I didn't win much money in 2009. I made a little bit, but only a little. It was my worst year of poker in terms of profits since my rookie year of online play in 2004.
What went wrong? How did I go from winning so much in each of the last three years to barely making a profit this year?
There's no single answer to this question, but here are a few plausible explanations:
1. The games have gotten tougher. There are still plenty of fish around, but overall, everyone is improving their games. Even the fish are more likely to be aggressive than loose-passive, which was more common in the years immediately after the boom.
2. My efforts to improve have sacrificed short-term profits for long-term gain. Over the last 18 months, I've changed a lot of things about my game. I played heads-up for a while, tried to become more of a LAG, forced myself to make more postflop decisions and dropped down in stakes to 2/4. It's essential that I continue to learn new things and incorporate them into my game, but those efforts don't always pay off immediately.
3. I played poorly. My efforts to reduce spew were replaced by leaks that led me to pay off too often. As I loosened up my game, I wasn't as comfortable playing aggressively because I was playing a weaker range of hands. I lost my ambition to keep moving up in stakes, which cut into my motivation.
4. I switched to shorthanded NL exclusively, cutting the one or two full ring tables I previously played. There are just too many shortstacks in full ring games, and game selection becomes tedious.
5. Full Tilt stopped allowing data mining of observed hands. Data mining observed hands wasn't something that I abused by leaving the client running when I wasn't playing, but it definitely helped me decide what tables to sit at because I could wait 10 or 20 hands to get an idea for how they were playing.
I'm comforted a little bit to know that I was unlucky this year, according to the Showdown Equity Calculator, which figures out street-by-street equities and compares them to results. SECT showed that I ran about 40 buy-ins below expectation this year. I guess that makes up for my good fortune in previous years.
For 2010, I need to do better. I need to pay off fewer value bets, play fewer hands out of position and refocus on game selection.
Good luck to you all in the new year!
Showing posts with label ramblings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ramblings. Show all posts
Friday, December 25, 2009
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Solution to Shortstacking Problem
Let's start with a few statements that reflect majority opinion:
1. No one likes shortstackers except shortstackers themselves.
2. Shortstackers are a problem for the game of poker because they reduce it to a preflop shove-or-fold game. They prevent postflop play.
3. Shortstackers harm deepstackers because they force them to play a 20 big blind game. When one player has 100bb and the other has 20bb, the effective stacks are 20bb. It's unfair that shortstackers can dictate effective stack sizes because deepstackers can't reciprocate.
4. Shortstackers generate plenty of rake for poker sites, but they may be bad for the game's longterm growth because they drive mainstream players away by making some tables unplayable.
5. Shortstacking is within the rules of the game.
My idea is to raise the minimum buy-in slightly, from 20bb to 30bb.
Increasing the minimum buy-in by 10bb isn't so dramatic that it will ruin shortstackers, but it deepens stack sizes enough that preflop decisions take a little more thought, and maybe there's even room for some play on the flop.
Full Tilt already has capped tables that limit possible losses to 30bb per hand, and this change in policy would simply create the possibility for the same shortstacking dynamic at standard 100bb buy-in tables.
I like the existing "deep" tables, which require a minimum buy-in of 50bb and maximum buy-in of 200bb. Some players have suggested making these deep tables the standard across the board, but I don't think that's realistic from the business perspective of the poker sites.
A 30bb minimum buy-in seems like a reasonable compromise. Yes, it is changing how the game is played. But that happens all the time in games, from instant replay to stricter rules on how a defender can tackle a quarterback.
Shortstackers are a problem, and a 30bb buy-in is one way it could be solved.
1. No one likes shortstackers except shortstackers themselves.
2. Shortstackers are a problem for the game of poker because they reduce it to a preflop shove-or-fold game. They prevent postflop play.
3. Shortstackers harm deepstackers because they force them to play a 20 big blind game. When one player has 100bb and the other has 20bb, the effective stacks are 20bb. It's unfair that shortstackers can dictate effective stack sizes because deepstackers can't reciprocate.
4. Shortstackers generate plenty of rake for poker sites, but they may be bad for the game's longterm growth because they drive mainstream players away by making some tables unplayable.
5. Shortstacking is within the rules of the game.
My idea is to raise the minimum buy-in slightly, from 20bb to 30bb.
Increasing the minimum buy-in by 10bb isn't so dramatic that it will ruin shortstackers, but it deepens stack sizes enough that preflop decisions take a little more thought, and maybe there's even room for some play on the flop.
Full Tilt already has capped tables that limit possible losses to 30bb per hand, and this change in policy would simply create the possibility for the same shortstacking dynamic at standard 100bb buy-in tables.
I like the existing "deep" tables, which require a minimum buy-in of 50bb and maximum buy-in of 200bb. Some players have suggested making these deep tables the standard across the board, but I don't think that's realistic from the business perspective of the poker sites.
A 30bb minimum buy-in seems like a reasonable compromise. Yes, it is changing how the game is played. But that happens all the time in games, from instant replay to stricter rules on how a defender can tackle a quarterback.
Shortstackers are a problem, and a 30bb buy-in is one way it could be solved.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Extreme Discipline
Because poker is such a long-run game, the best players are able to continue making accurate folds even when it seems like it's impossible for their opponents to be running so good.
