The Promised Land

I idled away another 90 minutes at the 100 Player Points competition last night on Party (the 250 point competition, which pays four times as much, was beginning a little late for me) and got the grand sum of a dollar-fifty with only one lucky break -- the requirement that KK should stand up against 77 and AQ, which it did.

The reason that I had to do that from a short stack rather than a large one was because of an earlier event. Here's an interesting hand, which I am recounting from memory. If you are the kind of player who starts muttering about "survival", then I recommend that you return to poker forums where the phrase "tournament life at stake" crops up.

Starting chips are 3000. It's level 2 and the blinds are 30-60. I have 4050 chips as a result of a rather nice resteal. This is a freeroll and we are still at the stage where a few players are being very aggressive in a bid for death or glory. They frequently achieve death, but rarely attain glory.

MP1 (has 5000 chips) raises to 180. I am in MP3 and I cold call with Ks Kh. I can see Mr Ward already nodding sagely.

Big Blind (has 3,400 chips) then raises to 520. MP1 raises it to 1200 and I have to take a view. I take my view and reraise all-in, which is promptly called by both parties. Big Blind shows AJ and MP1 shows JJ. The river brings an Ace and I am reduced to 1,300 chips or thereabouts — that being the sidepot between me and MP1.

Now, I can see myself in the old days preferring a heads-up confrontation than a three-wayer with a hand like KK, but why? Even if I know how the cards lie, and I assume that the AJ will fold to my reraise all in, getting it heads up gives me 78% equity for 8000 chips, or 6,240 chips. If it's three-way, I have 78% equity for 1,300 chips (roughly 1,000) and 65% equity for 10,200 (6,630). The three-way option has a higher EV.

Many players would nod sagely at all this, saying "absolutely. I would have done the same thing". But let's shift the percentages a bit. Let's make it 60% for 10,000 chips, or 35% for 30,000 chips. The first has an odds-on EV for 6,000 chips, while the latter has an odds-against EV for 10,500 chips. Suddenly, you will see many players in real life going for the odds-on choice, even though it has a lower EV. Why? Because people start thinking about "tournament survival" and "the more likely event".

The 50% barrier is a remarkably strong one, even for winning players.

++++++++++

While idling away this 90 minutes for A DOLLAR-FIFTY, I also played some no limit on Bugsy's, doubling up my buy-in to $10. Flushed with success, I sat down in a just-started 5c-10c PLO 8OB game. Having absolutely no idea what to do, and having the grand bankroll of $25 on Bugsy's after an earlier NL mishap wiped out 40% of my stake, I sat down with five bucks. A couple of players had $20 at the table, a couple had $10, while three or four only had $5 or less.

Michael said that I might find $1-$2 limit hold'em "soul-sucking", but this was far worse. Armed with a little bit of reading and some of my own rough ideas, I went absolutely nowhere for an hour or so. All the players seemed very passive, so I didn't want to waste my short stack by raising pre-flop. Then I picked up A37J double suited and I got in for free on the big blind. The board came 33A and I smelt trouble. The pot was the grand sum of 50 cents, which I doubted would frighten off anyone, but I bet it anyway, getting three callers. Turn brought a Q and I checked, awaiting a bet from god-knows-where. River brought a Jack and I checked again. One player bet all of $2 and I called. He showed QQ and I was down to a dollar or so.

Reloading with a superb extra five dollars (who said that big-stakes poker was dead?) the tedium continued for another half hour or so until I picked up something like AA27 with A2s. The flop came A77. I remembered the "keep it attractive" line, so bet about half the pot,which got two callers. Turn brought a three, which probably made someone's low, but I still had chances of a perfect low, plus two opponents. I bet half the pot again. First opponent raised and second opponent called. River was a brick and I ended up splitting the pot. Total for the evening in my first PLO 8OB venture, minus 28 cents.

At these low levels, even though I have never really played the game, it was quite clear that the quality of play was horrible, truly horrible. But the only way to beat it is to sit there and play like a rock. Then, when you are in potential scoop or 3/4 mode (three-quartering is clearly where the big money is made, rather than scooping) you just exercise some sensible pot control. If you take it that no hand with a seven, eight or nine is worth playing, that eliminates 41% of your hands. Another 40% disappear fairly quickly. Hands like KK65 rainbow are, quite clearly, shit (although that doesn't stop virtually all the players at this level being fortune tellers, seeing a future in every hand). So, you come in about 10% to 15% of the time. Of those hands, you probably fold another 80% on the flop. Of the remaining 2%, you have a 3/4 or scoop possibility, and you try to manoeuvre the pot to as large a size as possible.

Or have I missed something blindingly obvious?

Now, short-handed, this could be a good fun game, because you need to take rather more difficult mathematical decisions. But as a ring game, at these low levels, it's not much fun.

I assume that many more pre-flop raises come in as you move up the levels, but this doesn't seem to make a great deal of difference. Provided you are deep-enough stacked, you will be getting the implied odds with any hands that you would consider playing for a single bet, because you will usually know whether you are playing to the finish by the time you see the flop.

That said, I am curiously drawn back to the game. I must look at $50 buy-ins, I think, to see how many players on average are seeing the flop. I assume that Stars, as usual, is the rock-garden?