![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have often pondered why it takes me longer to recover from jet lag going back to the UK than it does when I come out here.
The two standard theories are "Las Vegas is a 24-hour city" (which is slightly misleading) and "travelling west is easier than travelling east" (a theory which I used to subscribe to, but which I now think is bollocks).
No, I think that the answer is, when I come to Las Vegas, my sleep pattern is already a mess. When I am working, I don't get enough sleep, I often have a nap in the afternoon because I am knackered, I'm stressed, I'm under pressure, and I'm working hard.
Here, I ease back into a more natural sleeping pattern. Yesterday I played a longgggg session in Bellagio, came back to my room (tired) and slept very well for eight hours. Me sleeping for eight hours straight is virtually unheard of. To sleep for eight hours from 1am to 9am (i.e., a relatively normal sleeping time of night) is absolutely unheard of.
So, that's the jet lag explained. When coming from London, there is not much of an established time sense to get rid of. When going back to London, I'm moving from a steady, established, non sleep-deprived west-coast time sense. No wonder it takes me a while to get back into "London time".
I played 13 hours in the Bellagio yesterday. Partly this was because I got stuck. However, unlike the previous time (see last week's depressed post) I just pulled up another $300 and said "Let's start again". Because I knew that I was running bad.
I've run bad for most of the trip. There was one, just one, session, where things went unstoppably right for a couple of hours (and I virtually busted the table -- pity that it was only $2-$4 at the Excalibur). I'd normally expect two or three of those. For the rest of the while it's mainly been a perpetual struggle.
I got back to $100 down by the end (in fact at one point I was back to just $25 down). In the entire session I flopped no sets and went nought for two with AA (both times cracked on river by the top card pairing, giving opponent trips), nought for one with kings and nought for a gazillion with 10s. On the upside, I flopped two straights (yay suited connectors!), played them fast and got paid off.
But, in the main, it was J2 off followed by 83 off followed by 73 off. After a few hours of this you have to be careful, because QT off begins to look like a raising hand.
So, a losing day, but one which I was rather pleased with. And, no matter what some players say, there's a big difference between getting from $350 down (the nadir) to $100 down and going from $250 up to $100 down. The former feels almost like a win, while the latter feels like a disaster.
Because the opponents yesterday were not utterly clueless, there were fewer hands of interest. I made two mistakes (that I noticed), but my opponents made many many more. I was often let off with a check on the river where I would have felt compelled to pay off a value bet. I also made a number of value river bets myself that paid. Plus, with just two limpers and a tight player on your left (I'm manoeuvring myself into good positions at the table -- it makes a massive difference) I've been deploying some online tactics. This sometimes consists of raising with any number of hands from the small blind (when there are two limpers or fewer) and then betting out (based, of course, on your reads of how the flop has helped both opponents -- an advantage not available online). This probably gained me seven or eight big bets over the course of the session.
And $100 down is, when you look at it, better than breaking even before you allow for rake, tips and coffees. Before the non-poker-players scream "but it's still a loss!" the point is, if you allow $10 to $12 an hour "expenses" in terms of rake, tips and coffees, then the bottom line is $132 cost, 4 big bets won, net of minus $100. And that's when running bad.
Change that to $15-$30 and assume a similar result, and you would have $132 cost, 4 big bets won and a net of minus $12. Just switch it over to running a little bit good, an I think you would have an expected earn of $15 to $25 an hour, even during daytime play.
Here's one hand.
One limper to me in the cut-off with KQoff. I know that button is going to fold because it's fairly clear when this is the case. I raise anyway, because Small Blind usually completes, but will fold to a raise. Big Blind tends to defend, but, hell, my hand is raiseworthy for value.
Big Blind considerately folds and limper calls. Limper is an oldish guy who seems to have some idea of what he is doing.
Flop comes JJ3 two spades. He checks, I bet. He calls.
Turn is a deuce of diamonds. He checks. I do what?
Assume we get to the river, which is the five of clubs. He checks. I do what:
(a) if it was checked round on the turn?
