It seems these days that every time there is a scandal it is referred to as some kind of 'gate'. There's been loads in the past.
Obviously the first was "Watergate": the "Watergate tapes" revealed conversations which took place in Republican US President Nixon's office, implicating him in attempts to cover up a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington DC.
A couple of others include:
"Squidgygate" - tapes of the Duchess of York and some bloke who's name escapes me cavorting in some way or another.
"Bloodgate" - the use of the fake blood capsules by Harlequins rugby union team to con the match officials into allowing a player substitution.
If I could be bothered I could come up with a few more, I'm sure - maybe somebody could add some in the comments.
Now there's "Crashgate". This is the story that Formula One team Renault ordered one of their drivers to crash in order to slow down the rest of the field, in order to give a major advantage to their other driver, who went on to win the GP. Later, it transpired that there were tape recordings of the conversations held between the pit crew, team bosses and the driver who crashed. Renault have subsequently stated that they will not contest allegations of race-fixing, so it seems that the tapes are pretty damning.
For me, there's a few lessons to be learned here:
1. It's not a real 'gate' if there's no tape recording
2. If you're going to plan anything dodgy, try not to make a tape recording that can link you to the conspiracy
3. If you work in the media, strictly observe all cliches, no matter how much they gate [sic]
Friday, 18 September 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
New home
We started looking for a new house to rent this last couple of weeks. We’re going to downsize and save quite a bit of money as we negotiated our current place when the supply of decent rentals was pretty thin.
It looks as if the UK house-price crash has stopped now. I still believe that houses are over-priced, whatever that means, but there are a number of reasons why property is still an attractive investment for people with excess funds to invest. Low interest rates offer next to zero returns on safe savings: property is higher risk but the returns are in proportion and over the long-term the ‘capital’ risk is fairly low. Demand for rented property is high as the large deposits now required by lenders have still to be, and may in many cases never be, saved by first-time-buyers.
I read somewhere that the percentage of UK dwellings being owner-occupied has increased every year since 1950. I’m not sure when that statistic was penned or if it is still true. If it is still true, I can’t imagine it will remain true for long.
I think that the gap between rich and poor is going to grow over the next 10-20 years and I wonder if it will ever close again. The major dividing line is going to be home-ownership: there will be ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ From what I can gather this will be a return to the 1950s.
The UK is different to how it was in 1997 and we could well view this administration as being the one that allowed things to run out of control. Historically, Conservative governments have done less than Labour ones in redistributing income from rich to poor. Once the Conservatives are in power, it will probably be another 9 years before there is the remotest possibility that Labour will govern again. By this time, surely houses will have become even less affordable for first-time buyers.
It looks as if the UK house-price crash has stopped now. I still believe that houses are over-priced, whatever that means, but there are a number of reasons why property is still an attractive investment for people with excess funds to invest. Low interest rates offer next to zero returns on safe savings: property is higher risk but the returns are in proportion and over the long-term the ‘capital’ risk is fairly low. Demand for rented property is high as the large deposits now required by lenders have still to be, and may in many cases never be, saved by first-time-buyers.
I read somewhere that the percentage of UK dwellings being owner-occupied has increased every year since 1950. I’m not sure when that statistic was penned or if it is still true. If it is still true, I can’t imagine it will remain true for long.
I think that the gap between rich and poor is going to grow over the next 10-20 years and I wonder if it will ever close again. The major dividing line is going to be home-ownership: there will be ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ From what I can gather this will be a return to the 1950s.
The UK is different to how it was in 1997 and we could well view this administration as being the one that allowed things to run out of control. Historically, Conservative governments have done less than Labour ones in redistributing income from rich to poor. Once the Conservatives are in power, it will probably be another 9 years before there is the remotest possibility that Labour will govern again. By this time, surely houses will have become even less affordable for first-time buyers.
