Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. – Darrell Royal
I never liked homework when I was a kid and skipped it whenever I could.
As an adult, I understand that homework is useful and usually worth the effort. Thus, I set out to do a little reading to prepare for my upcoming trip to the strip.
After reading this highly germane thread by Las Vegas Michael on 2+2, I am now planning to get in a session at Treasure Island and considering skipping either Bally’s or Bill’s. I am also thinking about squeezing in a session at the Venetian if at all possible. Thank you, Mr. LVM.
I also recently finished buying and reading the e-book from Ed Miller, S. Mehta, and M. Flynn, Small Stakes No- Limit Hold’em. The thoughtful but aggressive tactics elucidated in the book have already helped me in my local game. I am hoping they will also contribute to my poker enjoyment and success in Las Vegas. I may do a review at some point but for now, suffice to say, I think the book is well worth the price.
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Strategy. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Open Min Bet from Early Position in (full ring) NLHE
The learner always begins by finding fault, but the scholar sees the positive merit in everything. – Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
This tactic seems to be utterly disdained by the vast majority of the “pokerati” (which may be why it works). However, when I play online and I have small to medium pocket pairs in EP, I often open min bet. As a tactic, it’s cheap, it’s tricky, and it seems to work.
It’s a value bet, a blocking bet, and you’re seizing the initiative all at the same time.
If one limps in, one is more likely to get raised. If one gets raised and just calls, one is informing an observant opponent that one probably has a small to medium pocket pair which will almost certainly elicit a C-bet from the villain on the flop (and you will probably have to fold since you are out of position).
By open min-betting, you accomplish several things that will set you up for success in the hand. For instance:
1) First and foremost, it usually lets me see a cheap flop (in hopes of flopping a set).
2) It serves as something similar to a blocking bet because it seems to “freeze” the players in later position, more often inducing a call rather than a raise.
3) I believe the reason for this is that many players interpret an open min bet from EP to represent a big pocket pair.
4) This is good because it further serves to disguise my actual hand and helps to confuse my opponents.
5) It is also better than limping in because, it lets you maintain the lead in the hand rather than limp-calling (which in my opinion screams low or middle pair). By being the pre-flop bettor, you maintain your option of C-betting on the flop and have a reasonably good chance of taking down the pot right then.
6) It causes your opponents to do something (i.e. react) that helps me to narrow the range of hands they are likely to have.
7) Since it is thought of as a “donk” play, it may help me get action from weaker hands that I would not otherwise have gotten. It also seems to cause some of the other players at the table to think I am a “donk” so I get more action on other hands, too.
8) It seems to work better than a 3xbb or 4xbb bet from EP because betting one of those amounts (or more) just wins me the blinds. By betting the minimum, it seems to get bad hands to call more often. It also keeps me from getting too committed to a hand in EP.
9) Betting the minimum almost always induces a call from one or both blinds. This is good because a) if they had a quality hand they would have raised, b) they probably would have folded to a larger bet, c) even though I am in EP, I have position on the blinds, and d) most of the time, they will fold to a C-bet.
Why does it work? I think they (mistakenly) interpret my min bet as strength – as in I might have a huge pocket pair (many inexperienced players will open min bet with a big pocket pair). What hands seem to play best with this tactic?
I suggest 22 – 99 with an occasional big Ace mixed in to keep my opponents guessing. Remember, this is a tactic for creating and winning small pots from out of position.
If you are in position and/or want to create a big pot or play a big hand, there are other tactics that will probably serve you better.
Try adding this to your arsenal and see if it works for you, too. Just remember, you heard it here first.
This tactic seems to be utterly disdained by the vast majority of the “pokerati” (which may be why it works). However, when I play online and I have small to medium pocket pairs in EP, I often open min bet. As a tactic, it’s cheap, it’s tricky, and it seems to work.
It’s a value bet, a blocking bet, and you’re seizing the initiative all at the same time.
If one limps in, one is more likely to get raised. If one gets raised and just calls, one is informing an observant opponent that one probably has a small to medium pocket pair which will almost certainly elicit a C-bet from the villain on the flop (and you will probably have to fold since you are out of position).
By open min-betting, you accomplish several things that will set you up for success in the hand. For instance:
1) First and foremost, it usually lets me see a cheap flop (in hopes of flopping a set).
2) It serves as something similar to a blocking bet because it seems to “freeze” the players in later position, more often inducing a call rather than a raise.
3) I believe the reason for this is that many players interpret an open min bet from EP to represent a big pocket pair.
4) This is good because it further serves to disguise my actual hand and helps to confuse my opponents.
5) It is also better than limping in because, it lets you maintain the lead in the hand rather than limp-calling (which in my opinion screams low or middle pair). By being the pre-flop bettor, you maintain your option of C-betting on the flop and have a reasonably good chance of taking down the pot right then.
6) It causes your opponents to do something (i.e. react) that helps me to narrow the range of hands they are likely to have.
7) Since it is thought of as a “donk” play, it may help me get action from weaker hands that I would not otherwise have gotten. It also seems to cause some of the other players at the table to think I am a “donk” so I get more action on other hands, too.
8) It seems to work better than a 3xbb or 4xbb bet from EP because betting one of those amounts (or more) just wins me the blinds. By betting the minimum, it seems to get bad hands to call more often. It also keeps me from getting too committed to a hand in EP.
9) Betting the minimum almost always induces a call from one or both blinds. This is good because a) if they had a quality hand they would have raised, b) they probably would have folded to a larger bet, c) even though I am in EP, I have position on the blinds, and d) most of the time, they will fold to a C-bet.
Why does it work? I think they (mistakenly) interpret my min bet as strength – as in I might have a huge pocket pair (many inexperienced players will open min bet with a big pocket pair). What hands seem to play best with this tactic?
I suggest 22 – 99 with an occasional big Ace mixed in to keep my opponents guessing. Remember, this is a tactic for creating and winning small pots from out of position.
If you are in position and/or want to create a big pot or play a big hand, there are other tactics that will probably serve you better.
Try adding this to your arsenal and see if it works for you, too. Just remember, you heard it here first.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Thall Shalt Protecteth Thy Hand
Not believing in force is the same as not believing in gravitation. – Thomas Hobbes
Things happen that aren’t supposed to happen. We usually call them accidents. To deny the simple fact that accidents routinely occur, would be akin to denying other readily observable phenomena. In many cases, there isn’t much one can do to protect one’s self from accidents, but in this case, a simple defense is readily available to all players.
When playing live poker, one must protect one’s hand. It is a fundamental maxim of poker. One must protect it from exposure to others, from falling or otherwise leaving the surface of the poker table, and from being mucked inadvertently or prematurely. Each player is responsible for protecting his own hand; no one cares about protecting an opponent’s hand.
Not a week goes by that I don’t read some horror story on 2+2 about a player’s hand being mistakenly mucked by a dealer. I just heard the same thing happened during the $1,000 buy in (with rebuys) NLHE event at the World Series of Poker. The variations to this story are endless but the bottom line, in each case, is this: it never had to happen.
Poker is a dynamic game full of ups and downs and rarely is any one single thing always +EV in any situation no matter what. However, using a card protector is one such thing.
Why don’t more players use a card protector when playing live? A chip is not sufficient because it doesn’t weigh enough to prevent this from happening 100% of the time. There are many instances documented on 2+2 where the player in question said he had a chip on top of his cards but the cards and chip got swept into the muck by an overly hasty dealer. One can have one for free by using a common household item such as a lighter (like Doyle), a watch, a rock, etc. or one can spend a buck or five (or more) for one specifically for that purpose. Either way, the cost is a mere fraction of what a winning hand would have been worth had one’s cards not been inappropriately mucked.
The card protector I use is pictured above. It has some weight and heft to it so my cards will remain protected until I move it. No dealer is going to mistakenly muck my cards with this on top of them. Moreover, no careless player is going to foul my hand by mucking his cards into mine. With my card protector on top, my cards will remain easily separated and identifiable. It is such a simple thing and yet just check out the brick and mortar forum on 2+2 and see how many players have suffered this completely preventable fate.
There is only an “upside” (i.e. +EV) to using one and no “downside” I can think of.
When playing live poker, one must protect one’s hand. It is a fundamental maxim of poker. One must protect it from exposure to others, from falling or otherwise leaving the surface of the poker table, and from being mucked inadvertently or prematurely. Each player is responsible for protecting his own hand; no one cares about protecting an opponent’s hand.
Not a week goes by that I don’t read some horror story on 2+2 about a player’s hand being mistakenly mucked by a dealer. I just heard the same thing happened during the $1,000 buy in (with rebuys) NLHE event at the World Series of Poker. The variations to this story are endless but the bottom line, in each case, is this: it never had to happen.
Poker is a dynamic game full of ups and downs and rarely is any one single thing always +EV in any situation no matter what. However, using a card protector is one such thing.
