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