Don't Give Up
Apr. 15th, 2007 01:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksI was going to do an "around the British Blogs", having wandered around a few last night, but I'm afraid I just don't have any time today.
So, some brief notes.
1) Along my previous posts on "90% of all poker-related advice is shit", I noted a thread on 2+2 about when to stop playing. The advice of TT, a moderator, while not descending into outright manure, is, I feel, typical of the genre.
Steamboatin had asked about stop losses. TT then wrote:
In short never leave a game that is good as long as your playing well until your ready to leave. Dont let the size of your winnings/loss determine when its time to leave when the game is good unless of course you don't have enough to continue playing.
Steamboatin replied If I drop 50 Big Bets in a session of limit poker, something is wrong and even if I was playing well, I won't be after dropping 50 Big Bets.
This strikes me as a line that makes a lot of sense.
TT, unfortunately, then lapses into the old favourite of "conventional wisdomitis" (a common fault on 2+2) and "I'm a great poker playeritis" (another common fault on 2+2), by replying with the following.
"Playing well includes thinking well. When your (sic) not thinking well, quit.
On a related note, I've never in my life lost 50BB in a live session. thats not pretty. "
To use a Sklanskyism: Can you see the flaw in this line?
While Steamboatin uses a physical, measurable parameter (the level of loss), TT uses a subjective analysis. Unfortunately, a subjective analysis at poker is a bit like a schizophrenic who forgets to take his medication one day and then starts thinking that he doesn't need his medication, because his failing to take his medication makes him think that.
That's the Catch-22 of "when you are not thinking well". If you are thinking well enough to know that you should stand up from a good game, the chances are that you are thinking well enough to beat it. If you aren't thinking well enough to beat it, the chances are that you aren't thinking well enough to stand up from the game.
And yet, time and again, we see the advice "stop when you are tired, or if you are tilting, or if you are making mistakes". It's like the advice of many an accountant (and I except Geoff from this, obviously); accurate, but useless.
++++++
One of the things I noticed on my blog travels was that Karen Birks is now events manager at Pokerstars. I mention this not because of the coincidence of the (relatively) unusual surname, but because there used to be a Karen Birks at my employer's (and, of course, events are one of our specialities). So I immediately got to wondering if it was the same Karen Birks. Even more curiously, I received an enquiry about her at work only a couple of weeks ago, since a parcel had arrived at the Mortimer Street office (we are, by the way, little more than a stone's throw from the Pokerstars office) and the head of the post-room wondered if Karen was a relation of mine.
So, Karen, if you get to read this, and you are the same Karen Birks, there's a parcel waiting for you in Mortimer House.
+++++++
I haven't been able to win an argument on Ultimate Bet this weekend, and I note that. since my peak last October, I am on a 320BB downswing at $2-$4. Nearly all of this was last October, since when I have been up, down, up, down.
Fortunately, given the number of hands that I play, rakeback, deposit bonuses and the like keep the graph trending upwards, plus some positive numbers at a few other games and levels.
But it's a bit disheartening to be down 320BB at your main level over a five-month period (or, if you want to look at it another way, level over a seven-month period), even if other matters keep you ticking along at six bucks an hour.
Is it worthwhile to give up that six bucks an hour and go into a month-long analysis? And, if I do, how would I go about it? Do I analyze my own performance with particular hands in particular positions? Or do I look at opponents' play and try to get more accurate range analysis (this is very useful for deciding whether to fold or reraise pre-flop). Or do I just rerun whole sessions, taking notes? Limit is harder on the soul than no limit here, because you don't have as many "key" hands. It's more a matter of general flow. This can make the identification of leaks harder as well. Plus, simply isolating certain situations (say, a continuation bet with AK against one,two, three or four opponents with three rags on the flop)from tens of thousands of hands that you have played, is not that quick a process, even using filtering.
I wonder how many players include R&D in with their hourly rate. My guess would be, not that many. In that case, they are deceiving themselves. R&D, if you could be playing profitably at the same time, is not free. You have to assume that it will generate a big enough ROR to make up for the hours forsaken. Now, perhaps that assumption is correct (just as a large number of things in poker which people think are "givens" are really unproved assumptions that happen to work, at the moment), but it remains an assumption, a "gamble" as it were.
Part of my R&D, now that my Noble Poker foray has come to an end, has been experimenting with certain styles of play and levels of buy-in at low-level No Limit (using Virgin, so that I am not temtped to rely on PT stats). Once again, I treat with the utmost scepticism nearly all the advice heretofore given, mainly because poker players as a breed are great ones for the pragmatic approach of "it works for me, so it must be right".
The two most useful poker books I have read in the past two years have definitely been "Zen" and "The Mathematics of Poker". And I haven't even finished the latter. In fact, I've got to the end of section III and gone back to the beginning, because I think that sections four and five are separate topics to the main mathematical line.
The great thing about this book is that I can see why many a poker player would pooh-pooh it. And I think to myself. Brilliant. Let them.
So, some brief notes.
1) Along my previous posts on "90% of all poker-related advice is shit", I noted a thread on 2+2 about when to stop playing. The advice of TT, a moderator, while not descending into outright manure, is, I feel, typical of the genre.
