, Queen high) and WON $2,877.50 (+$1,438.50 NET)
Hero mucked 6 8 (a pair of Eights) and LOST (-$1,439 NET)
My opponent was the kind of player that would check-raise top pair Jacks nearly every time, so when he bet out the flop, I put him on a draw or a low pair.
Then my raise on the turn looked kind of weak because I also probably would have raised the flop if I actually had a Jack. None of the draws had come in, so I pushed the call button (I thought a call would put me all in, which is why I had $29 left on the river). I don't know if this call is profitable against my opponent's range, but I went with my read.
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
BB: $1,919.50
Hero (SB): $1,439
Pre-Flop: 6
8 dealt to Hero (SB)Hero raises to $30, BB calls $20
Flop: ($60) 4
8 J (2 Players)BB bets $40, Hero calls $40
Turn: ($140) 2
(2 Players)BB bets $140, Hero raises to $400, BB raises to $1,340, Hero calls $940
River: ($2,820) Q
(2 Players)BB bets $509.50 and is All-In, Hero calls $29 and is All-In
Results: $2,878 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
BB showed T
9 (a straight, Queen high) and WON $2,877.50 (+$1,438.50 NET)Hero mucked 6
8 (a pair of Eights) and LOST (-$1,439 NET)My opponent was the kind of player that would check-raise top pair Jacks nearly every time, so when he bet out the flop, I put him on a draw or a low pair.
Then my raise on the turn looked kind of weak because I also probably would have raised the flop if I actually had a Jack. None of the draws had come in, so I pushed the call button (I thought a call would put me all in, which is why I had $29 left on the river). I don't know if this call is profitable against my opponent's range, but I went with my read.
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=5122228
pokenum -h 8h 6h - td 9d -- 4c 8c js 2s
Holdem Hi: 44 enumerated boards containing Js 2s 8c 4c
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
8h 6h 30 68.18 14 31.82 0 0.00 0.682
Td 9d 14 31.82 30 68.18 0 0.00 0.318
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Picking good games
Game selection is so critical in online poker because it allows you to choose the skill level of your opponents. If you're in it to make money, you want to be playing against opponents who are worse than you.
There are several ways to evaluate what constitutes a good game.
One way is to look for games with a high percentage of players per flop, a stat that's available in the lobbies of many sites for anyone to see. Another way is to check out TableRatings.com. Both of these methods are OK, but they rely on data available to everyone, which means that you often end up on waiting lists for the best games rather than sitting in them.
A better way is to use a program like SpadeEye, which I recently wrote a review of for the recently launched site, Poker Tech Reviews. I'll leave it to my review to explain how SpadeEye works.
I've found that seat selection is more important than table selection. By that I mean a tight table doesn't matter as much as long as you're sitting directly to the left of the fish.
You also want the big stacks to your right, passive players to your left and tight players in the big blind when you're on the button.
There are several ways to evaluate what constitutes a good game.
One way is to look for games with a high percentage of players per flop, a stat that's available in the lobbies of many sites for anyone to see. Another way is to check out TableRatings.com. Both of these methods are OK, but they rely on data available to everyone, which means that you often end up on waiting lists for the best games rather than sitting in them.
A better way is to use a program like SpadeEye, which I recently wrote a review of for the recently launched site, Poker Tech Reviews. I'll leave it to my review to explain how SpadeEye works.
I've found that seat selection is more important than table selection. By that I mean a tight table doesn't matter as much as long as you're sitting directly to the left of the fish.
You also want the big stacks to your right, passive players to your left and tight players in the big blind when you're on the button.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Riverboat Gambling
That was a fantastic weekend vacation. I saw the Braves and Cardinals win one game each on Friday and Saturday, and then I drove to Kansas City to witness the home team beat the Tigers.
And I played in live casinos every day.
I met up with Kuro at Harrahs in St. Louis immediately after I arrived. It was cool to see signs at Harrahs supporting Dennis Phillips, who started his journey toward the World Series of Poker November Nine there in a $200 satellite.
