![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksMany is the time that I have uttered those famous words (at poker, in the office, in life) "I'm still here". Despite all attempts at self-destruction in life, despite a complete lack of willingness to play the corporate political game, I survive.
Perhaps it's because I know that in those two areas I have been ridiculously lucky that I am so hesitant to go for three-for-three and play at stakes which intellectually I think I can beat, but which emotionally might be too much for me.
It was therefore with some comfort that I read a great post from Double As a few days ago (http://doubleas.blogspot.com/)
Yes, someone else has come out with the "I'm still here" post.
So much of poker looks at the successes but takes an incorrect statistical view of the result. Suppose 90% of rebuy tournaments are won by people playing an aggressive style from the beginning. That must be the right way to play then, mustn't it?
Well, it might be (and it might not be), but it ain't necessarily so. If 95% of people are playing that style, and only 5% are playing tight early on, getting aggressive when the rebuys end, then a playing style adopted by only 5% of the players is winning 10% of the tournament (I use this merely as a statistical example, not as an empirical statement).
At the higher levels of poker, and life, we see people who have usually adopted a particular style to get there, but that does not make it the right style. It's just a style suited to gamblers, and the kind of person (say, like Warren Buffett, you know, Jimmy's dad) who has a different character, but the right abilities, is very rare, but might well be more likely to succeed. For every Richard Branson success, there are probably 1,000 wannabe failures (just watch The Apprentice) For every Buffett success, there are probably far fewer failures, mainly because people with Buffett-like abilities are few and far between. One should not confuse style with substance, but that is what the contestants in The Apprentice seem to do.
I should add a rider here. Most poker hands that I play are boring. They are ABC, Usually I fold. Sometimes I raise. Often I take down the pot pre-flop. Sometimes I take it post-flop. More rarely I get resistance post-flop and I give up the hand. More rarely still, I have my hand and I play it to the end. But at no point does anything "of interest" happen.
So, the hands that I print here, by their unusual nature, tend to show flashes of fancy-play syndrome (FPS). That's not because I play this way often. Indeed, I'm often forced into it because of an unusual situation. Although I don't think that much here is FPS, others might think that the play is a little bit too risky. But, well, I took a view, and it was right. So, hey, I rock.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Seat 2: heeeeehaw ($109.85 in chips)
Seat 3: isopyl ($88.50 in chips)
Seat 4: seyahnephets ($107.10 in chips)
Seat 5: sitonh1 ($108.70 in chips) DEALER
Seat 6: maker81 ($9.25 in chips)
Seat 7: RRIGGED ($99.00 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($83.50 in chips)
Seat 9: flich ($20.00 in chips)
Seat 10: Fool ($89.08 in chips)
Maker81 is short-stacked tight player. Fool is an absolute fool, calling pre-flop raises with anything, playing 100% of pots, playing utterly transparently (e.g., $1 bets into $20 pots when he was on a flush draw) and then going all-in when he hit it on the river.
maker81: Post SB $0.50
RRIGGED: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [H7 C7]
Dealt to maker81 [SK SA]
Hero: Raise $2.00
flich: Fold
Fool : Call $2.00
heeeeehaw: Fold
isopyl: Call $2.00
seyahnephets: Fold
sitonh1: Fold
maker81: Raise $8.75 (all-in)
RRIGGED: Fold
As far as I am concerned, maker81 is pretty much marked with AK here. The players at this level seem good enough to know that the all-in move with AK is "good" (because they read somewhere that it was). but not that it's necessary to make this move occasionally with a top quality hand like AA or, even better, KK.
Hero: Call $7.25
This is the hard decision and the one that I am least happy with. I'm fairly sure that Fool will call, but I don't know whether isopyl will. He ought to, but he's fairly weak-tight and he might not be looking at the odds as much as the fact that he has to bet seven bucks. Additionally, if he has something like AQ, he might be good enough to fold here. But I can see arguments for me reraising rather than flat-calling. My main thought was that, if I hit a set, I feel that I can stack the Fool for all that he has in front of him. If I don't hit a set, I can try to control the pot size. Fool's bet sizes tend to give away his hand, so being out of position is less of a nightmare than it might be. If both opponents call, I'm just playing to hit the set. If I miss, I'm check-folding except to the smallest of continuations.
Fool : Call $7.25
isopyl: Fold
Phew
*** FLOP *** [D3 S5 C4]
Given that Fool's hand remains virtually random, I suspect that I am in front and that, in addition, he might actually call me with overcards. I can't give him implied odds here. If he raises me back all-in, I'm calling.
Hero: Bet $25.00
Fool : Call $25.00
*** TURN *** [D4]
Hero: Allin $49.25
Fool : Fold
*** RIVER *** [S10]
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $127.00 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $127.00
NoIQ's hand history system doesn't suck as much as the Boss Media system, but it stull sucks.
