![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I won five bucks yesterday over 1,400 hands. If one hand (where I was a 25% dog, but won) had gone against me, I would have lost $400 on the day. If another hand (where I was a 90% favourite, but lost) had gone in my favour, I would have won $300. My point here is that you can have wide swings in actual results without doing much different. Randomness has much more of an impact on your day-to-day results than your ability to make the right decision more often than do your opponents. Indeed, much of the day was "running bad" in a way that doesn't show up in the stats. When you hit a set, no-one has anything. When you miss, your continuation bet always seems to find a weak-tight opponent suddenly waking up with a raise. Etc.
However, this gave me an idea. I've theorized before that moving up in stakes increases your volatility in greater proportion, because you have to run thinner edges. This year I reckon I spent the first half of the year mainly playing $100 BI (say, 75:25) and the second half mainly $200 BI (same proportion but the other way). So, if I take my wins and losses each day, compared with my EV I think that this would give me a close approximation on whether $200 BI is more than twice as swingy as $100BI.
+++++++++++
There was an interesting play the other day. I picked up Ks Kd in MP3 and raised to $6. Big Blind (something like 17%/7% on Party $200BI. Marginal winner) repopped to $18, and I 4-bet it to $54, which he called. $108 in the pot, and he has $126 behind.
Flop came 9h 5h 2s. Big blind shoves all-in.
I had a little think about this, and I reckon that if I had QQ here I would pass, because KK is within Big Blind's parameters. But, with me holding KK, things are different.
I can't see Big Blind making this bet with a set. He just didn't have that kind of imagination. Similarly, I can't see it being AA, because he would have shoved pre-flop with AA. The other KK is a possibility of course (in which case he would be marginally free-rolling me for the back-door flush) but the only hand that really makes sense here is Ah Kh.
If I have QQ against this then I'm about 45%. With KK I'm about 55% and with AA I reckon I'm about 65%. He also has fold equity (or a marginal freeroll) if I am AK, and quite good fold equity if I am QQ or JJ.
The downside of the bet is that it really makes it double-dummy if I have AA or KK. If regular marginal-winning players at $200BI occasionally shoved with a set in this situation, then my decision is that much harder. But they don't.
So, question. Suppose you are at $600 BI, holding a pair of nines in the big blind, and the flop comes 9h 4h 2s after the same betting sequence pre-flop as above. Would a shove elicit a call enough of the time (because thinking opponent immediately places you with Ah Kh) often enough to make this the best line?
++++++++++
18min 21sec for 4km on the rowing machine today. That's one hell of a good time for me, some 30 seconds better than anything I've done since 2006 and 38 seconds better than my recent PB on this particular machine. Weight might not be coming down as much as I would like, but strength and stamina are clearly going up.
++++++++++
I watched There Will Be Blood on DVD at the weekend. Paul Thomas Anderson is without doubt a great director, and this is a great journey, but, once again, the journey was better than the arriving. Daniel Day-Lewis gave a magnificent performance. This film was slightly overshadowed by No Country For Old Men when it came out, but the comparison is undeserved. They are completely different films. And I look forward to watching it again.
____________
However, this gave me an idea. I've theorized before that moving up in stakes increases your volatility in greater proportion, because you have to run thinner edges. This year I reckon I spent the first half of the year mainly playing $100 BI (say, 75:25) and the second half mainly $200 BI (same proportion but the other way). So, if I take my wins and losses each day, compared with my EV I think that this would give me a close approximation on whether $200 BI is more than twice as swingy as $100BI.
+++++++++++
There was an interesting play the other day. I picked up Ks Kd in MP3 and raised to $6. Big Blind (something like 17%/7% on Party $200BI. Marginal winner) repopped to $18, and I 4-bet it to $54, which he called. $108 in the pot, and he has $126 behind.
Flop came 9h 5h 2s. Big blind shoves all-in.
I had a little think about this, and I reckon that if I had QQ here I would pass, because KK is within Big Blind's parameters. But, with me holding KK, things are different.
I can't see Big Blind making this bet with a set. He just didn't have that kind of imagination. Similarly, I can't see it being AA, because he would have shoved pre-flop with AA. The other KK is a possibility of course (in which case he would be marginally free-rolling me for the back-door flush) but the only hand that really makes sense here is Ah Kh.
If I have QQ against this then I'm about 45%. With KK I'm about 55% and with AA I reckon I'm about 65%. He also has fold equity (or a marginal freeroll) if I am AK, and quite good fold equity if I am QQ or JJ.
The downside of the bet is that it really makes it double-dummy if I have AA or KK. If regular marginal-winning players at $200BI occasionally shoved with a set in this situation, then my decision is that much harder. But they don't.
So, question. Suppose you are at $600 BI, holding a pair of nines in the big blind, and the flop comes 9h 4h 2s after the same betting sequence pre-flop as above. Would a shove elicit a call enough of the time (because thinking opponent immediately places you with Ah Kh) often enough to make this the best line?
++++++++++
18min 21sec for 4km on the rowing machine today. That's one hell of a good time for me, some 30 seconds better than anything I've done since 2006 and 38 seconds better than my recent PB on this particular machine. Weight might not be coming down as much as I would like, but strength and stamina are clearly going up.
++++++++++
I watched There Will Be Blood on DVD at the weekend. Paul Thomas Anderson is without doubt a great director, and this is a great journey, but, once again, the journey was better than the arriving. Daniel Day-Lewis gave a magnificent performance. This film was slightly overshadowed by No Country For Old Men when it came out, but the comparison is undeserved. They are completely different films. And I look forward to watching it again.
____________