Steamboatin had asked about stop losses. TT then wrote:
In short never leave a game that is good as long as your playing well until your ready to leave. Dont let the size of your winnings/loss determine when its time to leave when the game is good unless of course you don't have enough to continue playing.
Steamboatin replied If I drop 50 Big Bets in a session of limit poker, something is wrong and even if I was playing well, I won't be after dropping 50 Big Bets.
This strikes me as a line that makes a lot of sense.
TT, unfortunately, then lapses into the old favourite of "conventional wisdomitis" (a common fault on 2+2) and "I'm a great poker playeritis" (another common fault on 2+2), by replying with the following.
"Playing well includes thinking well. When your (sic) not thinking well, quit.
On a related note, I've never in my life lost 50BB in a live session. thats not pretty. "
To use a Sklanskyism: Can you see the flaw in this line?
While Steamboatin uses a physical, measurable parameter (the level of loss), TT uses a subjective analysis. Unfortunately, a subjective analysis at poker is a bit like a schizophrenic who forgets to take his medication one day and then starts thinking that he doesn't need his medication, because his failing to take his medication makes him think that.
That's the Catch-22 of "when you are not thinking well". If you are thinking well enough to know that you should stand up from a good game, the chances are that you are thinking well enough to beat it. If you aren't thinking well enough to beat it, the chances are that you aren't thinking well enough to stand up from the game.
And yet, time and again, we see the advice "stop when you are tired, or if you are tilting, or if you are making mistakes". It's like the advice of many an accountant (and I except Geoff from this, obviously); accurate, but useless.
++++++
One of the things I noticed on my blog travels was that Karen Birks is now events manager at Pokerstars. I mention this not because of the coincidence of the (relatively) unusual surname, but because there used to be a Karen Birks at my employer's (and, of course, events are one of our specialities). So I immediately got to wondering if it was the same Karen Birks. Even more curiously, I received an enquiry about her at work only a couple of weeks ago, since a parcel had arrived at the Mortimer Street office (we are, by the way, little more than a stone's throw from the Pokerstars office) and the head of the post-room wondered if Karen was a relation of mine.
So, Karen, if you get to read this, and you are the same Karen Birks, there's a parcel waiting for you in Mortimer House.
+++++++
I haven't been able to win an argument on Ultimate Bet this weekend, and I note that. since my peak last October, I am on a 320BB downswing at $2-$4. Nearly all of this was last October, since when I have been up, down, up, down.
Fortunately, given the number of hands that I play, rakeback, deposit bonuses and the like keep the graph trending upwards, plus some positive numbers at a few other games and levels.
But it's a bit disheartening to be down 320BB at your main level over a five-month period (or, if you want to look at it another way, level over a seven-month period), even if other matters keep you ticking along at six bucks an hour.
Is it worthwhile to give up that six bucks an hour and go into a month-long analysis? And, if I do, how would I go about it? Do I analyze my own performance with particular hands in particular positions? Or do I look at opponents' play and try to get more accurate range analysis (this is very useful for deciding whether to fold or reraise pre-flop). Or do I just rerun whole sessions, taking notes? Limit is harder on the soul than no limit here, because you don't have as many "key" hands. It's more a matter of general flow. This can make the identification of leaks harder as well. Plus, simply isolating certain situations (say, a continuation bet with AK against one,two, three or four opponents with three rags on the flop)from tens of thousands of hands that you have played, is not that quick a process, even using filtering.
I wonder how many players include R&D in with their hourly rate. My guess would be, not that many. In that case, they are deceiving themselves. R&D, if you could be playing profitably at the same time, is not free. You have to assume that it will generate a big enough ROR to make up for the hours forsaken. Now, perhaps that assumption is correct (just as a large number of things in poker which people think are "givens" are really unproved assumptions that happen to work, at the moment), but it remains an assumption, a "gamble" as it were.
Part of my R&D, now that my Noble Poker foray has come to an end, has been experimenting with certain styles of play and levels of buy-in at low-level No Limit (using Virgin, so that I am not temtped to rely on PT stats). Once again, I treat with the utmost scepticism nearly all the advice heretofore given, mainly because poker players as a breed are great ones for the pragmatic approach of "it works for me, so it must be right".
The two most useful poker books I have read in the past two years have definitely been "Zen" and "The Mathematics of Poker". And I haven't even finished the latter. In fact, I've got to the end of section III and gone back to the beginning, because I think that sections four and five are separate topics to the main mathematical line.
The great thing about this book is that I can see why many a poker player would pooh-pooh it. And I think to myself. Brilliant. Let them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Stop Losses & Wins
Date: 2007-04-15 08:37 pm (UTC)I saw that thread. TT actually is a good mod and gives good advice mostly. However regarding a big loss, even when the game remains and is likely to remain good, I too would leave. You might just be getting unlucky. But you might also just as well be getting outplayed and need time away from the table to analyze whether such is the case. And as well, it could have something to do with your seat position relative to others. So I usually would just leave the tables anyway, and figure out why I lost so much later. And if I felt like I had to stay, then I would at least take a 20 minute break and spend the time analyzing the state of affairs, and whether at the very least I needed a different seat to continue to play. Seat position is terribly important, especially in big bet formats, and I have often declined a seat online at a great action filled table because it was a bad seat relative to a lag or tag, even if the list was very long and I was unlikely to get another chance before the table turned average.