Perhaps it's because I know that in those two areas I have been ridiculously lucky that I am so hesitant to go for three-for-three and play at stakes which intellectually I think I can beat, but which emotionally might be too much for me.
It was therefore with some comfort that I read a great post from Double As a few days ago (http://doubleas.blogspot.com/)
As far as people saying that the games are harder these days, I’m not sure but I have seen some pretty bad play by some experienced players lately. Just read blogs or “professional player” articles where they’re talking about their play. Call it tilt. Call it whatever you want but well-known players donk off their money too. Rumor has it that a large number of the players that I looked up to in the short-handed NLHE games are busted. Who is the better player: the person who does it as a part-time hobby and is still playing mid-stakes after 3 years or the guy who has been playing for 10 years and dominated the highest stakes games for 3 years until finally busting himself down to having to get backed in order to play even the mid-stakes games and his pride doesn’t allow him to play that low? At least I’m still playing and my ego doesn’t forbid me from sitting down at lower stakes.
Yes, someone else has come out with the "I'm still here" post.
So much of poker looks at the successes but takes an incorrect statistical view of the result. Suppose 90% of rebuy tournaments are won by people playing an aggressive style from the beginning. That must be the right way to play then, mustn't it?
Well, it might be (and it might not be), but it ain't necessarily so. If 95% of people are playing that style, and only 5% are playing tight early on, getting aggressive when the rebuys end, then a playing style adopted by only 5% of the players is winning 10% of the tournament (I use this merely as a statistical example, not as an empirical statement).
At the higher levels of poker, and life, we see people who have usually adopted a particular style to get there, but that does not make it the right style. It's just a style suited to gamblers, and the kind of person (say, like Warren Buffett, you know, Jimmy's dad) who has a different character, but the right abilities, is very rare, but might well be more likely to succeed. For every Richard Branson success, there are probably 1,000 wannabe failures (just watch The Apprentice) For every Buffett success, there are probably far fewer failures, mainly because people with Buffett-like abilities are few and far between. One should not confuse style with substance, but that is what the contestants in The Apprentice seem to do.
I should add a rider here. Most poker hands that I play are boring. They are ABC, Usually I fold. Sometimes I raise. Often I take down the pot pre-flop. Sometimes I take it post-flop. More rarely I get resistance post-flop and I give up the hand. More rarely still, I have my hand and I play it to the end. But at no point does anything "of interest" happen.
So, the hands that I print here, by their unusual nature, tend to show flashes of fancy-play syndrome (FPS). That's not because I play this way often. Indeed, I'm often forced into it because of an unusual situation. Although I don't think that much here is FPS, others might think that the play is a little bit too risky. But, well, I took a view, and it was right. So, hey, I rock.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Seat 2: heeeeehaw ($109.85 in chips)
Seat 3: isopyl ($88.50 in chips)
Seat 4: seyahnephets ($107.10 in chips)
Seat 5: sitonh1 ($108.70 in chips) DEALER
Seat 6: maker81 ($9.25 in chips)
Seat 7: RRIGGED ($99.00 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($83.50 in chips)
Seat 9: flich ($20.00 in chips)
Seat 10: Fool ($89.08 in chips)
Maker81 is short-stacked tight player. Fool is an absolute fool, calling pre-flop raises with anything, playing 100% of pots, playing utterly transparently (e.g., $1 bets into $20 pots when he was on a flush draw) and then going all-in when he hit it on the river.
maker81: Post SB $0.50
RRIGGED: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [H7 C7]
Dealt to maker81 [SK SA]
Hero: Raise $2.00
flich: Fold
Fool : Call $2.00
heeeeehaw: Fold
isopyl: Call $2.00
seyahnephets: Fold
sitonh1: Fold
maker81: Raise $8.75 (all-in)
RRIGGED: Fold
As far as I am concerned, maker81 is pretty much marked with AK here. The players at this level seem good enough to know that the all-in move with AK is "good" (because they read somewhere that it was). but not that it's necessary to make this move occasionally with a top quality hand like AA or, even better, KK.
Hero: Call $7.25
This is the hard decision and the one that I am least happy with. I'm fairly sure that Fool will call, but I don't know whether isopyl will. He ought to, but he's fairly weak-tight and he might not be looking at the odds as much as the fact that he has to bet seven bucks. Additionally, if he has something like AQ, he might be good enough to fold here. But I can see arguments for me reraising rather than flat-calling. My main thought was that, if I hit a set, I feel that I can stack the Fool for all that he has in front of him. If I don't hit a set, I can try to control the pot size. Fool's bet sizes tend to give away his hand, so being out of position is less of a nightmare than it might be. If both opponents call, I'm just playing to hit the set. If I miss, I'm check-folding except to the smallest of continuations.
