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.
Tuesday, 29 April 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
