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.
Monday, 11 August 2008
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.
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Targets for June
I have been reviewing where things are and where I need to be and I have decided to set some goals for June.
MT ratio
I need to increase my multi-tabling ratio from the 2.10 where it currently stands to somewhere up around 3. This will be difficult to be honest, as I will need to try to play longer sessions to achieve this and I don’t know if this will be possible. I might try to play late sessions a couple of times a week, instead of playing shorter sessions most nights. Also, I will need to put in a decent session or two on a weekend. Again this might be difficult as there are other things that require my time.
Hands per hour
This currently stands at approx 190 and I would like this to be much higher.
There are however a couple of problems with setting this as a target. First, it is pretty much dependent on the number of tables I can manage to be seated at. Also, I could improve this figure dramatically by playing more shorthanded tables but the only way to do this would be to sit at 6-max tables. This isn’t something I want to do, as the 6-max community is generally much more aggressive, with much better players. I think that starting new 10-seater games is +EV for me as the players who normally sit down will generally be weaker ones than would join me at a 6-max game.
Win-rate
Obviously, as well as playing more hands it would be nice if I could win more per hand too. As previously mentioned, I don’t feel as though there is much drop-off in my game between my second and fourth table, so hopefully I can at least maintain my win-rate despite playing more tables more often.
Looking back at my stats for the last 5000 hands or so it looks as if I have been committing too much money at times only to fold before showdown. This is a leak that needs to be plugged: either by committing less money before folding or going to showdown more. For the hands that I have taken to showdown I am showing a huge margin (+19.5%). While this looks good, it also indicates that I am probably folding some hands that are +EV. I need to squeeze every last drop from these hands.
Target for the month here is to improve my decision-making at the point of commitment to the pot. Hopefully an improved win-rate will demonstrate improvement in my decision-making here although it is not properly quantifiable.
I don’t feel as though a long-term win-rate of 3 PTBB/100 is impossible for me. This is something I should be aiming for, because if I could make this at $5-$10 then we are in the ballpark of $200k per year pro-rata. This should be the long-term goal.
MT ratio
I need to increase my multi-tabling ratio from the 2.10 where it currently stands to somewhere up around 3. This will be difficult to be honest, as I will need to try to play longer sessions to achieve this and I don’t know if this will be possible. I might try to play late sessions a couple of times a week, instead of playing shorter sessions most nights. Also, I will need to put in a decent session or two on a weekend. Again this might be difficult as there are other things that require my time.
Hands per hour
This currently stands at approx 190 and I would like this to be much higher.
There are however a couple of problems with setting this as a target. First, it is pretty much dependent on the number of tables I can manage to be seated at. Also, I could improve this figure dramatically by playing more shorthanded tables but the only way to do this would be to sit at 6-max tables. This isn’t something I want to do, as the 6-max community is generally much more aggressive, with much better players. I think that starting new 10-seater games is +EV for me as the players who normally sit down will generally be weaker ones than would join me at a 6-max game.
Win-rate
Obviously, as well as playing more hands it would be nice if I could win more per hand too. As previously mentioned, I don’t feel as though there is much drop-off in my game between my second and fourth table, so hopefully I can at least maintain my win-rate despite playing more tables more often.
Looking back at my stats for the last 5000 hands or so it looks as if I have been committing too much money at times only to fold before showdown. This is a leak that needs to be plugged: either by committing less money before folding or going to showdown more. For the hands that I have taken to showdown I am showing a huge margin (+19.5%). While this looks good, it also indicates that I am probably folding some hands that are +EV. I need to squeeze every last drop from these hands.
Target for the month here is to improve my decision-making at the point of commitment to the pot. Hopefully an improved win-rate will demonstrate improvement in my decision-making here although it is not properly quantifiable.
I don’t feel as though a long-term win-rate of 3 PTBB/100 is impossible for me. This is something I should be aiming for, because if I could make this at $5-$10 then we are in the ballpark of $200k per year pro-rata. This should be the long-term goal.
Monday, 2 June 2008
Multi-tabling
I started multi-tabling at $2-$4 a couple of weeks ago and things have been going OK although not great. There are a few adjustments to be made, as basically I am able to only play in ‘no-read’ mode, despite having PA Hud to give me useful stats on my opponents.
Basically, if I am concentrating less than 100% on a particular table then I am unable to make specific player-determined plays based on detailed reads of my opponents state of mind etc. However, I have a solid enough B-game that I am still able to play in a +EV way without fully concentrating on that table. Also, it seems that I am able to play this B-game on 3 ‘side’ tables just as easily as one 'side' table.
So, what I have been doing is keeping one main table, where I start playing heads-up or occasionally join a short-handed table already in progress. This table gets my almost total attention, and on the other tables I play my B-game: very tight in early positions, looser later, aggressive when in the pot. Sometimes this table will stay heads-up or short-handed for a while, occasionally it will fill up quickly. If it fills up, I simply start another table until I have 4 going.
I think the ideal situation is to have one short-handed table and three full auto-pilot tables. That way, I still feel as though I am actually playing a game rather than working a job.
Like I said, so far things have been going OK. One of the problems is that at the moment I rarely have more than an hour or maybe an hour and a half to play a session. So, if there are no seats available I am spending the first 20 minutes or so playing heads-up or maybe 3-handed until things fill up or a seat becomes available on another table. Obviously, the main reason to play at many tables is to increase the number of hands played per hour. In order to truly maximise this it would be better to play longer sessions, therefore reducing the impact of the session start-up. It can sometimes take the best part of an hour to become seated at 4 tables, by which time I am often getting ready to finish.
I’ve also noticed an unexpected anomaly in my results when playing a full table. I have won at a reasonable if unspectacular rate (1.77 PTBB/100) but this has been despite losing a lot of money in non-showdown hands. I have got involved in too many pots where I have put too much money in without getting to showdown. Sometimes I will have folded the winner, sometimes I should have folded earlier, and sometimes I have made the pot too big and allowed my opponent to steal it. This is generally bad play and I need to correct this. Looking back, some of these hands were quite tough to play but I need to have a plan for these types of hands and stick to it.
Here’s an example:
I am in mid-position with JJ and open to $12, Only the big blind (tight aggressive with $372, which I cover) calls and checks the 642 rainbow flop. I bet $28 and he raises to $56. At this point I have no plan as to what to do for the best. Basically I want to get to showdown as cheap as possible but its pretty obvious that a good opponent knows this. After I call the turn card comes a King, which could slow down my opponent if he thinks I would call for $28 more with AK especially if he has QQ or the other JJ. However he bets another $96 which I call again. The river comes another 6 and he bets all-in for $209. I cant think of any hand that I can beat, other than a 3-barrel bluff, and I fold.
I think, on reflection I was OK calling the flop min-raise, after all a Jack on the turn puts me ahead of everything except a flopped straight and we still had more than $300 behind. However, the real decision was on the turn. I really ought to have folded here, at least in part because he should have feared that I could have AK. So, it looks like I wasted $96 here. Obviously, against a loose opponent I would be much happier to get more money in on the flop.
This guy made the check-raise so that the pot-size was just right for him to get all his money in without having to make two really big bets. Well played him!
I played OK too for the most part, averaging about $40 per hour, despite my MT ratio being as low as 2.10. By playing longer sessions I would be able to get this up to 3+ and I should see the hourly rate go up by a similar proportion.
Basically, if I am concentrating less than 100% on a particular table then I am unable to make specific player-determined plays based on detailed reads of my opponents state of mind etc. However, I have a solid enough B-game that I am still able to play in a +EV way without fully concentrating on that table. Also, it seems that I am able to play this B-game on 3 ‘side’ tables just as easily as one 'side' table.
So, what I have been doing is keeping one main table, where I start playing heads-up or occasionally join a short-handed table already in progress. This table gets my almost total attention, and on the other tables I play my B-game: very tight in early positions, looser later, aggressive when in the pot. Sometimes this table will stay heads-up or short-handed for a while, occasionally it will fill up quickly. If it fills up, I simply start another table until I have 4 going.
I think the ideal situation is to have one short-handed table and three full auto-pilot tables. That way, I still feel as though I am actually playing a game rather than working a job.
Like I said, so far things have been going OK. One of the problems is that at the moment I rarely have more than an hour or maybe an hour and a half to play a session. So, if there are no seats available I am spending the first 20 minutes or so playing heads-up or maybe 3-handed until things fill up or a seat becomes available on another table. Obviously, the main reason to play at many tables is to increase the number of hands played per hour. In order to truly maximise this it would be better to play longer sessions, therefore reducing the impact of the session start-up. It can sometimes take the best part of an hour to become seated at 4 tables, by which time I am often getting ready to finish.
I’ve also noticed an unexpected anomaly in my results when playing a full table. I have won at a reasonable if unspectacular rate (1.77 PTBB/100) but this has been despite losing a lot of money in non-showdown hands. I have got involved in too many pots where I have put too much money in without getting to showdown. Sometimes I will have folded the winner, sometimes I should have folded earlier, and sometimes I have made the pot too big and allowed my opponent to steal it. This is generally bad play and I need to correct this. Looking back, some of these hands were quite tough to play but I need to have a plan for these types of hands and stick to it.
Here’s an example:
I am in mid-position with JJ and open to $12, Only the big blind (tight aggressive with $372, which I cover) calls and checks the 642 rainbow flop. I bet $28 and he raises to $56. At this point I have no plan as to what to do for the best. Basically I want to get to showdown as cheap as possible but its pretty obvious that a good opponent knows this. After I call the turn card comes a King, which could slow down my opponent if he thinks I would call for $28 more with AK especially if he has QQ or the other JJ. However he bets another $96 which I call again. The river comes another 6 and he bets all-in for $209. I cant think of any hand that I can beat, other than a 3-barrel bluff, and I fold.
I think, on reflection I was OK calling the flop min-raise, after all a Jack on the turn puts me ahead of everything except a flopped straight and we still had more than $300 behind. However, the real decision was on the turn. I really ought to have folded here, at least in part because he should have feared that I could have AK. So, it looks like I wasted $96 here. Obviously, against a loose opponent I would be much happier to get more money in on the flop.
This guy made the check-raise so that the pot-size was just right for him to get all his money in without having to make two really big bets. Well played him!
I played OK too for the most part, averaging about $40 per hour, despite my MT ratio being as low as 2.10. By playing longer sessions I would be able to get this up to 3+ and I should see the hourly rate go up by a similar proportion.
Monday, 19 May 2008
A-game good, B-game bad
I managed a huge $67 win this week in a rather disjointed 12 hours of play!
Monday was a day off and then Tuesday and Wednesday were largely uneventful before the fireworks began on Thursday. This was fireworks in a good way to begin with as I won one large pot with AA against a very stubborn JJ, most of the money going in on a Q84 2-flush flop. What was he thinking? Was I re-raising pre-flop with rags?
Friday’s early play was a train wreck before some of the damage was repaired in a steady late session. There were two big losses and I think a better player would have avoided at least one of them, although I’m not certain which one.
First, playing 3-handed I raised on the button with K7 and was called by the big blind, who was maybe a little on the tight side. The flop came KK5 with two hearts and I bet a standard $40 when checked to. He raised me to $120 and I re-raised to $310, in theory, so that I could fold if he went all-in. After all, what could he have if not a better King than me or possibly pocket fives? Or maybe a flush draw? I pondered right down to the end of the time allowance whether to call his subsequent all-in and then a strange reflex action kicked in and I called, only to be shown 55.
Then, a bit later, when playing 10-handed I made a river bluff that I suspect would come off a high percentage of the time. I called a mid-position raise with T8 and with the big blind we saw the K75 (two hearts) flop 3-handed. After the raiser checked, which I wasn’t expecting, I decided to have a stab at the pot and fired $80 which the raiser called. The turn was an offsuit 8, and I didn’t want to bet myself out of the pot now that I had picked up a pair, so I checked behind. Also, I wasn’t worried about giving a free card to a flush-draw as this would have been a good flop for the raiser to bet at if he had flopped the flush-draw. By checking maybe it would look to the raiser as if I had a flush-draw. The river came the 9 of hearts and the raiser bet $140 into me. I raised all-in (he had about $640 behind), trying to represent the flush, thinking that I could make him lay down most hands here. In actual fact, he had a straight with the 86 and after great deliberation made the call.
