![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI have often pondered why it takes me longer to recover from jet lag going back to the UK than it does when I come out here.
The two standard theories are "Las Vegas is a 24-hour city" (which is slightly misleading) and "travelling west is easier than travelling east" (a theory which I used to subscribe to, but which I now think is bollocks).
No, I think that the answer is, when I come to Las Vegas, my sleep pattern is already a mess. When I am working, I don't get enough sleep, I often have a nap in the afternoon because I am knackered, I'm stressed, I'm under pressure, and I'm working hard.
Here, I ease back into a more natural sleeping pattern. Yesterday I played a longgggg session in Bellagio, came back to my room (tired) and slept very well for eight hours. Me sleeping for eight hours straight is virtually unheard of. To sleep for eight hours from 1am to 9am (i.e., a relatively normal sleeping time of night) is absolutely unheard of.
So, that's the jet lag explained. When coming from London, there is not much of an established time sense to get rid of. When going back to London, I'm moving from a steady, established, non sleep-deprived west-coast time sense. No wonder it takes me a while to get back into "London time".
I played 13 hours in the Bellagio yesterday. Partly this was because I got stuck. However, unlike the previous time (see last week's depressed post) I just pulled up another $300 and said "Let's start again". Because I knew that I was running bad.
I've run bad for most of the trip. There was one, just one, session, where things went unstoppably right for a couple of hours (and I virtually busted the table -- pity that it was only $2-$4 at the Excalibur). I'd normally expect two or three of those. For the rest of the while it's mainly been a perpetual struggle.
I got back to $100 down by the end (in fact at one point I was back to just $25 down). In the entire session I flopped no sets and went nought for two with AA (both times cracked on river by the top card pairing, giving opponent trips), nought for one with kings and nought for a gazillion with 10s. On the upside, I flopped two straights (yay suited connectors!), played them fast and got paid off.
But, in the main, it was J2 off followed by 83 off followed by 73 off. After a few hours of this you have to be careful, because QT off begins to look like a raising hand.
So, a losing day, but one which I was rather pleased with. And, no matter what some players say, there's a big difference between getting from $350 down (the nadir) to $100 down and going from $250 up to $100 down. The former feels almost like a win, while the latter feels like a disaster.
Because the opponents yesterday were not utterly clueless, there were fewer hands of interest. I made two mistakes (that I noticed), but my opponents made many many more. I was often let off with a check on the river where I would have felt compelled to pay off a value bet. I also made a number of value river bets myself that paid. Plus, with just two limpers and a tight player on your left (I'm manoeuvring myself into good positions at the table -- it makes a massive difference) I've been deploying some online tactics. This sometimes consists of raising with any number of hands from the small blind (when there are two limpers or fewer) and then betting out (based, of course, on your reads of how the flop has helped both opponents -- an advantage not available online). This probably gained me seven or eight big bets over the course of the session.
And $100 down is, when you look at it, better than breaking even before you allow for rake, tips and coffees. Before the non-poker-players scream "but it's still a loss!" the point is, if you allow $10 to $12 an hour "expenses" in terms of rake, tips and coffees, then the bottom line is $132 cost, 4 big bets won, net of minus $100. And that's when running bad.
Change that to $15-$30 and assume a similar result, and you would have $132 cost, 4 big bets won and a net of minus $12. Just switch it over to running a little bit good, an I think you would have an expected earn of $15 to $25 an hour, even during daytime play.
Here's one hand.
One limper to me in the cut-off with KQoff. I know that button is going to fold because it's fairly clear when this is the case. I raise anyway, because Small Blind usually completes, but will fold to a raise. Big Blind tends to defend, but, hell, my hand is raiseworthy for value.
Big Blind considerately folds and limper calls. Limper is an oldish guy who seems to have some idea of what he is doing.
Flop comes JJ3 two spades. He checks, I bet. He calls.
Turn is a deuce of diamonds. He checks. I do what?
Assume we get to the river, which is the five of clubs. He checks. I do what:
(a) if it was checked round on the turn?
(b) if it was check-called on the turn?
The two standard theories are "Las Vegas is a 24-hour city" (which is slightly misleading) and "travelling west is easier than travelling east" (a theory which I used to subscribe to, but which I now think is bollocks).
No, I think that the answer is, when I come to Las Vegas, my sleep pattern is already a mess. When I am working, I don't get enough sleep, I often have a nap in the afternoon because I am knackered, I'm stressed, I'm under pressure, and I'm working hard.
Here, I ease back into a more natural sleeping pattern. Yesterday I played a longgggg session in Bellagio, came back to my room (tired) and slept very well for eight hours. Me sleeping for eight hours straight is virtually unheard of. To sleep for eight hours from 1am to 9am (i.e., a relatively normal sleeping time of night) is absolutely unheard of.
So, that's the jet lag explained. When coming from London, there is not much of an established time sense to get rid of. When going back to London, I'm moving from a steady, established, non sleep-deprived west-coast time sense. No wonder it takes me a while to get back into "London time".
I played 13 hours in the Bellagio yesterday. Partly this was because I got stuck. However, unlike the previous time (see last week's depressed post) I just pulled up another $300 and said "Let's start again". Because I knew that I was running bad.
