YTD: +$52271.43
Apologies for faithful readers for a slightly longer than usual pause between posts - unfortunately my pc is somewhat on the blink again.
I wanted to get back to another topic raised by David Young in a comment a week or so back. The problem, if you can call it that, is an influx of new, WPT and ESPN driven players, cluelessly diving into a pot limit holdem game. In the classic way of lemmings searching for a suitable cliff, PLHE is the worst game they could have stumbled onto, bar plo8b. Their chances of even short term success, never mind long term, are very, very low. Especially playing Gus-stylee tourney moves.
But why is this bad and why should players care?
Players who make any substantial amount of money in live action should look at themselves as being in the entertainment business. Live players, especially in the UK, are a valuable commodity. They do not exist in US or Internet type numbers. Many players may be 'happy' to pay to be 'entertained' over a long period, but will struggle to maintain an interest facing unrelenting losses. A player after throwing off a couple of thousand $ in short order may never return, yet if he had felt that he had a remote chance and was getting some kind of value for money he may have gladly paid for many years to come.
So what is the solution?
Firstly, the newbie players should be treated well. As Tommy Angelo says, this is how you should treat everyone over the felt, not just the fish. Unfortunately for DY, the Vic, the place in question, is fairly well known for having an unfriendly ambiance. And that's putting it mildly.
Okay, anything else? Dealers choice games. Although they can confuse beginners the inherent luck in them shoots up variance and gives weaker players a shot at the loot. Here though the new players are their own worst enemies, as they tend to see these more varied games as some kind of conspiracy to befuddle the money out of their pockets.
The only answer is one that US casinos have adopted but the half-wits that populate card room management in the UK are unlikely to adopt unless coerced by the players. Who unfortunately themselves don't see the wood for the trees. NL games instead of PL. And crucially, critically, maximum buyins of about 100x the big blind. These factors will give conditions more akin to the tourneys these types know and love, shoot up the luck to give them a chance to get some winning sessions, but still leave skill as the dominant factor.
Everyone's a winner.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
The Crade of True Art and True Science
YTD: +$52786.73
I did promise a hand about AA some time ago. Well here it is. The last time we looked at AA is was where a player seemingly overdefended his hand and made a weak call. Although the outcome in this hand is the same - I call - hopefully you will agree that the reasoning and situation is much more sound.
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (9 handed) converter
saw flop|saw showdown
CO ($632.50)
Button ($261)
SB ($1070)
Hero ($2489.75)
UTG ($390)
UTG+1 ($205)
MP1 ($1083)
MP2 ($57.25)
MP3 ($1516.50)
Preflop: Hero is BB with Th, Ah, Ac, 7s.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $10, 3 folds, CO calls $10, 1 fold, SB raises to $50, Hero raises to $140, UTG+1 folds, CO folds, SB calls $90.
I'm not a big fan of raising with any hand out of position. But there are some big advantages to be had here. SB is a tight, solid player and is actually likely to be raising with one of the hands I can dominate, e.g. a high pair-ish hand. Also a reraise is likely to push out the limpers and actually give me position on the whole coup.
Flop: ($300) Ts, 2c, 4d (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $230, SB raises to $930, Hero calls $700.
When I completely miss a flop I do not always auto bet it, simply because it gives good players the opportunity to check raise me thin out of the hand, figuring that my reraise must mean aces. As faithful readers will have noticed, this is not always the case, but it will still be their most likely view of my holding. In this case I felt that the flop was fairly safe for a bet and SB thought for some time before check raising me.
Now sometimes the pause check raise is a sure fire tell of "let me think while I raise with the nuts". But in this case it is very difficult for my foe, if I have read him right, to have trips. It is very unlikely, if next to impossible for him to have a draw, or even two pair. And the ten in my hand nicely makes the top trip scenario unlikely too. As a contributing factor, just a few hands before I had wiped him out, raising with suited aces, hitting the nut flush on the flop and he had check raised me with the K high flush. So he was potentially in the mood for revenge and he was good enough to be making a move.
So after some thought I decided that either he had me strangled or I had him strangled, on which basis it must be a fairly straightforward call for better than 2 to 1 money.
Turn: ($2160) 3d (2 players)
River: ($2160) 3h (2 players)
Final Pot: $2160
Main Pot: $2160, between SB and Hero.
Results
SB has Kc Tc Ad Kd (two pair, kings and threes).
Hero has Th Ah Ac 7s (two pair, aces and threes).
Outcome: Hero wins $2160.
Afterwards I did some more of my infamous EV analysis, which I may write up later - I just can't get the damn tables in. It showed that the breakeven point, where calling was neutral, was with SB having trips a massive 65% of the time, assuming my "he has few outs or I have few outs" analysis was correct. Clearly, based on my read of the player, this was a hugely profitable call.
Science and Art in the same bed again! Who would have thought it?
I did promise a hand about AA some time ago. Well here it is. The last time we looked at AA is was where a player seemingly overdefended his hand and made a weak call. Although the outcome in this hand is the same - I call - hopefully you will agree that the reasoning and situation is much more sound.
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (9 handed) converter
saw flop|saw showdown
CO ($632.50)
Button ($261)
SB ($1070)
Hero ($2489.75)
UTG ($390)
UTG+1 ($205)
MP1 ($1083)
MP2 ($57.25)
MP3 ($1516.50)
Preflop: Hero is BB with Th, Ah, Ac, 7s.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $10, 3 folds, CO calls $10, 1 fold, SB raises to $50, Hero raises to $140, UTG+1 folds, CO folds, SB calls $90.
I'm not a big fan of raising with any hand out of position. But there are some big advantages to be had here. SB is a tight, solid player and is actually likely to be raising with one of the hands I can dominate, e.g. a high pair-ish hand. Also a reraise is likely to push out the limpers and actually give me position on the whole coup.
Flop: ($300) Ts, 2c, 4d (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $230, SB raises to $930, Hero calls $700.
When I completely miss a flop I do not always auto bet it, simply because it gives good players the opportunity to check raise me thin out of the hand, figuring that my reraise must mean aces. As faithful readers will have noticed, this is not always the case, but it will still be their most likely view of my holding. In this case I felt that the flop was fairly safe for a bet and SB thought for some time before check raising me.
Now sometimes the pause check raise is a sure fire tell of "let me think while I raise with the nuts". But in this case it is very difficult for my foe, if I have read him right, to have trips. It is very unlikely, if next to impossible for him to have a draw, or even two pair. And the ten in my hand nicely makes the top trip scenario unlikely too. As a contributing factor, just a few hands before I had wiped him out, raising with suited aces, hitting the nut flush on the flop and he had check raised me with the K high flush. So he was potentially in the mood for revenge and he was good enough to be making a move.
So after some thought I decided that either he had me strangled or I had him strangled, on which basis it must be a fairly straightforward call for better than 2 to 1 money.
Turn: ($2160) 3d (2 players)
River: ($2160) 3h (2 players)
Final Pot: $2160
Main Pot: $2160, between SB and Hero.
Results
SB has Kc Tc Ad Kd (two pair, kings and threes).
Hero has Th Ah Ac 7s (two pair, aces and threes).
Outcome: Hero wins $2160.
Afterwards I did some more of my infamous EV analysis, which I may write up later - I just can't get the damn tables in. It showed that the breakeven point, where calling was neutral, was with SB having trips a massive 65% of the time, assuming my "he has few outs or I have few outs" analysis was correct. Clearly, based on my read of the player, this was a hugely profitable call.
Science and Art in the same bed again! Who would have thought it?
Monday, September 20, 2004
The Music of Chance
YTD: +$55394.38
David Young made some interesting points in response to my gripe about tournament play. So much so that I think I will break them into two separate posts. Here’s what he said in response to my complaining about the luck factor:
“It will even out if you play more tournaments. Make that a LOT more tournaments. Accept that or don't play.”
I think that this is a common fallacy. The difference between luck, or variance if you want to be more high-falutin, in tournaments and cash is that if you keep your stack at consistent levels, online buy-in maximums to one side, in a cash game, then when and how you have good and bad luck makes little difference. However, in a tournament, exactly when and how your bad luck strikes could be the difference between being a major success or going broke. Perhaps a slightly hypothetical example will make this clearer.
Imagine, in an alternate universe we have the power to see the destiny of a tournament player over the next two years. We know that despite excellent play, discipline and some recent success that Mr X will lose $1million in entry fees and expenses over the next two years. I don’t think that this is particularly an extreme example – see Sklansky for his look at tournament variance and the potential for “bad runs”. Certainly, Mr X, playing the circuit across the globe could easily rack up such expenses. Unfortunately for Mr X, his tank is exactly $0.9 million and this bad run will render him broke.
But Twilight Zone style we can stand with him at the cross roads of a major drama that may give him a chance to avoid his fate.
Mr X is down to the last few tables of the World Series, just before the albatross of long term doom is about to descend on him. Mr X is at the peak of his game. He has all his chips in the middle on the right side of a 6:4 shot. If he loses, he pockets $100,000, and like a Flying Dutchman, sails off to his doom and poker ignominy. If he wins, he will go on to get into the major money and pocket $2.5 million. The bad run will still come, but he will survive and go on to potential greater success. Unfortunately our glimpse into the Book of Destiny only extends for two years so we don’t know what the long term, whatever that means for a tournament player, actually holds. But at least now he has a shot. (I know that this is very much a similar situation to Harry D found himself and I am only using it because it struck me how it highlighted the importance of “particular” luck. All other resemblances to people and events living and dead, past or future, is purely coincidental.)
The whole of Mr X’s poker existence rests on a crooked coin flip.
Now I know I have grossly simplified rather complex issues around money management to make my point, but I think the point is still well made. In tournaments, the luck may never break even because some events are hugely distorted in value and these almost-never –to-be-repeated events just do not exist in cash games, assuming you are playing within a sensible bankroll.
Success or failure is just a coin flip away.
David Young made some interesting points in response to my gripe about tournament play. So much so that I think I will break them into two separate posts. Here’s what he said in response to my complaining about the luck factor:
“It will even out if you play more tournaments. Make that a LOT more tournaments. Accept that or don't play.”
I think that this is a common fallacy. The difference between luck, or variance if you want to be more high-falutin, in tournaments and cash is that if you keep your stack at consistent levels, online buy-in maximums to one side, in a cash game, then when and how you have good and bad luck makes little difference. However, in a tournament, exactly when and how your bad luck strikes could be the difference between being a major success or going broke. Perhaps a slightly hypothetical example will make this clearer.
Imagine, in an alternate universe we have the power to see the destiny of a tournament player over the next two years. We know that despite excellent play, discipline and some recent success that Mr X will lose $1million in entry fees and expenses over the next two years. I don’t think that this is particularly an extreme example – see Sklansky for his look at tournament variance and the potential for “bad runs”. Certainly, Mr X, playing the circuit across the globe could easily rack up such expenses. Unfortunately for Mr X, his tank is exactly $0.9 million and this bad run will render him broke.
But Twilight Zone style we can stand with him at the cross roads of a major drama that may give him a chance to avoid his fate.
Mr X is down to the last few tables of the World Series, just before the albatross of long term doom is about to descend on him. Mr X is at the peak of his game. He has all his chips in the middle on the right side of a 6:4 shot. If he loses, he pockets $100,000, and like a Flying Dutchman, sails off to his doom and poker ignominy. If he wins, he will go on to get into the major money and pocket $2.5 million. The bad run will still come, but he will survive and go on to potential greater success. Unfortunately our glimpse into the Book of Destiny only extends for two years so we don’t know what the long term, whatever that means for a tournament player, actually holds. But at least now he has a shot. (I know that this is very much a similar situation to Harry D found himself and I am only using it because it struck me how it highlighted the importance of “particular” luck. All other resemblances to people and events living and dead, past or future, is purely coincidental.)
The whole of Mr X’s poker existence rests on a crooked coin flip.
Now I know I have grossly simplified rather complex issues around money management to make my point, but I think the point is still well made. In tournaments, the luck may never break even because some events are hugely distorted in value and these almost-never –to-be-repeated events just do not exist in cash games, assuming you are playing within a sensible bankroll.
Success or failure is just a coin flip away.
Apocalypse Now
YTD: +$55394.38
I said that I wouldn't waste column space commenting on the vagaries of my YTD. But yesterday was such a "correction" that it seemed that if I didn't mention it, people would wonder how the hell I couldn't. For half the loss I played bad, for the other half, I was unlucky. Interesting, if my 50/50s and favourite hands had all stood up, as opposed to all being washed to sea, my 8k loss would have been a 4k profit. Such is the variance of PLO. Ho hum. I will probably have a breather from the big game and also spend some of my winnings on financing some much needed cars. Coming very soon will be some posts on the interesting points DY raised in his comment to one of my posts.
I said that I wouldn't waste column space commenting on the vagaries of my YTD. But yesterday was such a "correction" that it seemed that if I didn't mention it, people would wonder how the hell I couldn't. For half the loss I played bad, for the other half, I was unlucky. Interesting, if my 50/50s and favourite hands had all stood up, as opposed to all being washed to sea, my 8k loss would have been a 4k profit. Such is the variance of PLO. Ho hum. I will probably have a breather from the big game and also spend some of my winnings on financing some much needed cars. Coming very soon will be some posts on the interesting points DY raised in his comment to one of my posts.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Interlude
YTD: +$62945.48
It seems that more people read my blog during the week than at the weekend, so I will just leave a "stopping by" post before the bigger splurge of the AA in PLO analysis :-)
God I hate tournaments. I played a couple of single table sats for the 215 NL event on Sunday. Yes, sadly, I will only play the big Stars tourney if I win my way in.