The week-end was a break-even affair, and I only managed a measly 3 hours in total. I lost three biggish pots making second-best hands, but this was erased totally with a nice win when I flopped quad twos. I limp-called against a tight and very aggressive regular who I had tussled with before. The flop came 922 with two clubs and I decided to check to see how much he was going to bet. He made it $70, which I thought was on the high-side in an attempt to get as much in as possible early on, to chop the odds available for a flush-draw with overcard. At this point I decided to raise to $210, as I reckoned it would look no stronger than a flat-call to him and would have the added advantage of possibly getting all the money in on the flop. Like I said, we had tussled before. To my total joy but not total surprise he went all-in and I had the easiest call imaginable.
Overall the week was a disappointment as there were a couple of spells where I lost a bit of focus and started to try to make things happen where the opportunities were not really there. If I am honest with myself, I probably could have made $600-700 if I had played my A- game all week. Like I said, a better player would have probably folded the K7 v 55 hand and that would have saved another $200-300 in equity. On the positive side, I managed to win just short of $1000 in the smaller (non-showdown) pots. This shows that my general level of aggression is OK.
This week I need to maintain my focus at all times. Sometimes I feel as though I am due to hit a run of good situations, like I see others hit day after day. This is just a fallacy: we need to concentrate on maximising all opportunities that come our way. This often means picking up one extra small pot (say $60) every couple of hours. At the time it looks like no big deal but it’s massive in the context of a player’s results.
Monday was a day off and then Tuesday and Wednesday were largely uneventful before the fireworks began on Thursday. This was fireworks in a good way to begin with as I won one large pot with AA against a very stubborn JJ, most of the money going in on a Q84 2-flush flop. What was he thinking? Was I re-raising pre-flop with rags?
Friday’s early play was a train wreck before some of the damage was repaired in a steady late session. There were two big losses and I think a better player would have avoided at least one of them, although I’m not certain which one.
First, playing 3-handed I raised on the button with K7 and was called by the big blind, who was maybe a little on the tight side. The flop came KK5 with two hearts and I bet a standard $40 when checked to. He raised me to $120 and I re-raised to $310, in theory, so that I could fold if he went all-in. After all, what could he have if not a better King than me or possibly pocket fives? Or maybe a flush draw? I pondered right down to the end of the time allowance whether to call his subsequent all-in and then a strange reflex action kicked in and I called, only to be shown 55.
Then, a bit later, when playing 10-handed I made a river bluff that I suspect would come off a high percentage of the time. I called a mid-position raise with T8 and with the big blind we saw the K75 (two hearts) flop 3-handed. After the raiser checked, which I wasn’t expecting, I decided to have a stab at the pot and fired $80 which the raiser called. The turn was an offsuit 8, and I didn’t want to bet myself out of the pot now that I had picked up a pair, so I checked behind. Also, I wasn’t worried about giving a free card to a flush-draw as this would have been a good flop for the raiser to bet at if he had flopped the flush-draw. By checking maybe it would look to the raiser as if I had a flush-draw. The river came the 9 of hearts and the raiser bet $140 into me. I raised all-in (he had about $640 behind), trying to represent the flush, thinking that I could make him lay down most hands here. In actual fact, he had a straight with the 86 and after great deliberation made the call.
The week-end was a break-even affair, and I only managed a measly 3 hours in total. I lost three biggish pots making second-best hands, but this was erased totally with a nice win when I flopped quad twos. I limp-called against a tight and very aggressive regular who I had tussled with before. The flop came 922 with two clubs and I decided to check to see how much he was going to bet. He made it $70, which I thought was on the high-side in an attempt to get as much in as possible early on, to chop the odds available for a flush-draw with overcard. At this point I decided to raise to $210, as I reckoned it would look no stronger than a flat-call to him and would have the added advantage of possibly getting all the money in on the flop. Like I said, we had tussled before. To my total joy but not total surprise he went all-in and I had the easiest call imaginable.
Overall the week was a disappointment as there were a couple of spells where I lost a bit of focus and started to try to make things happen where the opportunities were not really there. If I am honest with myself, I probably could have made $600-700 if I had played my A- game all week. Like I said, a better player would have probably folded the K7 v 55 hand and that would have saved another $200-300 in equity. On the positive side, I managed to win just short of $1000 in the smaller (non-showdown) pots. This shows that my general level of aggression is OK.
This week I need to maintain my focus at all times. Sometimes I feel as though I am due to hit a run of good situations, like I see others hit day after day. This is just a fallacy: we need to concentrate on maximising all opportunities that come our way. This often means picking up one extra small pot (say $60) every couple of hours. At the time it looks like no big deal but it’s massive in the context of a player’s results.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Behind all week...
By the end of the week the result was a satisfactory one: an $887 win in just over 16 hours of play. However, that doesn’t tell the whole story: not by a long way.
Monday was poor but that loss was recovered immediately on Tuesday. The Wednesday loss was a bit worse than Monday’s but took until Saturday to clear off.
There were three big pots where I lost more than I should have done, as I had position on my opponent in all three cases and should probably have folded the river on all three occasions.
First, I raised a loose early position limper from the button holding AA and we took the 955 flop heads-up. He check-called my solid $70 flop bet. The turn came another 9 and instead of shutting down I decided I would try to get some value for my AA. Again he check-called: this time $200. The river was a 7 and he immediately went all-in. For some reason I couldn’t persuade myself to fold against his obvious full-house and called all-in for $545. He showed J9.
Second, I raised from one off the button with AQ and was re-raised to $110 by a solid regular in the big blind. I decided to call and also called his flop (AJ2) bet of $150. When he checked the blank turn I decided that my hand was probably best and bet $360, which he called. The river was the King of spades which put a third spade on board and despite this scary card he bet all-in. Again, ridiculously, I couldn’t persuade myself that I was beat despite the weight of evidence. He showed AK.
Third, I raised to $70 after 5 limpers and the only caller was a fairly tight regular in first position. The flop came 235 (all spades) which was not great for my red Kings. I checked behind hoping to see a blank on the turn, which came an offsuit Jack. My plan was to make a reasonable bet if checked to and then hopefully check behind on the river. Phase one went OK and I bet $120, but he raised me to $275. I called this, thinking I may have the best hand but I got a sinking feeling when he bet all-in on the river, which was an off-suit Queen. Looking back, I couldn’t beat much that he might play like this, but still called only to be shown 64 of spades for the flopped straight-flush.
So, three big pots played poorly by me. But there were others that went OK. Its just a bit annoying that I couldn’t find a fold in a couple of these pots, as the bottom line for the week would have been so much better.
All in all, despite being behind for much of the week, I was able to hang in there and play somewhere near my best game for long periods and finally get ahead for the week. Looking at the microcosm of a single week’s results isn’t really that helpful but some sort of a review process is necessary if I am to avoid falling into bad habits. Gradually, by playing well, the results will come together and I will be able to look back at a successful year.
This blog will be one year old at the end of this month. Maybe then I will do a review of the year.
Monday was poor but that loss was recovered immediately on Tuesday. The Wednesday loss was a bit worse than Monday’s but took until Saturday to clear off.
There were three big pots where I lost more than I should have done, as I had position on my opponent in all three cases and should probably have folded the river on all three occasions.
First, I raised a loose early position limper from the button holding AA and we took the 955 flop heads-up. He check-called my solid $70 flop bet. The turn came another 9 and instead of shutting down I decided I would try to get some value for my AA. Again he check-called: this time $200. The river was a 7 and he immediately went all-in. For some reason I couldn’t persuade myself to fold against his obvious full-house and called all-in for $545. He showed J9.
Second, I raised from one off the button with AQ and was re-raised to $110 by a solid regular in the big blind. I decided to call and also called his flop (AJ2) bet of $150. When he checked the blank turn I decided that my hand was probably best and bet $360, which he called. The river was the King of spades which put a third spade on board and despite this scary card he bet all-in. Again, ridiculously, I couldn’t persuade myself that I was beat despite the weight of evidence. He showed AK.
Third, I raised to $70 after 5 limpers and the only caller was a fairly tight regular in first position. The flop came 235 (all spades) which was not great for my red Kings. I checked behind hoping to see a blank on the turn, which came an offsuit Jack. My plan was to make a reasonable bet if checked to and then hopefully check behind on the river. Phase one went OK and I bet $120, but he raised me to $275. I called this, thinking I may have the best hand but I got a sinking feeling when he bet all-in on the river, which was an off-suit Queen. Looking back, I couldn’t beat much that he might play like this, but still called only to be shown 64 of spades for the flopped straight-flush.
So, three big pots played poorly by me. But there were others that went OK. Its just a bit annoying that I couldn’t find a fold in a couple of these pots, as the bottom line for the week would have been so much better.
All in all, despite being behind for much of the week, I was able to hang in there and play somewhere near my best game for long periods and finally get ahead for the week. Looking at the microcosm of a single week’s results isn’t really that helpful but some sort of a review process is necessary if I am to avoid falling into bad habits. Gradually, by playing well, the results will come together and I will be able to look back at a successful year.
This blog will be one year old at the end of this month. Maybe then I will do a review of the year.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Back home
Last week was the first time since the re-focus on $5-$10 that I managed to play well all week and the results were great.
I played just under 11 hours and won $2,740. About a half of this was won in 90 minutes on Monday and after that I had a fairly steady run. On Sunday I took the day off.
The surprising thing about the win was the fact that in the big pots I only managed to break even. This shows that I must have won a lot of small and medium-sized pots without going to showdown: actually a rather unusual occurrence as I have been playing much tighter than I had previously. (In hands contested by 7 or more players my VPIP is down to 15%). Maybe I have been better at picking spots to steal the pot by playing fewer hands out of position: something I had been conscious of doing in the last week or so. (Even in the cut-off seat I was down to 12% VPIP, compared with 19% and 23% respectively in the cut-off and buttons seats).
As usual the biggest winning and losing pots happened when either me or my opponent, or both of us, flopped a set. I just about broke even in these situations, on one hand flopping set over set, but on another hitting top two pair against bottom set.
The only other big loser for me during the week was when I got $684 in pre-flop with AQ against AK. This sounds bad but is partially justified as it was heads-up against a very aggressive player.
Another development for me is my newfound ability to multi-table! If I start out at a short-handed table I am happy to play just that one table, but I have started to play a second table if they are both full. This lead to me playing an average of 1.59 tables during the week and I don’t feel as though my play suffered.
I feel reasonably comfortable back at the $5-$10 level now and am confident that in future weeks I can continue on an upward curve. After 3-4 months moving around it now feels like I am back at my ‘home game.’ Let’s hope my future results prove this correct.
I played just under 11 hours and won $2,740. About a half of this was won in 90 minutes on Monday and after that I had a fairly steady run. On Sunday I took the day off.
The surprising thing about the win was the fact that in the big pots I only managed to break even. This shows that I must have won a lot of small and medium-sized pots without going to showdown: actually a rather unusual occurrence as I have been playing much tighter than I had previously. (In hands contested by 7 or more players my VPIP is down to 15%). Maybe I have been better at picking spots to steal the pot by playing fewer hands out of position: something I had been conscious of doing in the last week or so. (Even in the cut-off seat I was down to 12% VPIP, compared with 19% and 23% respectively in the cut-off and buttons seats).
As usual the biggest winning and losing pots happened when either me or my opponent, or both of us, flopped a set. I just about broke even in these situations, on one hand flopping set over set, but on another hitting top two pair against bottom set.
The only other big loser for me during the week was when I got $684 in pre-flop with AQ against AK. This sounds bad but is partially justified as it was heads-up against a very aggressive player.
Another development for me is my newfound ability to multi-table! If I start out at a short-handed table I am happy to play just that one table, but I have started to play a second table if they are both full. This lead to me playing an average of 1.59 tables during the week and I don’t feel as though my play suffered.
I feel reasonably comfortable back at the $5-$10 level now and am confident that in future weeks I can continue on an upward curve. After 3-4 months moving around it now feels like I am back at my ‘home game.’ Let’s hope my future results prove this correct.