I've run bad for most of the trip. There was one, just one, session, where things went unstoppably right for a couple of hours (and I virtually busted the table -- pity that it was only $2-$4 at the Excalibur). I'd normally expect two or three of those. For the rest of the while it's mainly been a perpetual struggle.
I got back to $100 down by the end (in fact at one point I was back to just $25 down). In the entire session I flopped no sets and went nought for two with AA (both times cracked on river by the top card pairing, giving opponent trips), nought for one with kings and nought for a gazillion with 10s. On the upside, I flopped two straights (yay suited connectors!), played them fast and got paid off.
But, in the main, it was J2 off followed by 83 off followed by 73 off. After a few hours of this you have to be careful, because QT off begins to look like a raising hand.
So, a losing day, but one which I was rather pleased with. And, no matter what some players say, there's a big difference between getting from $350 down (the nadir) to $100 down and going from $250 up to $100 down. The former feels almost like a win, while the latter feels like a disaster.
Because the opponents yesterday were not utterly clueless, there were fewer hands of interest. I made two mistakes (that I noticed), but my opponents made many many more. I was often let off with a check on the river where I would have felt compelled to pay off a value bet. I also made a number of value river bets myself that paid. Plus, with just two limpers and a tight player on your left (I'm manoeuvring myself into good positions at the table -- it makes a massive difference) I've been deploying some online tactics. This sometimes consists of raising with any number of hands from the small blind (when there are two limpers or fewer) and then betting out (based, of course, on your reads of how the flop has helped both opponents -- an advantage not available online). This probably gained me seven or eight big bets over the course of the session.
And $100 down is, when you look at it, better than breaking even before you allow for rake, tips and coffees. Before the non-poker-players scream "but it's still a loss!" the point is, if you allow $10 to $12 an hour "expenses" in terms of rake, tips and coffees, then the bottom line is $132 cost, 4 big bets won, net of minus $100. And that's when running bad.
Change that to $15-$30 and assume a similar result, and you would have $132 cost, 4 big bets won and a net of minus $12. Just switch it over to running a little bit good, an I think you would have an expected earn of $15 to $25 an hour, even during daytime play.
Here's one hand.
One limper to me in the cut-off with KQoff. I know that button is going to fold because it's fairly clear when this is the case. I raise anyway, because Small Blind usually completes, but will fold to a raise. Big Blind tends to defend, but, hell, my hand is raiseworthy for value.
Big Blind considerately folds and limper calls. Limper is an oldish guy who seems to have some idea of what he is doing.
Flop comes JJ3 two spades. He checks, I bet. He calls.
Turn is a deuce of diamonds. He checks. I do what?
Assume we get to the river, which is the five of clubs. He checks. I do what:
(a) if it was checked round on the turn?
(b) if it was check-called on the turn?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-03 06:01 pm (UTC)For this reason I think the turn check is wrong as the only way the hand can swing in your favour is if a K or Q comes on river which is a very small fraction of the time. Say there are 7 small bets in there then checking the turn has an EV of 1 small bet at most. Betting the turn is much better and more consistent with your previous play. He only has to fold the turn around 20% of the time for this play to be breakeven and even if he calls your EV is still the same chance of a K or Q coming only for a bigger pot [11 v 7] so the EV is better. Of course this isnt money for nothing, there's the chance he will check-raise the turn and you will have to fold, losing two more small bets. So if you feel a check-raise is unlikely then fire out on the turn.
matt
no subject
Date: 2007-04-04 08:15 am (UTC)In fact I did bet the turn. Then a five came on the river.
Do I bet again on the river, or do I check?
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-04-04 12:54 pm (UTC)On a board of JJ3 (2) there aren't very many draws I can give him, I don't give him a jack as most of the time (not all the time of course) he lets me know on the turn. But prob a lo/middle pair, maybe a decent ace, this is one of the occasions where I wouldn't fire the final bullet - unless there are some exogenous reasons as to why you should, based on table presence/recent history etc.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-04 08:45 pm (UTC)matt
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 01:41 pm (UTC)However, I posed this because I know of Matt's interest in this "he's never paying you off with a worse hand and never folding a better one" line.
Just as a matter of theory, it seems to me that there is a greater argument for betting here with KQ than there is with AK because not-very-good opponents seem to create a psychological "gap" between an Ace-high and a small pair, even when (as in this case), the gap is very small.
Is it not therefore a valid argument that, although one should check with AK (because better hands will call and worse hands will fold), it might be right to bet with KQ, because you might get AK, AQ and KQ to fold?
I'm not saying that it's definitely right. It's just something that occurred to me. Suppose, for example, you hold 87 suited in this situation and had, for reasons unbeknownst to us, played it the way I played the KQ. At this point there is a strong argument for betting the river (once you've dug the hole) because it's probably the only way for you to win the pot. OK, this is a good case of "I wouldn't start from here", but I think you can see what I'm getting at. On the river, hands don't suddenly become bluffs. They rather ease into that state. But in limit you only have two choices in this situation. To check or to bet.
So, how bad does your hand have to become before betting becomes the best option? And is KQ approaching that tipping point?
PJ