The last year
Long time no update:
-started to play full time last August
-ran bad but played OK
-unable to get on a decent playing schedule
-bankroll depleted leading to drop in stakes
- struggled to pay bills
- bankroll depleted further
- quit poker as job but plan to play for fun in future
- started full time job 1st Sept
Blog now to become about news, sports, work and maybe some poker content if I come across anything interesting
Any comments welcome
-started to play full time last August
-ran bad but played OK
-unable to get on a decent playing schedule
-bankroll depleted leading to drop in stakes
- struggled to pay bills
- bankroll depleted further
- quit poker as job but plan to play for fun in future
- started full time job 1st Sept
Blog now to become about news, sports, work and maybe some poker content if I come across anything interesting
Any comments welcome
Monday, 11 August 2008
Losing to Quads
In NLHE, unless the stacks are huge, its pretty much accepted by most players that when you have KK against AA you are going to lose all of your chips. In PLO, a similar situation occurs with the top full house against quads. When you have the second nuts, its sometimes tempting to consider that the opponent has the nuts, but you probably just get the money in anyway: after all, how many times do people show down all kinds of silly hands that they just shouldn’t be involved with?
On Saturday I limped in late position with KK92 single suited and five of us saw the flop of KJ8 (all diamonds – of which I had none). A loose-aggressive player bet the pot ($20) and a fish raised him to $56. This had to be a flush, probably the nut-flush, but I thought I could get paid off if the board paired, so I cold-called.
After I called I realised that I was making a big mistake. If the initial bettor had the nut flush, or maybe even the bare Ace of diamonds, he could re-raise and I wouldn’t be able to profitably continue unless the fish came along too. Also, I needed the board to pair and it was likely that the flop bettor had a set too if he didn’t have the flush. This meant that not only did he have some of my outs against the flush, he could potentially stack me if he hit quads.
The flop bettor just called the raise, meaning he likely had a lower set, but was it JJ or 88?
The turn card was the Jack of spades and when it got checked to me I bet $104. This was enough to ensure that I could get the rest in on the river without betting the full pot. I decided that I was going to bet the river if it came checked to me: extracting full value from 88 or maybe even KJ. The flop bettor called and the flop raiser folded: he obviously realised his flush was no longer any good.
The river was the Queen of diamonds, which made a possible straight flush. My opponent bet the pot. I stuck to the view that I can’t fold the top full house and called $236 all-in only to get shown quad Jacks, which was now actually only the second nuts.
I think with a bit more time I could have found a fold here.
On Sunday I found a good way to lose to quads, if such a thing exists.
I was the 3rd and final player who called a raise to $14 with QQ63 and I bet out the pot when the flop came Q74 with two hearts. This was the 3rd pot in quick succession where I had made a pot-sized bet and I reckoned it might look suspicious. Totally according to plan, I got raised the full pot by the villain from the quads hand above, happy to re-raise all-in knowing I would be at least a 55% favourite.
The board paired the 4 and the river was another 4, resulting in the chips sliding the wrong way across the table to my opponent! He had got his chips in with the truly awful K774, needing either the last 7, the last two 4s or two of the last three Kings.
I was a whopping 95% favourite against an opponent who probably thought he was in good shape. If I must lose, this is the way that I prefer it to happen.
On Saturday I limped in late position with KK92 single suited and five of us saw the flop of KJ8 (all diamonds – of which I had none). A loose-aggressive player bet the pot ($20) and a fish raised him to $56. This had to be a flush, probably the nut-flush, but I thought I could get paid off if the board paired, so I cold-called.
After I called I realised that I was making a big mistake. If the initial bettor had the nut flush, or maybe even the bare Ace of diamonds, he could re-raise and I wouldn’t be able to profitably continue unless the fish came along too. Also, I needed the board to pair and it was likely that the flop bettor had a set too if he didn’t have the flush. This meant that not only did he have some of my outs against the flush, he could potentially stack me if he hit quads.
The flop bettor just called the raise, meaning he likely had a lower set, but was it JJ or 88?
The turn card was the Jack of spades and when it got checked to me I bet $104. This was enough to ensure that I could get the rest in on the river without betting the full pot. I decided that I was going to bet the river if it came checked to me: extracting full value from 88 or maybe even KJ. The flop bettor called and the flop raiser folded: he obviously realised his flush was no longer any good.