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
$5-$10 NLHE (the return)
About three weeks ago I decided to move back to $5-$10 NLHE, despite being short on bankroll. I had been a big winner there for a significant period of time and it is a game I should feel comfortable in. I’ve decided to re-focus on this game.
This was my bread-and-butter for the whole of August, September, October and November last year. I had a bad run in December and lost my nerve a bit, deciding to withdraw a huge chunk of bankroll before moving down and trying other games (mostly PLO). The last few months chopping and changing have been largely unsuccessful and I decided to go back to what worked well for months.
This move has not been without its ups and downs, and so far since my return I have been a small loser. I didn’t help myself in this regard by playing an appalling session on the second day of my move. I realised since then that, maybe because of my Omaha experiences, I was going too far with too many hands. The bad session resulted in a $1400 loss in just under an hour. After this I gave myself a good talking to: I wasn’t entitled to win just because I had won there before. I acknowledged that I would have to play my best game to be a big winner again at this level. Then, a week or so ago, after three good days I had a huge ($3000) losing day. This was very frustrating, although in truth it was largely down to being on the wrong end of 2-3 big coolers.
Last week I broke even ($43 profit, actually) but this was disappointing because I played pretty well for the most part.
Here are some of the questionable plays I made, which cost me my profit for the week:
(1) Raised pre-flop with 77 and check-called a Q92 flop with two spades. I suspected from the odd bet-size that the tight aggressive caller on the button was actually quite weak in this hand. I checked again and decided to raise big (but with little behind as I started the hand with only $650). Unfortunately he had picked up a flush draw to go with his flopped middle pair and so my line had actually priced him in for the call. I bet my remaining $90 on the river, when surely a check would have been better – he cant fold anything because of the size of the pot and he probably wouldn’t bet a weak hand like the one he had.
(2) Playing heads-up (trying to get a new table going as there were huge lists on the other 10-seaters) I limped in the small blind with QQ. I had limped a few times before and often when I did the villain made it $45 or $50 causing me to fold. I decided that I needed to stop him doing this, so I limp-reraised to $150 with 79, causing him to fold. The next time I made that move was this hand with the QQ. He called my re-raise to $150 and the flop came 885 with two clubs. I bet $280 and after a while he flat-called. Alarm bells went off, but I felt compelled to push in my last $569 on the blank turn. He happily called with 98 offsuit.
(3) A loose-aggressive player who I’d tangled with a lot in the past raised in mid-position and there were three callers before it got to me in the big blind with pocket 10s. I decided to reraise to $150 and the opener reraised to $390, folding out all the flat-callers. I got a bit too frisky here and decided to re-raise all-in, thinking that he was putting me on a squeeze play. I was fairly sure that he had something that he wanted to get all-in with (either overcards or a bigger pair) but decided to gamble. He called me with pocket Jacks. I couldnt have played this much worse. First of all, why reraise and create a difficult situation like this? I could have simply paid $35 to try to flop a set (or an overpair, which might have been good). Secondly, why couldn’t I get away from the hand pre-flop after he puts in the third raise? This was clearly a bad spot to get all-in pre-flop and another example of bad play.
On the plus side, I feel I fitted back into the ebb and flow of the game much better last week. There are still one or two weak spots sitting in the games – even some of the ‘new’ regulars – and I am hoping to exploit these players in the coming weeks and months.
There are fewer loose players than there were a few months ago but I feel as though the tighter players can be exploited in certain spots. There’s a big difference between a 16/8 player and a 16/14. Maybe the 16/14 guy is the one who can be 4-bet off his hand when he 3-bets a late position raise. Also, the regulars seem to be very aggressive post-flop; surely to the point of possible exploitation.
Its tough to make money with small pairs as there are fewer multi-way pots than before. Also, there seems to be a lot more reraising from the blinds than previously. I think making the occasional flat-call with AA or KK will be a money-maker against some of the more aggressive post-flop TAGs, with the added advantage that it may attract a ‘squeezer’ in the blinds.
Overall, I think sticking to the same game for a while will help me get back to playing well again. That really is the key to success in this game: play well.
This was my bread-and-butter for the whole of August, September, October and November last year. I had a bad run in December and lost my nerve a bit, deciding to withdraw a huge chunk of bankroll before moving down and trying other games (mostly PLO). The last few months chopping and changing have been largely unsuccessful and I decided to go back to what worked well for months.
This move has not been without its ups and downs, and so far since my return I have been a small loser. I didn’t help myself in this regard by playing an appalling session on the second day of my move. I realised since then that, maybe because of my Omaha experiences, I was going too far with too many hands. The bad session resulted in a $1400 loss in just under an hour. After this I gave myself a good talking to: I wasn’t entitled to win just because I had won there before. I acknowledged that I would have to play my best game to be a big winner again at this level. Then, a week or so ago, after three good days I had a huge ($3000) losing day. This was very frustrating, although in truth it was largely down to being on the wrong end of 2-3 big coolers.
Last week I broke even ($43 profit, actually) but this was disappointing because I played pretty well for the most part.
Here are some of the questionable plays I made, which cost me my profit for the week:
(1) Raised pre-flop with 77 and check-called a Q92 flop with two spades. I suspected from the odd bet-size that the tight aggressive caller on the button was actually quite weak in this hand. I checked again and decided to raise big (but with little behind as I started the hand with only $650). Unfortunately he had picked up a flush draw to go with his flopped middle pair and so my line had actually priced him in for the call. I bet my remaining $90 on the river, when surely a check would have been better – he cant fold anything because of the size of the pot and he probably wouldn’t bet a weak hand like the one he had.
(2) Playing heads-up (trying to get a new table going as there were huge lists on the other 10-seaters) I limped in the small blind with QQ. I had limped a few times before and often when I did the villain made it $45 or $50 causing me to fold. I decided that I needed to stop him doing this, so I limp-reraised to $150 with 79, causing him to fold. The next time I made that move was this hand with the QQ. He called my re-raise to $150 and the flop came 885 with two clubs. I bet $280 and after a while he flat-called. Alarm bells went off, but I felt compelled to push in my last $569 on the blank turn. He happily called with 98 offsuit.
(3) A loose-aggressive player who I’d tangled with a lot in the past raised in mid-position and there were three callers before it got to me in the big blind with pocket 10s. I decided to reraise to $150 and the opener reraised to $390, folding out all the flat-callers. I got a bit too frisky here and decided to re-raise all-in, thinking that he was putting me on a squeeze play. I was fairly sure that he had something that he wanted to get all-in with (either overcards or a bigger pair) but decided to gamble. He called me with pocket Jacks. I couldnt have played this much worse. First of all, why reraise and create a difficult situation like this? I could have simply paid $35 to try to flop a set (or an overpair, which might have been good). Secondly, why couldn’t I get away from the hand pre-flop after he puts in the third raise? This was clearly a bad spot to get all-in pre-flop and another example of bad play.
On the plus side, I feel I fitted back into the ebb and flow of the game much better last week. There are still one or two weak spots sitting in the games – even some of the ‘new’ regulars – and I am hoping to exploit these players in the coming weeks and months.
There are fewer loose players than there were a few months ago but I feel as though the tighter players can be exploited in certain spots. There’s a big difference between a 16/8 player and a 16/14. Maybe the 16/14 guy is the one who can be 4-bet off his hand when he 3-bets a late position raise. Also, the regulars seem to be very aggressive post-flop; surely to the point of possible exploitation.
Its tough to make money with small pairs as there are fewer multi-way pots than before. Also, there seems to be a lot more reraising from the blinds than previously. I think making the occasional flat-call with AA or KK will be a money-maker against some of the more aggressive post-flop TAGs, with the added advantage that it may attract a ‘squeezer’ in the blinds.
Overall, I think sticking to the same game for a while will help me get back to playing well again. That really is the key to success in this game: play well.
Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Back to the future (PLO)
I know I have done a fair bit of shifting about in this blog, with both stakes and game selection, but I have learned a lot about myself and my poker game in the last 9-10 months. I think writing about things has aided the learning process.
That said, I have decided that I should concentrate my efforts on Pot Limit Omaha for the forseeable future. There are a number of reasons for this:
- it is the game of the future (most super-high stakes games are now PLO);
- the fish:shark ratio is higher than at NLHE;
- I am prone to tilt less than I am at NLHE.
I have had very good results so far playing PLO and I am confident that the game suits my personality. I am happy to make decisions based on the odds, win or lose, and am confident that because of the confidence in my play re-inforced by my detailed analysis I am comfortable with the short-term swings.
I have put aside more money from the bankroll to cover expenses for the next few months, so there will be no immediate bankroll pressure. However, I have decided to go back to small stakes and play within bankroll limits and rules, building up to a point where I can maintain a playable bankroll at higher stakes.
The target for April is to play 2 tables of 6max PLO at 50c-$1 blinds, starting with a roll of $1600. (I did actually start with $800 playing 25c-50c but moved up pretty quickly).I hope to get to $3000 by the end of the month and will then move up to $1-$2. If I do happen to lose - these things happen from time to time - and I drop below $800 bankroll I will move down to 25c-50c and rebuild. To be honest I can't see this happening but its important to have a plan for losses.
The $1-$2 level is one that can support a win-rate of about $50 per hour and so its important to try to win consistently at stakes higher than this level, assuming I can win at a higher rate at the higher level. That way, if things do go bad then at least I will be dropping down to a level that can support a decent win-rate.
If I can manage to win at a decent rate at $3-$6 or higher, which isn't that unlikely, then we are entering the territory of significant earnings. However, I don't expect this to happen before August. I then plan to take a 5-buy-in shot at $3-$6 when the bankroll is at $15,000, moving back down to $2-$4 if that is unsuccessful.
I intend to review this plan every month and I will update the blog with future amendments to the plan. However, I do not plan on making as many posts as I have been doing. I have put a lot of effort into writing posts that I thought might appeal to the thinking poker player and I have been disappointed by the lack of comments received, despite having quite a few readers.
That said, I have decided that I should concentrate my efforts on Pot Limit Omaha for the forseeable future. There are a number of reasons for this:
- it is the game of the future (most super-high stakes games are now PLO);
- the fish:shark ratio is higher than at NLHE;
- I am prone to tilt less than I am at NLHE.
I have had very good results so far playing PLO and I am confident that the game suits my personality. I am happy to make decisions based on the odds, win or lose, and am confident that because of the confidence in my play re-inforced by my detailed analysis I am comfortable with the short-term swings.
I have put aside more money from the bankroll to cover expenses for the next few months, so there will be no immediate bankroll pressure. However, I have decided to go back to small stakes and play within bankroll limits and rules, building up to a point where I can maintain a playable bankroll at higher stakes.
The target for April is to play 2 tables of 6max PLO at 50c-$1 blinds, starting with a roll of $1600. (I did actually start with $800 playing 25c-50c but moved up pretty quickly).I hope to get to $3000 by the end of the month and will then move up to $1-$2. If I do happen to lose - these things happen from time to time - and I drop below $800 bankroll I will move down to 25c-50c and rebuild. To be honest I can't see this happening but its important to have a plan for losses.
The $1-$2 level is one that can support a win-rate of about $50 per hour and so its important to try to win consistently at stakes higher than this level, assuming I can win at a higher rate at the higher level. That way, if things do go bad then at least I will be dropping down to a level that can support a decent win-rate.
If I can manage to win at a decent rate at $3-$6 or higher, which isn't that unlikely, then we are entering the territory of significant earnings. However, I don't expect this to happen before August. I then plan to take a 5-buy-in shot at $3-$6 when the bankroll is at $15,000, moving back down to $2-$4 if that is unsuccessful.
I intend to review this plan every month and I will update the blog with future amendments to the plan. However, I do not plan on making as many posts as I have been doing. I have put a lot of effort into writing posts that I thought might appeal to the thinking poker player and I have been disappointed by the lack of comments received, despite having quite a few readers.
Tuesday, 25 March 2008
Over-confidence?
I ended up down about $300 last week after 15 hours of play, so very disappointing after an excellent week before that.
