![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
That's The Way
Oct. 26th, 2006 10:37 amThank God for Zen And The Art of Poker, is all that I can say. The big bet downswing is now up to the equivalent of 120. I'm doing all the right things. I've shifted down to $2-$4. I'm only two-tabling rather than three. This is sensible when you know that your play is almost certainly being affected by the bad run. And, indeed, it serves to mitigate the losses. What feels in my head like a never-ending stream of misery (seven losing days on the trot, you say to yourself. How can this be?) that has actually got worse over the past couple of days, is in fact a net minus of less than a thousand dollars.
No doubt about it, being able to avoid blistering "I'm moving up in stakes to win it all back" attacks is beneficial to the bank balance.
Eventually it turns, and, over the weeks, or months, you get it all back.
Last night was, (despite the blistering loss, given the stakes) quite entertaining. After burning money over 200 hands at Full Tilt and continuing the self-immolation for a further 200 hands at Paradise, I moved over to Ultimate -- the site which has, for the past few days, been my one haven of light and fire extinguishers. But not last night. I continued to metaphorically take a dollar out of my pocket every minute and to set fire to it.
What made it entertaining was that I had a LAG on my right. Now, the past few days of bottom-barrel shuffling amongst the weak-tights at $2-$4 has thrown up a couple of interesting facts. The first is that there are three or four multi-tablers on each site who know what to do (look for something like a 16% VPIP and 11% raise ratio, with a large proportion of these raises in late, three-bets from the small blind, and the ability to get away from a hand). I can defend against these players once I know their particular modus operandi.
More interesting is that there are three or four LAGs as well, and these people are winning. Now, part of this might be skewed by the fact that I am spewing cash on to the table and saying "go on, pick it up", but I suspect that another factor is that, in a sea of weak-tights, the guy who plays 35% of pots and raises 25% of the time will, if he plays reasonably well post-flop, probably end up in front, albeit with a high volatility.
When I've got one of these guys on my right at a table of weak-tights, it's like a red rag to a bull. INTJs love a confrontation and, even though I know that going to war when you are in the middle of a downswing is probably not sensible, well, hell, it's only $2-$4.
So, he was raising in the cut-off and 50% of the time I was three-betting on the button. If he raised on the button, about 30% of the time I was three-betting from the small blind.
But, well, the bastard kept on hitting (or, my estimate is that he did). I would bet out the small blind on a flop of, say KJx rainbow. He would raise. I would three-bet and he would four-bet. Since I have something like T8 suited, I can't really go anywhere from here.
Finally at the end (when I admit, tilt was approaching and I was just about to leave at the end of my allocated 200 hands), I three-bet him with K8s on the button and, on an unhelpful flop, the sequence of (Bet from him, raise from me, three-bet from him, four-bet from me) elicited a fold. And about fucking time.
The worst little moment of the evening occurred when I got JJ and my LAG friend folded. I raised and got three-bet from a weak-tight in the Small Blind. A sequence of zero low cards followed with him betting and me calling and, at the end, him showing the three-quarters expected AA.
But that wasn't the worst of it. Next hand I got JJ again. LAG raised, I three-bet and he four-bet. By this time a donkey had sat down on my left and, for reasons that were never established, he decided to come along for the ride. Flop was xxx. LAG bet, I raised and Donkey called. LAG three-bet, I four-bet and donkey finally realized his Ax or whatever it was had little future, and so folded (paradoxically, at just about the time that he was getting pot odds for his three-outer).
Turn and River then went bet from LAG and call from me, and he turned over KK -- the one time he got a monster pair (that I saw) in all the time I was sitting next to him. Bastard.
These things happen. You shrug them off and turn up at the tables the next day. What's that German saying that has the word Shicksal (fate) in it? Anyway, it's like that.
This doesn't go down well with many Americans, who seem to believe that you can control your own destiny by sheer force of will. They should read the Zen. When moments approach (as they did last night) where the sequence of rottenness causes that feeling described by Caro, where you just don't really care any more, then you get up and do something else. A $400 loss is still $200 more than a $200 loss. It still takes twice as long to grind back. You have to become aware of these things, and I have.
Curiously, the one thing that I haven't felt is self-doubt (which, in the past, has plagued me rotten). Perhaps this is because, even though the quality of play has improved on average, it hasn't reached a level that I can't cope with it. I'm not sitting there saying "what am I doing wrong? Have they caught onto me?" because I only have to watch the actions of these players in other situations to realize that they are not that good. And, for short bursts, my raises and continuations do precisely what they ought to do. It's just that the bursts are rather shorter than they should be, whereas the periods when I get check-raised on the turn, or cold-called behind by a pair of Queens to my AJs, are rather longer than they ought to be. And, of course, you never seem to hit your flushes, or straights, which you know that you need to hit to win a particular hand, after your aggressive play has been dead-batted by some donkey from Odense (a place I pick at random for its Nordic connections guys -- it's not Odense in particular) who thinks that he is good (he isn't, he should have raised you on flop and turn).