The river was the Queen of diamonds, which made a possible straight flush. My opponent bet the pot. I stuck to the view that I can’t fold the top full house and called $236 all-in only to get shown quad Jacks, which was now actually only the second nuts.
I think with a bit more time I could have found a fold here.
On Sunday I found a good way to lose to quads, if such a thing exists.
I was the 3rd and final player who called a raise to $14 with QQ63 and I bet out the pot when the flop came Q74 with two hearts. This was the 3rd pot in quick succession where I had made a pot-sized bet and I reckoned it might look suspicious. Totally according to plan, I got raised the full pot by the villain from the quads hand above, happy to re-raise all-in knowing I would be at least a 55% favourite.
The board paired the 4 and the river was another 4, resulting in the chips sliding the wrong way across the table to my opponent! He had got his chips in with the truly awful K774, needing either the last 7, the last two 4s or two of the last three Kings.
I was a whopping 95% favourite against an opponent who probably thought he was in good shape. If I must lose, this is the way that I prefer it to happen.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
Some bad luck
Since I started tracking my luck over a year ago things have gone very well. I was able to play $5-$10 NLHE for a long time largely because I took a shot with a short bankroll, played well and, crucially, got lucky more often than not[1].
When I had a bad run I withdrew a large chunk of bankroll, dropped down in stakes and tried to hold on to what I had won. I was concerned that I would do what I had done many times in the past: empty a decent bankroll through tilt after a period of bad results and / or bad luck.
Looking back now, this was not the best course of action to take. What I should have done was drop down in stakes and try to concentrate on playing my best. I realise this is easier said than done and at the time I didn’t have the confidence in my tilt control abilities to do this.
Six months further on I have hit a bankroll dip again [2], but this time there is a difference. In December I had a sustained period of poor play. Just in the last two weeks or so I have been very unlucky, at a time when the quality of my play has been very good.
In the last thirteen days I have run almost 9 buy-ins below expectation in the key pots. The good news is that in cash terms I have only dropped 3 buy-ins; like I said, I have been playing very well.
I constantly read about solid winning players going on 10-15 buy-in losing streaks and I always thought that within these streaks there must be an element of poor play caused by the trauma of unluckily losing a few buy-ins. Having had my first serious run of bad luck for a year or so, I am now totally convinced that this is the case.
If I had been reviewing my results the old-fashioned way, looking purely at the cash-flow, I suspect I would have been cursing my bad luck and dreading the prospect of putting my stack in the middle, expecting to be outdrawn in some freakish manner. However, because I filter out one major element of the luck factor I can ignore this to a large extent and it doesn’t affect my play. I’m sure that if I looked at the cash-flow I would have become frustrated at seeing my good play go unrewarded and that good play could easily have been replaced by losing play. I’m sure that if I had been this unlucky a couple of years ago, I could have lost maybe 10 buy-ins too. In that respect, I have won 7 buy-ins more than I would have won this time two years ago: huge progress.
Overall, despite the recent bad luck, I have still so far received more help from the poker gods than I should have, both in terms of buy-ins and dollar amounts. In effect, any cash received from good luck is excluded from results and stored away, where it can be used later in the event of bad luck. For any accountants out there, it’s the same principle as making provision for falls in such things as currency values or commodity prices at a time when things are good. When things go bad, the provisions are reduced and profits remain unaffected.
I can have no complaints about luck, and even if I did have grounds to complain it would be both pointless and counter-productive. As a result of this philosophy I feel totally assured in my game and can continue playing some of the best poker I have for a long time. I just need to keep applying my edge and can look forward to positive cash-flow at some point in the near- or distant-future.
Notes
[1] ‘got lucky’ includes those times when the money went in well and my hand held up – an often-under-appreciated aspect of poker
[2] not serious in terms of dollar amounts, but significant in comparison with expected results
When I had a bad run I withdrew a large chunk of bankroll, dropped down in stakes and tried to hold on to what I had won. I was concerned that I would do what I had done many times in the past: empty a decent bankroll through tilt after a period of bad results and / or bad luck.