I'm inspired by players who are able to sit down at the table for countless hours, days, weeks and months while making endless impartial judgments on bad rivers. They resist the temptation to call down just once, to sate their curiosity with a showdown, to think that their opponent is trying to run them over with another big bet.
This discipline can be seen by Durrrr vs. Antonius in the Aussie Millions cash game, where Tom Dwan manages to make repeatedly correct laydowns and lose much less than he could have lost.
Or you can see it when Haseeb Qureshi folds flushes and full houses to river raises.
Or when Tommy Angelo discusses folding Aces preflop.
Or when Doyle Brunson talks on High Stakes Poker about how easy it is to lay down Aces when he's playing well.
This is what separates the great players from the rest of us. Relative hand strength means everything, and absolute hand strength means nothing. They're not attached to their premium hands, and they can throw them away even though look so good.
I'm inspired by players who are able to sit down at the table for countless hours, days, weeks and months while making endless impartial judgments on bad rivers. They resist the temptation to call down just once, to sate their curiosity with a showdown, to think that their opponent is trying to run them over with another big bet.
This discipline can be seen by Durrrr vs. Antonius in the Aussie Millions cash game, where Tom Dwan manages to make repeatedly correct laydowns and lose much less than he could have lost.
Or you can see it when Haseeb Qureshi folds flushes and full houses to river raises.
Or when Tommy Angelo discusses folding Aces preflop.
Or when Doyle Brunson talks on High Stakes Poker about how easy it is to lay down Aces when he's playing well.
This is what separates the great players from the rest of us. Relative hand strength means everything, and absolute hand strength means nothing. They're not attached to their premium hands, and they can throw them away even though look so good.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Back to Blogging
With the winter blogger gathering coming up in Las Vegas the weekend of Dec. 11, I became motivated to get back to posting.
The main reasons for my four-month hiatus were that I ran out of things to write about and felt when I did post, it wasn't any good. I got annoyed with the quality of the blog and burned out on a feeling of obligation to update. So I took a break.
My poker habits haven't changed in that time. I've been playing just about every day while also studying and reading about the game. I just haven't been writing about it.
I've always known that blogging helps make me a better poker player because it reinforces hand histories, provides a forum to get feedback and puts stray thoughts into concrete words. I needed to get back in the habit. I hope the content here is useful to readers as well.
Can't wait for Vegas. During the blogger tournament, Bayne, RecessRampage and I are forming a team to win the last-longer sidebet organized by Up For Poker and juiced with $2,000 added to the prize pool by PokerStars. See you there!
The main reasons for my four-month hiatus were that I ran out of things to write about and felt when I did post, it wasn't any good. I got annoyed with the quality of the blog and burned out on a feeling of obligation to update. So I took a break.
My poker habits haven't changed in that time. I've been playing just about every day while also studying and reading about the game. I just haven't been writing about it.
I've always known that blogging helps make me a better poker player because it reinforces hand histories, provides a forum to get feedback and puts stray thoughts into concrete words. I needed to get back in the habit. I hope the content here is useful to readers as well.
Can't wait for Vegas. During the blogger tournament, Bayne, RecessRampage and I are forming a team to win the last-longer sidebet organized by Up For Poker and juiced with $2,000 added to the prize pool by PokerStars. See you there!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Run it Twice
As Full Tilt's "Run it Twice" feature becomes available at a wider variety of stakes, I'm finding it to be a valuable tool in reducing variance.
The trend I'm seeing is that not many players are taking advantage of this feature at the 2/4 NL games, which is a shame. All players in a hand must agree before you can run it twice. Details about how it works are explained here.
Running it twice increases the maximum rake on a hand from $3 to $4, but it still seems like a good deal to me.
Isn't it worth that $1 to avoid 200bb swings every time you get it all in preflop with 100bb stacks?
Some people will say, "no," because why would you pay extra rake when your results tend to reflect your equity in the long run? What they fail to realize is that the long run can take forever to arrive, and I'll gladly hasten that process by seeing two boards when I get it all in.
Additionally, solid players should want to run the board more than once because they're more likely than their average opponent to get it all in with strong hands. When results more closely mirror equities, bad beats come along less often and the player with the best hand wins more often.
Most of all, running it twice is fun. I like seeing all those boards in hopes that I can scoop, or at least decrease the chances of a painful suckout for my entire stack.
The trend I'm seeing is that not many players are taking advantage of this feature at the 2/4 NL games, which is a shame. All players in a hand must agree before you can run it twice. Details about how it works are explained here.
Running it twice increases the maximum rake on a hand from $3 to $4, but it still seems like a good deal to me.
Isn't it worth that $1 to avoid 200bb swings every time you get it all in preflop with 100bb stacks?
Some people will say, "no," because why would you pay extra rake when your results tend to reflect your equity in the long run? What they fail to realize is that the long run can take forever to arrive, and I'll gladly hasten that process by seeing two boards when I get it all in.
Additionally, solid players should want to run the board more than once because they're more likely than their average opponent to get it all in with strong hands. When results more closely mirror equities, bad beats come along less often and the player with the best hand wins more often.
Most of all, running it twice is fun. I like seeing all those boards in hopes that I can scoop, or at least decrease the chances of a painful suckout for my entire stack.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Fish in the Sea
"Poker is about making money, not about being a good poker player. So it's kind of a Catch-22 situation. ... The No. 1 thing you're supposed to do in poker is play with people that are worse than you."