Why don’t more players use a card protector when playing live? A chip is not sufficient because it doesn’t weigh enough to prevent this from happening 100% of the time. There are many instances documented on 2+2 where the player in question said he had a chip on top of his cards but the cards and chip got swept into the muck by an overly hasty dealer. One can have one for free by using a common household item such as a lighter (like Doyle), a watch, a rock, etc. or one can spend a buck or five (or more) for one specifically for that purpose. Either way, the cost is a mere fraction of what a winning hand would have been worth had one’s cards not been inappropriately mucked.
The card protector I use is pictured above. It has some weight and heft to it so my cards will remain protected until I move it. No dealer is going to mistakenly muck my cards with this on top of them. Moreover, no careless player is going to foul my hand by mucking his cards into mine. With my card protector on top, my cards will remain easily separated and identifiable. It is such a simple thing and yet just check out the brick and mortar forum on 2+2 and see how many players have suffered this completely preventable fate.
There is only an “upside” (i.e. +EV) to using one and no “downside” I can think of.
So, why aren’t more live players taking advantage of an obviously +EV situation and using a card protector?
Monday, June 2, 2008
Game Selection, Part 3 – Emancipation
“In actual combat, the mind must be calm and not at all disturbed. We must feel as if nothing critical is happening. Nothing betrays the fact that we are now engaged in battle.” - Masahari Adachi
OK. We have identified a game or some games we can beat. We have examined our motives for playing and decided we single mindedly want to win. Now what?
To be a consistently winning poker player and optimize our game selection capabilities, we must learn something more - detachment.
When you decide to play poker, proactively choose to play poker and nothing else. Remember, we are talking about game selection. Select (from all your other options) to play your best game, your “A” game, now.
FREE YOUR MIND. Unfetter it from the concerns of daily life, of work, of relationships, of anything beyond playing poker. Enable your mind to make the best poker decisions you are capable of.
Free your self from distractions, do not succumb to the temptation to think of other things. No matter if the other things are important, you may always return to them after your poker session is done.
Free your self from playing for your ego. It is one’s ego that seduces one into feelings of superiority, playing in games above one’s bankroll, and what Mike Caro calls Fancy Play Syndrome.
Free your self from unnecessary expectations. Unnecessary expectations lead to unnecessary disappointments. Just play your best game and remain alert.
Obtaining this degree of mental clarity and focus is not easy but each time one does so, it becomes easier the next time. As one becomes more adept at obtaining this state of detachment, one will recognize just how much more information at a poker table is available to a receptive mind that is not distracted. And that, my friends, is +EV.
OK. We have identified a game or some games we can beat. We have examined our motives for playing and decided we single mindedly want to win. Now what?
To be a consistently winning poker player and optimize our game selection capabilities, we must learn something more - detachment.
When you decide to play poker, proactively choose to play poker and nothing else. Remember, we are talking about game selection. Select (from all your other options) to play your best game, your “A” game, now.
FREE YOUR MIND. Unfetter it from the concerns of daily life, of work, of relationships, of anything beyond playing poker. Enable your mind to make the best poker decisions you are capable of.
Free your self from distractions, do not succumb to the temptation to think of other things. No matter if the other things are important, you may always return to them after your poker session is done.
Free your self from playing for your ego. It is one’s ego that seduces one into feelings of superiority, playing in games above one’s bankroll, and what Mike Caro calls Fancy Play Syndrome.
Free your self from unnecessary expectations. Unnecessary expectations lead to unnecessary disappointments. Just play your best game and remain alert.
Obtaining this degree of mental clarity and focus is not easy but each time one does so, it becomes easier the next time. As one becomes more adept at obtaining this state of detachment, one will recognize just how much more information at a poker table is available to a receptive mind that is not distracted. And that, my friends, is +EV.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Game Selection, Part 2 – Motivation
“When we play, we must realize, before anything else, that we are out to make money.” – David Sklansky
Why do you play? It is a good question to ask one’s self. I play to win money from my opponents. To me, poker is about money. Losing money isn’t fun. While I accept it as an unavoidable fact of the game that sometimes, I will lose, I don’t like it. I proactively want to minimize the instances and amounts I lose. Remember, losing less is the same as winning more.
As a contrast, I used to play Magic but since there was no money involved in the outcome of the games, my approach and attitude toward the game was entirely different. Winning wasn’t even that important compared to just having a good time. If I consistently lost money at poker, I would probably quit playing (I can’t imagine the opposite – i.e. consistently winning and not having fun). I suppose there is something to be said for challenging one’s self so if winning money is not one’s top priority and one wants to knowingly play with superior opponents for the “experience”, it’s your money but please understand it is a –EV situation. However, if one wants to make money then one should be mindful of the game one is taking a seat in.
Even though poker is “just” my hobby, I take winning very seriously.
Barry Greenstein says this about being motivated to win,
“You need to convince yourself that you must win. It is easy to get lazy when you have no immediate money pressure.”
Since I do not play for my living, the only pressure on me to achieve results is self imposed. I have to “want it”. I have to be single mindedly focused on taking my opponents chips. I used to play for lots of reasons, such as:
a) It was “that” time, my family was in bed and my window of opportunity was open
b) I had some unexpected free time
c) I was working on clearing a bonus
d) for sheer entertainment/fun
Now, before playing, I ask myself, “are you capable of mustering your ass-kicking-est “A” game?” If I do not answer myself in the affirmative, then it is not a good time to play. Instead, I read or re-read some poker literature, review hand histories/stats in pokertracker, catch up on reading poker blogs, etc.
The point being, I am consciously choosing to play only when I am at my predatory, separate you from your chips, 2nd and 3rd level thinking, best.
This inherently gives me an edge over all the players that are playing for some other reason. It simultaneously serves to prevent me from playing my “C” game at all for the most part. Consider this whenever playing, many of your opponents’ number one priority is winning your chips. If your goal is anything else, you have already ceded them an advantage. Should one really expect to win consistently if one isn’t playing with a similar singularity of purpose?
I spend a fair amount of time thinking, reading, writing, and playing poker to improve my skills and I want to be paid for my work. I don’t think that is an unreasonable position to hold. To me, all money is equally green and desirable.
I try to keep my ego out of the equation. One dollar equals one dollar whether won from a pro, a blogger, or a complete novice.
So, ask yourself, do you really want to win?
Why do you play? It is a good question to ask one’s self. I play to win money from my opponents. To me, poker is about money. Losing money isn’t fun. While I accept it as an unavoidable fact of the game that sometimes, I will lose, I don’t like it. I proactively want to minimize the instances and amounts I lose. Remember, losing less is the same as winning more.
As a contrast, I used to play Magic but since there was no money involved in the outcome of the games, my approach and attitude toward the game was entirely different. Winning wasn’t even that important compared to just having a good time. If I consistently lost money at poker, I would probably quit playing (I can’t imagine the opposite – i.e. consistently winning and not having fun). I suppose there is something to be said for challenging one’s self so if winning money is not one’s top priority and one wants to knowingly play with superior opponents for the “experience”, it’s your money but please understand it is a –EV situation. However, if one wants to make money then one should be mindful of the game one is taking a seat in.
Even though poker is “just” my hobby, I take winning very seriously.
Barry Greenstein says this about being motivated to win,
“You need to convince yourself that you must win. It is easy to get lazy when you have no immediate money pressure.”
Since I do not play for my living, the only pressure on me to achieve results is self imposed. I have to “want it”. I have to be single mindedly focused on taking my opponents chips. I used to play for lots of reasons, such as:
a) It was “that” time, my family was in bed and my window of opportunity was open
b) I had some unexpected free time
c) I was working on clearing a bonus
d) for sheer entertainment/fun
Now, before playing, I ask myself, “are you capable of mustering your ass-kicking-est “A” game?” If I do not answer myself in the affirmative, then it is not a good time to play. Instead, I read or re-read some poker literature, review hand histories/stats in pokertracker, catch up on reading poker blogs, etc.
The point being, I am consciously choosing to play only when I am at my predatory, separate you from your chips, 2nd and 3rd level thinking, best.
This inherently gives me an edge over all the players that are playing for some other reason. It simultaneously serves to prevent me from playing my “C” game at all for the most part. Consider this whenever playing, many of your opponents’ number one priority is winning your chips. If your goal is anything else, you have already ceded them an advantage. Should one really expect to win consistently if one isn’t playing with a similar singularity of purpose?
I spend a fair amount of time thinking, reading, writing, and playing poker to improve my skills and I want to be paid for my work. I don’t think that is an unreasonable position to hold. To me, all money is equally green and desirable.
I try to keep my ego out of the equation. One dollar equals one dollar whether won from a pro, a blogger, or a complete novice.