I’ve read other blogs, notably Brian Townsend’s and he has often suffered from “bad week after good syndrome”. I think I may suffer from this slightly. I guess it boils down to overconfidence. Sometimes we have passages of play where we seem to make very few bad decisions. Its likely that there is a lot of luck – unseen luck - in this series of events. For example, a perfect card can come up allowing us to represent a big hand, or a number of big hands and make it easy for us to bluff. Or we avoid scare cards when we are betting to protect our own hand. We might play 5 hands estimating that each time there is a 80% chance that our opponent will fold to a big bluff. Let’s say he folds the first 4 times, then calls us on the fifth: we were right at estimating 80% and overall we made money, but if the first three times happened in the winning week it looks like we are a poker genius, but the next week not so clever.
I made lots of moves in the past losing week that were similar to the moves I made in the big winning week but there was something not quite right about some of them. Its like an inner alarm bell starts ringing as you are about to fire a third barrel chasing a pot you have bluffed at twice already.
The first barrel isn’t really a bluff: it’s a bet that feels out the opponent to see if he has any interest in the pot. The second barrel is an attempt to see if he is serious. At this point we need to try to work out what our foe has and also decide if he is capable of folding. Only when we can be confident that he isn’t strong can we decide that a third barrel might be a good idea. Even then, we need to consider the type of opponent and also think about what he thinks of us. Sometimes there is a plausible story behind the cards and it all points to us having him beat. Tight opponents will often find an excuse to fold decent hands under pressure here. However, all of this needs to be right before we can justify firing again with nothing.
This week I got called a lot more when bluffing than I did the previous week. I guess this was because I had fewer decent opportunities to bluff but still made the moves despite the situations not being perfect. Sometimes I recognised this at the time but still fired: that’s a problem that needs to be addressed. Other times I realised afterwards that it probably wasn’t a good idea. There were probably some other times where it wasn’t a great move but I got away with it anyhow.
It really doesn’t make much sense to try and take too much from one week’s results. There are too many factors affecting these results that we cannot quantify and that are out of our control ie, down to luck. However, its important to review on a regular basis to avoid drifting into bad habits.
The reality of the situation is that the big winning week was not a true reflection of my play, despite my attempts to quantify luck. Just the same, the losing week probably wasn’t a pure reflection of my play either, although its prudent to look more closely at losses than wins.
My 2008 win-rate so far is now $51.70 per hour, compared with $49.10 in 2007, so overall things are going OK.
I’ve read other blogs, notably Brian Townsend’s and he has often suffered from “bad week after good syndrome”. I think I may suffer from this slightly. I guess it boils down to overconfidence. Sometimes we have passages of play where we seem to make very few bad decisions. Its likely that there is a lot of luck – unseen luck - in this series of events. For example, a perfect card can come up allowing us to represent a big hand, or a number of big hands and make it easy for us to bluff. Or we avoid scare cards when we are betting to protect our own hand. We might play 5 hands estimating that each time there is a 80% chance that our opponent will fold to a big bluff. Let’s say he folds the first 4 times, then calls us on the fifth: we were right at estimating 80% and overall we made money, but if the first three times happened in the winning week it looks like we are a poker genius, but the next week not so clever.
I made lots of moves in the past losing week that were similar to the moves I made in the big winning week but there was something not quite right about some of them. Its like an inner alarm bell starts ringing as you are about to fire a third barrel chasing a pot you have bluffed at twice already.
The first barrel isn’t really a bluff: it’s a bet that feels out the opponent to see if he has any interest in the pot. The second barrel is an attempt to see if he is serious. At this point we need to try to work out what our foe has and also decide if he is capable of folding. Only when we can be confident that he isn’t strong can we decide that a third barrel might be a good idea. Even then, we need to consider the type of opponent and also think about what he thinks of us. Sometimes there is a plausible story behind the cards and it all points to us having him beat. Tight opponents will often find an excuse to fold decent hands under pressure here. However, all of this needs to be right before we can justify firing again with nothing.
This week I got called a lot more when bluffing than I did the previous week. I guess this was because I had fewer decent opportunities to bluff but still made the moves despite the situations not being perfect. Sometimes I recognised this at the time but still fired: that’s a problem that needs to be addressed. Other times I realised afterwards that it probably wasn’t a good idea. There were probably some other times where it wasn’t a great move but I got away with it anyhow.
It really doesn’t make much sense to try and take too much from one week’s results. There are too many factors affecting these results that we cannot quantify and that are out of our control ie, down to luck. However, its important to review on a regular basis to avoid drifting into bad habits.
The reality of the situation is that the big winning week was not a true reflection of my play, despite my attempts to quantify luck. Just the same, the losing week probably wasn’t a pure reflection of my play either, although its prudent to look more closely at losses than wins.
My 2008 win-rate so far is now $51.70 per hour, compared with $49.10 in 2007, so overall things are going OK.
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Tell me why I don't like losses?
I don’t like losing but I actually find it much easier to write about losses than wins: writing about wins sounds too much like bragging. Also, I find that the review of losses is very useful, helping me deal with them from an emotional standpoint as well as help prevent me from making similar mistakes in the future. As much as I realise these things happen, I thought it would be good for me to spend a little time putting down my thoughts on paper, as well as review where the money went.
After a good day on Monday where I won about $450 I ran into a downturn. Tuesday’s losses wiped out Monday’s gains and I lost a further $850+ on Wednesday.
It started to go wrong when I continued playing on a table where 4 of the other 5 players were tight and aggressive. I had been raising a lot of pots and taking most of the ones I raised without a fight. Obviously these are only small pots and the problem here is that these opponents don’t call pre-flop: they re-raise mostly and so you are forced to either fold or put a decent chunk in with a marginal hand at best. Instead of leaving the table and looking for looser opponents I continued playing. TAGs generally play by formula: by which I mean they don’t make major adjustments for how their opponents are playing. If they re-raise your button raise from the big blind they don’t have A9, they likely have a 10,10+ or AQ+.
One of the TAGs in early position raised to $14 and I re-raised on his left to $42 with JJ. He then re-raised to $125 and I managed to convince myself that he had opened up his 4-betting range to combat my loose-aggressive play. Despite the fact that I had been raising a lot, JJ was the best hand I had seen for a while and I decided that I wasn’t going to fold it. I went all-in for $406 and he snap-called with KK. The now-obvious problem here was that he had not adjusted to the way I was playing and so I should have easily folded my hand. Then I should have left the table, as not only was it not a good set-up, but after folding to a 4-bet my image would then have been that of a bully who cant stand up to being pushed back.
That was the only major poor play on Tuesday but there were a couple of other smaller ones and no good ones of any value.
Wednesday was much worse:
Again I was on a table with mostly TAGs, and so was raising a lot of pots, winning most uncontested. I raised in middle position with K9 and was called on the button by one of the slightly looser TAGs. I bet the 10-high flop, to ‘prevent the flush draw from getting a free card’. Then I checked the Q on the turn which completed the flush. The button checked behind and I decided to fire on the river, another Q, for $64. This bet made no sense at all. If I had the flush or a Queen surely I would have bet something on the turn. He sniffed out the bluff and called with A10.
Even worse was to follow. I raised with K8s in late position and was re-raised from the big blind by a TAG. I had mostly folded when re-raised, something that had started to happen more and more, so maybe the others were starting to react to my constant raising. This time I decided to call and make a move on the flop. The flop came 422 and he bet out for $60 (about 2/3) of the pot, and I went all-in for $190. He couldn’t call quick enough with KK, leaving me drawing almost dead.
Fifteen minutes later on another table, the same TAG raised to $16 in early position and I re-popped him from the big blind with KK. I lead out on the Q-high flop and he raised me all-in, which I happily called for just over $200 total. He had AA: nice hand, again.
After a break I came back to the tables later on, and my first hand of major consequence came after I had aggressively more than doubled my starting stack to $432 without showing down a hand. I raised in early position to $16 and was re-raised to $48 by yet another TAG. This time I just called, looking for a non-Ace flop to commit; this despite the very real possibility that he held the Aces. I check-raised all-in on the 965 flop and he was happy to call with AA.
By this time I was starting to get a bit annoyed. I looked back at my stats and noted that I had ran KK into AA only 5 times previously in about 7 months of play, only for it to happen twice on the same day. On the plus side, I had held AA against KK five times so far since I started maintaining this blog, so you just have to accept it as one of those things.
I managed to actually get a couple of decent wins under my belt and was starting to feel a bit more confident. After all, my losses weren’t huge despite the KK v AA occurrences and some other ropey decision-making. However, the evening session ended on a sour note.
I had had a brief scuffle with another loose aggressive player and had got the better of him so far. Then I re-raised him with K9 and he called with what turned out to be J9. I flopped pretty good, with KT7 and made a near-pot-sized bet which he called. Then when a Q hit the turn I set him all-in for slightly more than the pot, figuring that even if he hit a gutshot I didn’t mind as I had made him pay substantially for it. Obviously, as it turns out he had a double-belly-buster so his post-flop play was fine.
There was just time for one more bad play, as low stacked ($144) I decided that 88 was good enough to go to the felt, following a pre-flop raise and 2 callers, with a board showing QT4,Q. My opponent held JT and decided correctly that I was playing badly enough to put my money in with a hand he could beat.
That was the last straw and I decided that I would have to call it a day there. A poor day it has to be said.
So, after three days, I have managed to lose over $800 this week. Although not a disaster I am a bit annoyed that I have made some plays that I knew (or felt) were probably wrong at the time that I made them. This didn’t stop me from making these plays, which shows a poor discipline.
Having said all this, there are some positives.
I had a great week last week when most of my decisions turned out well. Obviously there is an element of regression to the mean here. By that I mean that if my bluff-raises were correct 90% of the time, last week I got away with all of them but this week I got caught a few times, resulting in an over-all success rate of 90%: still pretty good.
My radar is working OK, but I need to learn to trust it a bit more. I sensed I was up against big hands a number of times: notably the JJ v KK, the K8s v KK, the 2nd KK v AA. I think I could have folded the JJ and definitely should have given up on the K8 hand. As for the KK v AA, that’s just bad luck, end of story.
There were a couple of times I out-played the TAGs and won decent pots with nothing. One time I called with a straight draw on an Ace-high flop with flush potential. When the flush card came on the turn I raised the TAGs weak lead bet and followed through to make him fold the river.
Despite losing I still enjoyed the challenge of the last couple of days and feel as though the review process has helped me improve my knowledge of self as well as my opponent- and situation-reading skills. Also, I shouldn’t really grumble as I have managed to maintain a win rate of over $50 per hour since May 29 2007.
Here’s hoping that the cards are a bit nicer to me in the coming days. Although, the bottom line is this: whatever you get dealt, you need to play those cards and that situation to the best of your ability. Only then can you hope to be a winner.
After a good day on Monday where I won about $450 I ran into a downturn. Tuesday’s losses wiped out Monday’s gains and I lost a further $850+ on Wednesday.
It started to go wrong when I continued playing on a table where 4 of the other 5 players were tight and aggressive. I had been raising a lot of pots and taking most of the ones I raised without a fight. Obviously these are only small pots and the problem here is that these opponents don’t call pre-flop: they re-raise mostly and so you are forced to either fold or put a decent chunk in with a marginal hand at best. Instead of leaving the table and looking for looser opponents I continued playing. TAGs generally play by formula: by which I mean they don’t make major adjustments for how their opponents are playing. If they re-raise your button raise from the big blind they don’t have A9, they likely have a 10,10+ or AQ+.
One of the TAGs in early position raised to $14 and I re-raised on his left to $42 with JJ. He then re-raised to $125 and I managed to convince myself that he had opened up his 4-betting range to combat my loose-aggressive play. Despite the fact that I had been raising a lot, JJ was the best hand I had seen for a while and I decided that I wasn’t going to fold it. I went all-in for $406 and he snap-called with KK. The now-obvious problem here was that he had not adjusted to the way I was playing and so I should have easily folded my hand. Then I should have left the table, as not only was it not a good set-up, but after folding to a 4-bet my image would then have been that of a bully who cant stand up to being pushed back.
That was the only major poor play on Tuesday but there were a couple of other smaller ones and no good ones of any value.