I had one player all-in six times before the flop. He was a real ESPN player, moving allin on a huge variety of hands, often grossly overbetting the pot. Six times I could have bust him. And he won every one. Which was a 153 to 1 shot. 153 to 1 to survive the tourney and yet he did so. When I started moaning and whining - why do I do that? - he said "Well, thats poker". This beggars two questions:
1) Why do I whinge and cry like a baby online, behaviour which I would never do or condone in the real world? This seriously disappoints me. I don't do it often, but tourneys especially bring out the worst in me. Maybe its the arrogance of being knocked out by players I perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be "worse" than me. Also I think its the frustration of tournament-style poker, where when it's over, it's over. No more chances. I'm turning into a nit.
2) "Well, that's poker." There is probably now a huge number, if not the majority of tournament players, that think NLHE is about moving all-in preflop on semi-garbage. And that's the whole of the game now.
I'll stick to cash.
*Breaking News* just watching the US Poker Championship of 2003...ye Gods, how much worse can Phil Hellmuth play!
It seems that more people read my blog during the week than at the weekend, so I will just leave a "stopping by" post before the bigger splurge of the AA in PLO analysis :-)
God I hate tournaments. I played a couple of single table sats for the 215 NL event on Sunday. Yes, sadly, I will only play the big Stars tourney if I win my way in.
I had one player all-in six times before the flop. He was a real ESPN player, moving allin on a huge variety of hands, often grossly overbetting the pot. Six times I could have bust him. And he won every one. Which was a 153 to 1 shot. 153 to 1 to survive the tourney and yet he did so. When I started moaning and whining - why do I do that? - he said "Well, thats poker". This beggars two questions:
1) Why do I whinge and cry like a baby online, behaviour which I would never do or condone in the real world? This seriously disappoints me. I don't do it often, but tourneys especially bring out the worst in me. Maybe its the arrogance of being knocked out by players I perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be "worse" than me. Also I think its the frustration of tournament-style poker, where when it's over, it's over. No more chances. I'm turning into a nit.
2) "Well, that's poker." There is probably now a huge number, if not the majority of tournament players, that think NLHE is about moving all-in preflop on semi-garbage. And that's the whole of the game now.
I'll stick to cash.
*Breaking News* just watching the US Poker Championship of 2003...ye Gods, how much worse can Phil Hellmuth play!
Monday, September 13, 2004
Dumb and Dumber
YTD: +$61322.68
I've noticed a strange phenomenon on the Stars 5-10 game. This is that players who are otherwise moderate to tight preflop, simply cannot play from the flop onwards.
This is doubly strange as in a game like limit holdem, preflop looseness can and should be a huge predictor of playing ability and player profitability. Here in the mysterious world of PLO, we can have a player who is playing 50% of his hands preflop, but is a fine player and making profit, yet on the other hand have a guy playing less than 30% of his hands, leaking money like a sieve and playing quite poorly.
Here's some examples:
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)
saw flop|saw showdown
SB ($1928.50)
BB ($878)
UTG ($1221)
UTG+1 (Unlucky) ($852)
MP1 ($458.50)
MP2 (Foolish) ($1696)
CO ($955.50)
Button ($1126)
Preflop:
1 fold, UTG+1 (Unlucky) calls $10, MP1 calls $10, MP2 (Foolish) raises to $55, 1 fold, Button calls $55, 2 folds, UTG+1 (Unlucky) calls $45, MP1 calls $45.
Flop: ($235) Kc, 8s, 5s (4 players)
Unlucky checks, MP1 checks, Foolish bets $232, Button folds, Unlucky raises to $797, MP1 folds, Foolish calls $565.
Turn: ($1829) 5d (2 players)
River: ($1829) 6h (2 players)
Final Pot: $1829
Main Pot: $1829, between Unlucky and Foolish. > Pot won by Foolish ($1829).
Foolish has Ad Ac Kd Tc
Unlucky has Jc As Js 8d
Outcome: Foolish wins $1829.
Now no matter how you cut it up and slice it, this was a bad flop call. Sure people make plays on you in this game, but at very best it was EV neutral and at worse a losing call in the long run. This player has a serious AA problem.
This one was even worse:
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (6 handed)
MP ($971.30)
CO ($683.25)
Button ($2905.50)
Hero ($1303)
BB ($200)
UTG ($608.75)
Preflop: Hero is SB with Ad, 2s, 2d, 3c.
1 fold, MP calls $10, CO raises to $30, 1 fold, Hero calls $25, BB calls $20, MP folds.
Flop: ($100) 4c, 9h, 2c (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, CO bets $50, Hero raises to $230, BB calls $170 (All-In), CO calls $180.
Turn: ($730) 7c (3 players, 1 all-in)
Hero bets $570, CO calls $423.25 (All-In).
River: ($1723.25) 6d (3 players, 2 all-in)
Final Pot: $1723.25
Main Pot: $610, between CO, Hero and BB.
Pot 2: $966.50, between CO and Hero.
Pot won by CO ($966.50)
CO has Js Jc Ts Kc
BB has Qc Ac Jh 6s (flush, ace high).
Outcome: CO wins $966.50. BB wins $610. Hero wins $146.75.
The CO thought a hell of a long time before making that call. This let me know that he didn't have that great a hand. It also let him know that I was going to bet the turn regardless, which to some extent the stack sizes predicated anyway.
He's made a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" call here. Either I've got trips, in which case he is not getting the right price for his hand, especially as the other player has cold called...meaning surely some of his outs are OUT. Or, because I am that kind of player, I have the nut flush draw, in which case he is gambling his whole stack on JJ being good.
In the short term these kinds of players may do well, as they catch what they probably see as bluffs with their isolated one pair kind of hands. But these bluffs are often high % draws or even the nuts and over time this "I raised before the flop so I'm committed" will only commit them ultimately to the rail.
I've noticed a strange phenomenon on the Stars 5-10 game. This is that players who are otherwise moderate to tight preflop, simply cannot play from the flop onwards.
This is doubly strange as in a game like limit holdem, preflop looseness can and should be a huge predictor of playing ability and player profitability. Here in the mysterious world of PLO, we can have a player who is playing 50% of his hands preflop, but is a fine player and making profit, yet on the other hand have a guy playing less than 30% of his hands, leaking money like a sieve and playing quite poorly.
Here's some examples:
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)
saw flop|saw showdown
SB ($1928.50)
BB ($878)
UTG ($1221)
UTG+1 (Unlucky) ($852)
MP1 ($458.50)
MP2 (Foolish) ($1696)
CO ($955.50)
Button ($1126)
Preflop:
1 fold, UTG+1 (Unlucky) calls $10, MP1 calls $10, MP2 (Foolish) raises to $55, 1 fold, Button calls $55, 2 folds, UTG+1 (Unlucky) calls $45, MP1 calls $45.
Flop: ($235) Kc, 8s, 5s (4 players)
Unlucky checks, MP1 checks, Foolish bets $232, Button folds, Unlucky raises to $797, MP1 folds, Foolish calls $565.
Turn: ($1829) 5d (2 players)
River: ($1829) 6h (2 players)
Final Pot: $1829
Main Pot: $1829, between Unlucky and Foolish. > Pot won by Foolish ($1829).
Foolish has Ad Ac Kd Tc
Unlucky has Jc As Js 8d
Outcome: Foolish wins $1829.
Now no matter how you cut it up and slice it, this was a bad flop call. Sure people make plays on you in this game, but at very best it was EV neutral and at worse a losing call in the long run. This player has a serious AA problem.
This one was even worse:
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (6 handed)
MP ($971.30)
CO ($683.25)
Button ($2905.50)
Hero ($1303)
BB ($200)
UTG ($608.75)
Preflop: Hero is SB with Ad, 2s, 2d, 3c.
1 fold, MP calls $10, CO raises to $30, 1 fold, Hero calls $25, BB calls $20, MP folds.
Flop: ($100) 4c, 9h, 2c (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, CO bets $50, Hero raises to $230, BB calls $170 (All-In), CO calls $180.
Turn: ($730) 7c (3 players, 1 all-in)
Hero bets $570, CO calls $423.25 (All-In).
River: ($1723.25) 6d (3 players, 2 all-in)
Final Pot: $1723.25
Main Pot: $610, between CO, Hero and BB.
Pot 2: $966.50, between CO and Hero.
Pot won by CO ($966.50)
CO has Js Jc Ts Kc
BB has Qc Ac Jh 6s (flush, ace high).
Outcome: CO wins $966.50. BB wins $610. Hero wins $146.75.
The CO thought a hell of a long time before making that call. This let me know that he didn't have that great a hand. It also let him know that I was going to bet the turn regardless, which to some extent the stack sizes predicated anyway.
He's made a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" call here. Either I've got trips, in which case he is not getting the right price for his hand, especially as the other player has cold called...meaning surely some of his outs are OUT. Or, because I am that kind of player, I have the nut flush draw, in which case he is gambling his whole stack on JJ being good.
In the short term these kinds of players may do well, as they catch what they probably see as bluffs with their isolated one pair kind of hands. But these bluffs are often high % draws or even the nuts and over time this "I raised before the flop so I'm committed" will only commit them ultimately to the rail.
Sport of Kings
YTD: +$63485.73
Whenever I hear Poker described as a sport I laugh. Or cry. It is beyond ridiculous to the absurd. Here are my views on how Poker is like a Sport:
You Can Behave Like a Cock
The ESPN coverage has highlighted some truly terrible behaviour. It used to be that there was a tightening of the lips, a grimace and a firm handshake. Now we can watch the likes of Mattias Andersson contort and roll around like an epileptic contortionist crossed with a hillbilly/porcine coupling, whilst the impassive Saint of Cowboy Murderers, Chris Ferguson, shows not a trace of emotion in the foreground. And many, many more.
You Get an Audience
People watch you. Millions of people watch you. However the same is true in the US for such luminaries as “dog jumping” and “crazy golf”. We must be so proud.
You Can Take Drugs
There have been recent exposes on performance enhancing drugs in the US especially. There are plenty of drugs in Poker, also of the performance enhancing kind. Or at least the players “think” that a quick toot of Nicaraguan Marching Powder in the dinner break improves performance.
And that’s it, really.
On why Poker isn’t like a Sport:
The Luck Factor Does Not Dominate the Skill
Imagine a Wimbledon where everyone in the quarter finals of the Men’s event is not only unranked, but a club player. Then imagine that in the final a guy from the crowd barges his way onto the court and wins the title. Then watch the Reno event for Season 2. Dreams do come true.
Experience is Not Easily Overcome
Any master sportsman not only has genetics as an advantage over his amateur counterparts, but literally a lifetime of preparation, grueling training and countless experience. Even if you are literally a sporting genius this cannot be easily overcome. Unless you take up the “sport” of poker, in which case a few books, a bit of thought, maybe 6 months of play then you’re in with a chance.
The Players Benefit from the Media
Beside the ability to play $5K to $10K tournaments every month I struggle to see what the poker pros have gained from their Sportification. Besides exposing their game plans. Proper sponsorship and added prize money simply haven’t materialized. And this is three years later. It’s even debatable how much value has been added through extra players, as they seem mostly to want to play games that in the long term will destroy their own, probably far-to-small bankrolls, i.e. tournaments and NL cash.
The Sport and TV Negotiate
“We’ve decided that Soccer is a bit boring, so we’re going to get rid of goal keepers. Any problems?”
Poker’s negotiating position to TV seems trousers around the feet, ankle’s firmly gripped. Shorter rounds. No logos. Rights waiving. Speed poker???
I will leave the last word to an auld favourite of RGP, Steve Badger. Steve was the first person to give me a public slap on a forum for talking garbage and although abrasive, is rarely wrong on matters Poker related:
“ESPN is marketing to their own target market, definitely not the "casual fan". The target demographic is 18-34 year old males, and to be blunt, specifically the dork/loser element of that demographic -- people who go into a frenzy over the result of a game that they themselves don't participate in, and even call talk radio to yell at other people about such
games…They can't relate (much) to Doyle or Howard. They can relate to someone about their age making idiotic trash talk, just like they do.
It is basic sports TV marketing, and is partly why ESPN loves poker. Poker *has* people very similar to their prime market. Major sport personalities are not nearly as relate-able to. The viewers can't say "I could do that" when watching Barry Bonds, but they could look at any of this crew and think "that could be me"."
Whenever I hear Poker described as a sport I laugh. Or cry. It is beyond ridiculous to the absurd. Here are my views on how Poker is like a Sport:
You Can Behave Like a Cock
The ESPN coverage has highlighted some truly terrible behaviour. It used to be that there was a tightening of the lips, a grimace and a firm handshake. Now we can watch the likes of Mattias Andersson contort and roll around like an epileptic contortionist crossed with a hillbilly/porcine coupling, whilst the impassive Saint of Cowboy Murderers, Chris Ferguson, shows not a trace of emotion in the foreground. And many, many more.
You Get an Audience
People watch you. Millions of people watch you. However the same is true in the US for such luminaries as “dog jumping” and “crazy golf”. We must be so proud.
You Can Take Drugs
There have been recent exposes on performance enhancing drugs in the US especially. There are plenty of drugs in Poker, also of the performance enhancing kind. Or at least the players “think” that a quick toot of Nicaraguan Marching Powder in the dinner break improves performance.
