![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Wanderings
Feb. 7th, 2010 01:21 pmI met Peter Berlin for Tea on Friday afternoon. We had arranged to rendezvous at a place that I must have walked past a thousand times in my life -- a tea shop next to The Coach & Horses on Greek Street (now, I note, called "Norman's The Coach & Horses", a homage that the brewers denied him for most of the time that he was alive).
It was very pleasant, albeit not cheap, and perhaps they could have offered a second cup of coffee and tea, given the time that Peter nad I chatted. It's nice to get to the West End after months in the dreary rush-everywhere City. Although the West End has its irritants (in the City other people are usually moving faster than me, while in teh West End it's the other way round), but generally it's a far more preferable place. City people are, in the main, let's face it, cunts.
+++++++++++++++
I was a bit early to meet Peter (although actually he was early as well and was sitting there waiting for me.... d'oh), so I popped into the Empire Card Room on the way to the café. The day's £20 freezeout was in full swing, so the room was crowded. I think that I spotted one female who wasn't an Empire employee. The average age of the tournament plaeyrs was mid-20s; the average age of the cash players was probably early 30s. I didn't feel very comfortable. Perhaps, as David Young tells me, you do get to have some interesting conversations with people. But it just didn't look that way to me.
+++++++++++++++++++++
I looked up today's Party Poker "enemies" on PokerTableRatings, and my suspicions were confirmed. It's got MUCH tougher. It's as if all of the losers quit at once, and those that didn't, got good. I suppose I should be pleased that I am still winning, but I hope that this increase in quality is only a blip.
There are still fewer shotstackers than on Stars (not sure whether or not this is a good thing for me, TBH), but the main new irritant is that at least four players have suddenly become fans of the light three-bet on the button, particularly if there is a looseish raiser (i.e., me) and two or three cold-callers behind. There are counterplays to this, obv, although all of them entail cultivating volatility. But it's a bit irritating, just as I had put together a masterful play to fuck up floaters on the button (of which there are still a few UK-based Laggy lovers, thank god), for opponents to move to the pre-flop three-bet as a counter-counter-play.
And when they DO float, they've taken to raising on the turn. I suspect that much if this is a general improvement in stack-size analysis. In particular, the raise on the turn nearly always means that, given our stack sizes, I have an immediate tough decision (doesn't help that both of us will often have 140+ big blinds). Once that decision is made, the river decision is trivial, unless a very odd card indeed appears. And, often, there is no river decision, because, if I am staying in on the turn, I really have to shove.
I think I should be three-bet shoving more on the turn than I am at the moment. My win-at-showdown percentage has gone up, but my losses without seeing a showdown have gone up as well. However, some of this is probably noise.
Another new fad (or a revival of an old fad) is the mini-raise by the small stack. The relevance of a raise is not just the implied odds from what is already in the pot, but also the odds relative to what opponent has remaining in his stack. So a mini-raise from a short stack is "more" of a raise than a mini-raise from a big stack.
However, the best tactic (particularly if you are in the Big Blind) is just to think of it as a limp. I will often put them all-in preflop with a rather light hand (usually eliciting a fold from anything bar AQ+ and 88+). Other times I will flat-call and then pot-bet any flop such as K95 rainbow. About a quarter to a fifth of the time my hand has so little value (something like Q2 off) that it isn't even worth the pf call.
Increased aggression pre-flop inevtiably leads to more showdowns if you are to respond correctly. The limp becomes the raise, the raise becomes the three-bet, and the three-bet becomes the all-in. That's fine by me. If I can do that with the odds in my favour, then I make more money.
But I was looking at one such player, stats of 18%/14% (and a good winner) and it became clear that he had the 'right' attitude, in that if you catch him out (e.g. he once BIG three-bet from the button a raiser and three cold-callers, all with that grand powerhouse J9o) he doesn't fold. He's already put in 25% of his stack, but if you then shove, he calls and in effect says "I need to get lucky". This is negative EV for that particular call, but sends a powerful metagame message to the four-bettor: "don't try this against me unless you have the goods".
In fact, you have to grit your teeth and carry on trying it against him with thinner values (AJs+, AQo+, TT+ I would say, in this particular instance) even though you know that you have no fold equity. Many a tournament player abhors the thought of shoving light when he knows he has no fold equity, but, just as opponent's play says to you "make sure you have the goods", you have to say back to him "well, I might not have the goods every time, but I might still be a good favourite against your range".
