![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Signs of the times
Aug. 7th, 2010 11:02 pmThere's a superb thread on 2+2 from an 18-year-old Swedish kid looking to play at nosebleed stakes by the end of the year.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/ill-play-nosebleeds-end-year-794635/
There's a lot here for any half-way serious poker player. First, there's the kid's hand analysis. Although I disagree with a few of his interpretations, in the main it is (a) top-rate and (b) frightening. I just think to myself; shit, this guy is too good.
Then there is his attitude to money. As he states quite specifically in the (long) thread, he doesn't need the money. Most of his friends struggle to find a hundred bucks. His bankroll is, quite simply, a means to an end. The pain that he feels when hands go against him are because of the game, not because of the (non)wealth that losing represents. I think that he would quite happily get to half a million bucks and then go bust trying to beat Tom Dwan, than to quit without trying.
Thirdly, I see so many metagame flaws! This is a great relief. As I've written here many times -- players who know what to do when they play Hold 'Em are two a penny. Players who manage to do it without spunking away bundles on various metagame leaks are rare beings indeed. I'm heading towards $100k "career" winnings now (i.e., since 2001), but the thing I'm proudest of is that I've never had a downswing greater than $3k, and, of the money that I have won, I've still got it. OK, some has gone into paying off the mortgage, and some is termed as sitting in my savings account in sterling, with only about $60k still sitting in dollars. But it's still there. I might not be the best poker player even in SE13, but I sure as hell am one of the best at holding on to my money.
"I'm From Sweden" has already spunked away one five-figure bankroll, through being scammed by the legions of nippers and borrowers out there. Remember, trust no-one.
He also falls for errors of backwards narrative (something was a mistake because it went wrong) and being results-oriented. He insists on believing that he should stop after losing one buy-in, because he is certain that as soon as he gets one bad beat, he tilts and loses another five or six buy-ins. This is despite evidence in his own recounting of times when he has "got out of it" from several buy-ins down.
However, the most worrying thing about this is that here we have a player who technically slaughters me -- his ability to calculate ranges and the chance that gives him and whether that makes a shove right or wrong is utterly petrifying. And yet he's not really building up his bankroll. This is a bloke playing only at $3-$6 NL, who could probably slaughter three-quarters of the "name" players with his eyes closed, and yet his bankroll remains stubbornly at about $22k. Yes, this guy has less of a bankroll than I do, whose expected swings are around four figures every day, who is 10 times the technical player I am, and he can't build up a bankroll.
What hope, I therefore wonder, is there for the rest of us mere mortals? Much though I can get my head round "depolarization" (probably the most important concept to master in the mid-to higher-levels short-handed game, and closely linked to "merging of ranges") I can't instinctively put in the right bet sizes, and I lack the courage of my convictions when I make reads. And, occasionally, I often wilfully forget that my opponent is, basically, a serial disbeliever, and that although anyone sensible would fold to my triple barrel bluff, this tossa will not.
Dropped $900 on Party yesterday after being $1400 down at one point. Added to a $200 loss on FTP, and a modestly good start to the month went spiralling downhill. However, I was pleased that I got my act together from about midnight and clawed back $500. I'd lost such a large amount partly because in a couple of slots I forced myself to make thin raises for value on the river, only to find that opponent did indeed have the goods. Six months ago I would have flat called and loss less, but I know that these raises tend to make money in the long run.
One reason for this is that the concept of "your opponent will never call with a worse hand and and will never fold with a better one" is horrifically over-emphasized. In reality, opponents often call with hands you can't believe they would call with, and often fold hands that you can't believe they would fold. But, unless you raise, you don't give your opponent the opportunity to make that mistake.
I really believe that much of the game at the levels I play is just giving your opponents as many opportunities as possible to make mistakes. The problem is, at the moment, there are better players around, and so they are making fewer mistakes. Which means that you make less money. The answer, then, is to find more plays where they can make mistakes, and thin raises for value on the river are one such a situation. It's a classic "courting volatility" scenario. But, hell, it really pisses you off when it goes wrong, because you end up stacking yourself off when you could have lost "just" a third of your stack.
I guess that was why I was pleased with yesterday despite the horrific bottom line. I didn't lose the faith, and I kept on plugging away because I knew that there were some weak players out there. And I won a reasonable amount back.
Full Tilt remains a weird site for me. It's the only site where I have ever gone broke (late 2006 at $2-$4 Limit), and right the way back when I joined in 2005, I recall that, of the first 12 times I got KK, six times I walked into AA.