Regarding stop wins, that generally is a bad move, as you make your money in poker by the hour and should stay as long as other game factors are positive. The only exceptions I ever made in live play were if the table had a lot of hit and run artists whom I disliked and were stuck (the kind who are determined never to have a losing session and quit with any meager win to add to the string of wins) and who also quit when stuck moderately (but I would stay if they were the kind to quit when up a little but would get stuck monster). I only did this to fuck with their heads when I knew my leaving when there wasn't much of a list would mean the game would likely break earlier than otherwise, making it more likely for them to leave stuck (those players unless of the second type who will get stuck huge and only win a little are bad for the game and getting and keeping them stuck in a couple sessions at the same joint often results in their playing elsewhere for a while which is what I want).
Regarding that last comment, there is another time when I have quit live, when a big donator was stuck monster and we were at that point playing short handed, and he was both making a comeback and also refusing to ever be bluffed (the kind who wants to put every bluffing move on you and refuses to have it put on him), IF that guy was also a dick. With a friendly, even laggy donator, I would never quit until he was ready because I wanted him to keep coming back. An exception though is when he was playing on house credit (private game) and I knew that although the house would stand good and thus I could win more, he also was a slow payer and thus unlikely to come around for a long time. Although really the right thing is just to get all you can get while you can get it, that type of player also is a draw to other action junkies and the disappearance of one or two for longish stretches can hurt or kill the game for periods of time. The house should really manage that stuff better themselves, but sometimes they don't, and I think winning players should take actions that serve their own long term interests in keeping the game going on a regular basis. However an excpetion to that exception, is when it is the house man who is propping his own game short handed and who also is a big donator (with the thought that the rake keeps him even at worst). I won't leave then until I get every dime I can from him, even if I like him a lot.
Of course online which is mostly all I play now, I don't have to worry about this stuff and just play when and where I feel is best for myself. Easy to swoop in and play when the tables are good, and quit when they turn bad, only to return in a couple hours if good again. Game selection is EVERYTHING, especially these days.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Stop Losses & Wins
Date: 2007-04-16 12:13 pm (UTC)Yes, I like the "20-minute break" concept. I really must try that more often if things seem to be going wrong.
To be picky on your post, game selection can't bve "everything" if seat selection is incredibly important. Or, to put it another way, a bad seat in a good game, or a good seat in a bad one? Most, I suspect, would choose the former.
John Fox was talking about game and seat selection when Sklansky and Malmuth were low-limit grinders, which just goes to show what a great book his was.
My "stop wins" aren't that so much, as time limits. Even when up, I reckon that an hour of three-tabling is about the most that I can manage before my game starts to fail. So I think it makes sense to take a break, even if the game is good and I am up.
Your "house" rules on quitting are more complex and a different field. We are entering the house game/casino game/online game, er trichotomy, here. Certainly with private games (I've never played "underground" games, so I can't comment on those) there are whole sets of dynamics in play that do not apply to casinos or to online.
Your last sentence also indicates a problem of time. The times when the tables are good are becoming fewer, and in a sense this means that you, the professional player, are far more "on the clock" than in the early days of online. Terrence Chan wrote about how he spent x hours playing, but x times 3 hours waiting around for opponents. You too must spend many hours looking forlornly at the screens, waiting for a decent game to appear.
Perhaps I should be more disciplined on this, just focusing on finding good games. My problem is, I'm not really sure what games are good (for me). I had an interesting QQ hand over the weekend which shows how lost I tend to get in multi-loose-player weekend games. I feel more confortable in the pro-grinder sessions on Ultimate, but the evidence does show that my win rate (and volatility) is at its highest on Sunday morning (UK-centric sites) and Sunday afternoon (US-centric sites), followed by late Saturday evening (local time). Early Saturrday evening and any Friday evening time (early or late, local time) have been horrible, despite the games ostensibly looking attractive.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 09:28 am (UTC)I have some unfinished analysis in PTS of my Razz starting hands. I set up eight categories for up-card from A to 8, and another eight for three distinct low cards, again categorised by upcard. I'll post these numbers when I remember; I think they support my assertion that I ran bad* in that my win rate with a 2 upcard is almost zero and most certainly not line with the trend (modest with 8s, increasing as the upcard value decreases). I still need to check for play anomalies though. So I have identified something from analysis, although it wasn't easy and isn't finished or definitely conclusive.
But of course it's duvet-stuffing, so it's inherently fun anyway.
(should that be "badly"? Or do we discard the adverb here by convention?)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-17 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 12:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-16 01:43 pm (UTC)I think this is a good case for "a small amount, nothing in excess". Unfortuntely, "nothing in excess" has never been part of the Birks canon.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 05:27 am (UTC)My Dad died of cancer a couple of months ago. I now have all the family tree information. I may start to figure out exactly who fucked who, out it in the web, and wait for the Mormons to find it and secretly baptize everyone.