And that’s it, really.
On why Poker isn’t like a Sport:
The Luck Factor Does Not Dominate the Skill
Imagine a Wimbledon where everyone in the quarter finals of the Men’s event is not only unranked, but a club player. Then imagine that in the final a guy from the crowd barges his way onto the court and wins the title. Then watch the Reno event for Season 2. Dreams do come true.
Experience is Not Easily Overcome
Any master sportsman not only has genetics as an advantage over his amateur counterparts, but literally a lifetime of preparation, grueling training and countless experience. Even if you are literally a sporting genius this cannot be easily overcome. Unless you take up the “sport” of poker, in which case a few books, a bit of thought, maybe 6 months of play then you’re in with a chance.
The Players Benefit from the Media
Beside the ability to play $5K to $10K tournaments every month I struggle to see what the poker pros have gained from their Sportification. Besides exposing their game plans. Proper sponsorship and added prize money simply haven’t materialized. And this is three years later. It’s even debatable how much value has been added through extra players, as they seem mostly to want to play games that in the long term will destroy their own, probably far-to-small bankrolls, i.e. tournaments and NL cash.
The Sport and TV Negotiate
“We’ve decided that Soccer is a bit boring, so we’re going to get rid of goal keepers. Any problems?”
Poker’s negotiating position to TV seems trousers around the feet, ankle’s firmly gripped. Shorter rounds. No logos. Rights waiving. Speed poker???
I will leave the last word to an auld favourite of RGP, Steve Badger. Steve was the first person to give me a public slap on a forum for talking garbage and although abrasive, is rarely wrong on matters Poker related:
“ESPN is marketing to their own target market, definitely not the "casual fan". The target demographic is 18-34 year old males, and to be blunt, specifically the dork/loser element of that demographic -- people who go into a frenzy over the result of a game that they themselves don't participate in, and even call talk radio to yell at other people about such
games…They can't relate (much) to Doyle or Howard. They can relate to someone about their age making idiotic trash talk, just like they do.
It is basic sports TV marketing, and is partly why ESPN loves poker. Poker *has* people very similar to their prime market. Major sport personalities are not nearly as relate-able to. The viewers can't say "I could do that" when watching Barry Bonds, but they could look at any of this crew and think "that could be me"."
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Do As I Say Not Do As I Do
YTD: +$57930.03
Whilst I was criticising Rolf S going all-in with KK before the flop in PLO, I was very aware that I had made a very similar play myself. However in this case, the play was very clear and I was also aware that this was going to be a play with a lot of luck involved in its outcome:
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)
Button ($845)
SB ($388)
BB ($1678)
UTG ($661.75)
UTG+1 ($803)
MP1 ($541)
Hero ($2488)
CO ($1094)
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Ks, 8s, Kh, Ac.
3 folds, Hero raises to $30, CO calls $30, Button calls $30, SB raises to $160, 1 fold, Hero raises to $550, CO calls $520, Button folds, SB calls $228 (All-In).
Preflop the action is straightforward. The SB had started reraising me with less than AA type values as he had noticed that my initial raising standards were lowish, at least in position. The extra A in my hand also gives me a touch more security that he doesn't have the AA. On this basis, my equity in the hand will be significantly improved if I can get CO to pass, as I may then win the pot unimproved. As he has shown no strength whatsoever, this further makes a reraise the better play.
Flop: ($1528) 6d, 2s, 9d (3 players, 1 all-in)
When CO called the big raise cold I basically put him on one of two hands. Either two pairs, or a 4 card straightening hand. Basically my strategy was that unless the flop comes three cards in sequence, I will bet the remainder.
The flop itself is fairly disasterous. As a 9876 kind of hand was a very likely holding, this flop may have hit him pretty hard. But if I check-called, I would be getting 4 to 1 on his bet, and even if he has the armageddon which is 9876 with diamonds, I'm only a 5.5 to 1 dog. Against "just" two pair and a str8 draw, i would be getting the right price to call. So perhaps betting is better? Betting may make him pass hands that he should probably call, especially as he may be worried about the flush draw. Also if he has the two pair hand, I may be a very big favourite and I wouldn't want to give him a free card to hit on the turn.
Hero bets $1525, CO calls $544 (All-In).
Turn: ($3597) 5h (3 players, 2 all-in)
River: ($3597) Ah (3 players, 2 all-in)
Final Pot: $3597
Results below:
SB has Qc Ts Kd As (one pair, aces).
Hero has Ks 8s Kh Ac (one pair, aces).
CO has 9c Th Jc Qd (one pair, nines).
Outcome: Hero wins $2995. SB wins $602.
Not only was a very lucky to win this hand the strange thing is that no one played their hand wrong. The SB with a small stack is entitled to make a move against a loose player and the CO, suspecting that we both have AA is getting great value.
Often it can be the case in PLO that all the participants play correctly and the Gods of Poker reward and punish as they see fit. This hand they were kind.
Whilst I was criticising Rolf S going all-in with KK before the flop in PLO, I was very aware that I had made a very similar play myself. However in this case, the play was very clear and I was also aware that this was going to be a play with a lot of luck involved in its outcome:
PokerStars Pot-Limit Omaha High, $10 BB (8 handed)
Button ($845)
SB ($388)
BB ($1678)
UTG ($661.75)
UTG+1 ($803)
MP1 ($541)
Hero ($2488)
CO ($1094)
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Ks, 8s, Kh, Ac.
3 folds, Hero raises to $30, CO calls $30, Button calls $30, SB raises to $160, 1 fold, Hero raises to $550, CO calls $520, Button folds, SB calls $228 (All-In).
Preflop the action is straightforward. The SB had started reraising me with less than AA type values as he had noticed that my initial raising standards were lowish, at least in position. The extra A in my hand also gives me a touch more security that he doesn't have the AA. On this basis, my equity in the hand will be significantly improved if I can get CO to pass, as I may then win the pot unimproved. As he has shown no strength whatsoever, this further makes a reraise the better play.
Flop: ($1528) 6d, 2s, 9d (3 players, 1 all-in)
When CO called the big raise cold I basically put him on one of two hands. Either two pairs, or a 4 card straightening hand. Basically my strategy was that unless the flop comes three cards in sequence, I will bet the remainder.
The flop itself is fairly disasterous. As a 9876 kind of hand was a very likely holding, this flop may have hit him pretty hard. But if I check-called, I would be getting 4 to 1 on his bet, and even if he has the armageddon which is 9876 with diamonds, I'm only a 5.5 to 1 dog. Against "just" two pair and a str8 draw, i would be getting the right price to call. So perhaps betting is better? Betting may make him pass hands that he should probably call, especially as he may be worried about the flush draw. Also if he has the two pair hand, I may be a very big favourite and I wouldn't want to give him a free card to hit on the turn.
Hero bets $1525, CO calls $544 (All-In).
Turn: ($3597) 5h (3 players, 2 all-in)
River: ($3597) Ah (3 players, 2 all-in)
Final Pot: $3597
Results below:
SB has Qc Ts Kd As (one pair, aces).
Hero has Ks 8s Kh Ac (one pair, aces).
CO has 9c Th Jc Qd (one pair, nines).
Outcome: Hero wins $2995. SB wins $602.
Not only was a very lucky to win this hand the strange thing is that no one played their hand wrong. The SB with a small stack is entitled to make a move against a loose player and the CO, suspecting that we both have AA is getting great value.
Often it can be the case in PLO that all the participants play correctly and the Gods of Poker reward and punish as they see fit. This hand they were kind.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Down at the End of Lonely Street
YTD: +$57896.08
"I had trips and he hit quads on the river, XXXPoker.com must be fixed!"
This is a common cry and one that shows how little the vast bulk of poker players actually know about the mathematical underpinnings of the game they play. Longshots are common. Miracles seem to happen everyday. In PLO, longshots very rarely are very long, as the 6 card combinations make nearly anything seem possible. But what about $1600 lost in a 515 to 1 shot?
I think that qualifies as a longshot.
This was actually a parlay. In about the space of an hour I lost to runner runner straights when holding trips, or in one case the nut flush to runner runner full. The latter one was almost amusing, as I flopped the nut straight and the nut flush draw and wondered to myself, "How am I gonna get paid on this one?". I bet it, hit the flush on the turn and bet it again. My opponent had called on the flop with top pair, Q kicker and no draw.
Losing all three pots was a parlay of 515 to 1.
I didn't smash up the computer.
I didn't shake my fist at the "cashout curse".
I did moan and whine a bit.
But I basically accepted that as a loose player my perceived action will make these hands happen more often and I should welcome it. Because calling for runner runner is one of the worst spots a PLO player can themselves into.
Then I knuckled down and still ground out a winning session.
"I had trips and he hit quads on the river, XXXPoker.com must be fixed!"
This is a common cry and one that shows how little the vast bulk of poker players actually know about the mathematical underpinnings of the game they play. Longshots are common. Miracles seem to happen everyday. In PLO, longshots very rarely are very long, as the 6 card combinations make nearly anything seem possible. But what about $1600 lost in a 515 to 1 shot?
I think that qualifies as a longshot.
This was actually a parlay. In about the space of an hour I lost to runner runner straights when holding trips, or in one case the nut flush to runner runner full. The latter one was almost amusing, as I flopped the nut straight and the nut flush draw and wondered to myself, "How am I gonna get paid on this one?". I bet it, hit the flush on the turn and bet it again. My opponent had called on the flop with top pair, Q kicker and no draw.
Losing all three pots was a parlay of 515 to 1.
I didn't smash up the computer.
I didn't shake my fist at the "cashout curse".
I did moan and whine a bit.
But I basically accepted that as a loose player my perceived action will make these hands happen more often and I should welcome it. Because calling for runner runner is one of the worst spots a PLO player can themselves into.
Then I knuckled down and still ground out a winning session.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Words are Like Leaves
YTD: +$61390.88
I don’t read a lot about poker any more, nor post on many forums. I’ve already commented on the dire state of posting on the popular forums. I recently did a trawl of poker writing to see how that was getting on. Ughh. I was right to stay away. I was astounded by how much of it was simply bad. Bad as in wrong. Or dumb. Or both. Here are some examples, and not just the soft targets like “The UK’s answer to Mike Caro”.
Anything by Phil Hellmuth
OK..I lied…one soft target then. The man is self-delusional to the point of insanity. As a case in point, read his view of the WPT event with Hoyt Corkins. Then watch it. Then marvel at how on earth Phil got from one to the other, except as justification for being comprehensively outplayed.
Harry Demetriou at Poker in Europe
Poker Europa has long been the Cardplayer of Europe. And that is not a compliment. Although Harry generated mixed views after his appearance on THM, with his knowing everyone style, I always quite liked him, as much as you can from glowing letters on a screen. Then this article :-( Here are some quotes:
“A good player in a cash game should also be a good player in tournament play as the basics for play itself in both are the same”
This made me grimace, but it may have just been an over-simplification. As a practical matter, the intersection of sets between good cash and good tourney players is tiny. And from a theoretical POV there are even more differences. But I guess the rules are the same.
“…more than fair proportion has little or no experience of tournament play…termed dead money… 40-50%... have next to no chance of …tremendous overlay in terms of positive expectation .”
This is a corollary to the small fields with better players are harder than massive fields with mostly chimps argument. Quality outweighs quantity. Paul Phillips has already shown how simply preposterous this is. But it is.
“There is also the question of value for money as most tournaments typically charge around 6-9% as an entry fee for the privilege of playing whilst cash games can vary tremendously and are seldom less than 10% regardless of whether they are raked or time charge games.”
??? WTF
“Another appealing aspect of tournament play is that it is also possible (at least in many of today's bigger buy in no limit tournaments) to make a big score. On the downside however is that because of the increased volatility you will need a relatively much larger bankroll to play tournaments than cash games.”
Sklansky showed that even in moderate several hundred player fields exceptional tourney players could go many, many years without a profit. Based on the big score criterion then the lottery is a good investment too.
Rolf Slotboom
I always though quite highly of Rolf’s game, from what he has described of it in his articles at least. Then reading his latest article I found:
(On losing several pots) “…it was not just the money: The lucky image that I have had been shattered.”
This brought a grimace but maybe it’s a language thing as English isn’t his native tongue.
“I thought it was best to stick to my short stack, move-in-early strategy that has given me so much success in previous years”
This brought a tightening of the lips and a shake of the head. Was he actually describing PLO?
Finally, he described a hand where he takes KK single suited against 4 other players, all big stacks, all-in before the flop. Now there are some exceptional circumstances when this may happen, but in general its poor play, or at best very, very, very marginal. Obviously he wins, but the story is positioned very much as a triumph of his skill and ability, without really stressing how exceptionally lucky he had been.
Another one out of the favourites then.
Dan Negreanu on RGP
I popped into rgp to see if things had improved. Heh. What was apparent though was that DN has not learned the lesson of that fine poker player though he may be, whenever he puts his “thoughts” into writing, he’s far from impressive. Here are some words of wisdom:
“ When a great player is playing his best, he may be capable of unheard of laydowns, oron the other side of the coin monster calls or monster bluffs even. Typically average to good players can only marvel at how a guy like John Hennigan plays a particular hand. Often, it's simple "over their head"
and very closely related to:
“You can use a chess analogy: if good chess players didn't understand why Bobby Fisher made a play they may see it as a mistake. Only Fisher knows that it is the best play available. With poker, good players might not understand the reasoning behind a play that a great player makes. Only a player that has a GREAT understanding of the game can deem whether or not another player is skillful.”