So, ask yourself, do you really want to win?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Game Selection, Part 1 - Predation
I don't particularly give a shit about trying to beat moderately tough games. I'd rather stay home and jerk off. - Gary Carson
While I don’t necessarily share Mr. Carson’s sentiment exactly, I do agree with what I perceive to be the spirit of his colorful remark. If one wants to be successful at poker, one must cultivate a robust desire to maximize +EV situations. Game selection (i.e. playing with weaker opponents rather than stronger ones) is vital to identifying and creating +EV situations. Plenty of poker luminaries have written (and I agree) that the vast majority of the money one will make playing poker will come from the mistakes of one’s opponents. Therefore, to maximize one’s expected value, one ought to seek games/tables with the greatest volume of weak opponents (and conversely, avoid games with strong ones).
Barry Greenstein says, “Don’t be afraid to back down if you do not like the line up in a game. You should pass on a situation with a small advantage if you can find one with a larger advantage. You don’t need to prove you’re the best. To make money, you just need to find people who play worse than you do.”
Winning money at poker isn’t about finding the toughest game and “proving” one’s self against a group of really good opponents. That may be good for building one’s ego but it’s not a long term strategy for building a bankroll. Besides, what those players think is not the measuring stick one should use to gauge success. I want to consistently win money and increase my poker bankroll. That’s it. No where in the equation is finding real pros, tough games, etc. Now, lest anyone hasten to suggest I am overly results oriented, consider this: anyone that uses online poker software when they play (for anything other than post-game analysis of one’s own play) implicitly agrees with this philosophy because no one uses that software to find the toughest games/opponents available. Show me a game/table with weak players and I will cheerfully play with them every opportunity I get. Take me to a table of really tough pros or semi-pros and I will probably cash out immediately and go find a game I can beat. Understanding and accepting one’s own capabilities, motivation, as well as, limitations will help to identify +EV situations and avoid ones that are –EV.
While I don’t necessarily share Mr. Carson’s sentiment exactly, I do agree with what I perceive to be the spirit of his colorful remark. If one wants to be successful at poker, one must cultivate a robust desire to maximize +EV situations. Game selection (i.e. playing with weaker opponents rather than stronger ones) is vital to identifying and creating +EV situations. Plenty of poker luminaries have written (and I agree) that the vast majority of the money one will make playing poker will come from the mistakes of one’s opponents. Therefore, to maximize one’s expected value, one ought to seek games/tables with the greatest volume of weak opponents (and conversely, avoid games with strong ones).
Barry Greenstein says, “Don’t be afraid to back down if you do not like the line up in a game. You should pass on a situation with a small advantage if you can find one with a larger advantage. You don’t need to prove you’re the best. To make money, you just need to find people who play worse than you do.”
Winning money at poker isn’t about finding the toughest game and “proving” one’s self against a group of really good opponents. That may be good for building one’s ego but it’s not a long term strategy for building a bankroll. Besides, what those players think is not the measuring stick one should use to gauge success. I want to consistently win money and increase my poker bankroll. That’s it. No where in the equation is finding real pros, tough games, etc. Now, lest anyone hasten to suggest I am overly results oriented, consider this: anyone that uses online poker software when they play (for anything other than post-game analysis of one’s own play) implicitly agrees with this philosophy because no one uses that software to find the toughest games/opponents available. Show me a game/table with weak players and I will cheerfully play with them every opportunity I get. Take me to a table of really tough pros or semi-pros and I will probably cash out immediately and go find a game I can beat. Understanding and accepting one’s own capabilities, motivation, as well as, limitations will help to identify +EV situations and avoid ones that are –EV.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Confessions of a Short Stacker, Part 3 - the Conclusion
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. - Friedrich Nietzche.
Although playing short stacked is a strategy that works for me, it seems to get a lot of grief from other online players (I have never heard a live player complain about it). I, for one, do not understand what the grievance is all about. Short stacking is similar to guerilla warfare. I have fewer resources than my opponent and I need to extract maximum value from the resources I have. I think the objection to short stacking boils down to this: it is an effective strategy that is difficult to exploit.
If I have met the table minimum, then I have complied with the same rules all the other players had to follow. They elected to buy in for some amount between the table minimum and the table maximum, too. The only real downside to playing short stacked is you are limiting the amount you can win in one hand. The short stack is the effective stack. Although I amass my winnings more slowly with a short stack, my opponents have to outplay/outthink/outkick me repeatedly rather than get lucky once or twice. If I choose to spread my risk out in this manner, it is my decision, it is a perfectly legal strategy, and it should not carry with it any sort of unnecessary stigma. Playing short stacked is not angle shooting, ratholing, or cheating. There are plenty of people that really do cheat/angle shoot/rathole and our loathing and disdain should be reserved for those players.
When any player sits down at a poker table, whether online or live, he is under no obligation to stay any particular time. He might take one hand, he might take one orbit, he might stay for one hour, or he might stay for much longer. It is all up to the player himself. Some folks seem to think that if one takes a seat and wins, then he has to stay some undisclosed amount of additional time to allow the other players the opportunity to win some of their money back. This doesn’t really make sense to me. In fact, any player remaining seated and in the game may win some or all of his losses back from the table at large and the effect will be the same as if he won it back from me. Each dollar counts as one dollar no matter whom it is won from, one still equals one. If I want to stand up after winning, whether I have been seated one hand or one day, it is my choice. It doesn’t make me a ratholer or an unethical player. I do not attempt to influence how long anyone else remains at a table and I do not think anyone should try to coax or coerce me. If I want to keep playing, I will. If I do not want to keep playing, I won’t.
It is all part of learning to quit well…….not well for my opponents, well for me.
Although playing short stacked is a strategy that works for me, it seems to get a lot of grief from other online players (I have never heard a live player complain about it). I, for one, do not understand what the grievance is all about. Short stacking is similar to guerilla warfare. I have fewer resources than my opponent and I need to extract maximum value from the resources I have. I think the objection to short stacking boils down to this: it is an effective strategy that is difficult to exploit.
If I have met the table minimum, then I have complied with the same rules all the other players had to follow. They elected to buy in for some amount between the table minimum and the table maximum, too. The only real downside to playing short stacked is you are limiting the amount you can win in one hand. The short stack is the effective stack. Although I amass my winnings more slowly with a short stack, my opponents have to outplay/outthink/outkick me repeatedly rather than get lucky once or twice. If I choose to spread my risk out in this manner, it is my decision, it is a perfectly legal strategy, and it should not carry with it any sort of unnecessary stigma. Playing short stacked is not angle shooting, ratholing, or cheating. There are plenty of people that really do cheat/angle shoot/rathole and our loathing and disdain should be reserved for those players.
When any player sits down at a poker table, whether online or live, he is under no obligation to stay any particular time. He might take one hand, he might take one orbit, he might stay for one hour, or he might stay for much longer. It is all up to the player himself. Some folks seem to think that if one takes a seat and wins, then he has to stay some undisclosed amount of additional time to allow the other players the opportunity to win some of their money back. This doesn’t really make sense to me. In fact, any player remaining seated and in the game may win some or all of his losses back from the table at large and the effect will be the same as if he won it back from me. Each dollar counts as one dollar no matter whom it is won from, one still equals one. If I want to stand up after winning, whether I have been seated one hand or one day, it is my choice. It doesn’t make me a ratholer or an unethical player. I do not attempt to influence how long anyone else remains at a table and I do not think anyone should try to coax or coerce me. If I want to keep playing, I will. If I do not want to keep playing, I won’t.
It is all part of learning to quit well…….not well for my opponents, well for me.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Art of Quitting Well
History is Philosophy teaching by examples. – Thucydides.
Every single time anyone plays poker, without exception, there will come a point at which one quits the session. No one can play forever. Sometimes one may play for a really long session and sometimes one may play for a rather brief period. It all depends upon ones schedule, priorities, bankroll, mood, level of fatigue, and many other factors. No one but one’s self can know the best time for one to end a given session. I like to quit when I am ahead. In my mind, it is similar to owning a stock that is rising in value but will eventually peak and come back down. One can never know what the peak will be until it has passed and the price is on the way down. People that sell after booking a reasonable profit but before the peak are said to have “sold short”. It is a strategy recommended by many experts to ensure profits. Rather than wait until I have lost back my hard earned winnings, I prefer to ensure a profitable session by leaving while I am ahead, sort of like “selling short” in financial securities. Selling short and quitting while ahead are perfectly fair, legal, and reasonable strategies. Anytime after I have tripled (or better) my buy in, is always a good time to quit. Anyone that thinks it is bad form or unethical to leave while ahead probably doesn’t book as many winning sessions as they could. Why should one feel obligated to keep playing just because he is ahead for the session? Occasionally, I quit when I am behind. I do not like to do so but if I sense I am off my “A” game, then that is a good time to quit. If the table composition has changed to the extent that it becomes unfavorable to me, then that is a good time to quit. There are many different reasons for when to quit, some better than others, but all valid if one believes now is the time for one’s self to quit. No one can make that decision for you better than you can. Quitting well is an art. Think about it. Practice it. If you can learn to quit more effectively than your opponents (because they will inevitably have to quit, too) you have another edge over them.