Looking back now, this was not the best course of action to take. What I should have done was drop down in stakes and try to concentrate on playing my best. I realise this is easier said than done and at the time I didn’t have the confidence in my tilt control abilities to do this.
Six months further on I have hit a bankroll dip again [2], but this time there is a difference. In December I had a sustained period of poor play. Just in the last two weeks or so I have been very unlucky, at a time when the quality of my play has been very good.
In the last thirteen days I have run almost 9 buy-ins below expectation in the key pots. The good news is that in cash terms I have only dropped 3 buy-ins; like I said, I have been playing very well.
I constantly read about solid winning players going on 10-15 buy-in losing streaks and I always thought that within these streaks there must be an element of poor play caused by the trauma of unluckily losing a few buy-ins. Having had my first serious run of bad luck for a year or so, I am now totally convinced that this is the case.
If I had been reviewing my results the old-fashioned way, looking purely at the cash-flow, I suspect I would have been cursing my bad luck and dreading the prospect of putting my stack in the middle, expecting to be outdrawn in some freakish manner. However, because I filter out one major element of the luck factor I can ignore this to a large extent and it doesn’t affect my play. I’m sure that if I looked at the cash-flow I would have become frustrated at seeing my good play go unrewarded and that good play could easily have been replaced by losing play. I’m sure that if I had been this unlucky a couple of years ago, I could have lost maybe 10 buy-ins too. In that respect, I have won 7 buy-ins more than I would have won this time two years ago: huge progress.
Overall, despite the recent bad luck, I have still so far received more help from the poker gods than I should have, both in terms of buy-ins and dollar amounts. In effect, any cash received from good luck is excluded from results and stored away, where it can be used later in the event of bad luck. For any accountants out there, it’s the same principle as making provision for falls in such things as currency values or commodity prices at a time when things are good. When things go bad, the provisions are reduced and profits remain unaffected.
I can have no complaints about luck, and even if I did have grounds to complain it would be both pointless and counter-productive. As a result of this philosophy I feel totally assured in my game and can continue playing some of the best poker I have for a long time. I just need to keep applying my edge and can look forward to positive cash-flow at some point in the near- or distant-future.
Notes
[1] ‘got lucky’ includes those times when the money went in well and my hand held up – an often-under-appreciated aspect of poker
[2] not serious in terms of dollar amounts, but significant in comparison with expected results
Monday, 30 June 2008
Only 2910 hands in the week
I was a bit annoyed that I was only able to play just over 10 hours this week. I had been really positive about my move down to $1-$2 and was really pleased that results had been so good. All I wanted to do was consolidate on my good start and grind out some decent hours. This never really happened, despite having a couple of days off work, and so I am able to reflect on a winning week of only $700 or so when I feel as though I should have played almost twice as much as I did.
I actually played pretty well all week and can only really recall one serious blunder, where I triple-barrelled with an unimproved AK and was shown a full house. Doh!
My results at $1-$2 remain impressive and I started to wonder how much of this was down to the cards running well and how much was down to my edge in the game. Obviously, because I have played only 15k hands many regular multi-tablers will say that there is nowhere near enough data to draw any conclusions. I partly agree with this. However, I have played about 85k hands in the last year, fairly evenly split between the $100, $200, $400 and $1000 buy-in games. My PTBB/100 across all levels comes out at 2.41, including 31k hands at $1000 buy-in at 2.33. This indicates that I am probably a solid winner at all of these levels, and you would expect that I am a bigger winner at the lower levels, so maybe a win-rate of 4 to 5 PTBB/100 is sustainable at the $200 buy-in game.
In addition to the stats there is the general feel of how the hands have played out. For example, I believe I often get an extra value bet out of my opponents where some of the other regulars in the game are happy to check it through. Also, I feel as though I have an edge pre-flop against some of the regulars, who I expect are decent winning players, due to the fact that they have wide discrepancies in their 3-bet raising and 4-bet calling / 5-bet shoving ranges[1].