Wednesday was much worse:
Again I was on a table with mostly TAGs, and so was raising a lot of pots, winning most uncontested. I raised in middle position with K9 and was called on the button by one of the slightly looser TAGs. I bet the 10-high flop, to ‘prevent the flush draw from getting a free card’. Then I checked the Q on the turn which completed the flush. The button checked behind and I decided to fire on the river, another Q, for $64. This bet made no sense at all. If I had the flush or a Queen surely I would have bet something on the turn. He sniffed out the bluff and called with A10.
Even worse was to follow. I raised with K8s in late position and was re-raised from the big blind by a TAG. I had mostly folded when re-raised, something that had started to happen more and more, so maybe the others were starting to react to my constant raising. This time I decided to call and make a move on the flop. The flop came 422 and he bet out for $60 (about 2/3) of the pot, and I went all-in for $190. He couldn’t call quick enough with KK, leaving me drawing almost dead.
Fifteen minutes later on another table, the same TAG raised to $16 in early position and I re-popped him from the big blind with KK. I lead out on the Q-high flop and he raised me all-in, which I happily called for just over $200 total. He had AA: nice hand, again.
After a break I came back to the tables later on, and my first hand of major consequence came after I had aggressively more than doubled my starting stack to $432 without showing down a hand. I raised in early position to $16 and was re-raised to $48 by yet another TAG. This time I just called, looking for a non-Ace flop to commit; this despite the very real possibility that he held the Aces. I check-raised all-in on the 965 flop and he was happy to call with AA.
By this time I was starting to get a bit annoyed. I looked back at my stats and noted that I had ran KK into AA only 5 times previously in about 7 months of play, only for it to happen twice on the same day. On the plus side, I had held AA against KK five times so far since I started maintaining this blog, so you just have to accept it as one of those things.
I managed to actually get a couple of decent wins under my belt and was starting to feel a bit more confident. After all, my losses weren’t huge despite the KK v AA occurrences and some other ropey decision-making. However, the evening session ended on a sour note.
I had had a brief scuffle with another loose aggressive player and had got the better of him so far. Then I re-raised him with K9 and he called with what turned out to be J9. I flopped pretty good, with KT7 and made a near-pot-sized bet which he called. Then when a Q hit the turn I set him all-in for slightly more than the pot, figuring that even if he hit a gutshot I didn’t mind as I had made him pay substantially for it. Obviously, as it turns out he had a double-belly-buster so his post-flop play was fine.
There was just time for one more bad play, as low stacked ($144) I decided that 88 was good enough to go to the felt, following a pre-flop raise and 2 callers, with a board showing QT4,Q. My opponent held JT and decided correctly that I was playing badly enough to put my money in with a hand he could beat.
That was the last straw and I decided that I would have to call it a day there. A poor day it has to be said.
So, after three days, I have managed to lose over $800 this week. Although not a disaster I am a bit annoyed that I have made some plays that I knew (or felt) were probably wrong at the time that I made them. This didn’t stop me from making these plays, which shows a poor discipline.
Having said all this, there are some positives.
I had a great week last week when most of my decisions turned out well. Obviously there is an element of regression to the mean here. By that I mean that if my bluff-raises were correct 90% of the time, last week I got away with all of them but this week I got caught a few times, resulting in an over-all success rate of 90%: still pretty good.
My radar is working OK, but I need to learn to trust it a bit more. I sensed I was up against big hands a number of times: notably the JJ v KK, the K8s v KK, the 2nd KK v AA. I think I could have folded the JJ and definitely should have given up on the K8 hand. As for the KK v AA, that’s just bad luck, end of story.
There were a couple of times I out-played the TAGs and won decent pots with nothing. One time I called with a straight draw on an Ace-high flop with flush potential. When the flush card came on the turn I raised the TAGs weak lead bet and followed through to make him fold the river.
Despite losing I still enjoyed the challenge of the last couple of days and feel as though the review process has helped me improve my knowledge of self as well as my opponent- and situation-reading skills. Also, I shouldn’t really grumble as I have managed to maintain a win rate of over $50 per hour since May 29 2007.
Here’s hoping that the cards are a bit nicer to me in the coming days. Although, the bottom line is this: whatever you get dealt, you need to play those cards and that situation to the best of your ability. Only then can you hope to be a winner.
Monday, 17 March 2008
Hold 'em again
I had a couple of bad days playing PLO the week before last and decided to check out the scenery at the $1-$2 and $2-$4 NLHE games. Things looked a lot more rosy than I remembered and there was quite a bit of action. I decided to play for a while and managed to get out of the small hole I had dug for myself at PLO.
This week I have played all NLHE, all at $2-$4 buying in for $200. I have played just one table at a time and tried to be more aggressive than in the past. The results have been spectacular: in less than 14 hours I managed to win more than $2,000. I think I have enough objectivity to be able to judge that I have not been running particularly well as far as hitting hands goes.
I feel as though I've been bluffing really well this week. I cant remember having an out-and-out bluff called for ages. As a result I have been able to drag lots of pots in the $100-$150 range with no hand. Having said that, its often needed a bet of $150 or more to achieve this, so you dont need too many bluffs to go wrong before you lose a big chunk of change.
The real value in NLHE comes from getting your bets called, or calling bets, with the best hand. In this area I had a good week too. So all in all, everything in the NLHE garden looks rosy*.
This week I will be trying more of the same although, for various reasons, I might struggle to get a decent number of hours in. A nice $500 win in 10 hours of play would feel like a big come-down after last week's profits deluge, but its important to remember that things rarely flow smoothly for long in this game. What I must remember is that aggression and bluffing is only successful when supported by timing. A good week can follow this week too if I can get the timing right again.
* - remember, the value of investments can go down as well as up - just take a look at the US (and hopefully soon the UK) property market.
This week I have played all NLHE, all at $2-$4 buying in for $200. I have played just one table at a time and tried to be more aggressive than in the past. The results have been spectacular: in less than 14 hours I managed to win more than $2,000. I think I have enough objectivity to be able to judge that I have not been running particularly well as far as hitting hands goes.
I feel as though I've been bluffing really well this week. I cant remember having an out-and-out bluff called for ages. As a result I have been able to drag lots of pots in the $100-$150 range with no hand. Having said that, its often needed a bet of $150 or more to achieve this, so you dont need too many bluffs to go wrong before you lose a big chunk of change.
The real value in NLHE comes from getting your bets called, or calling bets, with the best hand. In this area I had a good week too. So all in all, everything in the NLHE garden looks rosy*.
This week I will be trying more of the same although, for various reasons, I might struggle to get a decent number of hours in. A nice $500 win in 10 hours of play would feel like a big come-down after last week's profits deluge, but its important to remember that things rarely flow smoothly for long in this game. What I must remember is that aggression and bluffing is only successful when supported by timing. A good week can follow this week too if I can get the timing right again.
* - remember, the value of investments can go down as well as up - just take a look at the US (and hopefully soon the UK) property market.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Back from holiday
Just returned from a fabulous 15-day holiday in Florida which took in a 3-day cruise to the Bahamas as well as visiting many of the Orlando area’s attractions.
I missed my target for the Disney challenge by about $600 in the end, although I did manage to win about $550 on the electronic poker table in the casino on the cruise ship Carnival Sensation.
This was without doubt the softest game of NLHE (blinds $1-$2) that I have ever played in. The only problem really was that most of the players bought in for the minimum of $40 and the players were loose / passive so it required a fair bit of patience to win the money.
As far as playing on an electronic table goes, at these stakes with beginner players, I am all for it. The main advantage over the dealer-dealt game is the pace of play. The only disadvantage really was the high rake (10% max $6) although most players were so bad it wasn’t tough to beat and there was no dealer to tip.
We managed to spend a fair bit of money on the trip and so the bankroll must take a hit to cover it. I have withdrawn just over $5000, leaving a roll of just $6000. This means that I need to go back to grind-mode. For the coming weeks I will be 3-or 4-tabling full-ring PLO $200.
My next goal has been set: YTD winnings to be $14,000 by the end of April. I believe this is realistic but I will reassess at the end of March: if it starts to look too tough or too easy (unlikely) I will set another target up until the end of May. The aim is to have a bankroll of somewhere near $20k at the end of May, as I will need to restart regular withdrawals for monthly expenses.
I missed my target for the Disney challenge by about $600 in the end, although I did manage to win about $550 on the electronic poker table in the casino on the cruise ship Carnival Sensation.
This was without doubt the softest game of NLHE (blinds $1-$2) that I have ever played in. The only problem really was that most of the players bought in for the minimum of $40 and the players were loose / passive so it required a fair bit of patience to win the money.
As far as playing on an electronic table goes, at these stakes with beginner players, I am all for it. The main advantage over the dealer-dealt game is the pace of play. The only disadvantage really was the high rake (10% max $6) although most players were so bad it wasn’t tough to beat and there was no dealer to tip.
We managed to spend a fair bit of money on the trip and so the bankroll must take a hit to cover it. I have withdrawn just over $5000, leaving a roll of just $6000. This means that I need to go back to grind-mode. For the coming weeks I will be 3-or 4-tabling full-ring PLO $200.
My next goal has been set: YTD winnings to be $14,000 by the end of April. I believe this is realistic but I will reassess at the end of March: if it starts to look too tough or too easy (unlikely) I will set another target up until the end of May. The aim is to have a bankroll of somewhere near $20k at the end of May, as I will need to restart regular withdrawals for monthly expenses.
Monday, 11 February 2008
Game selection
I've had a really good week this last week and this has been due in large parts to sitting in really good games.
I noticed earlier in the week that some bad players from the $200 game were playing in the $600 game and there was even one sitting in the $1000 game with about $800. These looked like games to sit in and take a shot. Also, I spotted a player who was a total maniac at NLHE and he looked like he thought he could profitably play any 4 cards.
Things worked out nicely early on, which was good because I had only earmarked a small proportion of the bankroll to this foray. I concentrated on playing a single table of $1000 PLO and managed to win over a buy-in without doing anything startling. Basically the bad players just gave their money away in bits and bobs. Later I won a bit more playing the $600 game and had a decent session last night in the $400 game.
I actually enjoyed going back to one table and this is something I may try and stick to for a while if I am to play above the $200 game. I think for the long-run goal of becoming a decent PLO player it is essential that I give myself more time to think about how to play my situations as well as being able to spend a bit more time analysing the bad players in the game. This is currently not possible for me when playing 2-4 tables. Its not like I am enough of a PLO expert to be able to play by rote!
I also had a dabble short-stacking the $2000 game with a $400 buy-in, as there was an empty seat to the right of the two most aggressive players in the game. After a lot of folding I was able to get my money in nicely, winning a low-risk $200 or so in less than an hour. These games don't get started very often but there is definitely a possibility that I will try this again.
The good result this week means that the Disney target has been achieved, although I must be careful, as the value of investments may go down as well as up. Its not in the bag until its actually in the bag.
We go on holiday for 15 days on Friday so there's only a few more days left in the month for me as far as poker is concerned. Another couple of nice results would pad the bankroll to give me a nice cushion on my return from the sun.
I noticed earlier in the week that some bad players from the $200 game were playing in the $600 game and there was even one sitting in the $1000 game with about $800. These looked like games to sit in and take a shot. Also, I spotted a player who was a total maniac at NLHE and he looked like he thought he could profitably play any 4 cards.
Things worked out nicely early on, which was good because I had only earmarked a small proportion of the bankroll to this foray. I concentrated on playing a single table of $1000 PLO and managed to win over a buy-in without doing anything startling. Basically the bad players just gave their money away in bits and bobs. Later I won a bit more playing the $600 game and had a decent session last night in the $400 game.
I actually enjoyed going back to one table and this is something I may try and stick to for a while if I am to play above the $200 game. I think for the long-run goal of becoming a decent PLO player it is essential that I give myself more time to think about how to play my situations as well as being able to spend a bit more time analysing the bad players in the game. This is currently not possible for me when playing 2-4 tables. Its not like I am enough of a PLO expert to be able to play by rote!