No-one likes reading about downswings, but I think that it's preferable to remaining silent (I may do an uber-blog entry on the "state of the nation" when it comes to "these we have loved and lost"). In the grand scheme of things, this one is only 4000 hands long, only $900 deep, only about 120 big bets (hard to estimate accurately because I have moved down in stakes) and only an average of, what, $50 an hour. And it's less than 3% of my winnings and less than 8% of my bankroll. It is, in other words, insignificant on the grand scale and well within the bounds of volatility.
+++++++++
No doubt about it, being able to avoid blistering "I'm moving up in stakes to win it all back" attacks is beneficial to the bank balance.
Eventually it turns, and, over the weeks, or months, you get it all back.
Last night was, (despite the blistering loss, given the stakes) quite entertaining. After burning money over 200 hands at Full Tilt and continuing the self-immolation for a further 200 hands at Paradise, I moved over to Ultimate -- the site which has, for the past few days, been my one haven of light and fire extinguishers. But not last night. I continued to metaphorically take a dollar out of my pocket every minute and to set fire to it.
What made it entertaining was that I had a LAG on my right. Now, the past few days of bottom-barrel shuffling amongst the weak-tights at $2-$4 has thrown up a couple of interesting facts. The first is that there are three or four multi-tablers on each site who know what to do (look for something like a 16% VPIP and 11% raise ratio, with a large proportion of these raises in late, three-bets from the small blind, and the ability to get away from a hand). I can defend against these players once I know their particular modus operandi.
More interesting is that there are three or four LAGs as well, and these people are winning. Now, part of this might be skewed by the fact that I am spewing cash on to the table and saying "go on, pick it up", but I suspect that another factor is that, in a sea of weak-tights, the guy who plays 35% of pots and raises 25% of the time will, if he plays reasonably well post-flop, probably end up in front, albeit with a high volatility.
When I've got one of these guys on my right at a table of weak-tights, it's like a red rag to a bull. INTJs love a confrontation and, even though I know that going to war when you are in the middle of a downswing is probably not sensible, well, hell, it's only $2-$4.
So, he was raising in the cut-off and 50% of the time I was three-betting on the button. If he raised on the button, about 30% of the time I was three-betting from the small blind.
But, well, the bastard kept on hitting (or, my estimate is that he did). I would bet out the small blind on a flop of, say KJx rainbow. He would raise. I would three-bet and he would four-bet. Since I have something like T8 suited, I can't really go anywhere from here.
Finally at the end (when I admit, tilt was approaching and I was just about to leave at the end of my allocated 200 hands), I three-bet him with K8s on the button and, on an unhelpful flop, the sequence of (Bet from him, raise from me, three-bet from him, four-bet from me) elicited a fold. And about fucking time.
The worst little moment of the evening occurred when I got JJ and my LAG friend folded. I raised and got three-bet from a weak-tight in the Small Blind. A sequence of zero low cards followed with him betting and me calling and, at the end, him showing the three-quarters expected AA.
But that wasn't the worst of it. Next hand I got JJ again. LAG raised, I three-bet and he four-bet. By this time a donkey had sat down on my left and, for reasons that were never established, he decided to come along for the ride. Flop was xxx. LAG bet, I raised and Donkey called. LAG three-bet, I four-bet and donkey finally realized his Ax or whatever it was had little future, and so folded (paradoxically, at just about the time that he was getting pot odds for his three-outer).
Turn and River then went bet from LAG and call from me, and he turned over KK -- the one time he got a monster pair (that I saw) in all the time I was sitting next to him. Bastard.
These things happen. You shrug them off and turn up at the tables the next day. What's that German saying that has the word Shicksal (fate) in it? Anyway, it's like that.
This doesn't go down well with many Americans, who seem to believe that you can control your own destiny by sheer force of will. They should read the Zen. When moments approach (as they did last night) where the sequence of rottenness causes that feeling described by Caro, where you just don't really care any more, then you get up and do something else. A $400 loss is still $200 more than a $200 loss. It still takes twice as long to grind back. You have to become aware of these things, and I have.
Curiously, the one thing that I haven't felt is self-doubt (which, in the past, has plagued me rotten). Perhaps this is because, even though the quality of play has improved on average, it hasn't reached a level that I can't cope with it. I'm not sitting there saying "what am I doing wrong? Have they caught onto me?" because I only have to watch the actions of these players in other situations to realize that they are not that good. And, for short bursts, my raises and continuations do precisely what they ought to do. It's just that the bursts are rather shorter than they should be, whereas the periods when I get check-raised on the turn, or cold-called behind by a pair of Queens to my AJs, are rather longer than they ought to be. And, of course, you never seem to hit your flushes, or straights, which you know that you need to hit to win a particular hand, after your aggressive play has been dead-batted by some donkey from Odense (a place I pick at random for its Nordic connections guys -- it's not Odense in particular) who thinks that he is good (he isn't, he should have raised you on flop and turn).
No-one likes reading about downswings, but I think that it's preferable to remaining silent (I may do an uber-blog entry on the "state of the nation" when it comes to "these we have loved and lost"). In the grand scheme of things, this one is only 4000 hands long, only $900 deep, only about 120 big bets (hard to estimate accurately because I have moved down in stakes) and only an average of, what, $50 an hour. And it's less than 3% of my winnings and less than 8% of my bankroll. It is, in other words, insignificant on the grand scale and well within the bounds of volatility.
+++++++++