One thing that I have started to change is the frequency of playing low pairs ie. 88 and down. Basically I have downgraded these hands and will not always play them for a single raise like I did before. The reason for this is two-fold: first, there is the higher possibility of flopping a set-under-set; and second, when out of position it is often very difficult to win a big pot if you do flop a set. Set-under-set is a total disaster: it’s the easiest way to lose a full buy-in whilst having next-to-zero pot equity. Minimising the situations where this can happen should be a profitable exercise.
It was nice to receive a comment on the blog last week. Thanks Rossi! I know there are some regular readers out there because I occasionally check to see where people are connecting from. I would like to hear any comments from readers, no matter what the content. Don't be shy!
I hope to play as many as 15 hours this week but with other commitments it may not be possible. What I must avoid is being over-eager when I do actually play. I need to be aggressive but not try to force the action where it’s not possible. This is a fine line to walk but I think it’s one of the keys to success.
[1] Example, some regulars play maybe 21% (ie. not many) of their hands pre-flop, but they raise with almost all of them. So, when they re-raise my button raise, this means that they probably do this with as many as 15% of their hands. To me this is too often and with many of these hands they will simply fold to an all-in re-re-raise. This means that I can show a clear profit with this re-re-raise, as it doesn’t get called often enough, as long as I don’t overdo it, and as long as they don’t adjust to what I am doing.
I actually played pretty well all week and can only really recall one serious blunder, where I triple-barrelled with an unimproved AK and was shown a full house. Doh!
My results at $1-$2 remain impressive and I started to wonder how much of this was down to the cards running well and how much was down to my edge in the game. Obviously, because I have played only 15k hands many regular multi-tablers will say that there is nowhere near enough data to draw any conclusions. I partly agree with this. However, I have played about 85k hands in the last year, fairly evenly split between the $100, $200, $400 and $1000 buy-in games. My PTBB/100 across all levels comes out at 2.41, including 31k hands at $1000 buy-in at 2.33. This indicates that I am probably a solid winner at all of these levels, and you would expect that I am a bigger winner at the lower levels, so maybe a win-rate of 4 to 5 PTBB/100 is sustainable at the $200 buy-in game.
In addition to the stats there is the general feel of how the hands have played out. For example, I believe I often get an extra value bet out of my opponents where some of the other regulars in the game are happy to check it through. Also, I feel as though I have an edge pre-flop against some of the regulars, who I expect are decent winning players, due to the fact that they have wide discrepancies in their 3-bet raising and 4-bet calling / 5-bet shoving ranges[1].
One thing that I have started to change is the frequency of playing low pairs ie. 88 and down. Basically I have downgraded these hands and will not always play them for a single raise like I did before. The reason for this is two-fold: first, there is the higher possibility of flopping a set-under-set; and second, when out of position it is often very difficult to win a big pot if you do flop a set. Set-under-set is a total disaster: it’s the easiest way to lose a full buy-in whilst having next-to-zero pot equity. Minimising the situations where this can happen should be a profitable exercise.
It was nice to receive a comment on the blog last week. Thanks Rossi! I know there are some regular readers out there because I occasionally check to see where people are connecting from. I would like to hear any comments from readers, no matter what the content. Don't be shy!
I hope to play as many as 15 hours this week but with other commitments it may not be possible. What I must avoid is being over-eager when I do actually play. I need to be aggressive but not try to force the action where it’s not possible. This is a fine line to walk but I think it’s one of the keys to success.
[1] Example, some regulars play maybe 21% (ie. not many) of their hands pre-flop, but they raise with almost all of them. So, when they re-raise my button raise, this means that they probably do this with as many as 15% of their hands. To me this is too often and with many of these hands they will simply fold to an all-in re-re-raise. This means that I can show a clear profit with this re-re-raise, as it doesn’t get called often enough, as long as I don’t overdo it, and as long as they don’t adjust to what I am doing.
Monday, 23 June 2008
Multi-tabling 6-max at $1-$2
I’ve now managed a sustained period of multi-tabling the 6-max tables and results have been great. Even though its only $1-$2 blinds and I am averaging just less than 3 tables I have had a win-rate of almost $70 per hour. The best thing is, that having played so much $2-$4 and $5-$10 over the last year, I am finding that the standard at $1-$2 is really quite bad and it’s not that difficult to find some truly awful players. This makes me think that even though I have only played just over 7,000 hands my results have been roughly in line with expectation.
