![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Poker Update
May. 13th, 2008 11:41 amNot much happenin' ...
It's all been a bit unremarkable recently. Had a set under set yesterday where a third player in the menage had AA. I really should have gone with my gut instinct here and folded for the last $40 into a $150 pot, because I was 99% sure that with bottom set on a JT4 rainbow board I was drawing to one out. When a 17%/4% guy calls a raise from the big blind, and then check-reraises (initial raiser with AA CB'd, I mini-raised on button) you can be fairly sure that things are looking horrible and you are unlikely to be up against JT or KQ.
But that was about it for 800 hands (lot of catching up to do in hands to be played, given the weekend off). Perhaps unwisely I've got myself involved in too many bonus/loyalty programmes this month. On the upside, this is just about the most guaranteed volatility-free way to make a modest amount of money (say, averaging $800 amonth) in this game. On the downside, there isn't much excitement involved four-tabling 800 hands in an evening, roughly 200 hands on each of four sites. And the games at all four sites yesterday were uniformly mean. My 45 minutes on Party generated about a third of the party points that I would expect.
Pacific Poker ought to be a piece of piss, but I'm not running that well there (see above and set under set). If I return to volatility a-wooing, the $200 buy-ins here look like a good idea (particularly at weekends. Perhaps just two- or three-tabling.
I was going to write something about Harrington (D) and volatility courting, but I think it's best if I thoroughly digest the Harrington books first. My major point was going to be that the association of volatlity wooing with loose-aggressive play could mislead some people. Frequently you court volatility post-flop by betting less, not by betting more. The big bets are there to take the pot down. The smaller bets are there to tempt opponents in at an incorrect price.
As per usual, I expect what I've written here to be misinterpreted.
+++++++++++
It's all been a bit unremarkable recently. Had a set under set yesterday where a third player in the menage had AA. I really should have gone with my gut instinct here and folded for the last $40 into a $150 pot, because I was 99% sure that with bottom set on a JT4 rainbow board I was drawing to one out. When a 17%/4% guy calls a raise from the big blind, and then check-reraises (initial raiser with AA CB'd, I mini-raised on button) you can be fairly sure that things are looking horrible and you are unlikely to be up against JT or KQ.
But that was about it for 800 hands (lot of catching up to do in hands to be played, given the weekend off). Perhaps unwisely I've got myself involved in too many bonus/loyalty programmes this month. On the upside, this is just about the most guaranteed volatility-free way to make a modest amount of money (say, averaging $800 amonth) in this game. On the downside, there isn't much excitement involved four-tabling 800 hands in an evening, roughly 200 hands on each of four sites. And the games at all four sites yesterday were uniformly mean. My 45 minutes on Party generated about a third of the party points that I would expect.
Pacific Poker ought to be a piece of piss, but I'm not running that well there (see above and set under set). If I return to volatility a-wooing, the $200 buy-ins here look like a good idea (particularly at weekends. Perhaps just two- or three-tabling.
I was going to write something about Harrington (D) and volatility courting, but I think it's best if I thoroughly digest the Harrington books first. My major point was going to be that the association of volatlity wooing with loose-aggressive play could mislead some people. Frequently you court volatility post-flop by betting less, not by betting more. The big bets are there to take the pot down. The smaller bets are there to tempt opponents in at an incorrect price.
As per usual, I expect what I've written here to be misinterpreted.
+++++++++++