Every single time anyone plays poker, without exception, there will come a point at which one quits the session. No one can play forever. Sometimes one may play for a really long session and sometimes one may play for a rather brief period. It all depends upon ones schedule, priorities, bankroll, mood, level of fatigue, and many other factors. No one but one’s self can know the best time for one to end a given session. I like to quit when I am ahead. In my mind, it is similar to owning a stock that is rising in value but will eventually peak and come back down. One can never know what the peak will be until it has passed and the price is on the way down. People that sell after booking a reasonable profit but before the peak are said to have “sold short”. It is a strategy recommended by many experts to ensure profits. Rather than wait until I have lost back my hard earned winnings, I prefer to ensure a profitable session by leaving while I am ahead, sort of like “selling short” in financial securities. Selling short and quitting while ahead are perfectly fair, legal, and reasonable strategies. Anytime after I have tripled (or better) my buy in, is always a good time to quit. Anyone that thinks it is bad form or unethical to leave while ahead probably doesn’t book as many winning sessions as they could. Why should one feel obligated to keep playing just because he is ahead for the session? Occasionally, I quit when I am behind. I do not like to do so but if I sense I am off my “A” game, then that is a good time to quit. If the table composition has changed to the extent that it becomes unfavorable to me, then that is a good time to quit. There are many different reasons for when to quit, some better than others, but all valid if one believes now is the time for one’s self to quit. No one can make that decision for you better than you can. Quitting well is an art. Think about it. Practice it. If you can learn to quit more effectively than your opponents (because they will inevitably have to quit, too) you have another edge over them.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Confessions of a Short Stacker, Part 2 – Casino Play
All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. – Ambrose Bierce
Short Stacked
1. Adjective - Having few chips, either due to having lost many or due to having joined the table with significantly fewer chips than other players.
Hit and Run
1. Verb - To leave a table after only a brief period of play, especially when the player doing so leaves the table with more money or chips than they joined it with.
Ratholer
1. Noun - A player who regularly removes a portion of one's winnings from the table before leaving the game entirely.
As a point of clarification, I do buy in short stacked and I do (sometimes) hit and run but I am not a ratholer.
I know many experts recommend against buying in for less than the maximum.
However, I disagree and so does Ed Miller, a noted poker authority. If you are one of those guys that has a huge bankroll and/or gambles for entertainment without too much concern for making sure to win, then by all means, do what you want. I, on the other hand, single-mindedly play to win and increase my roll.
I currently play 1-2 NLHE but I want to keep building my roll so I can play higher stakes.
I like to buy in for $100 at most 1-2 NLHE tables (which is often above the minimum).
I am looking to play big pairs and big suited cards. Top pair, top kicker is gold in these games and a flopped set (or 2 pair) is even better. My goal is to build a pot pre-flop and then, providing it is not a situation where I am obviously beaten, I will move in on the flop. Despite playing few hands, I almost always get lots of action. Since I am small stacked, they think it won’t cost me much to play with this guy. I love it and most of my decisions are easy.
Once I build my stack to about $300-400, I change gears and play more hands. With a medium to large stack (compared to the other stacks at the table), I like to play more small pairs and try to flop sets in addition to playing big pairs and suited connectors. If I double up again, I will cash out and go get some food. Usually, by this point I have played about 4 hours and I am ready to call it a night and book the win. However, if I have only played a couple of hours and I still feel sharp after eating, I will go back, get a seat, and repeat the process. This has worked extremely well for me at all the casinos where I have played. I have amassed 40% of my entire current roll using this strategy. I know I shouldn’t be so results oriented but what can I say – it works.
Short Stacked
1. Adjective - Having few chips, either due to having lost many or due to having joined the table with significantly fewer chips than other players.
Hit and Run
1. Verb - To leave a table after only a brief period of play, especially when the player doing so leaves the table with more money or chips than they joined it with.
Ratholer
1. Noun - A player who regularly removes a portion of one's winnings from the table before leaving the game entirely.
As a point of clarification, I do buy in short stacked and I do (sometimes) hit and run but I am not a ratholer.
I know many experts recommend against buying in for less than the maximum.
However, I disagree and so does Ed Miller, a noted poker authority. If you are one of those guys that has a huge bankroll and/or gambles for entertainment without too much concern for making sure to win, then by all means, do what you want. I, on the other hand, single-mindedly play to win and increase my roll.
I currently play 1-2 NLHE but I want to keep building my roll so I can play higher stakes.
I like to buy in for $100 at most 1-2 NLHE tables (which is often above the minimum).
I am looking to play big pairs and big suited cards. Top pair, top kicker is gold in these games and a flopped set (or 2 pair) is even better. My goal is to build a pot pre-flop and then, providing it is not a situation where I am obviously beaten, I will move in on the flop. Despite playing few hands, I almost always get lots of action. Since I am small stacked, they think it won’t cost me much to play with this guy. I love it and most of my decisions are easy.
Once I build my stack to about $300-400, I change gears and play more hands. With a medium to large stack (compared to the other stacks at the table), I like to play more small pairs and try to flop sets in addition to playing big pairs and suited connectors. If I double up again, I will cash out and go get some food. Usually, by this point I have played about 4 hours and I am ready to call it a night and book the win. However, if I have only played a couple of hours and I still feel sharp after eating, I will go back, get a seat, and repeat the process. This has worked extremely well for me at all the casinos where I have played. I have amassed 40% of my entire current roll using this strategy. I know I shouldn’t be so results oriented but what can I say – it works.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Confessions of a Short Stacker, Part 1 - Online Play
Persistence is the twin sister of excellence. One is a matter of quality; the other, a matter of time. - Marabel Morgan
The best thing about online poker is the ability to play multiple tables at once.
Multi-tabling is only possible online, you can’t do it at a casino or a homegame.
I like to play between 4-6 tables at once and I always buy in short for several reasons.
A) I get more action. I probably appear to be a fish for buying short so my opponents may be hoping to play pots with me.
B) Because my stack is short, I am less threatening to potential opponents since I can’t stack them, i.e. they have me covered.
C) I am risking the minimum (20BB) and this reduces my variance. My variance is much greater online than live, so I like to do all I can to minimize my variance.
D) Short stacking makes my calculations and decisions very straightforward.
E) Prospective opponents probably think they can push me around and make me fold even when they do not have the best hand.
By buying in short, I am actively seeking opportunities to get all my chips into the pot with an opponent. That’s the whole idea.
I bet/raise pre-flop and I am usually either pushing or folding on the flop (sometimes the turn). If I push a few times without being called, it won’t be long before some opponent decides he is going to “look me up”. That opponent rarely wants to look me up a second time. Before long, my stack is near a full buy in and it is time to start over at a new table. If I buy in full at 6 tables, I have more of my online roll in play than I want to at any given point. I have tried buying in full at 6 lower stakes tables but the simple fact is I do not get nearly as much action and it takes me way more time and way more hands played to achieve the same profit. The approximate ratio of success (on average) is 4 out of 6, meaning I double up (or better) at 4 tables and lose my stack at 2 tables. Incidentally, some people think this type of strategy is not “kosher” but it is 100% within the rules and recommended by Ed Miller. Most importantly, this strategy seems to work for me. However, I am always looking for ways to improve my game so comments are welcomed.
The best thing about online poker is the ability to play multiple tables at once.
Multi-tabling is only possible online, you can’t do it at a casino or a homegame.
I like to play between 4-6 tables at once and I always buy in short for several reasons.
A) I get more action. I probably appear to be a fish for buying short so my opponents may be hoping to play pots with me.
B) Because my stack is short, I am less threatening to potential opponents since I can’t stack them, i.e. they have me covered.
C) I am risking the minimum (20BB) and this reduces my variance. My variance is much greater online than live, so I like to do all I can to minimize my variance.
D) Short stacking makes my calculations and decisions very straightforward.
E) Prospective opponents probably think they can push me around and make me fold even when they do not have the best hand.
By buying in short, I am actively seeking opportunities to get all my chips into the pot with an opponent. That’s the whole idea.
I bet/raise pre-flop and I am usually either pushing or folding on the flop (sometimes the turn). If I push a few times without being called, it won’t be long before some opponent decides he is going to “look me up”. That opponent rarely wants to look me up a second time. Before long, my stack is near a full buy in and it is time to start over at a new table. If I buy in full at 6 tables, I have more of my online roll in play than I want to at any given point. I have tried buying in full at 6 lower stakes tables but the simple fact is I do not get nearly as much action and it takes me way more time and way more hands played to achieve the same profit. The approximate ratio of success (on average) is 4 out of 6, meaning I double up (or better) at 4 tables and lose my stack at 2 tables. Incidentally, some people think this type of strategy is not “kosher” but it is 100% within the rules and recommended by Ed Miller. Most importantly, this strategy seems to work for me. However, I am always looking for ways to improve my game so comments are welcomed.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Abstinence Sucks
Abstainer, n. A weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. - Ambrose Bierce.