Yesterday on FTP I got my TT all-in against 99 on a 3568 board with one card to come, and a nine duly appeared to stack me off. Today I got it all in with KT on a KT2 board, only for opponent (who in MP1 had flat-called a raise from another player UTG -- at least I was on the button!) to turn over 22. Needless to say a king came on the turn to get me out of it. On FTP, you begin to dread getting all of your money in when you are ahead!.
I played 45,000 hands last month, and it was too many. Since March 31 I am a grand total of about $900 up, and I suspect that in open play I am about $1,500 down (having paid $6k in rake!). OK, there's about $1.8k in Stars bonuses that I haven't bothered to collect, but the fact remains that full ring play is beginning to require a commitment and effort that, to be honest, I don't think it is worth my while putting in. You've just got bundles of regulars bashing each other to death with looser and looser three and four-bets from CO/Button SB and BB. At $100 BI part of my problem is that I play too loose out of sheer boredom. Once I rein myself in, the profit reappears, at an absolutely funereal pace.
This can actually be seen in the shrinking of the rake I am paying. From an average of five cents a hand at $100 buy in, I've seen it shrink to little more than half that. While 25,000 hands a month at this level used to be enough to maintain Supernova, now I am looking at 35,000 hands. It's a similar story on Party, where you used to get a point every four hands or so at $200 buy-in, and every seven hands or so at $100 buy-in. Now it's one point every seven hands at $200 and one point every 11 hands at $100 buy-in.
All of this impacts your rakeback because, of course, rakeback is "progressive" rather than flat. So you have to play 130 hours a month rather than 90 hours just to achieve the same roughly 30% effective RB. If you carry on playing 90 hours a month, the effective RB shrinks to 20% or less.
And so, all in all, times are tougher. The great players can't crush the games any more. The good players are becoming marginal winners, and the ABC grinders are now marginal losers. And Stars keeps raking it in.
There was little doubt in my mind last night that the $200 games on Party were weaker than the $100 games. or, rather, they were different, with more "gambling" players. These players are not hard to beat, but, to be honest, you need hands and you need guts and, well, you need a little bit of luck over a session of only 1,500 hands.
Come the end of this year I'm going to make a big reappraisal. I know that going for bonuses and shit like that is never the right idea, and yet I still fall for it! Far better to focus on higher, more gambly games, when I am awake rather than tired. Play four tables rather than six or eight. Focus on players and their tendencies. Keep more diligent notes on the fewer players that you face at the higher levels. Stop playing by rote as I just try to "get the hands in" to maintain Supernova, or get my Iron Man, or attain Palladium status.
All easy stuff. It's just a matter of applying it.
______________________
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/ill-play-nosebleeds-end-year-794635/
There's a lot here for any half-way serious poker player. First, there's the kid's hand analysis. Although I disagree with a few of his interpretations, in the main it is (a) top-rate and (b) frightening. I just think to myself; shit, this guy is too good.
Then there is his attitude to money. As he states quite specifically in the (long) thread, he doesn't need the money. Most of his friends struggle to find a hundred bucks. His bankroll is, quite simply, a means to an end. The pain that he feels when hands go against him are because of the game, not because of the (non)wealth that losing represents. I think that he would quite happily get to half a million bucks and then go bust trying to beat Tom Dwan, than to quit without trying.
Thirdly, I see so many metagame flaws! This is a great relief. As I've written here many times -- players who know what to do when they play Hold 'Em are two a penny. Players who manage to do it without spunking away bundles on various metagame leaks are rare beings indeed. I'm heading towards $100k "career" winnings now (i.e., since 2001), but the thing I'm proudest of is that I've never had a downswing greater than $3k, and, of the money that I have won, I've still got it. OK, some has gone into paying off the mortgage, and some is termed as sitting in my savings account in sterling, with only about $60k still sitting in dollars. But it's still there. I might not be the best poker player even in SE13, but I sure as hell am one of the best at holding on to my money.
"I'm From Sweden" has already spunked away one five-figure bankroll, through being scammed by the legions of nippers and borrowers out there. Remember, trust no-one.
He also falls for errors of backwards narrative (something was a mistake because it went wrong) and being results-oriented. He insists on believing that he should stop after losing one buy-in, because he is certain that as soon as he gets one bad beat, he tilts and loses another five or six buy-ins. This is despite evidence in his own recounting of times when he has "got out of it" from several buy-ins down.
However, the most worrying thing about this is that here we have a player who technically slaughters me -- his ability to calculate ranges and the chance that gives him and whether that makes a shove right or wrong is utterly petrifying. And yet he's not really building up his bankroll. This is a bloke playing only at $3-$6 NL, who could probably slaughter three-quarters of the "name" players with his eyes closed, and yet his bankroll remains stubbornly at about $22k. Yes, this guy has less of a bankroll than I do, whose expected swings are around four figures every day, who is 10 times the technical player I am, and he can't build up a bankroll.