If I can ‘expect’ to make $60-$70 at this level then I am onto a good thing as pro-rata this is worth about $100,000 a year. The other good thing is that it is pretty much stress-free. Looking ahead, if I could translate this to success at $2-$4, it could be the start of something really big. I know there are players out there making well in excess of $200k a year playing as low as $2-$4.
So how have I managed to finally get the hang of multi-tabling?
Well, I think the first thing is I have gained a lot of experience over the last year, done a lot of thinking about the game and about various situations and have developed a more solid ‘B game.’ In truth, when playing more than one table, it is not really possible to play an ‘A game’ and so you need to have a way to win despite not giving each table your full attention. This means that you have to analyse common situations away from the tables and work out how best to play them, so that when those situations come up you are able to quickly apply your knowledge in line with the balance of probabilities. Obviously you can’t be right every time but you must calculate how to create a long-term edge and then wait patiently for it to materialise.
The next factor is PA HUD. I had never used a HUD until I started playing Omaha on more than one table and this allowed me to spot bad players and quickly get a line on all opponents at the tables. Also, it becomes really obvious when a table has turned bad, signalling the time to leave and find a softer line-up.
I have developed my play to try to remain aggressive in most circumstances. The exceptions are when playing against really over-aggro players and when out of position with weak but probably winning hands against solid players.
Also, my play has become more dependent on the type of opponent I am facing. I can happily re-raise a loose player with A8, and happily fold AK against a very tight player. Against a loose player I will be more aggressive with decent drawing hands, as they will often be in there with a drawing hand too. Against tight players, well, I don’t get involved for big money anywhere near as much as I used to.
These are all simple adjustments and it truly shows that the skill in poker comes down more to applying what you know than simply having the knowledge.
I hope that things can continue as they have. I am going to try to complete 50,000 hands at $1-$2 before I consider moving up to $2-$4. I really need to bed myself in and just grind at $1-$2. After all, $60+ per hour is pretty significant money, especially when it’s tax-free.
If I can ‘expect’ to make $60-$70 at this level then I am onto a good thing as pro-rata this is worth about $100,000 a year. The other good thing is that it is pretty much stress-free. Looking ahead, if I could translate this to success at $2-$4, it could be the start of something really big. I know there are players out there making well in excess of $200k a year playing as low as $2-$4.
So how have I managed to finally get the hang of multi-tabling?
Well, I think the first thing is I have gained a lot of experience over the last year, done a lot of thinking about the game and about various situations and have developed a more solid ‘B game.’ In truth, when playing more than one table, it is not really possible to play an ‘A game’ and so you need to have a way to win despite not giving each table your full attention. This means that you have to analyse common situations away from the tables and work out how best to play them, so that when those situations come up you are able to quickly apply your knowledge in line with the balance of probabilities. Obviously you can’t be right every time but you must calculate how to create a long-term edge and then wait patiently for it to materialise.
The next factor is PA HUD. I had never used a HUD until I started playing Omaha on more than one table and this allowed me to spot bad players and quickly get a line on all opponents at the tables. Also, it becomes really obvious when a table has turned bad, signalling the time to leave and find a softer line-up.
I have developed my play to try to remain aggressive in most circumstances. The exceptions are when playing against really over-aggro players and when out of position with weak but probably winning hands against solid players.
Also, my play has become more dependent on the type of opponent I am facing. I can happily re-raise a loose player with A8, and happily fold AK against a very tight player. Against a loose player I will be more aggressive with decent drawing hands, as they will often be in there with a drawing hand too. Against tight players, well, I don’t get involved for big money anywhere near as much as I used to.
These are all simple adjustments and it truly shows that the skill in poker comes down more to applying what you know than simply having the knowledge.
I hope that things can continue as they have. I am going to try to complete 50,000 hands at $1-$2 before I consider moving up to $2-$4. I really need to bed myself in and just grind at $1-$2. After all, $60+ per hour is pretty significant money, especially when it’s tax-free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