I only had a little money on me, and I was looking to sit at a $1/2 NL table, but my name came up for a $2/5 table first. When I found my seat, it didn't take long to remember how juicy live poker can be: five players saw most flops, reraises were rare and people missed many obvious value bets on later streets.
I feel like it takes a little investment to beat these games sometimes. That's because you should be seeing many flops in position, and if you miss all the time, your stack is going to bleed away. The rake and jackpot fee don't help either. But I'm certain this kind of live game is overwhelmingly profitable over time. (I wish I could be dealt more than 30 hands an hour!)
Eventually, my stack dwindled to about $150, and I limp-raised all-in from under the gun with 77 after an MP player raised to $50 and four people called, putting more than $200 in the pot. I got called by the raiser, who wouldn't reveal his pocket 8s until after the river was dealt even after I turned over my hand immediately. Jackass grayhair.
I ended up losing more money at blackjack, but the real story of the trip is my roulette winnings at Casino Queen in Illinois and Isle of Capri in Kansas City.
I played a Martingale strategy, in which I placed near-break-even wagers on the outside, pocketing my winnings on small bets and doubling my bets when I lost.
In four sessions of roulette over four days this weekend, I walked away a solid winner every time.
The Martingale system isn't profitable over the long run, but it gives you the opportunity to book small wins and have fun at the table for several hours at a time. I'll play roulette this way all the time.
And I played in live casinos every day.
I met up with Kuro at Harrahs in St. Louis immediately after I arrived. It was cool to see signs at Harrahs supporting Dennis Phillips, who started his journey toward the World Series of Poker November Nine there in a $200 satellite.
I only had a little money on me, and I was looking to sit at a $1/2 NL table, but my name came up for a $2/5 table first. When I found my seat, it didn't take long to remember how juicy live poker can be: five players saw most flops, reraises were rare and people missed many obvious value bets on later streets.
I feel like it takes a little investment to beat these games sometimes. That's because you should be seeing many flops in position, and if you miss all the time, your stack is going to bleed away. The rake and jackpot fee don't help either. But I'm certain this kind of live game is overwhelmingly profitable over time. (I wish I could be dealt more than 30 hands an hour!)
Eventually, my stack dwindled to about $150, and I limp-raised all-in from under the gun with 77 after an MP player raised to $50 and four people called, putting more than $200 in the pot. I got called by the raiser, who wouldn't reveal his pocket 8s until after the river was dealt even after I turned over my hand immediately. Jackass grayhair.
I ended up losing more money at blackjack, but the real story of the trip is my roulette winnings at Casino Queen in Illinois and Isle of Capri in Kansas City.
I played a Martingale strategy, in which I placed near-break-even wagers on the outside, pocketing my winnings on small bets and doubling my bets when I lost.
In four sessions of roulette over four days this weekend, I walked away a solid winner every time.
The Martingale system isn't profitable over the long run, but it gives you the opportunity to book small wins and have fun at the table for several hours at a time. I'll play roulette this way all the time.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Deuces Cracked
I've given in and signed up with DeucesCracked for poker training after staying loyal to CardRunners for a little too long.
So far, I'm impressed with DeucesCracked.
DeucesCracked has no sign-up fee, unlike CardRunners. They put out a ton of videos from higher-stakes pros who I respect. They seem to work at teaching concepts rather than throwing up TV-like videos where you just watch someone play. I like the idea of their series, where they emphasize everything from heads-up play to small-stakes leak-finder episodes. RSS feeds are available as well.
In addition, they offer personal coaching, something that I asked CardRunners for and they responded with a "we don't offer that yet." That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
I had also gotten frustrated with the shortage of videos from CR's top pros like Cole South and Brian Townsend. I've always liked Taylor Caby's videos, but even they seem stale, and his talk about quitting poker turns me off. Their negative winrates recently discourage me as well.
Like PokerTracker3, CardRunners isn't adapting nearly fast enough. The poker coaching market is very crowded, and you have to keep up with the latest technology to survive. DeucesCracked may be the next Holdem Manager.
So far, I'm impressed with DeucesCracked.