Hellmuth hubris?
“He's just got "feel", that one unquantifiable poker skill that "math guys" so desperately want but simply can't learn.”
I haven’t put up the ripostes that DN deservedly received over these gems, you can Google them yourself. However the last one was answered so elegantly it merits repeating:
“You say that like there weren't (at least) two "math guys" at the final table of this years WSOP final. It's a pity that one had to knock out the other.
It's those kind of statements which make it pretty clear that you don't really have much of an understanding of what "math" is.
The difference between "feel" and "math" is the difference between heads and tails. It's the same coin. It's just that the "math" people know that the coin has two sides, whereas the "feel" people think it has only one.'
I don’t read a lot about poker any more, nor post on many forums. I’ve already commented on the dire state of posting on the popular forums. I recently did a trawl of poker writing to see how that was getting on. Ughh. I was right to stay away. I was astounded by how much of it was simply bad. Bad as in wrong. Or dumb. Or both. Here are some examples, and not just the soft targets like “The UK’s answer to Mike Caro”.
Anything by Phil Hellmuth
OK..I lied…one soft target then. The man is self-delusional to the point of insanity. As a case in point, read his view of the WPT event with Hoyt Corkins. Then watch it. Then marvel at how on earth Phil got from one to the other, except as justification for being comprehensively outplayed.
Harry Demetriou at Poker in Europe
Poker Europa has long been the Cardplayer of Europe. And that is not a compliment. Although Harry generated mixed views after his appearance on THM, with his knowing everyone style, I always quite liked him, as much as you can from glowing letters on a screen. Then this article :-( Here are some quotes:
“A good player in a cash game should also be a good player in tournament play as the basics for play itself in both are the same”
This made me grimace, but it may have just been an over-simplification. As a practical matter, the intersection of sets between good cash and good tourney players is tiny. And from a theoretical POV there are even more differences. But I guess the rules are the same.
“…more than fair proportion has little or no experience of tournament play…termed dead money… 40-50%... have next to no chance of …tremendous overlay in terms of positive expectation .”
This is a corollary to the small fields with better players are harder than massive fields with mostly chimps argument. Quality outweighs quantity. Paul Phillips has already shown how simply preposterous this is. But it is.
“There is also the question of value for money as most tournaments typically charge around 6-9% as an entry fee for the privilege of playing whilst cash games can vary tremendously and are seldom less than 10% regardless of whether they are raked or time charge games.”
??? WTF
“Another appealing aspect of tournament play is that it is also possible (at least in many of today's bigger buy in no limit tournaments) to make a big score. On the downside however is that because of the increased volatility you will need a relatively much larger bankroll to play tournaments than cash games.”
Sklansky showed that even in moderate several hundred player fields exceptional tourney players could go many, many years without a profit. Based on the big score criterion then the lottery is a good investment too.
Rolf Slotboom
I always though quite highly of Rolf’s game, from what he has described of it in his articles at least. Then reading his latest article I found:
(On losing several pots) “…it was not just the money: The lucky image that I have had been shattered.”
This brought a grimace but maybe it’s a language thing as English isn’t his native tongue.
“I thought it was best to stick to my short stack, move-in-early strategy that has given me so much success in previous years”
This brought a tightening of the lips and a shake of the head. Was he actually describing PLO?
Finally, he described a hand where he takes KK single suited against 4 other players, all big stacks, all-in before the flop. Now there are some exceptional circumstances when this may happen, but in general its poor play, or at best very, very, very marginal. Obviously he wins, but the story is positioned very much as a triumph of his skill and ability, without really stressing how exceptionally lucky he had been.
Another one out of the favourites then.
Dan Negreanu on RGP
I popped into rgp to see if things had improved. Heh. What was apparent though was that DN has not learned the lesson of that fine poker player though he may be, whenever he puts his “thoughts” into writing, he’s far from impressive. Here are some words of wisdom:
“ When a great player is playing his best, he may be capable of unheard of laydowns, oron the other side of the coin monster calls or monster bluffs even. Typically average to good players can only marvel at how a guy like John Hennigan plays a particular hand. Often, it's simple "over their head"
and very closely related to:
“You can use a chess analogy: if good chess players didn't understand why Bobby Fisher made a play they may see it as a mistake. Only Fisher knows that it is the best play available. With poker, good players might not understand the reasoning behind a play that a great player makes. Only a player that has a GREAT understanding of the game can deem whether or not another player is skillful.”
Hellmuth hubris?
“He's just got "feel", that one unquantifiable poker skill that "math guys" so desperately want but simply can't learn.”
I haven’t put up the ripostes that DN deservedly received over these gems, you can Google them yourself. However the last one was answered so elegantly it merits repeating:
“You say that like there weren't (at least) two "math guys" at the final table of this years WSOP final. It's a pity that one had to knock out the other.
It's those kind of statements which make it pretty clear that you don't really have much of an understanding of what "math" is.
The difference between "feel" and "math" is the difference between heads and tails. It's the same coin. It's just that the "math" people know that the coin has two sides, whereas the "feel" people think it has only one.'
Friday, September 03, 2004
Back to the Future
YTD: +$55048.73
After my blooper from the last hand and some further thought I decided to revisit the whole scenario of how my foe played the hand, but with a more detailed and analytical approach.
Firstly, with a short stack, his play on the flop is flat out wrong. Here he must either bet out or check raise me as he hopes to be a favourite and should want to get his stack in whilst so, with the added equity of making me pass. A check call is the worst alternative unless he knows for sure that he can contrive the play I am about to analyse, which starts to become a bit of an extensive parlay.
So we’ve got to the turn. What are his alternatives? He can bet out or he can go for a check raise – I’m dismissing a check call here for simplicity’s sake. The bet out is the straightforward play here. Assuming I’m a LAG (loose aggressive good) then betting out will make me pass all my draws, except the 15+ out ones, and of course if he’s already losing, he has to accept that he’s going broke here. It’s hard to get away from a set with a shortish stack in PLO. This wins him the pot but does it maximize his EV? Back to the Theory of Poker thing, it actually forces me to play correctly as in that I will pass if I should pass and call if I should call. It is hard for me to make an error here. But now let us look at the crafty check raise play.
The main risk, and drain of EV, in the check play is that I check back. Not only does he then give me a free card, but he’s also committed himself to calling any bet on the river as his show of weakness is more likely to encourage a bluff (I’m assuming he understands this of course.) But. He then picks up some catch bluffs equity on the river, normally from my low odd misses. And if I hit a high % draw, in a sense he was putting the money in regardless so although it feels dumber putting it in when I’ve hit, it’s not a catastrophe as he would have paid anyway. The only real disasters are he makes less money, because I would have paid but now refuse to bluff; I hit a low % draw which I would have passed.
Calculating all of these permutations is unnecessarily complicated, all we need do initially is look at the foe’s EV for the check raise turn, but understand that it would have to be downgraded for the reasons above.
Unfortunately I can't get my calculations into any kind of presentable format, but with some assumptions on the range of hands I have, mostly skewed to the weaker side, he ends up with a huge $500 EV+ on just over a $500 wager. This is truly massive and could not be turned negative by the risk of checking unless I am a high % checker on the turn, which is unlikely from the play of the hand. I also find it hard to see how simply betting out could better this either.
Interestingly, this expert play does not mean he is an expert. As I commented recently, many expert Omaha plays look identical to chump ones. It’s the thought that counts.
After my blooper from the last hand and some further thought I decided to revisit the whole scenario of how my foe played the hand, but with a more detailed and analytical approach.
Firstly, with a short stack, his play on the flop is flat out wrong. Here he must either bet out or check raise me as he hopes to be a favourite and should want to get his stack in whilst so, with the added equity of making me pass. A check call is the worst alternative unless he knows for sure that he can contrive the play I am about to analyse, which starts to become a bit of an extensive parlay.
So we’ve got to the turn. What are his alternatives? He can bet out or he can go for a check raise – I’m dismissing a check call here for simplicity’s sake. The bet out is the straightforward play here. Assuming I’m a LAG (loose aggressive good) then betting out will make me pass all my draws, except the 15+ out ones, and of course if he’s already losing, he has to accept that he’s going broke here. It’s hard to get away from a set with a shortish stack in PLO. This wins him the pot but does it maximize his EV? Back to the Theory of Poker thing, it actually forces me to play correctly as in that I will pass if I should pass and call if I should call. It is hard for me to make an error here. But now let us look at the crafty check raise play.
The main risk, and drain of EV, in the check play is that I check back. Not only does he then give me a free card, but he’s also committed himself to calling any bet on the river as his show of weakness is more likely to encourage a bluff (I’m assuming he understands this of course.) But. He then picks up some catch bluffs equity on the river, normally from my low odd misses. And if I hit a high % draw, in a sense he was putting the money in regardless so although it feels dumber putting it in when I’ve hit, it’s not a catastrophe as he would have paid anyway. The only real disasters are he makes less money, because I would have paid but now refuse to bluff; I hit a low % draw which I would have passed.
Calculating all of these permutations is unnecessarily complicated, all we need do initially is look at the foe’s EV for the check raise turn, but understand that it would have to be downgraded for the reasons above.
Unfortunately I can't get my calculations into any kind of presentable format, but with some assumptions on the range of hands I have, mostly skewed to the weaker side, he ends up with a huge $500 EV+ on just over a $500 wager. This is truly massive and could not be turned negative by the risk of checking unless I am a high % checker on the turn, which is unlikely from the play of the hand. I also find it hard to see how simply betting out could better this either.
Interestingly, this expert play does not mean he is an expert. As I commented recently, many expert Omaha plays look identical to chump ones. It’s the thought that counts.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Bad Company
YTD: +$52914.78
After one of my best months ever, I’m still unhappy with some of the quality of my decision making. In some ways – not many admittedly, but some – I feel better losing when I’ve done the right thing than winning when I’ve done the wrong thing. The first is a short term fluctuation, the second the start of bad habits. However, one of the mitigating factors in the Stars game is that many players, even the good ones, are making worse decisions more often than me. Here’s an example below. Let the mediocre prevail!
PokerStars Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: Ludster ($467.90 in chips) (sb)
Seat 2: batoelrob ($1176.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 3: dougthompson ($450.00 in chips)
Seat 4: acekingqq ($1529.65 in chips)
Seat 5: Foe ($713.00 in chips)
Seat 6: joelmick ($3282.75 in chips)
Seat 7: Lowbrow ($548.00 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($1124.00 in chips) (button)
Ludster : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
batoelrob : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ Ah 9d Qs Ks ]
dougthompson : folds
acekingqq : folds
Foe : raises $20.00
joelmick : folds
Lowbrow : folds
Hero : raises $60.00 (button)
This is a loose reraise against a mostly unknown player, although my hand is quite strong. This was early in the session and I wanted to build some image too.
Ludster : folds (sb)
batoelrob : folds (bb)
Foe : calls $40.00
*** FLOP *** [Kc 8c Jh]
Foe : checks
Hero : bets $110.00 (button)
Not a great flop, but one worth betting.
Foe : calls $110.00
*** TURN *** [Kc 8c Jh] [4d]
Foe : checks
Hero : bets $352.00 (button)
Foe has shown no strength at all. If he’s drawing a big bet should move him out. Over the table I felt I was in front at this point.
Foe : raises $543.00 and is all-in
OK, now I know I’ve been trapped. But. He could have two pair. He could just have a big draw and want to put it in for value. And I still have 3 nut outs. On the range of probabilities against a typical Stars player this is an automatic call.
Hero : calls $191.00 (button)
*** RIVER *** [Kc 8c Jh 4d] [Ts]
*** SUMMARY ***
Main pot $1438.00 | Rake $3.00
Board [Kc 8c Jh 4d Ts]
Seat 5: Foe lost $713.00 [8d 8s 9h Kd] with three of a kind
Seat 8: Hero bet $713.00, collected $1438.00, net +$725.00 [Ah 9d Qs Ks] with straight
I did say this post was about bad decision making, not bad beats :-) At least not for me. On one hand I’ve been outplayed and my foe has made me put in a good chunk of money very thin. But that was only because my hand was in essence a semi bluff anyway. But from his perspective he did not know I was drawing so thin and he has contrived a compulsory call out of me. Anytime an opponents calls when he should fold, or folds when he should call, you make theoretical profit. But the converse is equally true. If your foe calls when he should call and folds when he should fold, you make theoretical loss. And over the long term this theory turns into real money. Or real loss. (For those that don’t know this is in essence the core of Sklansky’s Theory of Poker.)
The check on the turn is especially bad, assuming I had the draw hand, as (a) I could just check it back (b) if I’m the aggressive player he assumes I am, he doesn’t have enough to make my call of his check raise wrong. Unless he puts me on naked AA he must either check raise on the flop or bet out on the turn.
Bad decisions all round.
After one of my best months ever, I’m still unhappy with some of the quality of my decision making. In some ways – not many admittedly, but some – I feel better losing when I’ve done the right thing than winning when I’ve done the wrong thing. The first is a short term fluctuation, the second the start of bad habits. However, one of the mitigating factors in the Stars game is that many players, even the good ones, are making worse decisions more often than me. Here’s an example below. Let the mediocre prevail!