(b) if it was check-called on the turn?
The two standard theories are "Las Vegas is a 24-hour city" (which is slightly misleading) and "travelling west is easier than travelling east" (a theory which I used to subscribe to, but which I now think is bollocks).
No, I think that the answer is, when I come to Las Vegas, my sleep pattern is already a mess. When I am working, I don't get enough sleep, I often have a nap in the afternoon because I am knackered, I'm stressed, I'm under pressure, and I'm working hard.
Here, I ease back into a more natural sleeping pattern. Yesterday I played a longgggg session in Bellagio, came back to my room (tired) and slept very well for eight hours. Me sleeping for eight hours straight is virtually unheard of. To sleep for eight hours from 1am to 9am (i.e., a relatively normal sleeping time of night) is absolutely unheard of.
So, that's the jet lag explained. When coming from London, there is not much of an established time sense to get rid of. When going back to London, I'm moving from a steady, established, non sleep-deprived west-coast time sense. No wonder it takes me a while to get back into "London time".
I played 13 hours in the Bellagio yesterday. Partly this was because I got stuck. However, unlike the previous time (see last week's depressed post) I just pulled up another $300 and said "Let's start again". Because I knew that I was running bad.
I've run bad for most of the trip. There was one, just one, session, where things went unstoppably right for a couple of hours (and I virtually busted the table -- pity that it was only $2-$4 at the Excalibur). I'd normally expect two or three of those. For the rest of the while it's mainly been a perpetual struggle.
I got back to $100 down by the end (in fact at one point I was back to just $25 down). In the entire session I flopped no sets and went nought for two with AA (both times cracked on river by the top card pairing, giving opponent trips), nought for one with kings and nought for a gazillion with 10s. On the upside, I flopped two straights (yay suited connectors!), played them fast and got paid off.
But, in the main, it was J2 off followed by 83 off followed by 73 off. After a few hours of this you have to be careful, because QT off begins to look like a raising hand.
So, a losing day, but one which I was rather pleased with. And, no matter what some players say, there's a big difference between getting from $350 down (the nadir) to $100 down and going from $250 up to $100 down. The former feels almost like a win, while the latter feels like a disaster.
Because the opponents yesterday were not utterly clueless, there were fewer hands of interest. I made two mistakes (that I noticed), but my opponents made many many more. I was often let off with a check on the river where I would have felt compelled to pay off a value bet. I also made a number of value river bets myself that paid. Plus, with just two limpers and a tight player on your left (I'm manoeuvring myself into good positions at the table -- it makes a massive difference) I've been deploying some online tactics. This sometimes consists of raising with any number of hands from the small blind (when there are two limpers or fewer) and then betting out (based, of course, on your reads of how the flop has helped both opponents -- an advantage not available online). This probably gained me seven or eight big bets over the course of the session.
And $100 down is, when you look at it, better than breaking even before you allow for rake, tips and coffees. Before the non-poker-players scream "but it's still a loss!" the point is, if you allow $10 to $12 an hour "expenses" in terms of rake, tips and coffees, then the bottom line is $132 cost, 4 big bets won, net of minus $100. And that's when running bad.
Change that to $15-$30 and assume a similar result, and you would have $132 cost, 4 big bets won and a net of minus $12. Just switch it over to running a little bit good, an I think you would have an expected earn of $15 to $25 an hour, even during daytime play.
Here's one hand.
One limper to me in the cut-off with KQoff. I know that button is going to fold because it's fairly clear when this is the case. I raise anyway, because Small Blind usually completes, but will fold to a raise. Big Blind tends to defend, but, hell, my hand is raiseworthy for value.
Big Blind considerately folds and limper calls. Limper is an oldish guy who seems to have some idea of what he is doing.
Flop comes JJ3 two spades. He checks, I bet. He calls.
Turn is a deuce of diamonds. He checks. I do what?
Assume we get to the river, which is the five of clubs. He checks. I do what:
(a) if it was checked round on the turn?
(b) if it was check-called on the turn?