--Gabe Thaler on "Cash Plays"
I was trolling around the 2/4 NL 6-max games on Full Tilt a few nights ago, looking for a good game. Instead, I found a bunch of tables with three seats filled by CardRunners pro Taylor Caby, Full Tilt pro Steve Yea and solid regular Joe Forte.
Clearly, those games wouldn't be very profitable.
It was a bit frustrating because I had moved down from 5/10, where has been my primary game for 2 1/2 years now, after hitting a rough stretch. And then when I go to the lower limits, I found that the games are no softer than they were at the higher limit. I had been telling myself to accept the fact that I may not have much of an edge anymore at 5/10, and then I dropped down and still couldn't find much of a profit.
"Well, I guess it's time to learn PLO better," I thought to myself. "Or maybe I'll play some 1/2. Or I guess I could play later and hope the games are better then."
All of those were fine ideas, but it took me a few more days to see a solution sitting right in front of me: full ring. Most fish, especially those accustomed to playing live, aren't going to sit at shorthanded tables. Many of them will play full ring.
Sure enough, the slower 2/4 full ring games have been far easier to beat than the 6-max games. I've made the vast majority of my money over the last few years playing shorthanded, but that doesn't necessarily mean full ring is less profitable. It just means that I gravitate to the type of games I feel most comfortable in -- the games I perceive to be best. Those perceptions need to change as the poker environment evolves.
There are juicy games of many limits and types. Being willing and able to find them takes some effort. From a broad perspective, the important thing is to recognize games that will be profitable, and not let pride or ambition get in the way of finding where I can maximize my advantage.
--Gabe Thaler on "Cash Plays"
I was trolling around the 2/4 NL 6-max games on Full Tilt a few nights ago, looking for a good game. Instead, I found a bunch of tables with three seats filled by CardRunners pro Taylor Caby, Full Tilt pro Steve Yea and solid regular Joe Forte.
Clearly, those games wouldn't be very profitable.
It was a bit frustrating because I had moved down from 5/10, where has been my primary game for 2 1/2 years now, after hitting a rough stretch. And then when I go to the lower limits, I found that the games are no softer than they were at the higher limit. I had been telling myself to accept the fact that I may not have much of an edge anymore at 5/10, and then I dropped down and still couldn't find much of a profit.
"Well, I guess it's time to learn PLO better," I thought to myself. "Or maybe I'll play some 1/2. Or I guess I could play later and hope the games are better then."
All of those were fine ideas, but it took me a few more days to see a solution sitting right in front of me: full ring. Most fish, especially those accustomed to playing live, aren't going to sit at shorthanded tables. Many of them will play full ring.
Sure enough, the slower 2/4 full ring games have been far easier to beat than the 6-max games. I've made the vast majority of my money over the last few years playing shorthanded, but that doesn't necessarily mean full ring is less profitable. It just means that I gravitate to the type of games I feel most comfortable in -- the games I perceive to be best. Those perceptions need to change as the poker environment evolves.
There are juicy games of many limits and types. Being willing and able to find them takes some effort. From a broad perspective, the important thing is to recognize games that will be profitable, and not let pride or ambition get in the way of finding where I can maximize my advantage.
Friday, June 12, 2009
See the ball, hit the ball, Meat
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while. --Bull Durham
It never ceases to amaze me how, after taking just one day off from the game, everything seems so simple when I come back.
Bad plays become obvious in retrospect:
What was I doing 3-betting A4 from the big blind, even against an aggressive button stealer? Why was I squeezing so much? When did I decide playing Ace-rag in position wasn't that bad?
Many of these errors are a result of attempts to loosen up my game, defend my blinds more and become more LAGgy. Most of them didn't directly result in large monetary losses.
But they did add up. More than that, they distracted me and put me on tilt. Which blows, because the best solution to tilt is to stop playing, and that's hard to do when I'm stuck.
One hand at a time.
It never ceases to amaze me how, after taking just one day off from the game, everything seems so simple when I come back.
Bad plays become obvious in retrospect:
What was I doing 3-betting A4 from the big blind, even against an aggressive button stealer? Why was I squeezing so much? When did I decide playing Ace-rag in position wasn't that bad?
Many of these errors are a result of attempts to loosen up my game, defend my blinds more and become more LAGgy. Most of them didn't directly result in large monetary losses.
But they did add up. More than that, they distracted me and put me on tilt. Which blows, because the best solution to tilt is to stop playing, and that's hard to do when I'm stuck.
One hand at a time.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Antes strike 5/10 NL on Full Tilt
New tables with antes have arrived at the 5/10 NL tables on Full Tilt, and with them came instant changes in the landscape.
Short-stackers have been relegated to non-ante tables because the ante tables are all deep-stacked. Some of the non-ante tables were filled entirely with shortstackers trading chips and feeding the rake. Deep-stacked ante tables are one way to get rid of those shory, hit-and-run specialists.
The ante tables also stimulate action. Pots are bigger preflop, and they grow faster postflop. For example, at a full ring 5/10 game with $1.50 antes, the pot is almost twice as large preflop than in a game without antes: $27 vs. $15. Players who realize the added value of winning the dead money preflop will play more hands and make bigger preflop raises. Pots will quickly expand as more bets go in on each street.