Lately, by the time I’ve gotten the family to bed, I’ve been too tired to play. I wanted to play. I really did. The little voice was reminding me I only have a small window of opportunity to play online most weeknights and that time is now. But, the stronger voice reminded me, “you are fatigued and not at your best, can you really muster your “A” game?” To which the answer was no.
Thus, I have played some but not much, lately. Unlike many things in life, you can’t “phone it in” in poker. Actually, you can but it isn’t much fun and it can be very costly. I haven’t been reading/working on my game, hoarding home game profits to fortify my bankroll, and so forth only to then donk off my hard earned winnings by knowingly playing my “C” game. Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.
My desire to play online is still gnawing on me but the discipline I am learning from reading to improve my game is helping me reduce the incidence of my “C” game (which is exactly what I am playing when I am mentally and physically tired). I tried an “energy” drink but while that helped me play for a little while, it also caused me to not sleep well and be tired the next morning – which is not good and only serves to make me very tired the next evening. The good news is that while I have played less frequently, I have been winning more frequently.
Additionally, my writing muse seemed to temporarily abandon me. I suppose she inferred, if there was no poker then there was nothing to write about. I actually had several ideas but in her absence, I could not seem to compose more than a few lines. I have even, to some degree, enjoyed the brief break from grinding late night cash tables by reading and working on my game. I just finished No Limit Hold’em, Theory and Practice by Sklansky and Miller. I am still digesting the contents but it is definitely a solid work. I plan to acquire and read the Harrington on Cash Games books in the near future.
Meanwhile, check out this guy’s blog: http://thinkingpoker.net/Blog/
Lately, by the time I’ve gotten the family to bed, I’ve been too tired to play. I wanted to play. I really did. The little voice was reminding me I only have a small window of opportunity to play online most weeknights and that time is now. But, the stronger voice reminded me, “you are fatigued and not at your best, can you really muster your “A” game?” To which the answer was no.
Thus, I have played some but not much, lately. Unlike many things in life, you can’t “phone it in” in poker. Actually, you can but it isn’t much fun and it can be very costly. I haven’t been reading/working on my game, hoarding home game profits to fortify my bankroll, and so forth only to then donk off my hard earned winnings by knowingly playing my “C” game. Nope. Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.
My desire to play online is still gnawing on me but the discipline I am learning from reading to improve my game is helping me reduce the incidence of my “C” game (which is exactly what I am playing when I am mentally and physically tired). I tried an “energy” drink but while that helped me play for a little while, it also caused me to not sleep well and be tired the next morning – which is not good and only serves to make me very tired the next evening. The good news is that while I have played less frequently, I have been winning more frequently.
Additionally, my writing muse seemed to temporarily abandon me. I suppose she inferred, if there was no poker then there was nothing to write about. I actually had several ideas but in her absence, I could not seem to compose more than a few lines. I have even, to some degree, enjoyed the brief break from grinding late night cash tables by reading and working on my game. I just finished No Limit Hold’em, Theory and Practice by Sklansky and Miller. I am still digesting the contents but it is definitely a solid work. I plan to acquire and read the Harrington on Cash Games books in the near future.
Meanwhile, check out this guy’s blog: http://thinkingpoker.net/Blog/
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Maximizing Expected Value
“A philosopher, who is not taking part in discussions, is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein
There has been a lot of discussion about this in the poker blogosphere lately, so here is my opinion.
Poker is a mathematical game. Mathematical expectation should be a very important factor in the strategy and tactics one adopts and the decisions that one makes in any poker game. This expectation (also known as Expected Value) is factored into every decision a good poker player makes. Situations/decisions that are positive EV, are situations/decisions that over a long period of time and innumerable instances, always make money.
Negative EV situations/decisions are ones that always lose money over a long period of time and innumerable instances.
Creating a hostile playing environment (whether live or online) is always negative EV.
Here is why. Over the long haul, it only serves to reduce the volume of less serious players. Players that are skilled and serious about their game will not be discouraged from playing because they are playing to win irrespective of anything else. However, there are lots of players that just play for fun. These are not bad players at all. They just aren’t “into it” as much as some of the rest of us.
I believe it is positive EV to have as many of these somewhat casual players involved as possible. They are good people. They are fun to play with. They add money to the table if playing for cash and money to the prize pool of tournaments. All they do is add value - money, entertainment, as well as, comradery. Thus, they are highly desirable to have in any game. Why in the world would we want to create situations that discourage these folks from playing with us?
It just doesn’t make sense. Good players want to maximize positive EV.
Think about it. Until next time, good luck at the tables.
There has been a lot of discussion about this in the poker blogosphere lately, so here is my opinion.
Poker is a mathematical game. Mathematical expectation should be a very important factor in the strategy and tactics one adopts and the decisions that one makes in any poker game. This expectation (also known as Expected Value) is factored into every decision a good poker player makes. Situations/decisions that are positive EV, are situations/decisions that over a long period of time and innumerable instances, always make money.
Negative EV situations/decisions are ones that always lose money over a long period of time and innumerable instances.
Creating a hostile playing environment (whether live or online) is always negative EV.
Here is why. Over the long haul, it only serves to reduce the volume of less serious players. Players that are skilled and serious about their game will not be discouraged from playing because they are playing to win irrespective of anything else. However, there are lots of players that just play for fun. These are not bad players at all. They just aren’t “into it” as much as some of the rest of us.
I believe it is positive EV to have as many of these somewhat casual players involved as possible. They are good people. They are fun to play with. They add money to the table if playing for cash and money to the prize pool of tournaments. All they do is add value - money, entertainment, as well as, comradery. Thus, they are highly desirable to have in any game. Why in the world would we want to create situations that discourage these folks from playing with us?
It just doesn’t make sense. Good players want to maximize positive EV.
Think about it. Until next time, good luck at the tables.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Art of Folding
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. ~Author Unknown
An often overlooked and undervalued aspect of your game is folding. To maximize your success at full ring NLHE, you should fold a lot more often than you choose not to fold. This being the case, if you can learn to fold better than your opponents, you gain an edge. Most people see folding as completely passive. I see folding as a tactical weapon. Imagine the martial artist, you thrust at him, he nimbly steps aside, avoiding the attack. You attempt to ambush me with a check raise but I deftly parry with a fold and my stack is unharmed. Minimal effort yields maximum protection. My opponents are becoming frustrated because, like a boxer, I circle my prey, wearing them down gradually before moving in for the coup de grace. Be like a hunter patiently waiting for one’s prey.
Or like a fisherman, sitting quietly waiting for the big fish to bite.
Observe your prey. What do they do? How do they do it? Why do they do it?
What hands are they showing? Are they playing weak hands out of position?
Do they crave action on almost every hand? What are they saying?
Absorb the maximum amount of information possible. Many times, they will reveal their strategy if you are paying attention.
Focus on being in the moment and be aware of your breathing. Don’t be distracted by random thoughts whirring about. Breathe in. Watch what your opponents are doing. Breathe out. Continue observing. The urge to act, the desire to win now, rather than later, seems compelling but your will is stronger. Resist the urge to act now unless now is the right time to act. This does not mean waiting for Aces or Kings, mediocre cards may be adequate depending on your position, the actions of your opponents, and the tendencies and weaknesses you have observed them demonstrate. Although it may seem counter intuitive to go all the way over to the casino and see how many hands you can stay out of, try to embrace the concept of selective engagement. Engage your opponent when the situation favors you and by definition, it will be unfavorable to them.
Why should one fold - to deny an opponent the opportunity to win part of my stack when I am not in a position of strength. If you fold a lot, players will become “aware” when you are in a pot. This creates prime opportunities for continuation bets and semi-bluffs. It also makes small pocket pairs a lot more playable. Craft your table image as selective but deadly and watch the respect your 3-bets will acquire.
How should one fold - stoically fold your cards face down into the muck regardless whether or not someone wants to see them. Develop good habits.
Try to fold in the same manner each time so it becomes automatic.
Don’t discuss what you folded – e.g. “aw, man, I would have flopped the nuts”.
If players are talking like this, think about what the guy folded and think about what made him fold. You will gain insight into the other player’s decision making process.
If anyone asks what you folded, either ignore them or say you forgot.
When should one fold - when one is out of position and/or one does not hold a premium starting hand. When one is faced with a raise and one does not have a strong enough hand to call or re-raise. When one started with a good hand but have been outflopped/outdrawn and are now obviously beaten. The best time to fold is pre-flop or on the flop, before one has invested much in the hand.
What should one fold – most starting hands that are not pocket pairs, big or suited Aces, or big suited connectors. Don’t be discouraged, another hand will be dealt soon. There is no need to play “this” hand. Relax. Breathe. Observe your opponents.
Poker is a game of small edges. Accrue several small edges together and you have a bigger edge. The edges one accrues are cumulative and will add up over time.
Be patient. And, until next time, good luck at the tables.