PokerStars Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: Ludster ($467.90 in chips) (sb)
Seat 2: batoelrob ($1176.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 3: dougthompson ($450.00 in chips)
Seat 4: acekingqq ($1529.65 in chips)
Seat 5: Foe ($713.00 in chips)
Seat 6: joelmick ($3282.75 in chips)
Seat 7: Lowbrow ($548.00 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($1124.00 in chips) (button)
Ludster : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
batoelrob : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ Ah 9d Qs Ks ]
dougthompson : folds
acekingqq : folds
Foe : raises $20.00
joelmick : folds
Lowbrow : folds
Hero : raises $60.00 (button)
This is a loose reraise against a mostly unknown player, although my hand is quite strong. This was early in the session and I wanted to build some image too.
Ludster : folds (sb)
batoelrob : folds (bb)
Foe : calls $40.00
*** FLOP *** [Kc 8c Jh]
Foe : checks
Hero : bets $110.00 (button)
Not a great flop, but one worth betting.
Foe : calls $110.00
*** TURN *** [Kc 8c Jh] [4d]
Foe : checks
Hero : bets $352.00 (button)
Foe has shown no strength at all. If he’s drawing a big bet should move him out. Over the table I felt I was in front at this point.
Foe : raises $543.00 and is all-in
OK, now I know I’ve been trapped. But. He could have two pair. He could just have a big draw and want to put it in for value. And I still have 3 nut outs. On the range of probabilities against a typical Stars player this is an automatic call.
Hero : calls $191.00 (button)
*** RIVER *** [Kc 8c Jh 4d] [Ts]
*** SUMMARY ***
Main pot $1438.00 | Rake $3.00
Board [Kc 8c Jh 4d Ts]
Seat 5: Foe lost $713.00 [8d 8s 9h Kd] with three of a kind
Seat 8: Hero bet $713.00, collected $1438.00, net +$725.00 [Ah 9d Qs Ks] with straight
I did say this post was about bad decision making, not bad beats :-) At least not for me. On one hand I’ve been outplayed and my foe has made me put in a good chunk of money very thin. But that was only because my hand was in essence a semi bluff anyway. But from his perspective he did not know I was drawing so thin and he has contrived a compulsory call out of me. Anytime an opponents calls when he should fold, or folds when he should call, you make theoretical profit. But the converse is equally true. If your foe calls when he should call and folds when he should fold, you make theoretical loss. And over the long term this theory turns into real money. Or real loss. (For those that don’t know this is in essence the core of Sklansky’s Theory of Poker.)
The check on the turn is especially bad, assuming I had the draw hand, as (a) I could just check it back (b) if I’m the aggressive player he assumes I am, he doesn’t have enough to make my call of his check raise wrong. Unless he puts me on naked AA he must either check raise on the flop or bet out on the turn.
Bad decisions all round.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
I Think We're Alone Now, The Beating of our Hearts is the Only Sound
YTD: +$51824.75
I have been posting to various forums for the best part of 8 years now. All about poker. But eventually the poker content dies. RGP withered on the vine a long time ago. THM has become what I always feared it would. Finally, the last bastion of solid poker content, albeit sometimes heavily moderated, has started to slide down the slippery slope.
I really had high hopes for the new PLO forum. Initially there was some good content but it soon became clear that we were either in armchair expert territory – see post below – or we were having to explain why to raise with top trips when they are the current nuts. I recently posted a hand that I felt was really fascinating, even though I lost. I hoped it might spark off some intelligent debate. Instead it sunk like the proverbial lead balloon. Here it is again, this time with my comments:
PokerStars Game: Omaha Pot Limit ($5/$10)
Seat 1: MickTheHoon ($824.50 in chips)
Seat 2: HOT TEA ($215.50 in chips)
Seat 4: c.cris ($442 in chips)
Seat 5: ungar ($628.50 in chips)
Seat 6: luckylefty ($1456.25 in chips)
Seat 7: Foe ($2117.75 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($4536.90 in chips)
Seat 9: TheFelt ($947 in chips)
ungar: posts small blind $5
luckylefty: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Jd 9s Ks Th]
Foe: calls $10
Foe is loose aggressive good and a very experienced live cash player
Hero: calls $10
I would raise or even reraise with this hand in position, UTG I call
TheFelt: calls $10
MickTheHoon: calls $10
HOT TEA: calls $10
c.cris: folds
ungar: folds
luckylefty: checks
*** FLOP *** [Qh 2c Ts]
luckylefty: checks
Foe: checks
Hero: bets $50
TheFelt: folds
MickTheHoon: folds
HOT TEA: folds
luckylefty: folds
Foe: raises $150 to $200
This is a very interesting raise. My Foe knows I am loose aggressive too and he may just be trying to move out my semi-bluff. But why hasn’t he raised the pot, which would certainly be the expected play with two pair – perhaps he is looking for a reraise from me?
Hero: calls $150
I’m not a favourite over trips so I don’t want to lump it all in on the flop.
*** TURN *** [Qh 2c Ts] [Td]
Foe: bets $100
This is a beautiful bet. The foe knows that if he checks now, I will simply go dead on the hand, because I will put him on the nuts full. By betting small he could be trying to provoke me into making a raise. And yet he could also be drawing too and be looking for a cheap card!
Hero: calls $100
*** RIVER *** [Qh 2c Ts Td] [8s]
Foe: bets $500
Hero said, "im stuck"
Hero said, "gimme a clue"
Foe said, "lol"
I really was stuck. My str8 could be good. The $500 is an interesting bet because (a) its not the pot again (b) physically it looks smaller online. I would have been much more likely to call a full pot size bet. And yet my foe may know this as well and so is doing a “milk bet bluff”.
Hero: folds
In the end I decided that I could only beat a bluff or a busted draw. And that discretion is the better part of valour. But god, did I want to call!
I have been posting to various forums for the best part of 8 years now. All about poker. But eventually the poker content dies. RGP withered on the vine a long time ago. THM has become what I always feared it would. Finally, the last bastion of solid poker content, albeit sometimes heavily moderated, has started to slide down the slippery slope.
I really had high hopes for the new PLO forum. Initially there was some good content but it soon became clear that we were either in armchair expert territory – see post below – or we were having to explain why to raise with top trips when they are the current nuts. I recently posted a hand that I felt was really fascinating, even though I lost. I hoped it might spark off some intelligent debate. Instead it sunk like the proverbial lead balloon. Here it is again, this time with my comments:
PokerStars Game: Omaha Pot Limit ($5/$10)
Seat 1: MickTheHoon ($824.50 in chips)
Seat 2: HOT TEA ($215.50 in chips)
Seat 4: c.cris ($442 in chips)
Seat 5: ungar ($628.50 in chips)
Seat 6: luckylefty ($1456.25 in chips)
Seat 7: Foe ($2117.75 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($4536.90 in chips)
Seat 9: TheFelt ($947 in chips)
ungar: posts small blind $5
luckylefty: posts big blind $10
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Jd 9s Ks Th]
Foe: calls $10
Foe is loose aggressive good and a very experienced live cash player
Hero: calls $10
I would raise or even reraise with this hand in position, UTG I call
TheFelt: calls $10
MickTheHoon: calls $10
HOT TEA: calls $10
c.cris: folds
ungar: folds
luckylefty: checks
*** FLOP *** [Qh 2c Ts]
luckylefty: checks
Foe: checks
Hero: bets $50
TheFelt: folds
MickTheHoon: folds
HOT TEA: folds
luckylefty: folds
Foe: raises $150 to $200
This is a very interesting raise. My Foe knows I am loose aggressive too and he may just be trying to move out my semi-bluff. But why hasn’t he raised the pot, which would certainly be the expected play with two pair – perhaps he is looking for a reraise from me?
Hero: calls $150
I’m not a favourite over trips so I don’t want to lump it all in on the flop.
*** TURN *** [Qh 2c Ts] [Td]
Foe: bets $100
This is a beautiful bet. The foe knows that if he checks now, I will simply go dead on the hand, because I will put him on the nuts full. By betting small he could be trying to provoke me into making a raise. And yet he could also be drawing too and be looking for a cheap card!
Hero: calls $100
*** RIVER *** [Qh 2c Ts Td] [8s]
Foe: bets $500
Hero said, "im stuck"
Hero said, "gimme a clue"
Foe said, "lol"
I really was stuck. My str8 could be good. The $500 is an interesting bet because (a) its not the pot again (b) physically it looks smaller online. I would have been much more likely to call a full pot size bet. And yet my foe may know this as well and so is doing a “milk bet bluff”.
Hero: folds
In the end I decided that I could only beat a bluff or a busted draw. And that discretion is the better part of valour. But god, did I want to call!
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Apologia BigDaveDous
YTD: +$ 47924.00
It’s nice to see that my PLO8b hand has sparked some debate. My initial thought was to show that you didn’t have to just play A-B-C poker to win. Unfortunately, my hand was so far out to right field that I had run out of letters and was getting stuck into the numbers!
On reflection, I don’t like that initial preflop call. However the hand does illustrate some valuable principles, such as how to think ahead and plan your moves and bluffs through the streets, as well as constructing a strategy that is game theory balanced, so that you are not leaking away too much information to those hopefully few players who are paying attention.
Tally raised an interesting point in the comments – why bother with these kind of plays when PLO8b players often simply hand you their money with no risk? Well this is certainly true in the initial stages of a PLO8b game evolution; for more on this see:
http://internetpokerpro.blogspot.com/2004/07/evolutionary-cycle-plo-and-plo8b.html
But there is a kind of temporary stage, certainly when the stakes become meaningful, where players somewhat wise up but still make fatal errors. By adjusting your game you can then take advantage of this better-but-still-bad play. What kinds of errors are they making? They fall into four areas.
1. Love and Marriage – AAxx is routinely taken to the river, regardless of the board or danger.
2. Hi Fear Syndrome – If there is a high out there, someone has it. This is a common problem of tight PLO players switching game. I can think of a player on Stars who plays the PLO8b all the way up to 5-10 who is at best mediocre, but makes money just because people don’t look him up when high hands come.
3. I’m Low Therefore I Am – All nut lows must be played. All nut low draws must be played also, regardless of action and counterfeit protection.
4. All Draws are Created Equal – Drawing to nut highs on the turn is debatable in PLO; when there is a low present in PLO8b it is financial suicide, unless you are getting 8 to 1 ish on the bet!
If all you are playing is freerolls and 3/4s you will simply be leaving a lot of money on the table that could rightfully be yours if your foes are making these kind of errors. In B&M, this stage can last quite a while, especially if it is dealers choice where the harshness of PLO8b is mitigated by the kindness of more wilder games. Online it doesn’t last long at all and you have to be careful that you don’t take your looser game into one that has finally gone to a terminal rockfest stage. As an example, although it briefly burnt bright, all the high and medium stakes PLO8b has again gone from Stars. Thank god for PLO! For now :-)
It’s nice to see that my PLO8b hand has sparked some debate. My initial thought was to show that you didn’t have to just play A-B-C poker to win. Unfortunately, my hand was so far out to right field that I had run out of letters and was getting stuck into the numbers!
On reflection, I don’t like that initial preflop call. However the hand does illustrate some valuable principles, such as how to think ahead and plan your moves and bluffs through the streets, as well as constructing a strategy that is game theory balanced, so that you are not leaking away too much information to those hopefully few players who are paying attention.
Tally raised an interesting point in the comments – why bother with these kind of plays when PLO8b players often simply hand you their money with no risk? Well this is certainly true in the initial stages of a PLO8b game evolution; for more on this see:
http://internetpokerpro.blogspot.com/2004/07/evolutionary-cycle-plo-and-plo8b.html
But there is a kind of temporary stage, certainly when the stakes become meaningful, where players somewhat wise up but still make fatal errors. By adjusting your game you can then take advantage of this better-but-still-bad play. What kinds of errors are they making? They fall into four areas.
1. Love and Marriage – AAxx is routinely taken to the river, regardless of the board or danger.
2. Hi Fear Syndrome – If there is a high out there, someone has it. This is a common problem of tight PLO players switching game. I can think of a player on Stars who plays the PLO8b all the way up to 5-10 who is at best mediocre, but makes money just because people don’t look him up when high hands come.
3. I’m Low Therefore I Am – All nut lows must be played. All nut low draws must be played also, regardless of action and counterfeit protection.
4. All Draws are Created Equal – Drawing to nut highs on the turn is debatable in PLO; when there is a low present in PLO8b it is financial suicide, unless you are getting 8 to 1 ish on the bet!
If all you are playing is freerolls and 3/4s you will simply be leaving a lot of money on the table that could rightfully be yours if your foes are making these kind of errors. In B&M, this stage can last quite a while, especially if it is dealers choice where the harshness of PLO8b is mitigated by the kindness of more wilder games. Online it doesn’t last long at all and you have to be careful that you don’t take your looser game into one that has finally gone to a terminal rockfest stage. As an example, although it briefly burnt bright, all the high and medium stakes PLO8b has again gone from Stars. Thank god for PLO! For now :-)
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Armchair Expert
YTD: +$44449.15
This post has a dual nature. Mainly, I wanted to show how some of the super rock thinking on plo8b has become quite prevalent on the web, which my hand below was meant to be an antidote to. And yes I will come back to that hand later! I also wanted to make a small comment on how poor posting on poker has become over the last year or so. RGP has long become mostly noise, or as the long timers (mostly all gone) would have said, the SNR is very low. THM is mostly a chat site. And finally 2+2 has become weak in terms of original, thought provoking content, although I am still battling away in the PLO forum. In fact a few months ago, in an act of pathos, some of the high limit holdem posters said "hey, are we the best there are now? We're not THAT good?" They then stopped posting, mostly.