Antes juice the games, which attracts fish and action junkies. I can't complain about that.
We may see the beginnings of a shift in the way games are spread. The ante games are so popular already that they've significantly reduced the number of traditional non-ante 100BB buy-in tables.
It may not be long before 200BB tables with antes become the standard, especially among players who prefer shorthanded games over full ring. Watch the rise of ante tables as Full Tilt continues to gradually introduce them at lower limits.
Short-stackers have been relegated to non-ante tables because the ante tables are all deep-stacked. Some of the non-ante tables were filled entirely with shortstackers trading chips and feeding the rake. Deep-stacked ante tables are one way to get rid of those shory, hit-and-run specialists.
The ante tables also stimulate action. Pots are bigger preflop, and they grow faster postflop. For example, at a full ring 5/10 game with $1.50 antes, the pot is almost twice as large preflop than in a game without antes: $27 vs. $15. Players who realize the added value of winning the dead money preflop will play more hands and make bigger preflop raises. Pots will quickly expand as more bets go in on each street.
Antes juice the games, which attracts fish and action junkies. I can't complain about that.
We may see the beginnings of a shift in the way games are spread. The ante games are so popular already that they've significantly reduced the number of traditional non-ante 100BB buy-in tables.
It may not be long before 200BB tables with antes become the standard, especially among players who prefer shorthanded games over full ring. Watch the rise of ante tables as Full Tilt continues to gradually introduce them at lower limits.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
An Inexplicable Wonder
Somehow, the fish keep biting and the tank keeps getting refilled.
Six years after Chris Moneymaker catalyzed the poker boom, the tables at the primary U.S. poker sites are full of players, some of whom have little clue what they're doing. Despite the recession, or maybe because of it, people are gambling online as much as ever. It's rare to log in and not be able to find a good game.
Most of you can beat this game. You can make money in poker if you exercise emotional control, possess reasonable logic skills and show a willingness to learn.
Online poker isn't packed with colluders and bots. Instead, online poker is populated by people who love to gamble and don't have a clue how to play postflop.
Jump in. Improve your game. Quit when you're tilted. Win money.
Six years after Chris Moneymaker catalyzed the poker boom, the tables at the primary U.S. poker sites are full of players, some of whom have little clue what they're doing. Despite the recession, or maybe because of it, people are gambling online as much as ever. It's rare to log in and not be able to find a good game.
Most of you can beat this game. You can make money in poker if you exercise emotional control, possess reasonable logic skills and show a willingness to learn.
Online poker isn't packed with colluders and bots. Instead, online poker is populated by people who love to gamble and don't have a clue how to play postflop.
Jump in. Improve your game. Quit when you're tilted. Win money.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Powers
Would you rather be able to see your opponent's hand or know the five board cards ahead of time, asks Memphis MOJO.
If you knew the board ahead of time, you'd be able to figure out how strong your hand would be and whether it would be worth it to try to suck out.
But if you could see your opponent's hole cards, you'd know the relative strength of your hand against his at all times.
It seems to me that the second option is far superior.
When you can see your opponent's cards, you suddenly have complete information in the hand. You could reraise and shove preflop with slightly better hands like A2o against KQs. You could rebluff your opponents' bluffs. You'd never lose money against a higher set or higher flush because it would become the easiest fold in the world.
We've seen the value of being a superuser from the UB/AP scandals. With that sort of card omnipotence, I'd never lose if I were careful enough.
If you knew the board ahead of time, you'd be able to figure out how strong your hand would be and whether it would be worth it to try to suck out.
But if you could see your opponent's hole cards, you'd know the relative strength of your hand against his at all times.
It seems to me that the second option is far superior.
When you can see your opponent's cards, you suddenly have complete information in the hand. You could reraise and shove preflop with slightly better hands like A2o against KQs. You could rebluff your opponents' bluffs. You'd never lose money against a higher set or higher flush because it would become the easiest fold in the world.
We've seen the value of being a superuser from the UB/AP scandals. With that sort of card omnipotence, I'd never lose if I were careful enough.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Telekinesis
Telekinesis would be a fantastic super power to have at a casino.
With the ability to move objects with my mind, I'd walk up to the highest-stakes roulette wheel I could find and put $100 down on the number 4. Then the wheel would spin out ridiculous profits.
Hitting your number on the roulette wheel pays out at 35:1, so I'd win $3,500 on my first spin. But it wouldn't stop there.
If I could somehow find a no-limit roulette table, I'd put that $3,600 down on No. 4 again. This time, my winnings would be $126,000, and that's after just two spins. On the third spin, I'd be rich, with about $4.5 million in profits for maybe 10 minutes of playing.
How sweet would that be?
Until the day I can make the roulette ball land on my lucky number every time, I'll be content to grind out poker.
With the ability to move objects with my mind, I'd walk up to the highest-stakes roulette wheel I could find and put $100 down on the number 4. Then the wheel would spin out ridiculous profits.
Hitting your number on the roulette wheel pays out at 35:1, so I'd win $3,500 on my first spin. But it wouldn't stop there.