An often overlooked and undervalued aspect of your game is folding. To maximize your success at full ring NLHE, you should fold a lot more often than you choose not to fold. This being the case, if you can learn to fold better than your opponents, you gain an edge. Most people see folding as completely passive. I see folding as a tactical weapon. Imagine the martial artist, you thrust at him, he nimbly steps aside, avoiding the attack. You attempt to ambush me with a check raise but I deftly parry with a fold and my stack is unharmed. Minimal effort yields maximum protection. My opponents are becoming frustrated because, like a boxer, I circle my prey, wearing them down gradually before moving in for the coup de grace. Be like a hunter patiently waiting for one’s prey.
Or like a fisherman, sitting quietly waiting for the big fish to bite.
Observe your prey. What do they do? How do they do it? Why do they do it?
What hands are they showing? Are they playing weak hands out of position?
Do they crave action on almost every hand? What are they saying?
Absorb the maximum amount of information possible. Many times, they will reveal their strategy if you are paying attention.
Focus on being in the moment and be aware of your breathing. Don’t be distracted by random thoughts whirring about. Breathe in. Watch what your opponents are doing. Breathe out. Continue observing. The urge to act, the desire to win now, rather than later, seems compelling but your will is stronger. Resist the urge to act now unless now is the right time to act. This does not mean waiting for Aces or Kings, mediocre cards may be adequate depending on your position, the actions of your opponents, and the tendencies and weaknesses you have observed them demonstrate. Although it may seem counter intuitive to go all the way over to the casino and see how many hands you can stay out of, try to embrace the concept of selective engagement. Engage your opponent when the situation favors you and by definition, it will be unfavorable to them.
Why should one fold - to deny an opponent the opportunity to win part of my stack when I am not in a position of strength. If you fold a lot, players will become “aware” when you are in a pot. This creates prime opportunities for continuation bets and semi-bluffs. It also makes small pocket pairs a lot more playable. Craft your table image as selective but deadly and watch the respect your 3-bets will acquire.
How should one fold - stoically fold your cards face down into the muck regardless whether or not someone wants to see them. Develop good habits.
Try to fold in the same manner each time so it becomes automatic.
Don’t discuss what you folded – e.g. “aw, man, I would have flopped the nuts”.
If players are talking like this, think about what the guy folded and think about what made him fold. You will gain insight into the other player’s decision making process.
If anyone asks what you folded, either ignore them or say you forgot.
When should one fold - when one is out of position and/or one does not hold a premium starting hand. When one is faced with a raise and one does not have a strong enough hand to call or re-raise. When one started with a good hand but have been outflopped/outdrawn and are now obviously beaten. The best time to fold is pre-flop or on the flop, before one has invested much in the hand.
What should one fold – most starting hands that are not pocket pairs, big or suited Aces, or big suited connectors. Don’t be discouraged, another hand will be dealt soon. There is no need to play “this” hand. Relax. Breathe. Observe your opponents.
Poker is a game of small edges. Accrue several small edges together and you have a bigger edge. The edges one accrues are cumulative and will add up over time.
Be patient. And, until next time, good luck at the tables.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Bankroll Management 101
Money, it turned out, was exactly like sex, you thought of nothing else if you didn't have it and thought of other things if you did. – James Baldwin.
Mr. Angelo calls it “partitioning”. Your poker bankroll is really just a sub-set of your entire bankroll. In fact, the entire distinction exists primarily only in your mind (it may also have a physical partition if you keep your poker bankroll in a poker wallet). If you can learn to partition better than others, you will be more adept at protecting your poker bankroll, and you will gain an edge.
Too many players injure their poker bankroll by not partitioning well. They spend poker money on beer, fuel, food, etc. They then, lament the inevitable episode of variance that leaves them low or out of poker money.
Food, beer, fuel, etc. are things one needs anyway and one is going to buy anyway – with or without poker money. Therefore, make sure to buy these out of your “regular” bankroll. If you must buy them from poker money, replace that poker money with regular money so that the beer, etc. ends up on the right account.
Be diligent about adding money won at poker to your poker bankroll.
Don’t squander those winnings like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave.
What if you go through an extended period of losing? You will regret having squandered those winnings. Those winnings are your tools for playing and winning more. After completing a job, would you discard the perfectly good tools that enabled you to do the job? Would you trade them for food, fuel, beer, or whatever? Don’t trade your poker bankroll (i.e. your tools) for them either.
As a poker player with a family, I think it is even more essential to keep your poker bankroll separate from your family bankroll. If I used family money to play, I would be more worried about losing and would not be able to bring my “A” game. Playing with money one is afraid to lose is playing with “scared money” and good players will notice this and take advantage of you. With a separate poker bankroll, I can play my best game and not worry about a potential loss affecting my family. Don’t get me wrong. I do not want to lose any money at all but I also know that it is certain to occur sooner or later. Be prepared by saving your winnings. That way when you suffer the occasional loss, your bankroll survives and you are able to keep playing. More importantly, your family is not affected by the loss. I went through an extended period of involuntary unemployment not long ago. However, since I maintain a separate poker bankroll, I was able to play poker the entire time with no negative impact to the family.
Playing winning poker is a long term prospect. If you treat your poker bankroll as a long term investment and “partition” well, it will grow and you will gain another edge in the long term game.
Mr. Angelo calls it “partitioning”. Your poker bankroll is really just a sub-set of your entire bankroll. In fact, the entire distinction exists primarily only in your mind (it may also have a physical partition if you keep your poker bankroll in a poker wallet). If you can learn to partition better than others, you will be more adept at protecting your poker bankroll, and you will gain an edge.
Too many players injure their poker bankroll by not partitioning well. They spend poker money on beer, fuel, food, etc. They then, lament the inevitable episode of variance that leaves them low or out of poker money.
Food, beer, fuel, etc. are things one needs anyway and one is going to buy anyway – with or without poker money. Therefore, make sure to buy these out of your “regular” bankroll. If you must buy them from poker money, replace that poker money with regular money so that the beer, etc. ends up on the right account.
Be diligent about adding money won at poker to your poker bankroll.
Don’t squander those winnings like a drunken sailor on his first shore leave.
What if you go through an extended period of losing? You will regret having squandered those winnings. Those winnings are your tools for playing and winning more. After completing a job, would you discard the perfectly good tools that enabled you to do the job? Would you trade them for food, fuel, beer, or whatever? Don’t trade your poker bankroll (i.e. your tools) for them either.
As a poker player with a family, I think it is even more essential to keep your poker bankroll separate from your family bankroll. If I used family money to play, I would be more worried about losing and would not be able to bring my “A” game. Playing with money one is afraid to lose is playing with “scared money” and good players will notice this and take advantage of you. With a separate poker bankroll, I can play my best game and not worry about a potential loss affecting my family. Don’t get me wrong. I do not want to lose any money at all but I also know that it is certain to occur sooner or later. Be prepared by saving your winnings. That way when you suffer the occasional loss, your bankroll survives and you are able to keep playing. More importantly, your family is not affected by the loss. I went through an extended period of involuntary unemployment not long ago. However, since I maintain a separate poker bankroll, I was able to play poker the entire time with no negative impact to the family.
Playing winning poker is a long term prospect. If you treat your poker bankroll as a long term investment and “partition” well, it will grow and you will gain another edge in the long term game.
Monday, March 24, 2008
$how Me the Money - Big Pocket Pairs
The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different. ~Aldous Huxley
While the game of poker has changed over the last few years, it has also remained the same. People talk a lot about us internet guys that can learn in a few years what it used to take much longer to learn about poker. To some extent, it is true due to the volume of hands and experience one can gain on the internet. There has also been a tremendous renaissance of writing about poker from authors to bloggers to actual professionals. However, the ranking of hands, the number of cards in the deck, the number of cards one is dealt, the betting options one may exercise, the rules, etc. have remained the same. Thus, the best starting hands are the same as what they always were and the probability that they will win is still the same as it always was. Where am I going with this?
Upon careful examination of my data, I find that the hands I make the most money with are exactly the ones I would expect to make the most with.
My most profitable starting hands are (in this order):
1 A-A
2 K-K
3 Q-Q
4 J-J
5 10-10
Is anyone surprised? I am not. Each one of these starting hands considered individually has earned me more than all pairs 22 - 99 combined together. Additionally, consider this. Each one of these big pairs considered individually has earned me more than these four starting hands combined: A-Ks, A-Ko, A-Qs, and A-Qo. So, am I recommending that anyone stop playing these? Absolutely not. However, I am recommending that one should recognize these 5 pocket pairs are one’s “bread and butter”. If you are not 3-betting all of these and 4-betting the top three, you are probably not earning as much as you could be. You will not be dealt these hands very often so one should seek to maximize one’s EV with them at every opportunity. That means getting the most money into the pot as soon as possible. I like to get all in pre-flop with these hands whenever possible. Will you run into a cooler from time to time, yes, of course. But you will also put your opponents to the test and they will pay you off more often than you will be paying them off. That, my friends, is positive EV.