I also had a dabble short-stacking the $2000 game with a $400 buy-in, as there was an empty seat to the right of the two most aggressive players in the game. After a lot of folding I was able to get my money in nicely, winning a low-risk $200 or so in less than an hour. These games don't get started very often but there is definitely a possibility that I will try this again.
The good result this week means that the Disney target has been achieved, although I must be careful, as the value of investments may go down as well as up. Its not in the bag until its actually in the bag.
We go on holiday for 15 days on Friday so there's only a few more days left in the month for me as far as poker is concerned. Another couple of nice results would pad the bankroll to give me a nice cushion on my return from the sun.
Friday, 8 February 2008
PLO - big draw v the current nuts
A hand came up last night that got me thinking about PLO in a bit more depth.
I had AsJh10d7s and opened for 18 in the $600 game. The button (on the tight/passive side) and the big blind (decent) called me, so we took the flop 3-handed with 57 in the pot.
The flop was Jd10s8s, giving me top two pairs plus the nut flush-draw. I bet 54 and got raised to 217 by the button. After the BB folded, it was back to me and with the money in the pot already I had too much to fold. The decision was re-raise all-in or just call and re-evaluate on the turn.
My thinking at the time was as follows:
He must have the nut straight (Q9), but probably not a total monster like QJJ9. Hopefully he doesn’t have any spades (reducing my flush chances). I probably have enough outs to correctly call the rest (365) to see the river even if I miss on the turn. If I hit one of my outs I can give him the chance to put the rest of his money in when in pretty bad shape.
There are a few problems with this line of thinking:
If I hit my hand on the turn it will be obvious and he is unlikely to pay me off.
I am unlikely to be drawing dead on the turn, so waiting for a ‘safe card’ here is silly.
Assuming I don’t make my hand on the turn, I am opting to put a large chunk of my money in at approx 25-30% equity when I could have just lumped it in on the flop at 45-50% [2].
I should have just re-raised all-in on the flop and took the toss-up. (I actually had 48% equity against his hand).
This lead me to the following conclusion about how to play a big draw against the current nuts:
Against the nut straight: the flush-draw + full-house draw should get all-in on the flop [2]
Against top set: straight draws + flush draw should keep some money back in case the board pairs on the turn. If the drawing hand hits on the turn, it will be tough for the top set to fold. If a non-pairing blank comes, it is still likely to be correct to call a PSB on the turn [3].
[1] unless he had something as nasty as Qs9sThTc, then I would really be in trouble with only 28% equity on the flop
[2] unless the money is really deep
[3] this is very different thinking to that required to play NLHE
I had AsJh10d7s and opened for 18 in the $600 game. The button (on the tight/passive side) and the big blind (decent) called me, so we took the flop 3-handed with 57 in the pot.
The flop was Jd10s8s, giving me top two pairs plus the nut flush-draw. I bet 54 and got raised to 217 by the button. After the BB folded, it was back to me and with the money in the pot already I had too much to fold. The decision was re-raise all-in or just call and re-evaluate on the turn.
My thinking at the time was as follows:
He must have the nut straight (Q9), but probably not a total monster like QJJ9. Hopefully he doesn’t have any spades (reducing my flush chances). I probably have enough outs to correctly call the rest (365) to see the river even if I miss on the turn. If I hit one of my outs I can give him the chance to put the rest of his money in when in pretty bad shape.
There are a few problems with this line of thinking:
If I hit my hand on the turn it will be obvious and he is unlikely to pay me off.
I am unlikely to be drawing dead on the turn, so waiting for a ‘safe card’ here is silly.
Assuming I don’t make my hand on the turn, I am opting to put a large chunk of my money in at approx 25-30% equity when I could have just lumped it in on the flop at 45-50% [2].
I should have just re-raised all-in on the flop and took the toss-up. (I actually had 48% equity against his hand).
This lead me to the following conclusion about how to play a big draw against the current nuts:
Against the nut straight: the flush-draw + full-house draw should get all-in on the flop [2]
Against top set: straight draws + flush draw should keep some money back in case the board pairs on the turn. If the drawing hand hits on the turn, it will be tough for the top set to fold. If a non-pairing blank comes, it is still likely to be correct to call a PSB on the turn [3].
[1] unless he had something as nasty as Qs9sThTc, then I would really be in trouble with only 28% equity on the flop
[2] unless the money is really deep
[3] this is very different thinking to that required to play NLHE
Tuesday, 5 February 2008
Solid but unspectacular start to 2008
I’ve decided to reinstate the monthly results updates from now. The main reason for this is that I want to have some degree of accountability, which was the main reason I started this blog in the first place. So, January 08 is in the bag and after approx 68 hours play I managed a win of $3445. Not a fantastic result but steady enough I guess. After a bad month in December it was nice to get back to winning ways.
I’m struggling with the Disney target ($6000 in the first 6 weeks of the year) but this is as much to do with volume as quality of play. I would like to achieve the target but I mustn’t let it rule my thought processes when playing.
Going forward it would be nice to improve the hourly rate above the $70 per hour I have made so far at $200 PLO, although I guess $100 per hour is probably the maximum achievable playing 2-4 tables.
At the moment I have only a laptop screen (max res 1280 x 800) and am unable to play without quite a lot of table overlap. I suspect that this is not helping the bottom line. I could do with a more professional set-up but then my evening sessions would feel much more like working than playing. I really ought to consider getting a decent monitor that will allow me to fit 4 tables with no overlap.
I’m struggling with the Disney target ($6000 in the first 6 weeks of the year) but this is as much to do with volume as quality of play. I would like to achieve the target but I mustn’t let it rule my thought processes when playing.
Going forward it would be nice to improve the hourly rate above the $70 per hour I have made so far at $200 PLO, although I guess $100 per hour is probably the maximum achievable playing 2-4 tables.
At the moment I have only a laptop screen (max res 1280 x 800) and am unable to play without quite a lot of table overlap. I suspect that this is not helping the bottom line. I could do with a more professional set-up but then my evening sessions would feel much more like working than playing. I really ought to consider getting a decent monitor that will allow me to fit 4 tables with no overlap.
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Variance in PLO
I’ve constantly read that there’s a lot of variance in PLO. I have only recently started tracking my results (using Poker Tracker and my own Luck Calculator) and had found that my luck-adjusted results were fairly steady. This is good news, as obviously it shows that overall I have been getting the money in when in good shape.
Luck-wise, I had been on a steady upwards curve, to the point where at one point in the $200 game I had been lucky to the tune of over $2,000 - 10 buy-ins! This came down a bit but the last two days – only 730 hands – I have seen this continue a further $1,450 down. The good news is that for the two days my luck-adjusted result is a profit of $30.
I note from my records that I have played 252 big [1] pots in the $200 PLO game in a period of 8,451 hands. This works out at one big pot every 34 hands. Compare this with 385 out of 20,267 hands in the $1000 NLHE game – just one every 53 hands.
So what does this tell me? Good question. Well, it looks like there are more big pots in PLO than NLHE. Maybe that’s why they call it the action game. Apart from that, there are no solid conclusions that can be drawn without looking a bit deeper.
My edge so far in PLO is 14% whereas it was only 6% in NLHE, so it’s a bit like comparing apples with oranges. The higher edge in PLO should indicate that the long-run is reached in a much shorter time frame than in NLHE. This is good news.
However, anecdotally, many more pots in PLO are 55/45 or 60/40 than in NLHE. This would indicate that in a short time frame, it’s possible to have a really big swing up or down by winning or losing a high proportion of these coin-flips. I guess this is what’s happened to me these last two days.
The good news is PLO involves a lot less guesswork than NLHE and I believe the pot-limit structure adds to the skill element too. This enables me to play 2-3 tables at once whereas I was unable to maintain a winning style playing more than one table at NLHE.
All in all, it looks like the PLO $200 game can be as profitable for me as the $1000 NLHE game. This is great news, as the bankroll requirements are probably at least 50% lower. The bottom line is: although PLO has huge short-term variance, because a winning player can gain a bigger advantage the long-term is reached much quicker and so variance becomes irrelevant. This assumes that you have the bankroll to cover the short-terms swings and you can remain unaffected by bad luck, continuing to play the same solid game whether the chips make it your way or not.
[1] defined as total value $80 or more.
Luck-wise, I had been on a steady upwards curve, to the point where at one point in the $200 game I had been lucky to the tune of over $2,000 - 10 buy-ins! This came down a bit but the last two days – only 730 hands – I have seen this continue a further $1,450 down. The good news is that for the two days my luck-adjusted result is a profit of $30.
I note from my records that I have played 252 big [1] pots in the $200 PLO game in a period of 8,451 hands. This works out at one big pot every 34 hands. Compare this with 385 out of 20,267 hands in the $1000 NLHE game – just one every 53 hands.
So what does this tell me? Good question. Well, it looks like there are more big pots in PLO than NLHE. Maybe that’s why they call it the action game. Apart from that, there are no solid conclusions that can be drawn without looking a bit deeper.
My edge so far in PLO is 14% whereas it was only 6% in NLHE, so it’s a bit like comparing apples with oranges. The higher edge in PLO should indicate that the long-run is reached in a much shorter time frame than in NLHE. This is good news.
However, anecdotally, many more pots in PLO are 55/45 or 60/40 than in NLHE. This would indicate that in a short time frame, it’s possible to have a really big swing up or down by winning or losing a high proportion of these coin-flips. I guess this is what’s happened to me these last two days.
The good news is PLO involves a lot less guesswork than NLHE and I believe the pot-limit structure adds to the skill element too. This enables me to play 2-3 tables at once whereas I was unable to maintain a winning style playing more than one table at NLHE.
All in all, it looks like the PLO $200 game can be as profitable for me as the $1000 NLHE game. This is great news, as the bankroll requirements are probably at least 50% lower. The bottom line is: although PLO has huge short-term variance, because a winning player can gain a bigger advantage the long-term is reached much quicker and so variance becomes irrelevant. This assumes that you have the bankroll to cover the short-terms swings and you can remain unaffected by bad luck, continuing to play the same solid game whether the chips make it your way or not.
[1] defined as total value $80 or more.
Monday, 28 January 2008
Focus on $200 PLO
I’ve spent a bit of time playing PLO8 at ($200 and $400 buy-ins) and PLO (at both levels too) in the last couple of weeks. If I am honest with myself I have not performed well at PLO8 (both levels) or PLO $400. In PLO8 it’s generally down to a lack of experience in the game: I simply haven’t worked out a winning strategy yet. In PLO $400 I have been too aggressive in the pots I have played and have got my money in from way behind too many times.
On Monday I decided that I must stick to PLO $200 for the foreseeable future. This is for the simple reasons that I have until now performed well in these games and my bankroll of $12k is simply not enough to play the $400 buy-in game, where I am not even sure that I am a long-term winner.
I had a steady but unspectacular week, managing to play over 17 hours. Although I made plenty of mistakes, there were still plenty of players playing a lot worse than I do.
One thing I discovered this week when analysing past hands is the huge impact having a ‘live’ flush draw has on the value of a drawing hand.
Example
I had QT93 (suited in diamonds) against KK44 (no diamonds) on a flop of KJ7 (2 diamonds). According to simulations my hand wins 55% of the time, even against top set!
However, give the opponent a higher flush draw and my hand become a big (30:70) dog.
Even if we just remove the flush draw from the equation, the drawing hand becomes a 46% shot.
This seems to point out that we should be careful when playing these types of hands. However, in this situation it is often easy to pinpoint the opponent’s range of possible holding down to AAxx or KKxx. If this had been AA44 with no diamonds my hand would have been a huge 71% favourite. Really, this highlights that when you have position and your opponent gives away his hand, it really is a good move to call and see the flop against ‘obvious Aces’ with a decent drawing hand, as the above scenarios do not include situations where we flop a monster. Once again, it shows how bad it is to give away your hand, unless of course you can get most of your stack in pre-flop.
This week the plan is to play as much PLO as possible at $200 buy-in. Hopefully the ‘Disney Target’ will be achieved before the deadline of February 14th.
On Monday I decided that I must stick to PLO $200 for the foreseeable future. This is for the simple reasons that I have until now performed well in these games and my bankroll of $12k is simply not enough to play the $400 buy-in game, where I am not even sure that I am a long-term winner.