What you have got left with on 2+2 are self-appointed experts who expound in great detail, often incredibly, ridiculously, lengthy detail, popular wisdom as if it were from tablets of stone from on high. And they are never ever wrong. Even when their previous posts completely contradict what they are saying now, even sometimes in the same thread, as I recently, reluctantly, had to point out to another poster on the PLO forum.
Anyway, have a taste of plo8b thought:
(The snipped thread I am quoting started off with the question do you play a naked A2 in plo8b)
----------------
If you can pass a naked A2 draw on the flop then sure you can play the A2. Have you seen the donkey bollox that most of your foes are playing? Even at the highest limits online you will see terrible hands played badly, and your A2 gives you a freeroll on the other two cards. If you are in a tight game then get the hell out because you cant out-rock a rocky game.
-----------
These were the predictable responses:
-----------
yeah, but it gives you a free roll for nothing.
For naked A-2, I am assuming A 2 7 J
If you have a good flush draw, or a pair to go with it, something that can make a strong hi, then yeah I agree.
-----------
and...
-----------
Fold it Preflop.
You are at best drawing for half the pot and have no counterfeit defense. The naked A2 is GARBAGE!
-----------
Back to me:
-----------
What makes you think everyone else is playing A2 only? Also even the junk part of A2 has quartering possibilities, simply because you can often catch people with a nut low, no pair. The guys here who are saying pass an A2 either (a) cannot pass a low draw (b) don't play online.
The other day I won a $2200 pot against a guy who raised UTG with Q876 and bet and bet, and even called a $700 raise on the turn with just a high draw. Whilst this is an extreme, bad play in plo8b is part of the game. And if it isnt then you shouldnt be playing it as tight plo8b is the worse game in the world.
-----------
Smasheroo, who became the main protagonist then made this frank admission, which he seemed to forget later:
-----------
I think it's more along lines of avoiding tough decisions with marginal hands. If you can eek out extra profit with a naked A2, more power to you, you are a better man than I.
I'll keep folding A27J.
-----------
I then commented on playing in loose games to another poster:
-----------
Interestingly I posted about how plo8b games get looser or tighter in my blog (ok..its a plug :-)
Almost by definition any game of plo8b on the net is loose, although Ive never played microlimits or even below 2-4 in quite some time so there may be some very rare anomolies. If playing A2 isn't profitable....get up! Of course what some people here are not taking into the equation is that you do actually have a say in how to play it. You don't have to go beserk with it and its ok to pass a nut low or nut low draw. Most of the advice for playing plo8b on here seems to have evolved from playing limit Omaha 8b which is a much MUCH tighter game. As in all big bet games the target is your opponents stack, not winning a few blinds.
So for example, I almost never raise with an A2, in fact I almost never raise in any early positions with any hand. Because you are not raising with it, the A2 becomes much more deceptive, and allows you to play hands with a bit of aggression, knowing you have the nut low for backup. So to use the worst case example, A27J, perhaps the flop comes J83. Although this is by no means a monster, you now have a hand that you can put down some pressure with.
When your opponents are playing loose, you can win money by playing tighter than your "core" game; however you will win much more money by playing looser, although no where near as loose as your foes.
-----------
Smasheroo is back with...
-----------
In my oppinion, the amount of times you'll have even a vauge hi hand is negative EV to the amount of times you'll just be dumping it. The amount of times you stay in with it for the low is negative EV to the amount of times you get quartered.
This doesn't mean I'm right, but explain to me how it ever ends up being a +EV situation? This is PLO8 we're talking about, where it's almost impossible you're getting to a showdown without calling at least one pot sized bet.
-----------
I was getting a bit exasperated now
-----------
Smash,
What games are you playing in? Your response seems to be based on a hypothetical game not the ones I play in. Why should I be being quartered often? Why am I calling pot sized bets? As opposed perhaps to making them. In any big bet game its generally OK to see the flop with medium hands for the implied odds...in general I see A2 as a medium strength hand. I believe I gave a reasonable example of a kind of hand that is ok with a medium strength high. Another okay example might be a 3-4 way limp pot where you flop the nut low and everyone checks to you and you bet and take it...or perhaps have to push again against a headsup foe on the turn.
Im not saying that A2 has to be played religiously, or aggressively, just that to say it SHOULD ALWAYS be passed is simply leaving too much money on the table in online games, where even at the 5-10 level, people are playing bonkers.
-----------
Smash then retorted, but made me more convinced that he was one of the many armchair experts that haunt 2+2. The NL comparison is exceptionally trite, imho.
-----------
The fact that you're playing in looser games would mean you're MORE likely to be quartered with A2 and nothing.
Look at this way, it's like playing any two suited cards in NL holdem. Your argument is basically that sometimes you'll have the nut low alone, or be able to bluff a pot down, or occasionally hit the nut high and scoop. Sometimes you'll make a flush that holds up with 84s. I'm still not going to play 84s in NL holdem, and I'm still not going to bother with naked A2 in PLO8.
PLO8 is about freerolling people who play exposed one way hands and scooping. Why would you want to provide the opportunity for someone to quarter you?
Your example of everyone checking to you after you make a nut low and then taking down the pot is fine, but works with any four cards.
I don't want to argue about it, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
There are many, many better opportunities to get your money in with better EV and I just can't see A2 all by itself not being a negative EV play.
If it's profitable for you, fantastic, keep playing it. As a general rule, though, I'd say it's really not worth playing in PL. In limit, sure. Getting quartered in limit is annoying but not ussually a big deal. Getting quartered in PL is much more of a big deal.
I'd rather be the one doing the 3/4ing.
-----------
Not sure why I persisted...
-----------
Smash,
U seem to be continually missing my point that you will only get quartered with an A2 if you allow yourself to do so. You don't have to play these hands by rote. There is a very strong belief in playing ultra ultra tight in plo8b on this forum, popularised by crockpot, which is certainly a winning style, and great for beginners. However Im starting to think that the people that advocate it dont actually play the game much, rather they just hypothesize instead. You can play the game very rigidly and make money for sure, but just by expanding that core of hands a little and experimenting, with skill and thought, you can win much more, especially in the very loose games on the net.
Also your NL example is not a good comparison. A2 is not 84s by a long way. And NL is very fundamentally a different game. In fact plo8b stands alone in the big bet world, imho.
Anyway its clear Im in a majority of one here, so if anyone wants to check out my thoughts, there will be more on this on my blog.
-----------
Like most of these kind of guys, he has to have the last word. Where he really seems to believe that a naked A2 is as valueless as 4 random cards...
-----------
I'm not missing the point. I'm missing the point at which your argument makes more sense with A2xx than with any four cards.
This post has a dual nature. Mainly, I wanted to show how some of the super rock thinking on plo8b has become quite prevalent on the web, which my hand below was meant to be an antidote to. And yes I will come back to that hand later! I also wanted to make a small comment on how poor posting on poker has become over the last year or so. RGP has long become mostly noise, or as the long timers (mostly all gone) would have said, the SNR is very low. THM is mostly a chat site. And finally 2+2 has become weak in terms of original, thought provoking content, although I am still battling away in the PLO forum. In fact a few months ago, in an act of pathos, some of the high limit holdem posters said "hey, are we the best there are now? We're not THAT good?" They then stopped posting, mostly.
What you have got left with on 2+2 are self-appointed experts who expound in great detail, often incredibly, ridiculously, lengthy detail, popular wisdom as if it were from tablets of stone from on high. And they are never ever wrong. Even when their previous posts completely contradict what they are saying now, even sometimes in the same thread, as I recently, reluctantly, had to point out to another poster on the PLO forum.
Anyway, have a taste of plo8b thought:
(The snipped thread I am quoting started off with the question do you play a naked A2 in plo8b)
----------------
If you can pass a naked A2 draw on the flop then sure you can play the A2. Have you seen the donkey bollox that most of your foes are playing? Even at the highest limits online you will see terrible hands played badly, and your A2 gives you a freeroll on the other two cards. If you are in a tight game then get the hell out because you cant out-rock a rocky game.
-----------
These were the predictable responses:
-----------
yeah, but it gives you a free roll for nothing.
For naked A-2, I am assuming A 2 7 J
If you have a good flush draw, or a pair to go with it, something that can make a strong hi, then yeah I agree.
-----------
and...
-----------
Fold it Preflop.
You are at best drawing for half the pot and have no counterfeit defense. The naked A2 is GARBAGE!
-----------
Back to me:
-----------
What makes you think everyone else is playing A2 only? Also even the junk part of A2 has quartering possibilities, simply because you can often catch people with a nut low, no pair. The guys here who are saying pass an A2 either (a) cannot pass a low draw (b) don't play online.
The other day I won a $2200 pot against a guy who raised UTG with Q876 and bet and bet, and even called a $700 raise on the turn with just a high draw. Whilst this is an extreme, bad play in plo8b is part of the game. And if it isnt then you shouldnt be playing it as tight plo8b is the worse game in the world.
-----------
Smasheroo, who became the main protagonist then made this frank admission, which he seemed to forget later:
-----------
I think it's more along lines of avoiding tough decisions with marginal hands. If you can eek out extra profit with a naked A2, more power to you, you are a better man than I.
I'll keep folding A27J.
-----------
I then commented on playing in loose games to another poster:
-----------
Interestingly I posted about how plo8b games get looser or tighter in my blog (ok..its a plug :-)
Almost by definition any game of plo8b on the net is loose, although Ive never played microlimits or even below 2-4 in quite some time so there may be some very rare anomolies. If playing A2 isn't profitable....get up! Of course what some people here are not taking into the equation is that you do actually have a say in how to play it. You don't have to go beserk with it and its ok to pass a nut low or nut low draw. Most of the advice for playing plo8b on here seems to have evolved from playing limit Omaha 8b which is a much MUCH tighter game. As in all big bet games the target is your opponents stack, not winning a few blinds.
So for example, I almost never raise with an A2, in fact I almost never raise in any early positions with any hand. Because you are not raising with it, the A2 becomes much more deceptive, and allows you to play hands with a bit of aggression, knowing you have the nut low for backup. So to use the worst case example, A27J, perhaps the flop comes J83. Although this is by no means a monster, you now have a hand that you can put down some pressure with.
When your opponents are playing loose, you can win money by playing tighter than your "core" game; however you will win much more money by playing looser, although no where near as loose as your foes.
-----------
Smasheroo is back with...
-----------
In my oppinion, the amount of times you'll have even a vauge hi hand is negative EV to the amount of times you'll just be dumping it. The amount of times you stay in with it for the low is negative EV to the amount of times you get quartered.
This doesn't mean I'm right, but explain to me how it ever ends up being a +EV situation? This is PLO8 we're talking about, where it's almost impossible you're getting to a showdown without calling at least one pot sized bet.
-----------
I was getting a bit exasperated now
-----------
Smash,
What games are you playing in? Your response seems to be based on a hypothetical game not the ones I play in. Why should I be being quartered often? Why am I calling pot sized bets? As opposed perhaps to making them. In any big bet game its generally OK to see the flop with medium hands for the implied odds...in general I see A2 as a medium strength hand. I believe I gave a reasonable example of a kind of hand that is ok with a medium strength high. Another okay example might be a 3-4 way limp pot where you flop the nut low and everyone checks to you and you bet and take it...or perhaps have to push again against a headsup foe on the turn.
Im not saying that A2 has to be played religiously, or aggressively, just that to say it SHOULD ALWAYS be passed is simply leaving too much money on the table in online games, where even at the 5-10 level, people are playing bonkers.
-----------
Smash then retorted, but made me more convinced that he was one of the many armchair experts that haunt 2+2. The NL comparison is exceptionally trite, imho.
-----------
The fact that you're playing in looser games would mean you're MORE likely to be quartered with A2 and nothing.
Look at this way, it's like playing any two suited cards in NL holdem. Your argument is basically that sometimes you'll have the nut low alone, or be able to bluff a pot down, or occasionally hit the nut high and scoop. Sometimes you'll make a flush that holds up with 84s. I'm still not going to play 84s in NL holdem, and I'm still not going to bother with naked A2 in PLO8.
PLO8 is about freerolling people who play exposed one way hands and scooping. Why would you want to provide the opportunity for someone to quarter you?
Your example of everyone checking to you after you make a nut low and then taking down the pot is fine, but works with any four cards.
I don't want to argue about it, we'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
There are many, many better opportunities to get your money in with better EV and I just can't see A2 all by itself not being a negative EV play.
If it's profitable for you, fantastic, keep playing it. As a general rule, though, I'd say it's really not worth playing in PL. In limit, sure. Getting quartered in limit is annoying but not ussually a big deal. Getting quartered in PL is much more of a big deal.
I'd rather be the one doing the 3/4ing.
-----------
Not sure why I persisted...
-----------
Smash,
U seem to be continually missing my point that you will only get quartered with an A2 if you allow yourself to do so. You don't have to play these hands by rote. There is a very strong belief in playing ultra ultra tight in plo8b on this forum, popularised by crockpot, which is certainly a winning style, and great for beginners. However Im starting to think that the people that advocate it dont actually play the game much, rather they just hypothesize instead. You can play the game very rigidly and make money for sure, but just by expanding that core of hands a little and experimenting, with skill and thought, you can win much more, especially in the very loose games on the net.