So, until next time, good luck at the tables.
While the game of poker has changed over the last few years, it has also remained the same. People talk a lot about us internet guys that can learn in a few years what it used to take much longer to learn about poker. To some extent, it is true due to the volume of hands and experience one can gain on the internet. There has also been a tremendous renaissance of writing about poker from authors to bloggers to actual professionals. However, the ranking of hands, the number of cards in the deck, the number of cards one is dealt, the betting options one may exercise, the rules, etc. have remained the same. Thus, the best starting hands are the same as what they always were and the probability that they will win is still the same as it always was. Where am I going with this?
Upon careful examination of my data, I find that the hands I make the most money with are exactly the ones I would expect to make the most with.
My most profitable starting hands are (in this order):
1 A-A
2 K-K
3 Q-Q
4 J-J
5 10-10
Is anyone surprised? I am not. Each one of these starting hands considered individually has earned me more than all pairs 22 - 99 combined together. Additionally, consider this. Each one of these big pairs considered individually has earned me more than these four starting hands combined: A-Ks, A-Ko, A-Qs, and A-Qo. So, am I recommending that anyone stop playing these? Absolutely not. However, I am recommending that one should recognize these 5 pocket pairs are one’s “bread and butter”. If you are not 3-betting all of these and 4-betting the top three, you are probably not earning as much as you could be. You will not be dealt these hands very often so one should seek to maximize one’s EV with them at every opportunity. That means getting the most money into the pot as soon as possible. I like to get all in pre-flop with these hands whenever possible. Will you run into a cooler from time to time, yes, of course. But you will also put your opponents to the test and they will pay you off more often than you will be paying them off. That, my friends, is positive EV.
So, until next time, good luck at the tables.
Friday, March 21, 2008
You Might be a Predator….
Cards are war, in disguise of a sport – Charles Lamb.
During the farewell of the WPT shows, they used to say things like, “If you can’t spot the sucker at the table, you’re it”. They never say things like that anymore and it is no coincidence. You see, poker has a reputation of being predatory and that doesn’t sell well. The poker industry has made a significant effort to make the game seem less predatory and more friendly. We don’t want to frighten away potential feeder fish, we want them to feel comfortable and relaxed. We want them to think things like “any two cards can win” and “luck’s all in the cards” and “on any given day, you can play with the pros” and other such tripe.
I am not going to try to convince you poker is not a predatory endeavor because I think it is. However, what I am suggesting is that plenty of other life activities and even professions are predatory, too, and everyone seems just fine with them being that way. So, why is poker held in such a state of contempt? Doesn’t a fisherman go to the places he is most likely to catch a big fish rather than just fish in random places?
Most business endeavors are predatory. All Salesmen, certainly are. Lawyers are often compared to sharks for a reason. Heck, Life itself is a survival of the fittest contest, remember the idea of natural selection. It is a fact (and has been for a very long time) that the stronger usually prey on the weaker in any human endeavor. Better prepared lawyers usually defeat ones that are less so. Better athletes usually outperform the less gifted. Better students outscore those less intelligent or studious. So, why shouldn’t more skilled poker players usually defeat less skilled ones? Lambs do not devour lions, but Lions do devour lambs. What is the big deal? It is the natural order of things. It is Darwinian.
Do you stalk your prey by searching for the softest games?
Do you hunt your prey using table selection and position whenever possible?
Do you seek to take advantage of weaker players?
Do you seek to isolate your prey (separating him from the protection of the herd) whenever in a hand with an opponent?
If you answered “yes” to any of these, you might be a predator. These are all predatory tactics.
I have read the sage advice of great players and the consensus seems to be that most of the money one makes at poker will come from weaker opponents. Embrace this concept. Live it. Try to identify your prey and play more pots with them. Identify your fellow predators and give them a little more respect.
And, remember, it’s OK, this is the natural order of things.
During the farewell of the WPT shows, they used to say things like, “If you can’t spot the sucker at the table, you’re it”. They never say things like that anymore and it is no coincidence. You see, poker has a reputation of being predatory and that doesn’t sell well. The poker industry has made a significant effort to make the game seem less predatory and more friendly. We don’t want to frighten away potential feeder fish, we want them to feel comfortable and relaxed. We want them to think things like “any two cards can win” and “luck’s all in the cards” and “on any given day, you can play with the pros” and other such tripe.
I am not going to try to convince you poker is not a predatory endeavor because I think it is. However, what I am suggesting is that plenty of other life activities and even professions are predatory, too, and everyone seems just fine with them being that way. So, why is poker held in such a state of contempt? Doesn’t a fisherman go to the places he is most likely to catch a big fish rather than just fish in random places?
Most business endeavors are predatory. All Salesmen, certainly are. Lawyers are often compared to sharks for a reason. Heck, Life itself is a survival of the fittest contest, remember the idea of natural selection. It is a fact (and has been for a very long time) that the stronger usually prey on the weaker in any human endeavor. Better prepared lawyers usually defeat ones that are less so. Better athletes usually outperform the less gifted. Better students outscore those less intelligent or studious. So, why shouldn’t more skilled poker players usually defeat less skilled ones? Lambs do not devour lions, but Lions do devour lambs. What is the big deal? It is the natural order of things. It is Darwinian.
Do you stalk your prey by searching for the softest games?
Do you hunt your prey using table selection and position whenever possible?
Do you seek to take advantage of weaker players?
Do you seek to isolate your prey (separating him from the protection of the herd) whenever in a hand with an opponent?
If you answered “yes” to any of these, you might be a predator. These are all predatory tactics.
I have read the sage advice of great players and the consensus seems to be that most of the money one makes at poker will come from weaker opponents. Embrace this concept. Live it. Try to identify your prey and play more pots with them. Identify your fellow predators and give them a little more respect.
And, remember, it’s OK, this is the natural order of things.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
How Big is Big? – Big Aces
Losing an illusion makes you wiser than finding a truth. ~Ludwig Börne
Another review of my data leads me to another post about popular starting hands, big Aces. Different people define “big” differently. I know people that think A-10 or better is a big Ace. I also know people that never saw an Ace they didn’t like. I am not one of those individuals. I think the list of truly big Aces is rather short - A-Ks, A-Ko, A-Qs, and A-Qo - that’s it.
Texas Hold’ Em is a game of domination. One wants to dominate one’s opponent and reduce his chances to win. Playing weak Aces (or Kings, etc.) is a recipe for being dominated by stronger Aces. Thus, we will eschew them while hoping our opponents continue to over play them. Remember, there is a reason why A-K and A-Q (suited or not) are included in the top 20 best starting hands and weaker Aces are not. My own data supports this conclusion. A-K and A-Q (both suited and off suit) are consistent winners but A-Jo and A-10o are not.
I play A-Js and A-10s but not because I think they are big. I play them as suited Aces and I am looking to flop a flush draw or Aces up. They can win as top pair but the pot will not be big because I will be exercising pot control.
The fact of the matter is this, A-J offsuit and other smaller non-suited Aces are not consistent long term winners. Sure, I will probably attempt to steal with them from the Hi Jack, Cut Off, or Button but they are too weak to play from early position with consistent success in full ring NLHE cash games.
Another review of my data leads me to another post about popular starting hands, big Aces. Different people define “big” differently. I know people that think A-10 or better is a big Ace. I also know people that never saw an Ace they didn’t like. I am not one of those individuals. I think the list of truly big Aces is rather short - A-Ks, A-Ko, A-Qs, and A-Qo - that’s it.
Texas Hold’ Em is a game of domination. One wants to dominate one’s opponent and reduce his chances to win. Playing weak Aces (or Kings, etc.) is a recipe for being dominated by stronger Aces. Thus, we will eschew them while hoping our opponents continue to over play them. Remember, there is a reason why A-K and A-Q (suited or not) are included in the top 20 best starting hands and weaker Aces are not. My own data supports this conclusion. A-K and A-Q (both suited and off suit) are consistent winners but A-Jo and A-10o are not.
I play A-Js and A-10s but not because I think they are big. I play them as suited Aces and I am looking to flop a flush draw or Aces up. They can win as top pair but the pot will not be big because I will be exercising pot control.
The fact of the matter is this, A-J offsuit and other smaller non-suited Aces are not consistent long term winners. Sure, I will probably attempt to steal with them from the Hi Jack, Cut Off, or Button but they are too weak to play from early position with consistent success in full ring NLHE cash games.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hands that Consistently Lose Money
Nothing is so difficult as not deceiving oneself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Continuing to work on my “A” game, I am reviewing my data and looking for hands that are consistent losers. By eliminating these from my game for the most part, I am lopping off a sizable chunk of my “C” game. The net result should be an increase in my “A” game. Which hands are these wicked temptresses that lure me into handing over my hard earned cash, you ask? They are probably the same hands that entice some of you with their siren song, my dear readers, sweet seeming suited connectors like J-10s, 9-10s, 8-9s. Add in the handsome looking K-10s and the lovely Q-10s and you have a cadre of attractive starting hands that are consistent losers for me. What else might we find? Well, I mentioned in a previous post that the cute little ducklings 2-2 have also proven to be losers. Then, add in the hands that I know are troublesome and probably should not be playing anyway like A-Jo, A-10o, A-9o, A-8o and voila! There you have it.