I had a steady but unspectacular week, managing to play over 17 hours. Although I made plenty of mistakes, there were still plenty of players playing a lot worse than I do.
One thing I discovered this week when analysing past hands is the huge impact having a ‘live’ flush draw has on the value of a drawing hand.
Example
I had QT93 (suited in diamonds) against KK44 (no diamonds) on a flop of KJ7 (2 diamonds). According to simulations my hand wins 55% of the time, even against top set!
However, give the opponent a higher flush draw and my hand become a big (30:70) dog.
Even if we just remove the flush draw from the equation, the drawing hand becomes a 46% shot.
This seems to point out that we should be careful when playing these types of hands. However, in this situation it is often easy to pinpoint the opponent’s range of possible holding down to AAxx or KKxx. If this had been AA44 with no diamonds my hand would have been a huge 71% favourite. Really, this highlights that when you have position and your opponent gives away his hand, it really is a good move to call and see the flop against ‘obvious Aces’ with a decent drawing hand, as the above scenarios do not include situations where we flop a monster. Once again, it shows how bad it is to give away your hand, unless of course you can get most of your stack in pre-flop.
This week the plan is to play as much PLO as possible at $200 buy-in. Hopefully the ‘Disney Target’ will be achieved before the deadline of February 14th.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Learning slowly
More PLO and a little PLO8 this week, with some interesting results.
On the whole I played better than the opposition except for a brief session of $400 PLO and a brief session of PLO8 at the same stakes.
My PLO game is improving and I am feeling more confident in my hand-reading abilities. Unfortunately, this hasn’t yet manifested itself in terms of better results as I have made some poor people-reading decisions. There are two sides to this big-bet poker coin and I have maybe concentrated on one to the detriment of the other.
At PLO $400, the players are generally more aggressive than at $200, as you would expect. Also, they are more likely to be playing your hand than their own. Obviously this only applies to the better players and its going to be an important requirement going forward to work out which players are playing at which level. Despite this general step-up in the quality of the better players, there are still some total donkeys who play 80-90% of hands and play them badly. This fact alone allows for a great deal of value in the games.
I played against one guy who raised approximately 25% of his hands, calling with perhaps another 60% of them. Strangely, he failed to put in a third raise with a decent AAxx holding, despite being offered the chance to get 80% of his stack in pre-flop. He chose to wait for his opponent to out-flop him before getting the rest in.
My chance to stack him came soon after when a late position stealer raised his SB to $14, he re-raised to $22 and I re-popped it to $44 from the BB with the rather speculative 7544 suited in spades and diamonds. As desired, the initial raiser folded and I was delighted to see the J43 flop containing two diamonds. He bet out on the flop and we got $350 each in with me as an 84% favourite.
Things didn’t always work out this nicely, however. I lost two big pots bluffing, although I do think that they were plausible bluffs, despite both being called by the same player.
Big bluff no.1
A loose player UTG raised to $14 and there were 3 callers before me. I decided to represent AA and re-raised to $44. Everybody behind me folded but the initial raiser called as did the other three cold-callers. The flop was AT2 with two spades and when checked to I wanted to again represent AA and bet $180 into the $230 pot. The initial raiser got a bit stubborn here, in my opinion, and decided that his AKQ3 (no spades) was good here and raised all-in. After everybody else folded I was obliged to call the extra $187 hoping to hit some kind of runner-runner which never came.
Big bluff no.2
About 30 minutes later, after some solid play, I got involved with the same player again. I had built my stack up to $660 since the last bluff and he had me covered. He once again raised in early position to $14 and I re-raised to $32 with Ad6dJsTc. I fired at the flop of 933 (two hearts) and fired again $147 on the 7c turn (making two clubs). The river was the King of clubs and he once again checked to me, so I bet my last $440 which he reluctantly called with a Jack-high flush.
If I had managed to check behind on the river I could have been happy with how I played this hand. I suppose it’s a bit much to ask the guy to fold after hitting his hand, after having called all this money drawing to flushes on a paired board. This is what I meant by reading the player’s hand well, but not necessarily the player’s intentions.
PLO8
I played some more PLO8 this week. I did really well at $200 but got creamed at $400, although I was desperately unlucky here, which actually affected how I played. I am a lot less sure in my hand-reading at this game and as a result I need to make sure I stick to $200 and below for the time being. I’m not good enough at the moment to beat anybody decent at the game, simply because my lack of hand-reading makes me unsure of how to play decent non-nut hands. I need to understand when they are winning and when they are behind. At $200 and below it should still be a profitable game for me as there are some shocking players out there just taking a shot with no clue how to play.
At current win-rates I need another 72 hours or so to achieve the Disney target (see previous posts). Or, as succinctly put by my wife, “you just need to start winning more.”
On the whole I played better than the opposition except for a brief session of $400 PLO and a brief session of PLO8 at the same stakes.
My PLO game is improving and I am feeling more confident in my hand-reading abilities. Unfortunately, this hasn’t yet manifested itself in terms of better results as I have made some poor people-reading decisions. There are two sides to this big-bet poker coin and I have maybe concentrated on one to the detriment of the other.
At PLO $400, the players are generally more aggressive than at $200, as you would expect. Also, they are more likely to be playing your hand than their own. Obviously this only applies to the better players and its going to be an important requirement going forward to work out which players are playing at which level. Despite this general step-up in the quality of the better players, there are still some total donkeys who play 80-90% of hands and play them badly. This fact alone allows for a great deal of value in the games.
I played against one guy who raised approximately 25% of his hands, calling with perhaps another 60% of them. Strangely, he failed to put in a third raise with a decent AAxx holding, despite being offered the chance to get 80% of his stack in pre-flop. He chose to wait for his opponent to out-flop him before getting the rest in.
My chance to stack him came soon after when a late position stealer raised his SB to $14, he re-raised to $22 and I re-popped it to $44 from the BB with the rather speculative 7544 suited in spades and diamonds. As desired, the initial raiser folded and I was delighted to see the J43 flop containing two diamonds. He bet out on the flop and we got $350 each in with me as an 84% favourite.
Things didn’t always work out this nicely, however. I lost two big pots bluffing, although I do think that they were plausible bluffs, despite both being called by the same player.
Big bluff no.1
A loose player UTG raised to $14 and there were 3 callers before me. I decided to represent AA and re-raised to $44. Everybody behind me folded but the initial raiser called as did the other three cold-callers. The flop was AT2 with two spades and when checked to I wanted to again represent AA and bet $180 into the $230 pot. The initial raiser got a bit stubborn here, in my opinion, and decided that his AKQ3 (no spades) was good here and raised all-in. After everybody else folded I was obliged to call the extra $187 hoping to hit some kind of runner-runner which never came.
Big bluff no.2
About 30 minutes later, after some solid play, I got involved with the same player again. I had built my stack up to $660 since the last bluff and he had me covered. He once again raised in early position to $14 and I re-raised to $32 with Ad6dJsTc. I fired at the flop of 933 (two hearts) and fired again $147 on the 7c turn (making two clubs). The river was the King of clubs and he once again checked to me, so I bet my last $440 which he reluctantly called with a Jack-high flush.
If I had managed to check behind on the river I could have been happy with how I played this hand. I suppose it’s a bit much to ask the guy to fold after hitting his hand, after having called all this money drawing to flushes on a paired board. This is what I meant by reading the player’s hand well, but not necessarily the player’s intentions.
PLO8
I played some more PLO8 this week. I did really well at $200 but got creamed at $400, although I was desperately unlucky here, which actually affected how I played. I am a lot less sure in my hand-reading at this game and as a result I need to make sure I stick to $200 and below for the time being. I’m not good enough at the moment to beat anybody decent at the game, simply because my lack of hand-reading makes me unsure of how to play decent non-nut hands. I need to understand when they are winning and when they are behind. At $200 and below it should still be a profitable game for me as there are some shocking players out there just taking a shot with no clue how to play.
At current win-rates I need another 72 hours or so to achieve the Disney target (see previous posts). Or, as succinctly put by my wife, “you just need to start winning more.”
Monday, 14 January 2008
More thoughts on PLO
I played exclusively PLO again this week, but only managed a disappointing total of 8.5 hours.
As previously discussed, I haven’t looked to see how I did for the week: short-term results are not important and being a slave to them can lead to the setting of conflicting goals. I can tell you that I played really well all week except for a brief spell during last night’s session were I got a little bit over-eager.
My cumulative win rate stands at $51.73, so I must have won at a higher rate than my final 2007 rate of $49.35.
My wife has set me a goal of winning $6,000 before we travel to Disneyworld in Orlando on February 15th. Things are progressing well on this, although I have again tried to shield myself from the results to avoid anxiety. All I know is that at my current rate I need to play another 75.7 hours to achieve target. (I will pretend for now that I can’t calculate that 75 x 50 = 3,750!!)
I have read Rolf Slotboom’s PLO book in the last week or two and I have to say that I found it very helpful.
Omaha is a funny game: as such there are really no bad beats, as the game is all about drawing to the best hand. Sometimes you have the best hand and the best draw, other times you have the worst hand but are a big favourite to have the best hand by the river. In Hold’ Em, the preferred way to play is ‘from the front’, i.e. having the best hand, you set the price for your opponent to chase.
I think the nature of PLO compared to NLHE makes it a much less tilt-inducing game. In Omaha, often a player will be a 3:2 shot on the flop and then a 2:1 shot on the turn. Obviously as the bettor, the worst odds you can offer your opponent is 2:1 so he is quite often correct in chasing once there is some ‘dead money’ in the pot. As the favourite in the pot, you need to accept that your edge comes as much as anything from getting yourself into more situations where you are 60:40 than 40:60, despite the fact that you will still lose plenty of them. I guess this mostly comes down to pre-flop hand selection.
In Omaha the hand values run closer together, especially pre-flop. However, the best hands are those that have nut potential, as they allow you to make a value bet that a non-nut hand can’t necessarily make. Hand-reading is also very important, as it allows you to determine what equity you have currently and how that is likely to change as the hand progresses. From that knowledge you can then determine the best way to play the hand. However, I am aware that I’m not really playing the players that much: I’m simply playing my own hand for the most part. In most hands I am only able to put my opponents on a very wide range of possible hands.
Because it’s Pot Limit, you have to be a bit cagier about how you bet. You can’t always price out drawing hands and the next card can often look horrendous to you unless you improve your hand, especially when out of position.
So far, I feel as though I am doing quite well. I need to tread carefully but I guess that if I am going to step up successfully to the $400 game eventually I will need to add a few things to my game: not least reading my opponents much more accurately than I am currently.
As previously discussed, I haven’t looked to see how I did for the week: short-term results are not important and being a slave to them can lead to the setting of conflicting goals. I can tell you that I played really well all week except for a brief spell during last night’s session were I got a little bit over-eager.
My cumulative win rate stands at $51.73, so I must have won at a higher rate than my final 2007 rate of $49.35.
My wife has set me a goal of winning $6,000 before we travel to Disneyworld in Orlando on February 15th. Things are progressing well on this, although I have again tried to shield myself from the results to avoid anxiety. All I know is that at my current rate I need to play another 75.7 hours to achieve target. (I will pretend for now that I can’t calculate that 75 x 50 = 3,750!!)
I have read Rolf Slotboom’s PLO book in the last week or two and I have to say that I found it very helpful.
Omaha is a funny game: as such there are really no bad beats, as the game is all about drawing to the best hand. Sometimes you have the best hand and the best draw, other times you have the worst hand but are a big favourite to have the best hand by the river. In Hold’ Em, the preferred way to play is ‘from the front’, i.e. having the best hand, you set the price for your opponent to chase.
I think the nature of PLO compared to NLHE makes it a much less tilt-inducing game. In Omaha, often a player will be a 3:2 shot on the flop and then a 2:1 shot on the turn. Obviously as the bettor, the worst odds you can offer your opponent is 2:1 so he is quite often correct in chasing once there is some ‘dead money’ in the pot. As the favourite in the pot, you need to accept that your edge comes as much as anything from getting yourself into more situations where you are 60:40 than 40:60, despite the fact that you will still lose plenty of them. I guess this mostly comes down to pre-flop hand selection.