DeucesCracked has no sign-up fee, unlike CardRunners. They put out a ton of videos from higher-stakes pros who I respect. They seem to work at teaching concepts rather than throwing up TV-like videos where you just watch someone play. I like the idea of their series, where they emphasize everything from heads-up play to small-stakes leak-finder episodes. RSS feeds are available as well.
In addition, they offer personal coaching, something that I asked CardRunners for and they responded with a "we don't offer that yet." That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
I had also gotten frustrated with the shortage of videos from CR's top pros like Cole South and Brian Townsend. I've always liked Taylor Caby's videos, but even they seem stale, and his talk about quitting poker turns me off. Their negative winrates recently discourage me as well.
Like PokerTracker3, CardRunners isn't adapting nearly fast enough. The poker coaching market is very crowded, and you have to keep up with the latest technology to survive. DeucesCracked may be the next Holdem Manager.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Cash stats
Tableratings.com has added many new features that allow you to search players' screennames to see how they have done in cash games on Full Tilt. (Thanks Bone Daddy for pointing it out).
This is an incredible tool cash players can use as they select the best games and the juiciest fish to play against. And even if you don't play cash games, it's fun to see how friends, poker bloggers and pros have been running.
As far as I can tell, the database is still young, dating back to March. Its data will grow more reliable in time. In addition, the site still has table selection tools to help you find the loosest and most passive games. It's still free for now, although I wonder if it will become a pay site in the future. The figures appear to fairly accurate, although some hands are missing.
Here's a sampling:
smizmiatch (me): $8,293 0.95 BB/100.
Phil Ivey: $416,863.50, 9.6 BB/100
Cole South: $-542,310.20, -2.35 BB/100
Brian Townsend: $-80,876.70, -6.93 BB/100
Mike Matusow: $-17,920.15, -1.4 BB/100
This is an incredible tool cash players can use as they select the best games and the juiciest fish to play against. And even if you don't play cash games, it's fun to see how friends, poker bloggers and pros have been running.
As far as I can tell, the database is still young, dating back to March. Its data will grow more reliable in time. In addition, the site still has table selection tools to help you find the loosest and most passive games. It's still free for now, although I wonder if it will become a pay site in the future. The figures appear to fairly accurate, although some hands are missing.
Here's a sampling:
smizmiatch (me): $8,293 0.95 BB/100.
Phil Ivey: $416,863.50, 9.6 BB/100
Cole South: $-542,310.20, -2.35 BB/100
Brian Townsend: $-80,876.70, -6.93 BB/100
Mike Matusow: $-17,920.15, -1.4 BB/100
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Harrington on Cash Games: How to Win at No-Limit Hold 'em Money Games: Vol II
Like the first volume, Harrington's second cash game book was disappointing.
It avoided some of the flaws of the first book, such as overly emphasizing variation plays at the expense of value. But the book also relied too much on hand examples that didn't necessarily give me a deeper understanding of the game.
While reading the hand examples, it began to feel like I was looking over Harrington's shoulder as he played. It's useful to see how he would play a hand, but that doesn't mean I would play it the same way. The result of these exercises is that I see more hands from a different perspective, although I'm not gaining much knowledge about hand ranges, expectation and flop textures.
Instructional videos achieve much the same thing, often with deeper analysis and lessons that are easier to absorb.
Harrington breaks up the book into two parts: tight-aggressive play and loose-aggressive play. As before, it's helpful to observe the nuances of each style, but a more thorough hand analysis and decision-making techniques is lacking.
The miscellaneous chapters proved to be among the most educational: tells and observations, beating weak games and bankroll management.
The bankroll management chapter includes an argument for paying your taxes that I hadn't heard before: You can make more money in the long run if you pay your taxes because that enables you to invest it without fear of drawing government attention.
This book isn't a bad book, but it isn't what I want. I'm looking for books that get into playing against different opponents, exploiting weaknesses and using deductive reasoning to break down hands. 2+2 Publishing hasn't produced anything like that in a few years.
It avoided some of the flaws of the first book, such as overly emphasizing variation plays at the expense of value. But the book also relied too much on hand examples that didn't necessarily give me a deeper understanding of the game.