While I will not recommend one should never play these hands, one should certainly limit their allure to the Hi-Jack, Cut Off, and Button. Even then, one should exercise caution and prudence as these hands often make a hand that is 3rd or 4th best – which is definitely negative EV.
A couple of caveats to note are:
1) suited connectors containing a 5 were more often winners than suited connectors containing a 10, and
2) big suited connectors, such as Q-Js, K-Qs, and A-Ks, are consistent winners.
I whole heartedly recommend you perform a similar exercise for yourself and see how much of your “C” game you can eliminate. Until next time, good luck at the tables.
Continuing to work on my “A” game, I am reviewing my data and looking for hands that are consistent losers. By eliminating these from my game for the most part, I am lopping off a sizable chunk of my “C” game. The net result should be an increase in my “A” game. Which hands are these wicked temptresses that lure me into handing over my hard earned cash, you ask? They are probably the same hands that entice some of you with their siren song, my dear readers, sweet seeming suited connectors like J-10s, 9-10s, 8-9s. Add in the handsome looking K-10s and the lovely Q-10s and you have a cadre of attractive starting hands that are consistent losers for me. What else might we find? Well, I mentioned in a previous post that the cute little ducklings 2-2 have also proven to be losers. Then, add in the hands that I know are troublesome and probably should not be playing anyway like A-Jo, A-10o, A-9o, A-8o and voila! There you have it.
While I will not recommend one should never play these hands, one should certainly limit their allure to the Hi-Jack, Cut Off, and Button. Even then, one should exercise caution and prudence as these hands often make a hand that is 3rd or 4th best – which is definitely negative EV.
A couple of caveats to note are:
1) suited connectors containing a 5 were more often winners than suited connectors containing a 10, and
2) big suited connectors, such as Q-Js, K-Qs, and A-Ks, are consistent winners.
I whole heartedly recommend you perform a similar exercise for yourself and see how much of your “C” game you can eliminate. Until next time, good luck at the tables.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Working on My “A” Game
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. ~Edward R. Murrow.
I just completed Tommy Angelo’s book, “Elements of Poker”. I enjoyed it and will be working to incorporate some of his recommendations into my game. The book primarily offers advice on how to improve one’s meta-game. How to reduce the incidences of one's “C” game and increase those of one’s “A” game. He makes a compelling case for both why and how to reduce your “C” game. He also gives some sound advice on other topics that are not the usual poker strategy stuff. Like how to improve one’s game by improving one’s folding and one’s quitting. Things that are a necessary part of every player’s game but things we rarely ever think about because they are so ubiquitous.
Imagine this - how to improve one’s game by breathing better. Yeah, that’s right, breathing. I tried his advice last night in a home game and it was right on. I was running hot and having a good time with my friends but noticed I was becoming distracted by all the table talk and other stuff going on so I started consciously thinking about my breathing. Within minutes I was back on my “A” game and re-focused. Amazing.
I definitely recommend this book as a means of identifying some improvements in your game that you probably have not ever considered.
I just completed Tommy Angelo’s book, “Elements of Poker”. I enjoyed it and will be working to incorporate some of his recommendations into my game. The book primarily offers advice on how to improve one’s meta-game. How to reduce the incidences of one's “C” game and increase those of one’s “A” game. He makes a compelling case for both why and how to reduce your “C” game. He also gives some sound advice on other topics that are not the usual poker strategy stuff. Like how to improve one’s game by improving one’s folding and one’s quitting. Things that are a necessary part of every player’s game but things we rarely ever think about because they are so ubiquitous.
Imagine this - how to improve one’s game by breathing better. Yeah, that’s right, breathing. I tried his advice last night in a home game and it was right on. I was running hot and having a good time with my friends but noticed I was becoming distracted by all the table talk and other stuff going on so I started consciously thinking about my breathing. Within minutes I was back on my “A” game and re-focused. Amazing.
I definitely recommend this book as a means of identifying some improvements in your game that you probably have not ever considered.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Turning Small Change into Cash – Small Pocket Pairs
“Our aim, in philosophy, is to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle” - Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I have been looking for opportunities to get more value from my game (full ring NLHE) and decided to review how I am doing with small pairs. I will define those as 22 – 77. Why, you ask?
Well, because you are going to see an overcard to pocket 7s on the flop 92% of the time (and even more often for smaller pairs). That means you basically have to flop a set to want to continue with confidence. Let me say that again, greater than 92% of the time you see a flop with a small pocket pair, there will be overcards to your pair.
I have 82K hands in my database. (Digression: If any of my readers play online and
do not have Poker Tracker, why not? For a ridiculously low price, you can analyze and review your play. If you are at all serious about winning at online poker, you have got
to have it.) All pocket pairs but 2-2 are profitable winners but some are more profitable than others. For me, J-J and 10-10 win 68% of the time, 9-9 only wins 43% and 8-8 only 33%. Once you get to 7-7 and 6-6, the Win% is only 24%, 5-5 = 20%, 3-3 = 12% and ends at a paltry 9% for deuces. Thus, the Win% drops precipitously as we go down the list and is generally low for most small pairs.
Interestingly, for me, 6-6 is the most profitable pair lower than 10-10. No other small pair comes close (and I have flopped approximately the same percentage of sets with other small pairs so the difference is not due to flopping more sets with 6-6). I have also won more with 6-6 than I have with any of the following starting hands: A-Ks, A-Ko, A-Qs, and A-Qo. No other pair below 10-10 has won more than these hands. 4-4 and 3-3 are the next best two (in that order) and I have won more with them than I have with 5-5, 7-7, 8-8, and 9-9 combined. I have lost more with 2-2 than any other pocket pair.
If you add up all the money I have won with 2-2 all the way up to 9-9, it still does not equal what I have won with 10-10 alone (or any other higher pair).
What can we learn from this? Well, most small pairs are profitable but (usually) only if you can see the flop inexpensively and flop a set. Betting/stealing from the Hi-Jack, Cut-Off and/or button is OK, too, if you are willing to C-bet any flop that is checked to you and fold to a check raise unless you flopped a set. Cold calling bets/raises with them is only recommended if: 1) you are getting the right pot odds to set mine, or 2) you are planning to bluff/semi-bluff and steal the pot on a later street.
Remember: money saved is money earned and bets not wasted are just as valuable as bets that are won. So, until next time, good luck at the tables.
I have been looking for opportunities to get more value from my game (full ring NLHE) and decided to review how I am doing with small pairs. I will define those as 22 – 77. Why, you ask?
Well, because you are going to see an overcard to pocket 7s on the flop 92% of the time (and even more often for smaller pairs). That means you basically have to flop a set to want to continue with confidence. Let me say that again, greater than 92% of the time you see a flop with a small pocket pair, there will be overcards to your pair.
I have 82K hands in my database. (Digression: If any of my readers play online and
do not have Poker Tracker, why not? For a ridiculously low price, you can analyze and review your play. If you are at all serious about winning at online poker, you have got
to have it.) All pocket pairs but 2-2 are profitable winners but some are more profitable than others. For me, J-J and 10-10 win 68% of the time, 9-9 only wins 43% and 8-8 only 33%. Once you get to 7-7 and 6-6, the Win% is only 24%, 5-5 = 20%, 3-3 = 12% and ends at a paltry 9% for deuces. Thus, the Win% drops precipitously as we go down the list and is generally low for most small pairs.
Interestingly, for me, 6-6 is the most profitable pair lower than 10-10. No other small pair comes close (and I have flopped approximately the same percentage of sets with other small pairs so the difference is not due to flopping more sets with 6-6). I have also won more with 6-6 than I have with any of the following starting hands: A-Ks, A-Ko, A-Qs, and A-Qo. No other pair below 10-10 has won more than these hands. 4-4 and 3-3 are the next best two (in that order) and I have won more with them than I have with 5-5, 7-7, 8-8, and 9-9 combined. I have lost more with 2-2 than any other pocket pair.
If you add up all the money I have won with 2-2 all the way up to 9-9, it still does not equal what I have won with 10-10 alone (or any other higher pair).
What can we learn from this? Well, most small pairs are profitable but (usually) only if you can see the flop inexpensively and flop a set. Betting/stealing from the Hi-Jack, Cut-Off and/or button is OK, too, if you are willing to C-bet any flop that is checked to you and fold to a check raise unless you flopped a set. Cold calling bets/raises with them is only recommended if: 1) you are getting the right pot odds to set mine, or 2) you are planning to bluff/semi-bluff and steal the pot on a later street.
Remember: money saved is money earned and bets not wasted are just as valuable as bets that are won. So, until next time, good luck at the tables.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
