This train is just too slow
Sep. 13th, 2006 07:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOne of the drawbacks of deciding to get to a certain target on a poker site within a certain timescale is that you sometimes have to play for longer than you feel like. Take my Gold freeroll challenge on Full Tilt. I would notmally expect to get to 100 points in an evening after 160 hands or so. Playing at three tables, that's less than an hour.
Tonight, that was not the case. $3-$6 table was there none. I could have popped in to the $1000-$2000 game and played Gus Hansen, but I thought that this might be slightly negative EV in working off the bonus. So I was stuck in the largest ring games available, 2 times $2-$4.
And one of these was a rockfest.
But, of course, I LIKE rocks. They are my bread and butter. One of the advantages of having to play in "bad" games for longer than you want is that you realise that these people are going to give you money. At the other, mnore "normal" table (with a couple of laggy players), I managed to lose $50 or thereabouts, but at the rockfest table, where I had to play longer than I would have liked (296 hands worth over 2.5 hours to be precise), my Poker tracker stats on the 166 hands I played on Wigwam were:
VPIP 15.66%, Won$WSF 64.71%, Went to showdown 35.29%. Won at Showdown 83.33%. Profit $139.
The average saw flop in this nine-handed game was 23% and the average pot size was a fraction over $12 (3x the big blind). I was winning hands from the button, the blinds, middle position, you name it. Sure, I ran good for those showdown percentages, but a lot of the money came from the simple procedure of raising a limp, betting the flop, taking down the pot. Easy. God bless deposit bonus hunters, you weak-tight donkeys. Gimme the cash. I am Grippa.
Oh, and knowing that suited connectors are crap and Ace-Nine off is great is useful
$1000-$2000 eh? It's hard to believe that six years ago I looked at the biggest game on Paradise, a $20-$40 game, and wondered to myself "wow, how can people play for stakes like that?"
Now I look at Hansen winning $23K in half an hour and shrug my shoulders. "Whatever", I say.
Anyway, that's four hours of poker tonight when I only intended to play for a couple. Bloody gold freeroll challenges...
Oh, and my numbers for KK after 9,100 hands are received it 38 times, net result, minus $63 (0.31BB per hand). Number of times up against Aces ... seven.
Seven! Give me strength.
Right, let's go and catch up with Lost.
Tonight, that was not the case. $3-$6 table was there none. I could have popped in to the $1000-$2000 game and played Gus Hansen, but I thought that this might be slightly negative EV in working off the bonus. So I was stuck in the largest ring games available, 2 times $2-$4.
And one of these was a rockfest.
But, of course, I LIKE rocks. They are my bread and butter. One of the advantages of having to play in "bad" games for longer than you want is that you realise that these people are going to give you money. At the other, mnore "normal" table (with a couple of laggy players), I managed to lose $50 or thereabouts, but at the rockfest table, where I had to play longer than I would have liked (296 hands worth over 2.5 hours to be precise), my Poker tracker stats on the 166 hands I played on Wigwam were:
VPIP 15.66%, Won$WSF 64.71%, Went to showdown 35.29%. Won at Showdown 83.33%. Profit $139.
The average saw flop in this nine-handed game was 23% and the average pot size was a fraction over $12 (3x the big blind). I was winning hands from the button, the blinds, middle position, you name it. Sure, I ran good for those showdown percentages, but a lot of the money came from the simple procedure of raising a limp, betting the flop, taking down the pot. Easy. God bless deposit bonus hunters, you weak-tight donkeys. Gimme the cash. I am Grippa.
Oh, and knowing that suited connectors are crap and Ace-Nine off is great is useful
$1000-$2000 eh? It's hard to believe that six years ago I looked at the biggest game on Paradise, a $20-$40 game, and wondered to myself "wow, how can people play for stakes like that?"
Now I look at Hansen winning $23K in half an hour and shrug my shoulders. "Whatever", I say.
Anyway, that's four hours of poker tonight when I only intended to play for a couple. Bloody gold freeroll challenges...
Oh, and my numbers for KK after 9,100 hands are received it 38 times, net result, minus $63 (0.31BB per hand). Number of times up against Aces ... seven.
Seven! Give me strength.
Right, let's go and catch up with Lost.
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 01:40 pm (UTC)Aren't you a rock yourself?
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 01:58 pm (UTC)I will have to admit and average pot size of around $12 in a $2/4 limit Hold'em game is incredibly tight.
Michael
(with tongue in cheek)
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 03:16 pm (UTC)I was just trying to throw in a bit of Wintermute styleee, since apparently I score zero for agreeableness (and, yes, that is a word, much to my surprise) on PB's pulseware psycho-tester.
Behind all the dry wit, there was a (kind of) serious point, that being that perhaps for me it isn't best to look for large average pot sizes. After all, that indicates winning showdowns. But my style is more winning the pots that other people don't want. If every pot is going to a showdown, then there aren't many of those pots that other people don't want floating around.
Just something to ponder.
And, of course, the only useful titbit of information I gave away was the value of Ace-Nine off. There's a lot more to making money off weak-tights (you have to recognize them for a start) than random raising and continuing on the flop (as, I suspect, you well know).
Aaron Brown wrote a nice thing about weak-tights, saying that if you raise a lot early on, they start to try to play back at you. However, as he observes, most of them aren't very good at it, so you end up winning more, not less. Excellent.
And, yes, the $12 average was one of the lowest I have ever seen.
As for Anon, what he or she should have asked is "But aren't you a binus hunter yourself?" Ask the right question, and you might get an interesting answer.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-09-14 05:31 pm (UTC)Do you think that looking for smaller average pot size games may fit you better because you lean towards a risk-averse attitude? Given your ties to insurance, it would make sense, I think. Those tighter games should have a lower variance than say looser games with higher average pot sizes.
I certainly agree that you gave away little in regards to playing in tight games and I was mainly trying to give Anon something to chew on. The basis of every poker decision is, in my opinion, who is (are) my opponent(s). As you can probably surmise, I am very much a "it depends on the situation" player.
I may have to pick up Brown's book at this point. What you have paraphrased from his book makes it appear that he may have something interesting and different to say about poker.
Michael
Once again but in English
Date: 2006-09-15 03:42 pm (UTC)I was tentatively schedueld to see you this week-end (15th/16th) in Southend for some face to face poker at the casino (strictly speaking it is in Westcliff) but I am spending a whole day this week-end with Tony Wheatley just to get my hands on copies of 1829 North and 1829 South for a tenner the pair. Oh, and because the poor sod is wheelchair bound these days.
It's not that I don't like Tony W., but can you imagine a whole fricking day of his jokes?
Anyway, if I can't understand all this poker lingo perhaps I am not ready for f-t-f play anyway.
TTFN,
John H.