If I could somehow find a no-limit roulette table, I'd put that $3,600 down on No. 4 again. This time, my winnings would be $126,000, and that's after just two spins. On the third spin, I'd be rich, with about $4.5 million in profits for maybe 10 minutes of playing.
How sweet would that be?
Until the day I can make the roulette ball land on my lucky number every time, I'll be content to grind out poker.
Friday, April 17, 2009
5 years in the game
It's been more than five years now since I made that first $100 deposit to Party Poker and blew through it in just a few minutes. That second $100 deposit is still paying off.
After playing these countless hands, I ask myself where I should be in the game. The answer I'm getting is that I'm already exactly where I should be -- winning at 5/10 playing three of four tables for 1.5 to 2 hours daily.
Efforts to move up have never paid off. That isn't to say that I won't play higher if the game looks good and my bankroll allows it, but it means that my desire to play higher is fruitless if I can't consistently win there.
I'm thankful that I have enough ability and knowledge to earn as much as I do. But being aware of my limits and accepting them are different things.
A contradiction in my mindset is that one of my biggest leaks is also my strongest motivation. The leak is that I'm jealous of players who win more than me, can play more tables than me and can pull off more creative moves than me. The motivation is that I force myself to study harder and play regularly to defeat those players.
The solution is to be content, focus on the long-term and play more optimally. My new goal is to avoid spews by keeping it simple, concentrating on the hand in front of my and forgetting about irrelevant ambitions.
After playing these countless hands, I ask myself where I should be in the game. The answer I'm getting is that I'm already exactly where I should be -- winning at 5/10 playing three of four tables for 1.5 to 2 hours daily.
Efforts to move up have never paid off. That isn't to say that I won't play higher if the game looks good and my bankroll allows it, but it means that my desire to play higher is fruitless if I can't consistently win there.
I'm thankful that I have enough ability and knowledge to earn as much as I do. But being aware of my limits and accepting them are different things.
A contradiction in my mindset is that one of my biggest leaks is also my strongest motivation. The leak is that I'm jealous of players who win more than me, can play more tables than me and can pull off more creative moves than me. The motivation is that I force myself to study harder and play regularly to defeat those players.
The solution is to be content, focus on the long-term and play more optimally. My new goal is to avoid spews by keeping it simple, concentrating on the hand in front of my and forgetting about irrelevant ambitions.
Friday, March 13, 2009
My range is better than your range
Here's a simple guideline that came to mind after listening, watching and reading too much about poker:
The last raise on any street represents the strongest range.
By keeping this rule of thumb in mind, it's easier to deduce which player is representing the strongest range and evaluate how your actual holding compares.
If your perceived range is significantly better than your opponent's, then running aggressive bluffs can create plenty of folds. Likewise, if your perceived range is weaker than your opponent's, you can induce bluffs or get extra value on later streets.
The last raise on any street represents the strongest range.
By keeping this rule of thumb in mind, it's easier to deduce which player is representing the strongest range and evaluate how your actual holding compares.
If your perceived range is significantly better than your opponent's, then running aggressive bluffs can create plenty of folds. Likewise, if your perceived range is weaker than your opponent's, you can induce bluffs or get extra value on later streets.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Fog of War
Tommy Angelo calls it the Fog: the lack of clarity that infringes on good decision-making in the heat of battle.
The way to break through the Fog is through practice and repetition. If you know how to make the right move and anticipate your opponents' actions well, pretty soon it won't be any different to play your best in real time.
The Fog is most difficult to fight through when the pressure is on: when stacks are on the line, you're running bad, you're playing higher stakes, you're out of position, you're playing a marginal hand, the clock is ticking, or you're going with a sick read.
The best play is the play you would make if you had all the time in the world to review the hand, if you could post on forums, if you could calculate the equities and figure out how best to manipulate your opponent's range. By doing this kind of work away from the table, it's more likely the correct move will be made when it counts.
DogIsHead writes that you only really have control of three key decisions when you decide to play: game selection, state of mind and length of session. He says that your gametime strategic moves don't really constitute decisions because you should already know how you'll react before you even sit down:
Remember to make the best decision possible. Be aware of the Fog and clear it. Anticipate possible outcomes and execute a plan just as it was constructed ahead of time.
The way to break through the Fog is through practice and repetition. If you know how to make the right move and anticipate your opponents' actions well, pretty soon it won't be any different to play your best in real time.
The Fog is most difficult to fight through when the pressure is on: when stacks are on the line, you're running bad, you're playing higher stakes, you're out of position, you're playing a marginal hand, the clock is ticking, or you're going with a sick read.
The best play is the play you would make if you had all the time in the world to review the hand, if you could post on forums, if you could calculate the equities and figure out how best to manipulate your opponent's range. By doing this kind of work away from the table, it's more likely the correct move will be made when it counts.
DogIsHead writes that you only really have control of three key decisions when you decide to play: game selection, state of mind and length of session. He says that your gametime strategic moves don't really constitute decisions because you should already know how you'll react before you even sit down:
Perhaps the Fog falls under "state of mind," but it's not something DogIsHead mentions in his extensive post.