Fool : Call $7.25
isopyl: Fold
Phew
*** FLOP *** [D3 S5 C4]
Given that Fool's hand remains virtually random, I suspect that I am in front and that, in addition, he might actually call me with overcards. I can't give him implied odds here. If he raises me back all-in, I'm calling.
Hero: Bet $25.00
Fool : Call $25.00
*** TURN *** [D4]
Hero: Allin $49.25
Fool : Fold
*** RIVER *** [S10]
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $127.00 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $127.00
NoIQ's hand history system doesn't suck as much as the Boss Media system, but it stull sucks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-22 07:46 pm (UTC)I don't like the UTG miniraise unless you have been doing them alot. I like the cold call oop of the reraise even worse. Even against a complete donk its hard to stack them oop. And you have effectively declared what your hand is as well. *Much* better to reraise again to about 30 and be prepared to autobet every flop.
gl
dd
no subject
Date: 2007-06-22 10:26 pm (UTC)If I reraise 30, there won't be any post-flop betting. I'll just be in a race with the all-in guy Fool might call for 25 once he's in for $9, but he won't call for $30 if he's only in for $2. So, do I want to be in a 58-42 race with the all-in guy and only a few bucks extra as "sweetener", or do I want to risk outplaying Fool even though I am OOP?.
I was really playing this hand as a punt on a set, assuming that fool and isopyl would flat-call the all-in bet. It only turned into the hand it did because isopyl folded and the flop came as it did,
The flat-call kind of goes out of the window if I think a reraise is likely from behind me. But what kind of player would do that?
Well, me. For a start. But look how you can't really say that a hand is "defined" at this level. If you weren't playing this hand double-dummy, what would you place the medium-position flat-caller with? Not what he had, definitely.
Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00
Table Astatine
Seat 1: Internat ($38.75 in chips)
Seat 2: GTDMisterY ($21.80 in chips)
Seat 3: HERO ($97.00 in chips) DEALER
Seat 4: VILLAIN ($13.70 in chips) (SMALL BLIND)
Seat 5: Joaommg ($99.20 in chips)
Seat 6: krococos ($102.00 in chips)
Seat 7: DaveyR78 ($111.95 in chips)
Seat 8: Morrie2 ($80.00 in chips)
Seat 9: burgfranky ($39.45 in chips)
Seat 10: mistiryo ($77.50 in chips)
VILLAIN: Post SB $0.50
Joaommg: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Internat [DK HA]
Dealt to VILLAIN [HK SK]
Dealt to HERO [SQ CQ]
krococos: Fold
DaveyR78: Fold
Morrie2: Fold
burgfranky: Fold
mistiryo: Fold
Internat: Call $1.00
GTDMisterY: Fold
HERO Raise $6.00
VILLAIN: Allin $13.20
Joaommg: Fold
Internat: Call $12.70
HERO: Raise $42.00
Internat: Allin $25.05
*** FLOP *** [S5 S6 C3]
*** TURN *** [D4]
*** RIVER *** [S8]
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $98.45 Rake $3.00
HERO wins $58.45
VILLAIN: wins $40.00
I put Internat on a medium pair, certainly not on AK. Villain had a wide enough range for me to think that I was probably about 50:50 against him.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-06-23 02:25 pm (UTC)cheers
Dave
no subject
Date: 2007-06-24 06:19 pm (UTC)Difficult spots are fine so long as you don't make a mistake. The problem with difficult spots is that you are more likely to make a mistake, but if your EV is still positive, it's not necesarily a nightmare and it's not necessarily something that you should always go out of your way to avoid.
This is a bit of a complex argument, but what I'm saying is that if there is a 40% chance of me making a mistake (i.e., I'm in a difficult spot), but the gain is $100 if I am right and the loss is $100 if I am wrong, then this is still better than having an easy decision (say, I'm right 90% of the time) where the potential gain is $10 if I am right and the loss is $10 when I am wrong. Nearly all poker writers seem to emphasize the importance of avoiding "difficult decisions" without mentioning this rider.
As I wrote, I can see good arguments for a re-reraise, but the call of the all-in is not as bad as you make out, because if both my opponents, the ones who still have cash, decide to call, then I am not in a difficult spot most of the time, because my decision is check-fold unless I hit a set. Net loss, $9.25. I am also "protected" by the player who is all-in and by the fact that I have two opponents, so I might well get a turn card for free. The difficult decision arises on a flop of Picture small-small rainbow or similar, where it might be right to bet and it might be right to check. That's, what? About 15% of flops?
The rereraise takes the hand down a different path. It's possibly a better path, but it's not necesarily one with a higher EV, to my mind.
As for the initial raise, I'm not sure how you feel that a limp would have averted all of these problems. However, it's not something I want to go into here.
I'd happily explain in a PM.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2007-06-26 01:06 pm (UTC)gl
bdd