In Omaha the hand values run closer together, especially pre-flop. However, the best hands are those that have nut potential, as they allow you to make a value bet that a non-nut hand can’t necessarily make. Hand-reading is also very important, as it allows you to determine what equity you have currently and how that is likely to change as the hand progresses. From that knowledge you can then determine the best way to play the hand. However, I am aware that I’m not really playing the players that much: I’m simply playing my own hand for the most part. In most hands I am only able to put my opponents on a very wide range of possible hands.
Because it’s Pot Limit, you have to be a bit cagier about how you bet. You can’t always price out drawing hands and the next card can often look horrendous to you unless you improve your hand, especially when out of position.
So far, I feel as though I am doing quite well. I need to tread carefully but I guess that if I am going to step up successfully to the $400 game eventually I will need to add a few things to my game: not least reading my opponents much more accurately than I am currently.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
I've actually won more than I realised...
The PLO has been going great since I made the switch down to $200 max. I have managed to play a decent game on 3 and sometimes 4 tables, although probably 2-3 is best.
When reviewing my results I made an interesting discovery. Well, it interested me anyway, but I like numbers and theories about them. For those who have little interest in this, it’s been nice having you along. Maybe you should spend your spare time reading something decent: maybe a political autobiography or a thrusting novel full of espionage and intrigue.
Anyway, here goes. It’s to do with the calculation of EV in pots that make it to showdown. Here are some assumptions that I have made previously when determining how to estimate my EV (in both showdown pots and otherwise):
Non-showdown wins and losses are ‘pure.’
If you manage to win a pot without showing your cards, the EV is simply your net return. If you lose, your EV is negative to the value of the amount you put into the pot. To this end, the over-riding factor in determining your EV is the result. The number of players seeing the flop, turn or river is irrelevant because your ‘pure wins’ come as a direct result of your actions (betting, raising, check-raising). Your ‘pure losses’ come as a result of folding after having invested money in the pot.
Show-down wins and losses are ‘partial’
They are calculated based on pot equity at the point of betting. For instance, if my AA beats my opponents KK and all the money goes in pre-flop (in NLHE) then my equity is 81% of the pot. If all the money goes in on the turn, my pot equity is 90%
Pot equity
I had calculated pot equity as MB x %W
(where MB = the total money bet on a specific betting round, and %W is the chance that the hand will win by showdown).
On the face of it this seems OK. However, something I never even considered as an option was this: between how many ways do we split the equity on any given betting round? Do we split it between all players who put money in on that betting round? Just those who see the next card? Or just those who see the showdown?
I had been splitting the equity between all players seeing the next card, but this is wrong. When a player folds, either on the current betting round, or on a future betting round, they forfeit their equity in the pot. Therefore, it makes no sense to do anything except allocate pot equity between only those players making it to showdown. I had been calculating equity split amongst all players seeing the next betting round.
In heads-up pots, as most are in NLHE, this makes no difference at all. But in multi-way pots, as many more are in PLO, this understates EV of players making the showdown quite significantly.
Effectively, by betting or raising on the flop, we can thin the field and improve our equity in the pre-flop pot. Obviously, this could mean that we are putting money in at –EV on the flop, but that it a separate matter. If 3 players see the flop but only 2 players go to showdown, it means that the pre-flop pot is ‘owned by’ the 2 players going to showdown.
Conclusion
I realised that I had been under-stating my EV in many pots and have since gone back and re-calculated for all hands in my database.
My 2007 profit figure of $39.65 is now actually $49.35 – a huge increase that has made me feel really good about my play. Obviously, no more money has changed hands but I now realise that I haven’t been as lucky in 2007 as I first calculated. More of my bankroll increase was caused by +EV play than previously thought.
2008
The start to 2008 has been great too, and I have increased my cumulative win-rate to $51.57 thanks to a $100.00 per hour win-rate at PLO $200max (playing on average 2.31 tables)
When reviewing my results I made an interesting discovery. Well, it interested me anyway, but I like numbers and theories about them. For those who have little interest in this, it’s been nice having you along. Maybe you should spend your spare time reading something decent: maybe a political autobiography or a thrusting novel full of espionage and intrigue.
Anyway, here goes. It’s to do with the calculation of EV in pots that make it to showdown. Here are some assumptions that I have made previously when determining how to estimate my EV (in both showdown pots and otherwise):
Non-showdown wins and losses are ‘pure.’
If you manage to win a pot without showing your cards, the EV is simply your net return. If you lose, your EV is negative to the value of the amount you put into the pot. To this end, the over-riding factor in determining your EV is the result. The number of players seeing the flop, turn or river is irrelevant because your ‘pure wins’ come as a direct result of your actions (betting, raising, check-raising). Your ‘pure losses’ come as a result of folding after having invested money in the pot.
Show-down wins and losses are ‘partial’
They are calculated based on pot equity at the point of betting. For instance, if my AA beats my opponents KK and all the money goes in pre-flop (in NLHE) then my equity is 81% of the pot. If all the money goes in on the turn, my pot equity is 90%
Pot equity
I had calculated pot equity as MB x %W
(where MB = the total money bet on a specific betting round, and %W is the chance that the hand will win by showdown).
On the face of it this seems OK. However, something I never even considered as an option was this: between how many ways do we split the equity on any given betting round? Do we split it between all players who put money in on that betting round? Just those who see the next card? Or just those who see the showdown?
I had been splitting the equity between all players seeing the next card, but this is wrong. When a player folds, either on the current betting round, or on a future betting round, they forfeit their equity in the pot. Therefore, it makes no sense to do anything except allocate pot equity between only those players making it to showdown. I had been calculating equity split amongst all players seeing the next betting round.
In heads-up pots, as most are in NLHE, this makes no difference at all. But in multi-way pots, as many more are in PLO, this understates EV of players making the showdown quite significantly.
Effectively, by betting or raising on the flop, we can thin the field and improve our equity in the pre-flop pot. Obviously, this could mean that we are putting money in at –EV on the flop, but that it a separate matter. If 3 players see the flop but only 2 players go to showdown, it means that the pre-flop pot is ‘owned by’ the 2 players going to showdown.
Conclusion
I realised that I had been under-stating my EV in many pots and have since gone back and re-calculated for all hands in my database.
My 2007 profit figure of $39.65 is now actually $49.35 – a huge increase that has made me feel really good about my play. Obviously, no more money has changed hands but I now realise that I haven’t been as lucky in 2007 as I first calculated. More of my bankroll increase was caused by +EV play than previously thought.
2008
The start to 2008 has been great too, and I have increased my cumulative win-rate to $51.57 thanks to a $100.00 per hour win-rate at PLO $200max (playing on average 2.31 tables)
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
Pot Limit Omaha
Following a bad few weeks in December I decided I needed a break from poker. Unfortunately, I also needed money to pay for Christmas and a holiday in February that we have booked, so I decided that I would try some other games instead.
I have played Pot Limit Omaha (PLO) before, both live and online, both for high hand only and hi-lo split (PLO8) and I have a reasonable understanding of the games. So I jumped in at $2-$4 and after a good start at both games had a couple of bad sessions at PLO. I quickly realised that the players at this level were better Omaha players than me and that if I was going to persist with a change of scenery it would have to be at lower stakes. Also, the player pool at PLO8 was very small indeed and I suspected that I was way over-matched in this game.
At $1-$2 the players are a lot worse and I have able to multi-table quite comfortably for a number of reasons. First, there is a bit less guesswork involved in Omaha than Hold-Em. Your own hand is more important to your decisions than it is in Hold-Em: you either have a good draw or you don’t. Secondly, as the game is Pot Limit and there are often multiple draws available, there is a lot less trapping than in NLHE and generally if a scare card comes and your opponent checks it is often very likely that they will fold to your bet.
I have been tracking the big pots again and am quickly getting better at estimating my EV in pots. So far, at $1-$2, I have got my money in quite well although it’s too early to draw too many conclusions just yet.
It’s quite tough to approach a different game, one where my level of experience is way below the game I have been playing. It forces you to get back to thinking about the mechanics of the game. I have been re-reading some chapters from The Theory Of Poker. This book will never be out of date, and is always useful as a reminder of what you should be thinking about whilst playing.
Omaha is quite different to HE in that it’s quite tough to be a massive favourite over another hand, particularly pre-flop and on the flop. However, the river is the betting round where you have either 100% or 0% equity, and this is probably the most important betting round in PLO. I guess the aim in this game is to be strong by the river and be called by a worse hand, or be able to pinpoint an opponents hand and force him to fold when he has you beat but doesn’t have enough of a hand to call a big bet.
Also, as people seem to gamble more in PLO than NLHE, the stacks are often way more than 200 big blinds and this reduces the importance of pre-flop and flop play. It becomes very wrong to try to protect a weak made hand that has little chance of improving by the river.
The pots are almost twice as big at PLO compared with NLHE with the same blinds and this probably means that it’s possible to play tight pre-flop and gain a significant edge over the looser players when you hit your hand on the flop.
So far at PLO $1-$2 my win-rate is $64 per hour ($28.57/table/hr). This is great but obviously based on a very small sample size so I won’t start to get excited about it just yet. My overall win-rate per hour has dropped down after a poor run in December to $39.65. This is much lower than it was in mid-November but it’s actually way above the $25 I budgeted when I started this blog in May.
If there are any PLO experts out there reading this I would be very interested to hear your comments on my thoughts so far. There is very little detailed PLO literature out there and I would appreciate any help to improve my game as fast as possible. I'm sure there is much money to be made here.
I have played Pot Limit Omaha (PLO) before, both live and online, both for high hand only and hi-lo split (PLO8) and I have a reasonable understanding of the games. So I jumped in at $2-$4 and after a good start at both games had a couple of bad sessions at PLO. I quickly realised that the players at this level were better Omaha players than me and that if I was going to persist with a change of scenery it would have to be at lower stakes. Also, the player pool at PLO8 was very small indeed and I suspected that I was way over-matched in this game.
At $1-$2 the players are a lot worse and I have able to multi-table quite comfortably for a number of reasons. First, there is a bit less guesswork involved in Omaha than Hold-Em. Your own hand is more important to your decisions than it is in Hold-Em: you either have a good draw or you don’t. Secondly, as the game is Pot Limit and there are often multiple draws available, there is a lot less trapping than in NLHE and generally if a scare card comes and your opponent checks it is often very likely that they will fold to your bet.
I have been tracking the big pots again and am quickly getting better at estimating my EV in pots. So far, at $1-$2, I have got my money in quite well although it’s too early to draw too many conclusions just yet.
It’s quite tough to approach a different game, one where my level of experience is way below the game I have been playing. It forces you to get back to thinking about the mechanics of the game. I have been re-reading some chapters from The Theory Of Poker. This book will never be out of date, and is always useful as a reminder of what you should be thinking about whilst playing.
Omaha is quite different to HE in that it’s quite tough to be a massive favourite over another hand, particularly pre-flop and on the flop. However, the river is the betting round where you have either 100% or 0% equity, and this is probably the most important betting round in PLO. I guess the aim in this game is to be strong by the river and be called by a worse hand, or be able to pinpoint an opponents hand and force him to fold when he has you beat but doesn’t have enough of a hand to call a big bet.
Also, as people seem to gamble more in PLO than NLHE, the stacks are often way more than 200 big blinds and this reduces the importance of pre-flop and flop play. It becomes very wrong to try to protect a weak made hand that has little chance of improving by the river.
The pots are almost twice as big at PLO compared with NLHE with the same blinds and this probably means that it’s possible to play tight pre-flop and gain a significant edge over the looser players when you hit your hand on the flop.
So far at PLO $1-$2 my win-rate is $64 per hour ($28.57/table/hr). This is great but obviously based on a very small sample size so I won’t start to get excited about it just yet. My overall win-rate per hour has dropped down after a poor run in December to $39.65. This is much lower than it was in mid-November but it’s actually way above the $25 I budgeted when I started this blog in May.
If there are any PLO experts out there reading this I would be very interested to hear your comments on my thoughts so far. There is very little detailed PLO literature out there and I would appreciate any help to improve my game as fast as possible. I'm sure there is much money to be made here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