What hope, I therefore wonder, is there for the rest of us mere mortals? Much though I can get my head round "depolarization" (probably the most important concept to master in the mid-to higher-levels short-handed game, and closely linked to "merging of ranges") I can't instinctively put in the right bet sizes, and I lack the courage of my convictions when I make reads. And, occasionally, I often wilfully forget that my opponent is, basically, a serial disbeliever, and that although anyone sensible would fold to my triple barrel bluff, this tossa will not.
Dropped $900 on Party yesterday after being $1400 down at one point. Added to a $200 loss on FTP, and a modestly good start to the month went spiralling downhill. However, I was pleased that I got my act together from about midnight and clawed back $500. I'd lost such a large amount partly because in a couple of slots I forced myself to make thin raises for value on the river, only to find that opponent did indeed have the goods. Six months ago I would have flat called and loss less, but I know that these raises tend to make money in the long run.
One reason for this is that the concept of "your opponent will never call with a worse hand and and will never fold with a better one" is horrifically over-emphasized. In reality, opponents often call with hands you can't believe they would call with, and often fold hands that you can't believe they would fold. But, unless you raise, you don't give your opponent the opportunity to make that mistake.
I really believe that much of the game at the levels I play is just giving your opponents as many opportunities as possible to make mistakes. The problem is, at the moment, there are better players around, and so they are making fewer mistakes. Which means that you make less money. The answer, then, is to find more plays where they can make mistakes, and thin raises for value on the river are one such a situation. It's a classic "courting volatility" scenario. But, hell, it really pisses you off when it goes wrong, because you end up stacking yourself off when you could have lost "just" a third of your stack.
I guess that was why I was pleased with yesterday despite the horrific bottom line. I didn't lose the faith, and I kept on plugging away because I knew that there were some weak players out there. And I won a reasonable amount back.
Full Tilt remains a weird site for me. It's the only site where I have ever gone broke (late 2006 at $2-$4 Limit), and right the way back when I joined in 2005, I recall that, of the first 12 times I got KK, six times I walked into AA.
Yesterday on FTP I got my TT all-in against 99 on a 3568 board with one card to come, and a nine duly appeared to stack me off. Today I got it all in with KT on a KT2 board, only for opponent (who in MP1 had flat-called a raise from another player UTG -- at least I was on the button!) to turn over 22. Needless to say a king came on the turn to get me out of it. On FTP, you begin to dread getting all of your money in when you are ahead!.
I played 45,000 hands last month, and it was too many. Since March 31 I am a grand total of about $900 up, and I suspect that in open play I am about $1,500 down (having paid $6k in rake!). OK, there's about $1.8k in Stars bonuses that I haven't bothered to collect, but the fact remains that full ring play is beginning to require a commitment and effort that, to be honest, I don't think it is worth my while putting in. You've just got bundles of regulars bashing each other to death with looser and looser three and four-bets from CO/Button SB and BB. At $100 BI part of my problem is that I play too loose out of sheer boredom. Once I rein myself in, the profit reappears, at an absolutely funereal pace.
This can actually be seen in the shrinking of the rake I am paying. From an average of five cents a hand at $100 buy in, I've seen it shrink to little more than half that. While 25,000 hands a month at this level used to be enough to maintain Supernova, now I am looking at 35,000 hands. It's a similar story on Party, where you used to get a point every four hands or so at $200 buy-in, and every seven hands or so at $100 buy-in. Now it's one point every seven hands at $200 and one point every 11 hands at $100 buy-in.
All of this impacts your rakeback because, of course, rakeback is "progressive" rather than flat. So you have to play 130 hours a month rather than 90 hours just to achieve the same roughly 30% effective RB. If you carry on playing 90 hours a month, the effective RB shrinks to 20% or less.
And so, all in all, times are tougher. The great players can't crush the games any more. The good players are becoming marginal winners, and the ABC grinders are now marginal losers. And Stars keeps raking it in.
There was little doubt in my mind last night that the $200 games on Party were weaker than the $100 games. or, rather, they were different, with more "gambling" players. These players are not hard to beat, but, to be honest, you need hands and you need guts and, well, you need a little bit of luck over a session of only 1,500 hands.
Come the end of this year I'm going to make a big reappraisal. I know that going for bonuses and shit like that is never the right idea, and yet I still fall for it! Far better to focus on higher, more gambly games, when I am awake rather than tired. Play four tables rather than six or eight. Focus on players and their tendencies. Keep more diligent notes on the fewer players that you face at the higher levels. Stop playing by rote as I just try to "get the hands in" to maintain Supernova, or get my Iron Man, or attain Palladium status.
All easy stuff. It's just a matter of applying it.
______________________