It’s important to realize that at any moment you’re playing, the set of all strategies that you’d use in response to a any situation is already embedded in your brain – in a way, you don’t have control over that. That is, you can’t suddenly “decide” to use a strategy that you don’t know is a good strategy, or “decide” to not make a mistake in a spot where you’re already predisposed to make a mistake. So, for example, if you tend to call too many 3-bets with weak hands, in that moment you have no control over this leak of yours; it’s a part of your average EV in that moment. Over time you can change these predispositions and make your game slowly stronger as you gain more and more good habits and break bad ones, and your EV per hand will slowly increase over time. But in any moment, the factors over which you exert genuine control as a poker player are actually surprisingly small.
Remember to make the best decision possible. Be aware of the Fog and clear it. Anticipate possible outcomes and execute a plan just as it was constructed ahead of time.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Loss Leaders
I haven't been playing much poker the last couple of weeks, mostly because a friend is visiting. While away from the tables, I've been asking myself a question:
Is it ever a good idea to make a -EV play?
My general answer is "no." I've always subscribed to the philosophy that I should be willing to gamble on a coin flip so that I don't look like a nit, but I won't take the worst of it like a sucker.
However, there may be times when making a play as a "loss leader" could be acceptable for metagame reasons. Here are a few possibilities:
1) Playing low pocket pairs from early position in a full ring game for deception. I accept that low pocket pairs from utg and utg+1 are probably break-even at best, but it's possible that they pay off in less obvious ways. For example, they raise your EP VP$IP, which makes it slightly more likely you'll get paid off with other premium hands from the same position. Also, I would think low pockets are more effective in lower-stakes games where opponents are more likely to stack off with overpairs. Folding these hands makes more sense in games with a lot of 3-betting.
2) Shoving all-in on the flop with a high flush draw early in a heads-up match. I don't like making this move, but it's been effective for my opponents because they tilt me easily when the flush card hits. The result of pushing a flush draw early in a match is that an opponent will read it as a fishy, overagressive play. If that kind of move is done within a broader gameplan, it could pay off later on.
3) Defending the big blind liberally. It's difficult to play out of position, but playing back at aggressive players from the blinds makes it more likely that observant stealers will make mistakes in the future. For example, they may stop stealing so much, or they may 4-bet too lightly.
I don't like making -EV plays, and I usually win by making the best decisions possible. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kinds of maniacal tendencies pay off by misleading opponents in their future actions.
Is it ever a good idea to make a -EV play?
My general answer is "no." I've always subscribed to the philosophy that I should be willing to gamble on a coin flip so that I don't look like a nit, but I won't take the worst of it like a sucker.
However, there may be times when making a play as a "loss leader" could be acceptable for metagame reasons. Here are a few possibilities:
1) Playing low pocket pairs from early position in a full ring game for deception. I accept that low pocket pairs from utg and utg+1 are probably break-even at best, but it's possible that they pay off in less obvious ways. For example, they raise your EP VP$IP, which makes it slightly more likely you'll get paid off with other premium hands from the same position. Also, I would think low pockets are more effective in lower-stakes games where opponents are more likely to stack off with overpairs. Folding these hands makes more sense in games with a lot of 3-betting.
2) Shoving all-in on the flop with a high flush draw early in a heads-up match. I don't like making this move, but it's been effective for my opponents because they tilt me easily when the flush card hits. The result of pushing a flush draw early in a match is that an opponent will read it as a fishy, overagressive play. If that kind of move is done within a broader gameplan, it could pay off later on.
3) Defending the big blind liberally. It's difficult to play out of position, but playing back at aggressive players from the blinds makes it more likely that observant stealers will make mistakes in the future. For example, they may stop stealing so much, or they may 4-bet too lightly.
I don't like making -EV plays, and I usually win by making the best decisions possible. But I wouldn't be surprised if some of these kinds of maniacal tendencies pay off by misleading opponents in their future actions.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Calling Shenanigans
So-called poker experts do a great job of tilting me when they spread misinformation. I'm here to call them out.
1. Deuce Plays, Episode 5:
If you start calling or folding AK preflop out of position, you're probably losing money against most opponents. You should fold AK against a range of AA and KK, but realistically, even most nits are shoving and calling shoves with QQ and AK too.
As an aside, I have to give Nolan credit for another point he made about six minutes later into the podcast. He challenged anyone to show him that they're making money by playing 66-22 from early position in a full ring game over a large sample. I filtered my stats and found that he's right: in my case, I'm a slight loser in that situation.
2. Two Plus Two Publishing: Mason Malmuth rips Tommy Angelo's book, "Elements of Poker," in the most recent Two Plus Two Magazine. Then he locks a thread in the Two Plus Two forums ending discussion of his critique. Hard-Boiled Poker covered it Wednesday.
First of all, I loved reading "Elements of Poker." It gave new, refreshing insight into the game from a perspective that Two Plus Two's books fail to offer. The book may not be for everyone, but the job of a critic is to evaluate a work on its merits. Just because a poker book isn't grounded in statistics doesn't mean it has little value.
Secondly, I got more out of "Elements of Poker" than any Two Plus Two book I've read in recent memory. Honestly, Two Plus Two's offerings have mostly sucked over the last couple of years. "Harrington on Cash Games," "Heads-up No-limit Hold'em" and "Professional No-limit Hold'em" all fell far short of expectations and didn't do much to improve my game.
On top of those subpar offerings, Two Plus Two is coming out with Harrington books on shorthanded games. Harrington should stick to tournaments because his cash advice is piss poor. Applying it to today's 6-max online games would be a disaster.