Also your NL example is not a good comparison. A2 is not 84s by a long way. And NL is very fundamentally a different game. In fact plo8b stands alone in the big bet world, imho.
Anyway its clear Im in a majority of one here, so if anyone wants to check out my thoughts, there will be more on this on my blog.
-----------
Like most of these kind of guys, he has to have the last word. Where he really seems to believe that a naked A2 is as valueless as 4 random cards...
-----------
I'm not missing the point. I'm missing the point at which your argument makes more sense with A2xx than with any four cards.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
In the Kingdom of the Blind
YTD: +$ 41299.45
As a change of pace, and also as someone requested it, I'm looking at PLO8b today. PLO8b is a strange game. There is some excellent advice on how to become a competent, very tight player. However most players seem to think that the entire of the game is waiting for freerolls. What they seem to miss is that if the players are bad enough to give you a freeroll, they are bad enough to give you several opportunities where they will be putting money in the pot in prohibitively poor equity situations. These aren't quite as painless as freerolls, but getting someone to call a pot sized bet on the turn when he only has 20% equity is a hugely profitably exercise. And to get these opportunities you simply have to play more hands than the tighties advise.
PokerStars Omaha Hi/Lo Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: Foe ($1173.50 in chips)
Seat 2: Regency ($882.50 in chips)
Seat 3: Hero ($980.00 in chips)
Seat 4: riskynunber ($369.00 in chips) (button)
Seat 5: DeadMansHnd ($115.00 in chips) (sb)
Seat 6: LuvKingAlpha ($751.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 7: davmcg ($569.40 in chips)
Seat 8: kdhspyder ($894.15 in chips)
DeadMansHnd : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
LuvKingAlpha : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 2s 4h 8s Kh ]
davmcg : folds
kdhspyder : calls $10.00
Foe : raises $20.00
Regency : folds
Hero : calls $20.00
This is a hugely loose call and "not to be tried at home". There are some big howevers here though. The foe is monstrously loose aggressive dumb. The foe will auto-bet the flop, almost 95% of the time. I am sure the button, who is very tight will pass. Lastly, we both have quite big stacks so there is money to be played for.
riskynunber : folds (button)
DeadMansHnd : calls $15.00 (sb)
LuvKingAlpha : calls $10.00 (bb)
kdhspyder : calls $10.00
*** FLOP *** [Jd 3h Jh]
DeadMansHnd : checks (sb)
LuvKingAlpha : checks (bb)
kdhspyder : checks
Foe : bets $97.00
No surprise.
This is a good flop for me in the sense that I can bluff with outs. One thing that many players don't seem to get about plo8b is that high hands are out much less often. This means that high flops are good places to bluff, and also play strong for value when in PLO high only you may be more circumspect.
Hero : raises $210.00
I don't raise the pot. I want it to look like I want a call. Also I don't want to make him run out of money and call out of desperation. His probable ace high is winning after all. I need to leave him with money for the turn.
DeadMansHnd : Fold (sb)
LuvKingAlpha : Fold (bb)
kdhspyder : Fold
Foe : calls $113.00
*** TURN *** [Jd 3h Jh] [7s]
Foe : checks
Hero : checks
This is a bad turn. If I bet here and he has the low draw, which his call of the flop indicates, then he will call. If he then makes the low on the river, I may end up in the ridiculous situation of him scooping me with A high, if my flush doesn't hit. I need to keep him with money so I can get him out if it bricks.
*** RIVER *** [Jd 3h Jh 7s] [Ts]
Foe : checks
Hero : bets $320.00
Bingo. It now looks like I’ve played the hand either like a weak trips or a flush draw. So I want him to think I want a call. So I bet less than the pot again, indicating a "milking" bet.
Foe : Fold
Hero : collected $517.00 from pot
A nice thing about betting less than the pot in this case is that I would have played it exactly the same if I did have the trips. So in a game theory sense my two strategies seem identical from the outside, plus I have the advantage that my bluff is cheaper :-)
As a change of pace, and also as someone requested it, I'm looking at PLO8b today. PLO8b is a strange game. There is some excellent advice on how to become a competent, very tight player. However most players seem to think that the entire of the game is waiting for freerolls. What they seem to miss is that if the players are bad enough to give you a freeroll, they are bad enough to give you several opportunities where they will be putting money in the pot in prohibitively poor equity situations. These aren't quite as painless as freerolls, but getting someone to call a pot sized bet on the turn when he only has 20% equity is a hugely profitably exercise. And to get these opportunities you simply have to play more hands than the tighties advise.
PokerStars Omaha Hi/Lo Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: Foe ($1173.50 in chips)
Seat 2: Regency ($882.50 in chips)
Seat 3: Hero ($980.00 in chips)
Seat 4: riskynunber ($369.00 in chips) (button)
Seat 5: DeadMansHnd ($115.00 in chips) (sb)
Seat 6: LuvKingAlpha ($751.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 7: davmcg ($569.40 in chips)
Seat 8: kdhspyder ($894.15 in chips)
DeadMansHnd : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
LuvKingAlpha : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 2s 4h 8s Kh ]
davmcg : folds
kdhspyder : calls $10.00
Foe : raises $20.00
Regency : folds
Hero : calls $20.00
This is a hugely loose call and "not to be tried at home". There are some big howevers here though. The foe is monstrously loose aggressive dumb. The foe will auto-bet the flop, almost 95% of the time. I am sure the button, who is very tight will pass. Lastly, we both have quite big stacks so there is money to be played for.
riskynunber : folds (button)
DeadMansHnd : calls $15.00 (sb)
LuvKingAlpha : calls $10.00 (bb)
kdhspyder : calls $10.00
*** FLOP *** [Jd 3h Jh]
DeadMansHnd : checks (sb)
LuvKingAlpha : checks (bb)
kdhspyder : checks
Foe : bets $97.00
No surprise.
This is a good flop for me in the sense that I can bluff with outs. One thing that many players don't seem to get about plo8b is that high hands are out much less often. This means that high flops are good places to bluff, and also play strong for value when in PLO high only you may be more circumspect.
Hero : raises $210.00
I don't raise the pot. I want it to look like I want a call. Also I don't want to make him run out of money and call out of desperation. His probable ace high is winning after all. I need to leave him with money for the turn.
DeadMansHnd : Fold (sb)
LuvKingAlpha : Fold (bb)
kdhspyder : Fold
Foe : calls $113.00
*** TURN *** [Jd 3h Jh] [7s]
Foe : checks
Hero : checks
This is a bad turn. If I bet here and he has the low draw, which his call of the flop indicates, then he will call. If he then makes the low on the river, I may end up in the ridiculous situation of him scooping me with A high, if my flush doesn't hit. I need to keep him with money so I can get him out if it bricks.
*** RIVER *** [Jd 3h Jh 7s] [Ts]
Foe : checks
Hero : bets $320.00
Bingo. It now looks like I’ve played the hand either like a weak trips or a flush draw. So I want him to think I want a call. So I bet less than the pot again, indicating a "milking" bet.
Foe : Fold
Hero : collected $517.00 from pot
A nice thing about betting less than the pot in this case is that I would have played it exactly the same if I did have the trips. So in a game theory sense my two strategies seem identical from the outside, plus I have the advantage that my bluff is cheaper :-)
Saturday, August 14, 2004
The Penny Drops
YTD: +$40751.85
At last the penny drops…and I did think about the hand from the last post before making the bet:
PokerStars Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: B Buddy ($1059.00 in chips)
Seat 2: the new plan ($1513.50 in chips)
Seat 3: ButchTimothy ($1587.75 in chips)
Seat 4: monster555 ($1675.25 in chips)
Seat 5: Glenmorangie ($379.00 in chips)
Seat 6: Foe ($917.50 in chips) (button)
Seat 7: 936589 ($949.00 in chips) (sb)
Seat 9: Hero ($2221.00 in chips) (bb)
936589 : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
Hero : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 2h 2c Tc Qd ]
B Buddy : folds
the new plan : folds
ButchTimothy : folds
monster555 : folds
Glenmorangie : folds
Foe : calls $10.00 (button)
936589 : calls $5.00 (sb)
Hero : checks (bb)
*** FLOP *** [6s As 2d]
936589 : checks (sb)
Hero : bets $20.00 (bb)
Foe : calls $20.00 (button)
936589 : Fold (sb)
*** TURN *** [6s As 2d] [8c]
Hero : bets $60.00 (bb)
Foe : calls $60.00 (button)
*** RIVER *** [6s As 2d 8c] [Kh]
Hero : bets $187.00 (bb)
(I BET THE FULL POT :-)
Foe : calls $187.00 (button)
I win and beat his two pair!
At last the penny drops…and I did think about the hand from the last post before making the bet:
PokerStars Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: B Buddy ($1059.00 in chips)
Seat 2: the new plan ($1513.50 in chips)
Seat 3: ButchTimothy ($1587.75 in chips)
Seat 4: monster555 ($1675.25 in chips)
Seat 5: Glenmorangie ($379.00 in chips)
Seat 6: Foe ($917.50 in chips) (button)
Seat 7: 936589 ($949.00 in chips) (sb)
Seat 9: Hero ($2221.00 in chips) (bb)
936589 : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
Hero : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 2h 2c Tc Qd ]
B Buddy : folds
the new plan : folds
ButchTimothy : folds
monster555 : folds
Glenmorangie : folds
Foe : calls $10.00 (button)
936589 : calls $5.00 (sb)
Hero : checks (bb)
*** FLOP *** [6s As 2d]
936589 : checks (sb)
Hero : bets $20.00 (bb)
Foe : calls $20.00 (button)
936589 : Fold (sb)
*** TURN *** [6s As 2d] [8c]
Hero : bets $60.00 (bb)
Foe : calls $60.00 (button)
*** RIVER *** [6s As 2d 8c] [Kh]
Hero : bets $187.00 (bb)
(I BET THE FULL POT :-)
Foe : calls $187.00 (button)
I win and beat his two pair!
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Shallow Draughts Intoxicate the Brain
YTD: +$40285.80
I don’t consider myself to be an expert by any means. I KNOW, from long experience (and detailed spreadsheets) that I am a good player relative to the people I play, and my wife has the money to prove it :-)
One of the reasons I created this blog, beside vanity, was that I hoped to get insight into my own play by the process of writing about it. I know that a lot of Internet posters feel the same. What has also happened, of which I am very grateful, is that some of the top Internet minds occasionally hang here and post some great stuff too. READ THE COMMENTS!
Originally it was the Sklansky-like Aksu, well Sklansky-like in his brevity :-), who pointed out that a fold I had been proud of for years was actually a bad one. Now several people have pointed out that a play I had put up as a good one, was actually a bad one.
They are right.
I didn’t spot the flush draw on the flop on the hand below. I think that I may not have spotted it when I played the hand either, which is worse. Or I discounted it, which is much worse. My foe, if he has Aces, has a 14% chance (correct me if I’m wrong) of having the nut flush draw. This doesn’t seem much, but it greatly diminishes all my best out situations on the flop.
Actually this reinforces my lack of thought theme from the last post. I nearly always auto-raise in these situations so that just putting the brakes on this was some achievement, although so focused on the trees, the forest fell in on me.
I need to do some more thinking.
I don’t consider myself to be an expert by any means. I KNOW, from long experience (and detailed spreadsheets) that I am a good player relative to the people I play, and my wife has the money to prove it :-)
One of the reasons I created this blog, beside vanity, was that I hoped to get insight into my own play by the process of writing about it. I know that a lot of Internet posters feel the same. What has also happened, of which I am very grateful, is that some of the top Internet minds occasionally hang here and post some great stuff too. READ THE COMMENTS!
Originally it was the Sklansky-like Aksu, well Sklansky-like in his brevity :-), who pointed out that a fold I had been proud of for years was actually a bad one. Now several people have pointed out that a play I had put up as a good one, was actually a bad one.
They are right.
I didn’t spot the flush draw on the flop on the hand below. I think that I may not have spotted it when I played the hand either, which is worse. Or I discounted it, which is much worse. My foe, if he has Aces, has a 14% chance (correct me if I’m wrong) of having the nut flush draw. This doesn’t seem much, but it greatly diminishes all my best out situations on the flop.
Actually this reinforces my lack of thought theme from the last post. I nearly always auto-raise in these situations so that just putting the brakes on this was some achievement, although so focused on the trees, the forest fell in on me.
I need to do some more thinking.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Do the Right Thing
YTD: +$34795.25
I’ve been back in the PLO game again and it’s made me realize that one of my problems is lack of thinking. And I must say that I think that this is fairly endemic on the net. I don’t mean not thinking in the blindly stupid way, although I do that too. But simply making too many routine actions. This is even more critical in PLO where many situations are NOT routine, and a little thought would greatly maximize the earn on the hand. Here are some examples. One in which I lost, but I liked the play…the other in which I won but thought the play sucked.