While reading the hand examples, it began to feel like I was looking over Harrington's shoulder as he played. It's useful to see how he would play a hand, but that doesn't mean I would play it the same way. The result of these exercises is that I see more hands from a different perspective, although I'm not gaining much knowledge about hand ranges, expectation and flop textures.
Instructional videos achieve much the same thing, often with deeper analysis and lessons that are easier to absorb.
Harrington breaks up the book into two parts: tight-aggressive play and loose-aggressive play. As before, it's helpful to observe the nuances of each style, but a more thorough hand analysis and decision-making techniques is lacking.
The miscellaneous chapters proved to be among the most educational: tells and observations, beating weak games and bankroll management.
The bankroll management chapter includes an argument for paying your taxes that I hadn't heard before: You can make more money in the long run if you pay your taxes because that enables you to invest it without fear of drawing government attention.
This book isn't a bad book, but it isn't what I want. I'm looking for books that get into playing against different opponents, exploiting weaknesses and using deductive reasoning to break down hands. 2+2 Publishing hasn't produced anything like that in a few years.
Friday, August 08, 2008
Simple/System
I was thinking about how I used to play no limit hold'em when I first started beating the .10/.25 games. I played a simple, tight style that managed to turn a profit.
1) I loved set mining. I would call a raise or open for a raise myself with any pocket pair from any position. Then I would bet strongly and watch the cash flow.
2) Only get all-in preflop with AA or KK. There were so many donks out there willing to go all-in with far less, and my equity advantage in those situations was enormous. They weren't paying attention to my range. They were thinking, "I've got QQ or AK. Push!"
3) Bet pot and only make high percentage bluffs. By betting large amounts and bluffing rarely, I got good value for my made hands while reducing the risk of being outplayed by opponents with more experience than me.
Maybe this playing style was weakish. I'm not even sure if it would still work in today's lower-limit games. But it was a reliable way to make money, learn patience and get the most money in with the widest equity edge.
1) I loved set mining. I would call a raise or open for a raise myself with any pocket pair from any position. Then I would bet strongly and watch the cash flow.
2) Only get all-in preflop with AA or KK. There were so many donks out there willing to go all-in with far less, and my equity advantage in those situations was enormous. They weren't paying attention to my range. They were thinking, "I've got QQ or AK. Push!"
3) Bet pot and only make high percentage bluffs. By betting large amounts and bluffing rarely, I got good value for my made hands while reducing the risk of being outplayed by opponents with more experience than me.
Maybe this playing style was weakish. I'm not even sure if it would still work in today's lower-limit games. But it was a reliable way to make money, learn patience and get the most money in with the widest equity edge.
Mad Hammer Skillz
This isn't the best move I've ever made, but I can't help but be proud when the Hammer wins a big pot.
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $1,433.50
Hero (BB): $1,332.75
Pre-Flop: 2 7 dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $30, Hero raises to $100, SB calls $70
Flop: ($200) 5 3 4 (2 Players)
Hero bets $150, SB raises to $375, Hero raises to $1,232.75 and is All-In, SB calls $857.75
Turn: ($2,665.50) K (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
River: ($2,665.50) 6 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)
Results: $2,665.50 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
SB showed 3 3 (three of a kind, Threes) and LOST (-$1,332.75 NET)
Hero showed 2 7 (a straight, Seven high) and WON $2,665 (+$1,332.25 NET)
EV(push)=.75(-1,083) + .25(1583)
=-778.5+395.75
=-382.75
Woops.
Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter
SB: $1,433.50
Hero (BB): $1,332.75
Pre-Flop: 2
7 dealt to Hero (BB)SB raises to $30, Hero raises to $100, SB calls $70
Flop: ($200) 5
3 4 (2 Players)Hero bets $150, SB raises to $375, Hero raises to $1,232.75 and is All-In, SB calls $857.75
Turn: ($2,665.50) K
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)River: ($2,665.50) 6
(2 Players - 1 is All-In)Results: $2,665.50 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
SB showed 3
3 (three of a kind, Threes) and LOST (-$1,332.75 NET)Hero showed 2
7 (a straight, Seven high) and WON $2,665 (+$1,332.25 NET)EV(push)=.75(-1,083) + .25(1583)
=-778.5+395.75
=-382.75
Woops.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Preflop Minigame
Preflop raising and reraising is like a minigame within the larger cash game.
