![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some poker observations
Feb. 22nd, 2008 12:28 pmI believe it was Mike Caro who first put into print the comment that, if you were winning 100% of showdowns, you were playing badly.
The reasoning is obvious. No-one plays perfectly (assumption 'a') and therefore, if you never saw a showdown when you were behind, you must be folding many times when you were ahead.
Caro, of course, never came up against super account on Absolute. And he doesn't say what the ideal "winning percentage" of showdowns might be. It's obviously less than 100%, and obviously more than 33%. In limit, my estimate was somewhere in the region of 58% to 60%. At No Limit, perhaps a few spots lower. 52% to 55% perhaps.
Anyhoo, I was thinking about this when I reflected on Bobby Baldwin's famous statement that bad players sucked out on good players because good players didn't get themselves into situations where they needed to suck out.
It struck me that I hadn't had many suck-outs recently, not because I had been running badly, but because I seemed to have avoided all-in situations where a suck-out was needed. Ah-hah, I said to myself. According to Baldwin, this is good (and, indeed, I'm winning, so there's a bit of empiricism on his side). But perhaps Caro might say "if you aren't ever getting in when you need a suck-out, you must be folding a lot of hands when you are ahead!"
Well, yes, I guess I must be, I said to myself in this imaginary conversation. So, question to myself. How often should I see as the ideal percentage of all-ins when I need a suck-out, in order to ensure that I am maximising my profit in all-in situations?
That's all thought-stuff. In practice, I just decided to get myself all-in a fraction more often than I have been, hopefully in situations where, if I need a suck-out, I'll have at least five outs.
+++++++++
Although Betfred doesn't offer any rakeback, it seems to offer reload bonuses every six weeks or so, plus the monthly loyalty bonuses that make the effective rakeback between three and four cents a hand. If I could be bothered to work my way up to level six it would probably be close to five cents a hand, which is remarkably good. The difference between this and standard rakeback is that it isn't unlimited. The amount offered is just about right for the amount that I play.
In a way, I quite like this system, even though I am subject to the whim of Betfred every month on whether it makes a reload offer. The "unlimited rakeback" deals tend to encourage 10-tabling short-stackers, whereas the Betfred system offers a slightly better rake, but at a level where it runs out at about 6,000 hands a month (coincidentally, about the number of hands that I play on the site).
Oh, and there's the weekly freeroll, which has a Sklansky dollar value of about $10, and a Birks value (after 10 entries) average $2.50. So it goes. I still think that rewarding cash players with a free tournament entry is a bit like giving a loyal opera fan free tickets to see Kiss.
___________
( Hand )
The reasoning is obvious. No-one plays perfectly (assumption 'a') and therefore, if you never saw a showdown when you were behind, you must be folding many times when you were ahead.
Caro, of course, never came up against super account on Absolute. And he doesn't say what the ideal "winning percentage" of showdowns might be. It's obviously less than 100%, and obviously more than 33%. In limit, my estimate was somewhere in the region of 58% to 60%. At No Limit, perhaps a few spots lower. 52% to 55% perhaps.
Anyhoo, I was thinking about this when I reflected on Bobby Baldwin's famous statement that bad players sucked out on good players because good players didn't get themselves into situations where they needed to suck out.
It struck me that I hadn't had many suck-outs recently, not because I had been running badly, but because I seemed to have avoided all-in situations where a suck-out was needed. Ah-hah, I said to myself. According to Baldwin, this is good (and, indeed, I'm winning, so there's a bit of empiricism on his side). But perhaps Caro might say "if you aren't ever getting in when you need a suck-out, you must be folding a lot of hands when you are ahead!"
Well, yes, I guess I must be, I said to myself in this imaginary conversation. So, question to myself. How often should I see as the ideal percentage of all-ins when I need a suck-out, in order to ensure that I am maximising my profit in all-in situations?
That's all thought-stuff. In practice, I just decided to get myself all-in a fraction more often than I have been, hopefully in situations where, if I need a suck-out, I'll have at least five outs.
+++++++++
Although Betfred doesn't offer any rakeback, it seems to offer reload bonuses every six weeks or so, plus the monthly loyalty bonuses that make the effective rakeback between three and four cents a hand. If I could be bothered to work my way up to level six it would probably be close to five cents a hand, which is remarkably good. The difference between this and standard rakeback is that it isn't unlimited. The amount offered is just about right for the amount that I play.
In a way, I quite like this system, even though I am subject to the whim of Betfred every month on whether it makes a reload offer. The "unlimited rakeback" deals tend to encourage 10-tabling short-stackers, whereas the Betfred system offers a slightly better rake, but at a level where it runs out at about 6,000 hands a month (coincidentally, about the number of hands that I play on the site).
Oh, and there's the weekly freeroll, which has a Sklansky dollar value of about $10, and a Birks value (after 10 entries) average $2.50. So it goes. I still think that rewarding cash players with a free tournament entry is a bit like giving a loyal opera fan free tickets to see Kiss.
___________
( Hand )