Finally, Malmuth's thread lock seems to show a lack of openness toward other opinions.
3. Pope Ciaffone has a problem with the advice that "You've got to give action to get action":
1. Deuce Plays, Episode 5:
"If you do have Ace-King, four betting I don't think is going to show a profit, because it's very unlikely you're going to get it in against a range of honestly, Kings or Aces, and maybe Queens, so obviously that's a horrible range to get it in against." --Sean NolanThe reality is that in today's games, many players' preflop all-in range includes AA, KK, QQ and AK from any position. You can feel safe shoving or 4-betting AK preflop against that range for 100BB.
If you start calling or folding AK preflop out of position, you're probably losing money against most opponents. You should fold AK against a range of AA and KK, but realistically, even most nits are shoving and calling shoves with QQ and AK too.
As an aside, I have to give Nolan credit for another point he made about six minutes later into the podcast. He challenged anyone to show him that they're making money by playing 66-22 from early position in a full ring game over a large sample. I filtered my stats and found that he's right: in my case, I'm a slight loser in that situation.
2. Two Plus Two Publishing: Mason Malmuth rips Tommy Angelo's book, "Elements of Poker," in the most recent Two Plus Two Magazine. Then he locks a thread in the Two Plus Two forums ending discussion of his critique. Hard-Boiled Poker covered it Wednesday.
First of all, I loved reading "Elements of Poker." It gave new, refreshing insight into the game from a perspective that Two Plus Two's books fail to offer. The book may not be for everyone, but the job of a critic is to evaluate a work on its merits. Just because a poker book isn't grounded in statistics doesn't mean it has little value.
Secondly, I got more out of "Elements of Poker" than any Two Plus Two book I've read in recent memory. Honestly, Two Plus Two's offerings have mostly sucked over the last couple of years. "Harrington on Cash Games," "Heads-up No-limit Hold'em" and "Professional No-limit Hold'em" all fell far short of expectations and didn't do much to improve my game.
On top of those subpar offerings, Two Plus Two is coming out with Harrington books on shorthanded games. Harrington should stick to tournaments because his cash advice is piss poor. Applying it to today's 6-max online games would be a disaster.
Finally, Malmuth's thread lock seems to show a lack of openness toward other opinions.
3. Pope Ciaffone has a problem with the advice that "You've got to give action to get action":
"Now let's look at what many of the players are actually doing who use the expression, 'You have to give action to get action.' They raise up front with the 9Ciaffone doesn't seem to understand what the phrase means. It's not that difficult. What it means is that if you play like a nit, no one will ever pay you off when you do hit a hand. His examples don't reflect that concept at all.7
, then bet the flop into four callers when it comes A-J-3. They call a raise out of the small blind when holding the J
8
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A fish's life
In the sea of pot limit Omaha, I'm a small confused guppy aimlessly trying to take down a pot.
I don't know when to check or bet, I can't read how big my wrap draw is and I can't count outs over 20 because that's just too high of a number.
I'm a PLO fish, and I kind of like it.
I get to discover a new game and play against unique opponents from across the world. I don't have many notes taken, and reading hands is a guessing game.
PLO is an adventure in learning that hold'em can no longer offer.
I've played too many hold'em hands, read too many books and watched too many videos for the two-card variety to hold the same mystique it once did. Playing PLO is still a puzzle to be put together, piece by piece.
I relish this time spent as a rookie, but I don't want it to last long. This fish needs to grow into a shark.
I don't know when to check or bet, I can't read how big my wrap draw is and I can't count outs over 20 because that's just too high of a number.
I'm a PLO fish, and I kind of like it.
I get to discover a new game and play against unique opponents from across the world. I don't have many notes taken, and reading hands is a guessing game.
PLO is an adventure in learning that hold'em can no longer offer.
I've played too many hold'em hands, read too many books and watched too many videos for the two-card variety to hold the same mystique it once did. Playing PLO is still a puzzle to be put together, piece by piece.
I relish this time spent as a rookie, but I don't want it to last long. This fish needs to grow into a shark.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Heist
During those short-lived months in 2005 when I was unemployed and playing 15/30 limit, I obsessed over how to make decisions from the blinds.
If the button is stealing most of the time, how often should I be defending? When should I call? What hands should I 3-bet?
It took a long time, but those questions eventually drove me to better learn how to play from the button and blinds.
Fast forward one year, to the time when I first tried to make the jump from 2/4 NL to 5/10 NL. One of the first resolutions I made was that I would play extremely tightly when out of position. I decided I wouldn't care if I got run over by aggressive blind stealers; I didn't want to see many flops unless I had position.
This simple, tight strategy was far more successful than I thought it would be, but it got me thinking. If it's somewhat correct to play this rocky from the blinds, maybe I should start stealing more from the button as well.
Suddenly, suited hands and one gappers seemed almost as good as Aces against opponents who would fold their blinds anyway. And increasing my steal attempts came with a fruitful unintended consequence: my VP$IP rose, giving my opponents the impression that I was a LAG.
That was a while ago, and I still frequently run heists when I see that circular D in front of my name.