PokerStars - Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: CHUFTY ($1380.05 in chips) (sb)
Seat 2: allaw ($400.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 3: Rinehart ($1652.25 in chips)
Seat 4: F.U.N. ($175.50 in chips)
Seat 5: wedel ($654.00 in chips)
Seat 6: Tommie ($967.25 in chips)
Seat 7: Hero ($2301.40 in chips)
Seat 8: fabsoul ($705.00 in chips)
Seat 9: BTDT ($1157.00 in chips) (button)
CHUFTY : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
allaw : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 7c 9c Th Jc ]
Rinehart : folds
F.U.N. : folds
wedel : calls $10.00
Tommie : folds
Hero : raises $30.00
(Yes I’m playing loose here but I was trying too build a more aggressive style)
fabsoul : folds
BTDT : calls $30.00 (button)
CHUFTY : folds (sb)
allaw : folds (bb)
wedel : raises $125.00
(It’s a limp reraise, so almost certainly pocket AA, unless he is especially tricky or loose, which he hasn’t shown himself to be so far. My hand is value against an AA)
Hero : calls $105.00
BTDT : folds (button)
*** FLOP *** [Kd Jd 4c]
wedel : bets $312.00
(A gambling play in PLO when you think someone has AA is to raise them if you have hit the flop in any way whatsoever. I considered it, but rejected it as HE DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PASS. If I hit my hand I still get paid, and if the board pairs I will be glad I didn’t put him all in.)
Hero : calls $312.00
*** TURN *** [Kd Jd 4c] [Kh]
wedel : bets $207.00 and is all-in
(Uggh, the board pairs. I’m getting just less than 6 to 1 on the call. If you run through all the permutations here, even including a chance that you are in front, it becomes a clear pass, especially as your being in front % decreases based on the foe.)
Hero : Fold
wedel : collected $936.00 from pot
On the other hand…here’s one I won, BUT didn’t like!
PokerStars Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 2: BTDT ($563.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 3: Camille ($701.00 in chips)
Seat 4: Hero ($1654.25 in chips)
Seat 5: wedel ($2749.25 in chips)
Seat 6: gilgamor ($1056.00 in chips) (button)
Seat 9: Smart Ace ($866.90 in chips) (sb)
Smart Ace : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
BTDT : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 2d 5c Qc Kd ]
(I’m very loose here, but the game was strangely passive)
Camille : calls $10.00
Hero : calls $10.00
wedel : folds
gilgamor : folds (button)
Smart Ace : calls $5.00 (sb)
BTDT : checks (bb)
(woohoo I won the button)
*** FLOP *** [6c Qs 9c]
Smart Ace : bets $38.00 (sb)
BTDT : Fold (bb)
Camille : Fold
(This is a thin call, but we’re playing implied odds here. I felt this foe was particularly unlikely to be betting out with a draw.)
Hero : calls $38.00
*** TURN *** [6c Qs 9c] [Kh]
Smart Ace : checks (sb)
(Nice card, and foe slows right down...a chance to bluff with outs, or even maybe be in front)
Hero : bets $90.00
Smart Ace : calls $90.00 (sb)
*** RIVER *** [6c Qs 9c Kh] [Ks]
Smart Ace : checks (sb)
(I’ve got a lock. The question is how much to bet. I almost always underbet the pot in every situation so this would look natural. However, and this is a big however, what kind of hand could he call ANY bet with here. The str8 is unlikely and if he missed the flush he’s gone. A small bet may provoke a bluff reraise but this is v v v unlikely. So the situation is, he is either going to pass no matter what I bet, or he will call any bet, because he had trips on the flop and now has an underfull, but probably hopes I have a str8. Betting the pot is clear here.)
Hero : bets $170.00
(arrrrghhhh)
Smart Ace : calls $170.00 (sb)
(he does have an underfull :-( )
One of the first things you learn as a successful cash player is that it is decisions, not pots that count. As an old poker friend used to say, “putting your money in well”. Its important not to let the high speed and frankly dumb play on the net let this early lesson fade.
I’ve been back in the PLO game again and it’s made me realize that one of my problems is lack of thinking. And I must say that I think that this is fairly endemic on the net. I don’t mean not thinking in the blindly stupid way, although I do that too. But simply making too many routine actions. This is even more critical in PLO where many situations are NOT routine, and a little thought would greatly maximize the earn on the hand. Here are some examples. One in which I lost, but I liked the play…the other in which I won but thought the play sucked.
PokerStars - Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 1: CHUFTY ($1380.05 in chips) (sb)
Seat 2: allaw ($400.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 3: Rinehart ($1652.25 in chips)
Seat 4: F.U.N. ($175.50 in chips)
Seat 5: wedel ($654.00 in chips)
Seat 6: Tommie ($967.25 in chips)
Seat 7: Hero ($2301.40 in chips)
Seat 8: fabsoul ($705.00 in chips)
Seat 9: BTDT ($1157.00 in chips) (button)
CHUFTY : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
allaw : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 7c 9c Th Jc ]
Rinehart : folds
F.U.N. : folds
wedel : calls $10.00
Tommie : folds
Hero : raises $30.00
(Yes I’m playing loose here but I was trying too build a more aggressive style)
fabsoul : folds
BTDT : calls $30.00 (button)
CHUFTY : folds (sb)
allaw : folds (bb)
wedel : raises $125.00
(It’s a limp reraise, so almost certainly pocket AA, unless he is especially tricky or loose, which he hasn’t shown himself to be so far. My hand is value against an AA)
Hero : calls $105.00
BTDT : folds (button)
*** FLOP *** [Kd Jd 4c]
wedel : bets $312.00
(A gambling play in PLO when you think someone has AA is to raise them if you have hit the flop in any way whatsoever. I considered it, but rejected it as HE DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PASS. If I hit my hand I still get paid, and if the board pairs I will be glad I didn’t put him all in.)
Hero : calls $312.00
*** TURN *** [Kd Jd 4c] [Kh]
wedel : bets $207.00 and is all-in
(Uggh, the board pairs. I’m getting just less than 6 to 1 on the call. If you run through all the permutations here, even including a chance that you are in front, it becomes a clear pass, especially as your being in front % decreases based on the foe.)
Hero : Fold
wedel : collected $936.00 from pot
On the other hand…here’s one I won, BUT didn’t like!
PokerStars Omaha Pot Limit ($5.00/$10.00)
Seat 2: BTDT ($563.00 in chips) (bb)
Seat 3: Camille ($701.00 in chips)
Seat 4: Hero ($1654.25 in chips)
Seat 5: wedel ($2749.25 in chips)
Seat 6: gilgamor ($1056.00 in chips) (button)
Seat 9: Smart Ace ($866.90 in chips) (sb)
Smart Ace : Post Small Blind ($5.00)
BTDT : Post Big Blind ($10.00)
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [ 2d 5c Qc Kd ]
(I’m very loose here, but the game was strangely passive)
Camille : calls $10.00
Hero : calls $10.00
wedel : folds
gilgamor : folds (button)
Smart Ace : calls $5.00 (sb)
BTDT : checks (bb)
(woohoo I won the button)
*** FLOP *** [6c Qs 9c]
Smart Ace : bets $38.00 (sb)
BTDT : Fold (bb)
Camille : Fold
(This is a thin call, but we’re playing implied odds here. I felt this foe was particularly unlikely to be betting out with a draw.)
Hero : calls $38.00
*** TURN *** [6c Qs 9c] [Kh]
Smart Ace : checks (sb)
(Nice card, and foe slows right down...a chance to bluff with outs, or even maybe be in front)
Hero : bets $90.00
Smart Ace : calls $90.00 (sb)
*** RIVER *** [6c Qs 9c Kh] [Ks]
Smart Ace : checks (sb)
(I’ve got a lock. The question is how much to bet. I almost always underbet the pot in every situation so this would look natural. However, and this is a big however, what kind of hand could he call ANY bet with here. The str8 is unlikely and if he missed the flush he’s gone. A small bet may provoke a bluff reraise but this is v v v unlikely. So the situation is, he is either going to pass no matter what I bet, or he will call any bet, because he had trips on the flop and now has an underfull, but probably hopes I have a str8. Betting the pot is clear here.)
Hero : bets $170.00
(arrrrghhhh)
Smart Ace : calls $170.00 (sb)
(he does have an underfull :-( )
One of the first things you learn as a successful cash player is that it is decisions, not pots that count. As an old poker friend used to say, “putting your money in well”. Its important not to let the high speed and frankly dumb play on the net let this early lesson fade.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
In Vino Veritas
YTD: +$27808.75
Wow, we are having some great threads again in the comments. Check out two poker minds discussing excellent tourney strategy. Most of what needs to be said there has already been said, but FWIW I think that Tommy Angelo, a great antidote to Sklanskyism on the 2+2 forums, gets it right when he says “the decisions that haunt us the most are the ones that matter the least.” I think Chaos’s hand is right on the cusp and could be essentially neutral as to the decision, with a slight tilt to the +EV side. And I would have gone allin too.
However, and this is a big HOWEVER, there is a meta-game situation to be considered. Chaos is normally great on these matters, but doesn’t reveal them here. (I'M EDITING HERE...CHAOS DID MENTION THEM, IN DETAIL...I WAS TOO DUMB TO NOTICE :) Basically do the table conditions, stage of tourney, quality of players etc, override the technical, mostly mathematic decision you have to make? Of course override is an inaccurate term – if you could reduce these intangibles to a mathematical % then of course they could be factored in. It’s just hard over the table :-) Perhaps an example would make things clearer.
I was recently in the US as part of a sales brainwashing for my new job. Smashed out of my face and jet lagged, I stumbled into a one table poker tourney amongst some of my new colleagues! Anyone who has been to the states recently would be amazed at how massive poker has become. The ESPN coverage of the WSOP was on every day, sometimes even pushing log rolling and dog jumping off the schedule (don’t ask.)
Soon my charade of clueless Englishman had fallen, and we were 4 handed with the top 3 spots paying 50-30-20. The sums were fairly small – I was too pissed to remember – but first was something like 240 bucks and the only sum really worth shooting for. A key hand came up as a battle of the blinds. The SB made a small raise and I called with suited nonsense in the BB. The flop came A high with two of my suit. After going through the whole repartee of Mike Caro’s Book of Tells, he did everything but burst into tears, he finally, reluctantly, begrudgingly moved allin. So clearly he had an Ace :-)
Incredibly, considering my very, very debilitated situation I went into deep thought. The maths was, or seemed close. Although I wasn’t getting quite 2 to 1, if I won this hand I would be a monster chip leader and a favourite for 1st. As Chaos would say, my utility value was skewed for 1st. :-) However, if I called and lost I would be very short stacked and have to win the next two or three showdowns to get back into contention. But. But. These guys weren’t Internet players. Although they played poorly, they were not bonkers aggressive and very much disliked calling and making big bets. So far I was the only person to have gone allin in the session. If I passed I would still have a playable stack and more than enough to make people pass their blinds. And these blinds were chunky and more than worth winning. So through a befuddled daze of alcohol, incredibly, I passed.
The meta game factors were very important in this case.
Now clearly you don’t want to go to Phil Hellmuth-like extremes, but sometimes stopping and thinking about bigger issues in the game, especially online, can pay dividends.
(I won the tourney of course.)
Wow, we are having some great threads again in the comments. Check out two poker minds discussing excellent tourney strategy. Most of what needs to be said there has already been said, but FWIW I think that Tommy Angelo, a great antidote to Sklanskyism on the 2+2 forums, gets it right when he says “the decisions that haunt us the most are the ones that matter the least.” I think Chaos’s hand is right on the cusp and could be essentially neutral as to the decision, with a slight tilt to the +EV side. And I would have gone allin too.
However, and this is a big HOWEVER, there is a meta-game situation to be considered. Chaos is normally great on these matters, but doesn’t reveal them here. (I'M EDITING HERE...CHAOS DID MENTION THEM, IN DETAIL...I WAS TOO DUMB TO NOTICE :) Basically do the table conditions, stage of tourney, quality of players etc, override the technical, mostly mathematic decision you have to make? Of course override is an inaccurate term – if you could reduce these intangibles to a mathematical % then of course they could be factored in. It’s just hard over the table :-) Perhaps an example would make things clearer.
I was recently in the US as part of a sales brainwashing for my new job. Smashed out of my face and jet lagged, I stumbled into a one table poker tourney amongst some of my new colleagues! Anyone who has been to the states recently would be amazed at how massive poker has become. The ESPN coverage of the WSOP was on every day, sometimes even pushing log rolling and dog jumping off the schedule (don’t ask.)
Soon my charade of clueless Englishman had fallen, and we were 4 handed with the top 3 spots paying 50-30-20. The sums were fairly small – I was too pissed to remember – but first was something like 240 bucks and the only sum really worth shooting for. A key hand came up as a battle of the blinds. The SB made a small raise and I called with suited nonsense in the BB. The flop came A high with two of my suit. After going through the whole repartee of Mike Caro’s Book of Tells, he did everything but burst into tears, he finally, reluctantly, begrudgingly moved allin. So clearly he had an Ace :-)
Incredibly, considering my very, very debilitated situation I went into deep thought. The maths was, or seemed close. Although I wasn’t getting quite 2 to 1, if I won this hand I would be a monster chip leader and a favourite for 1st. As Chaos would say, my utility value was skewed for 1st. :-) However, if I called and lost I would be very short stacked and have to win the next two or three showdowns to get back into contention. But. But. These guys weren’t Internet players. Although they played poorly, they were not bonkers aggressive and very much disliked calling and making big bets. So far I was the only person to have gone allin in the session. If I passed I would still have a playable stack and more than enough to make people pass their blinds. And these blinds were chunky and more than worth winning. So through a befuddled daze of alcohol, incredibly, I passed.
The meta game factors were very important in this case.
Now clearly you don’t want to go to Phil Hellmuth-like extremes, but sometimes stopping and thinking about bigger issues in the game, especially online, can pay dividends.
(I won the tourney of course.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)