++++++++++++++++
It was very pleasant, albeit not cheap, and perhaps they could have offered a second cup of coffee and tea, given the time that Peter nad I chatted. It's nice to get to the West End after months in the dreary rush-everywhere City. Although the West End has its irritants (in the City other people are usually moving faster than me, while in teh West End it's the other way round), but generally it's a far more preferable place. City people are, in the main, let's face it, cunts.
+++++++++++++++
I was a bit early to meet Peter (although actually he was early as well and was sitting there waiting for me.... d'oh), so I popped into the Empire Card Room on the way to the café. The day's £20 freezeout was in full swing, so the room was crowded. I think that I spotted one female who wasn't an Empire employee. The average age of the tournament plaeyrs was mid-20s; the average age of the cash players was probably early 30s. I didn't feel very comfortable. Perhaps, as David Young tells me, you do get to have some interesting conversations with people. But it just didn't look that way to me.
+++++++++++++++++++++
I looked up today's Party Poker "enemies" on PokerTableRatings, and my suspicions were confirmed. It's got MUCH tougher. It's as if all of the losers quit at once, and those that didn't, got good. I suppose I should be pleased that I am still winning, but I hope that this increase in quality is only a blip.
There are still fewer shotstackers than on Stars (not sure whether or not this is a good thing for me, TBH), but the main new irritant is that at least four players have suddenly become fans of the light three-bet on the button, particularly if there is a looseish raiser (i.e., me) and two or three cold-callers behind. There are counterplays to this, obv, although all of them entail cultivating volatility. But it's a bit irritating, just as I had put together a masterful play to fuck up floaters on the button (of which there are still a few UK-based Laggy lovers, thank god), for opponents to move to the pre-flop three-bet as a counter-counter-play.
And when they DO float, they've taken to raising on the turn. I suspect that much if this is a general improvement in stack-size analysis. In particular, the raise on the turn nearly always means that, given our stack sizes, I have an immediate tough decision (doesn't help that both of us will often have 140+ big blinds). Once that decision is made, the river decision is trivial, unless a very odd card indeed appears. And, often, there is no river decision, because, if I am staying in on the turn, I really have to shove.
I think I should be three-bet shoving more on the turn than I am at the moment. My win-at-showdown percentage has gone up, but my losses without seeing a showdown have gone up as well. However, some of this is probably noise.
Another new fad (or a revival of an old fad) is the mini-raise by the small stack. The relevance of a raise is not just the implied odds from what is already in the pot, but also the odds relative to what opponent has remaining in his stack. So a mini-raise from a short stack is "more" of a raise than a mini-raise from a big stack.
However, the best tactic (particularly if you are in the Big Blind) is just to think of it as a limp. I will often put them all-in preflop with a rather light hand (usually eliciting a fold from anything bar AQ+ and 88+). Other times I will flat-call and then pot-bet any flop such as K95 rainbow. About a quarter to a fifth of the time my hand has so little value (something like Q2 off) that it isn't even worth the pf call.
Increased aggression pre-flop inevtiably leads to more showdowns if you are to respond correctly. The limp becomes the raise, the raise becomes the three-bet, and the three-bet becomes the all-in. That's fine by me. If I can do that with the odds in my favour, then I make more money.
But I was looking at one such player, stats of 18%/14% (and a good winner) and it became clear that he had the 'right' attitude, in that if you catch him out (e.g. he once BIG three-bet from the button a raiser and three cold-callers, all with that grand powerhouse J9o) he doesn't fold. He's already put in 25% of his stack, but if you then shove, he calls and in effect says "I need to get lucky". This is negative EV for that particular call, but sends a powerful metagame message to the four-bettor: "don't try this against me unless you have the goods".
In fact, you have to grit your teeth and carry on trying it against him with thinner values (AJs+, AQo+, TT+ I would say, in this particular instance) even though you know that you have no fold equity. Many a tournament player abhors the thought of shoving light when he knows he has no fold equity, but, just as opponent's play says to you "make sure you have the goods", you have to say back to him "well, I might not have the goods every time, but I might still be a good favourite against your range".
++++++++++++++++
