![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Carb, ignition
Apr. 3rd, 2009 12:35 pmFeeling as bloated as a whale, I cut down on the carbs yesterday (and, so far, today). This led to the exciting main meal of, er, half a roast chicken. Breakfast of chicken, coleslaw and three-bean salad. and lunch of burgundy beef stew without the bread. One upshot? Insomnia last night.
The night before, I had toddled around at $200 buy-in and $400 buy-in before trying $600 for a couple of rounds. Playing three levels simultaneously is not easy -- indeed, I read one player on the 2+2 forum saying that the only reason he played lower than $1000 buy-in was because he couldn't get the number of tables required at that level, and he "hated" playing at more than one level simultaneously.
This is a potential source of profit. If the ABC multi-tablers are strangling the $200 buy-in, then, by logical extension, $400 and $600 buy-ins should be proportionately livelier. Indeed, on 888 it struck me that $200 was livelier than $100, and $400/$600 was livelier than both.
This is no use if there's only one game going at those levels unless you are willing to play more than one site simultaneously or more than one level.
I foud the $600 a bit nose-bleedish, to be honest. I went $100 up on the first hand and maintained that level for two rounds before deciding that I'd done enough toe-dipping.
Cut-Off: Hero (Posts $6): $600
Big Blind: Posts $6. $1,550
Dealt to hero, 7d 7s
Passed round to Hero, who raises to $18.
Big Blind reraises to $42.
Now, if the bets were proportional in a standard $100 game (raise to $3, reraise to $7), I'd probably flat-call here and concede gracefully 90% of the time if I failed to hit my set. The maths of this run as follows:
In 100 hands:
80 hands: Miss set, fold, Net of minus $560
5 hands: Miss set, raise flop continuation. Win. Net of plus $90
5 hands: Miss set, raise continuation. Called or reraised: Net of minus $140
5 hands: Hit set: Raise. Win flop: Net of plus $90
5 hands: Hit set: Raise. Stack Off: Net of plus $450 (allows for rare set-under set stack-off)
Gives a total minus of $70 or seven cents a hand. This compares with a minus of $3 a hand if you fold to the reraise pre-flop.
However, at $600 I suspect that the reraising range of Villain is considerably wider (particularly since this guy is well-stacked and hasn't left). Am I ahead of his range? Probably not. But I have position.
Hero: reraise to $100:
Villain: Call. (If he puts in a re-reraise here I'm gone.)
$200 in pot and I have $500 behind.
Flop: can't remember. I'm CBing the same amount on any flop. I've thought long and hard on the "adjust bet size according to texture of flop" argument and come to reject it as inferior to "adjust bet size according to opponent's stack" theory.
Villain: Check
Hero: $150
Villain: Fold.
Is this line positive EV? My feeling is that it is because on flops of Axx you will get higher pairs to fold. Low flops are the worst (say, 852 two of a suit) because a check behind could give a free card, whereas a bet lays you open to a check-raise. If such a nightmare occurs (he check-raises you) then you can possibly shove if opponent is not committed (which, in this scenario, he would be). If he IS committed (in other words his reraise is effectively for all of his stack or all of your stack, even if he hasn't put it all in yet) then I'd probably swallow it and fold.
+++++++++++++++++
The night before, I had toddled around at $200 buy-in and $400 buy-in before trying $600 for a couple of rounds. Playing three levels simultaneously is not easy -- indeed, I read one player on the 2+2 forum saying that the only reason he played lower than $1000 buy-in was because he couldn't get the number of tables required at that level, and he "hated" playing at more than one level simultaneously.
This is a potential source of profit. If the ABC multi-tablers are strangling the $200 buy-in, then, by logical extension, $400 and $600 buy-ins should be proportionately livelier. Indeed, on 888 it struck me that $200 was livelier than $100, and $400/$600 was livelier than both.
This is no use if there's only one game going at those levels unless you are willing to play more than one site simultaneously or more than one level.
I foud the $600 a bit nose-bleedish, to be honest. I went $100 up on the first hand and maintained that level for two rounds before deciding that I'd done enough toe-dipping.
Cut-Off: Hero (Posts $6): $600
Big Blind: Posts $6. $1,550
Dealt to hero, 7d 7s
Passed round to Hero, who raises to $18.
Big Blind reraises to $42.
Now, if the bets were proportional in a standard $100 game (raise to $3, reraise to $7), I'd probably flat-call here and concede gracefully 90% of the time if I failed to hit my set. The maths of this run as follows:
In 100 hands:
80 hands: Miss set, fold, Net of minus $560
5 hands: Miss set, raise flop continuation. Win. Net of plus $90
5 hands: Miss set, raise continuation. Called or reraised: Net of minus $140
5 hands: Hit set: Raise. Win flop: Net of plus $90
5 hands: Hit set: Raise. Stack Off: Net of plus $450 (allows for rare set-under set stack-off)
Gives a total minus of $70 or seven cents a hand. This compares with a minus of $3 a hand if you fold to the reraise pre-flop.
However, at $600 I suspect that the reraising range of Villain is considerably wider (particularly since this guy is well-stacked and hasn't left). Am I ahead of his range? Probably not. But I have position.
Hero: reraise to $100:
Villain: Call. (If he puts in a re-reraise here I'm gone.)
$200 in pot and I have $500 behind.
Flop: can't remember. I'm CBing the same amount on any flop. I've thought long and hard on the "adjust bet size according to texture of flop" argument and come to reject it as inferior to "adjust bet size according to opponent's stack" theory.
Villain: Check
Hero: $150
Villain: Fold.
Is this line positive EV? My feeling is that it is because on flops of Axx you will get higher pairs to fold. Low flops are the worst (say, 852 two of a suit) because a check behind could give a free card, whereas a bet lays you open to a check-raise. If such a nightmare occurs (he check-raises you) then you can possibly shove if opponent is not committed (which, in this scenario, he would be). If he IS committed (in other words his reraise is effectively for all of his stack or all of your stack, even if he hasn't put it all in yet) then I'd probably swallow it and fold.
+++++++++++++++++