In heads-up poker, this is especially true. Against some opponents, preflop decisions can be more important than postflop plays.
This game is pretty simple:
Against someone who is opening for a raise too often, you need to 3-bet them more, both as a resteal and to discourage them from being too aggressive.
Then the initial raiser has a choice about whether he wants to take this minigame to the next level with a 4-bet. Some aggressive players will do this with a wide range.
Against a crazy 4-better, the final recourse is to 5-bet all-in (assuming 100BB stacks). Hopefully you have a premium hand, but when you get to this level of raising and reraising, you'll see pros making moves even with hands like suited Qx and suited connectors. Obviously these hands have limited value beyond their bluffing potential.
The preflop game is fun because if you find an opponent who refuses to take it to the next level, you'll make a lot of money. For example, if you find someone who 3-bets frequently but always folds to a 4-bet, you're picking up a mid-sized pot without having to even see a flop. But then you can get into trouble if he 5-bets and you have to fold, usually leaving about a quarter of your 100BB stack on the table.
The counter to the frequent 5-bettor is to call his 3-bets more often rather than 4-betting. Then you can play postflop, hoping to hit your hand and looking for favorable flops to bluff at. Many times by this point, there's so much money in the middle that it's worthwhile to push all-in with a flush draw or top pair on the flop, depending on its texture and your read.
Another fun move is to start 4-betting the maniac all-in preflop, although you don't want to do this without a decent hand most of the time. I played a fun hand the other night where I 4-bet all-in preflop with JJ and got snapcalled by 88. Easy money.
One interesting facet of this preflop battle in heads-up cash games is that the out of position player has the advantage. He is the one who can choose to 3-bet and 5-bet, while the player on the button can only 2-bet and 4-bet. Of course, against a player who will only 5-bet with a premium hand, you can 4-bet more liberally, which somewhat restores your positional advantage.
In heads-up poker, this is especially true. Against some opponents, preflop decisions can be more important than postflop plays.
This game is pretty simple:
Against someone who is opening for a raise too often, you need to 3-bet them more, both as a resteal and to discourage them from being too aggressive.
Then the initial raiser has a choice about whether he wants to take this minigame to the next level with a 4-bet. Some aggressive players will do this with a wide range.
Against a crazy 4-better, the final recourse is to 5-bet all-in (assuming 100BB stacks). Hopefully you have a premium hand, but when you get to this level of raising and reraising, you'll see pros making moves even with hands like suited Qx and suited connectors. Obviously these hands have limited value beyond their bluffing potential.
The preflop game is fun because if you find an opponent who refuses to take it to the next level, you'll make a lot of money. For example, if you find someone who 3-bets frequently but always folds to a 4-bet, you're picking up a mid-sized pot without having to even see a flop. But then you can get into trouble if he 5-bets and you have to fold, usually leaving about a quarter of your 100BB stack on the table.
The counter to the frequent 5-bettor is to call his 3-bets more often rather than 4-betting. Then you can play postflop, hoping to hit your hand and looking for favorable flops to bluff at. Many times by this point, there's so much money in the middle that it's worthwhile to push all-in with a flush draw or top pair on the flop, depending on its texture and your read.
Another fun move is to start 4-betting the maniac all-in preflop, although you don't want to do this without a decent hand most of the time. I played a fun hand the other night where I 4-bet all-in preflop with JJ and got snapcalled by 88. Easy money.
One interesting facet of this preflop battle in heads-up cash games is that the out of position player has the advantage. He is the one who can choose to 3-bet and 5-bet, while the player on the button can only 2-bet and 4-bet. Of course, against a player who will only 5-bet with a premium hand, you can 4-bet more liberally, which somewhat restores your positional advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