All this thievery made me wonder: with all the big pots moving back and forth across the felt, those predetermined preflop all-ins with AK vs. QQ and flop combo draws vs. sets, it's entirely possible that a large part of my winrate doesn't come from this crazy variance.
Maybe I'm simply stacking piles of blinds, one steal at a time, and adding to my bankroll in those multitude of pots in between the thrilling all-ins and devastating suckouts.
If the button is stealing most of the time, how often should I be defending? When should I call? What hands should I 3-bet?
It took a long time, but those questions eventually drove me to better learn how to play from the button and blinds.
Fast forward one year, to the time when I first tried to make the jump from 2/4 NL to 5/10 NL. One of the first resolutions I made was that I would play extremely tightly when out of position. I decided I wouldn't care if I got run over by aggressive blind stealers; I didn't want to see many flops unless I had position.
This simple, tight strategy was far more successful than I thought it would be, but it got me thinking. If it's somewhat correct to play this rocky from the blinds, maybe I should start stealing more from the button as well.
Suddenly, suited hands and one gappers seemed almost as good as Aces against opponents who would fold their blinds anyway. And increasing my steal attempts came with a fruitful unintended consequence: my VP$IP rose, giving my opponents the impression that I was a LAG.
That was a while ago, and I still frequently run heists when I see that circular D in front of my name.
All this thievery made me wonder: with all the big pots moving back and forth across the felt, those predetermined preflop all-ins with AK vs. QQ and flop combo draws vs. sets, it's entirely possible that a large part of my winrate doesn't come from this crazy variance.
Maybe I'm simply stacking piles of blinds, one steal at a time, and adding to my bankroll in those multitude of pots in between the thrilling all-ins and devastating suckouts.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Hit-and-run
There is nothing wrong with hitting and running by taking your profits without giving your opponent a chance to win his money back.
Some poker players have this notion that it's wrong to quickly leave after relieving someone of their money. But there is no rule against it, nor is it expected that you have an obligation to give anyone a chance to beat you.
These whiners who complain when you hit and run them claim it's bad etiquette to take their money and run. And they may even have a point: it is a little bit rude to defeat someone and get out of town without a word.
But poker isn't about being polite. Poker is about winning money.
On the other hand, I don't like it either when someone beats me and leaves before I have a chance to try to get even. Against many opponents, I will extend the courtesy of playing for a few minutes after stacking them.
However, I'll lock in the win given the slightest reason: if my opponent is an asshole in chat, if he's playing a high-variance style at higher stakes or if I feel he's at least as skilled as me.
The only reason I would feel committed to playing anyone is if we agree ahead of time to play for at least a certain length (this usually happens in heads-up matches). Otherwise, I may leave you hanging at a moment's notice.
See ya, sucker.
Some poker players have this notion that it's wrong to quickly leave after relieving someone of their money. But there is no rule against it, nor is it expected that you have an obligation to give anyone a chance to beat you.
These whiners who complain when you hit and run them claim it's bad etiquette to take their money and run. And they may even have a point: it is a little bit rude to defeat someone and get out of town without a word.
But poker isn't about being polite. Poker is about winning money.
On the other hand, I don't like it either when someone beats me and leaves before I have a chance to try to get even. Against many opponents, I will extend the courtesy of playing for a few minutes after stacking them.
However, I'll lock in the win given the slightest reason: if my opponent is an asshole in chat, if he's playing a high-variance style at higher stakes or if I feel he's at least as skilled as me.
The only reason I would feel committed to playing anyone is if we agree ahead of time to play for at least a certain length (this usually happens in heads-up matches). Otherwise, I may leave you hanging at a moment's notice.
See ya, sucker.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
My parents' take on "60 Minutes"
My conservative parents and I talk about online poker every now and then, so I wasn't surprised when they asked me if I had seen the "60 Minutes" report on the Absolute/Ultimate Bet cheating scandals.
I was eager to hear their unsolicited impressions.
My parents, who are in their 60s and 70s, generally feel suspicious of online gambling, but they've become convinced by my results that poker is a game that can be beaten. They don't seem to have a moral problem with gambling, but they also recognize that some people can't control their gambling habits. They don't see the need for gambling in our society, but they believe the government shouldn't limit people's rights without good reason.
Their questions to me after viewing the "60 Minutes" piece were revealing:
What political party in Congress is opposing the regulation of online poker?
What's to stop another cheating problem like this from happening again?
Will they arrest Russ Hamilton?
How do you know online poker is safe?
My parents watched the "60 Minutes" segment, and they saw a problem that needs to be fixed. In their minds, it's obvious that something needs to be done.
P.S. 500th post!
I was eager to hear their unsolicited impressions.
My parents, who are in their 60s and 70s, generally feel suspicious of online gambling, but they've become convinced by my results that poker is a game that can be beaten. They don't seem to have a moral problem with gambling, but they also recognize that some people can't control their gambling habits. They don't see the need for gambling in our society, but they believe the government shouldn't limit people's rights without good reason.
Their questions to me after viewing the "60 Minutes" piece were revealing:
What political party in Congress is opposing the regulation of online poker?
What's to stop another cheating problem like this from happening again?
Will they arrest Russ Hamilton?
How do you know online poker is safe?
My parents watched the "60 Minutes" segment, and they saw a problem that needs to be fixed. In their minds, it's obvious that something needs to be done.
P.S. 500th post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
