Hand

[peterbirks]

I ran well tonight. The trick is not to take it as the normal run of things, and to appreciate it when it comes.

This can give you a false sense of security, so you have to be careful.

The following hand could be seen as the first step on the slippery slope to fancy-play-syndrome, or a well-timedpiece of well-ahead well-behind play.

In fact, I had just read Andy Ward's hand of how he busted in the latest WSOP tourney. He gives his opponent credit for playing it well. As soon as the flop came down, I thought to myself. "Hello. This might work if my opponent has Ax, and he will only have 3 outs, which is within WAWB territory. If I'm behind, then flat-calling is my best hope of minimising my losses. If I weren't such a vitriolic hater of clichés, I'd call it a win-win situation".

The $100 tables tonight were dreadful. I decided that 4 x $50 tables was likely to be a more positive EV. I was half tempted by a couple of the three x $200 tables that were open, just for the experience (they looked more attractive than the $100 nitfests). But Monday tends to be a bad day for me. On the other hand, we are at the end of the month, wheich means there is more "just got my salary" punting.

Texas Hold'em NL $0.25/$0.50

Seat 1: 1RULEY1 ($23.18 in chips)
Seat 2: Norman777 ($9.00 in chips)
Seat 3: konyaferi ($8.45 in chips)
Seat 4: TheSlaughter ($50.00 in chips)
Seat 5: Hero ($68.80 in chips) DEALER
Seat 6: gijsnieu ($9.50 in chips)
Seat 7: Stauvle ($10.00 in chips)
Seat 8: Tiot77 ($9.50 in chips)
Seat 9: Villain ($40.11 in chips)
Seat 10: Taraxacum1 ($81.94 in chips)

gijsnieu: Post SB $0.25
Stauvle: Post BB $0.50
TheSlaughter: Post BB $0.75

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain [S9 CA]
Dealt to Hero [DK SA]
Tiot77: Fold
Villain: Call $0.50
Taraxacum1: Fold
1RULEY1: Call $0.50
Norman777: Fold
konyaferi: Call $0.50
TheSlaughter: Check
Hero: Raise $4.50
gijsnieu: Fold
Stauvle: Fold
Villain: Call $4.00
1RULEY1: Fold
konyaferi: Fold
TheSlaughter: Fold

Villain is loose, but I haven't really got a handle on his aggression factor yet.

*** FLOP *** [HA SJ C6]
Villain: Check
Hero: Check

As flops go, this is a nice texture for a WAWB punt. Rainbow. No chance of an open-ended straight draw. I'm hoping to judge from the size of opponent's bets whether he has got smeggy and his his hand on flop or river.

*** TURN *** [D2]

Just about the ideal turn card. I can afford to carry on here I think.

Villain: Bet $3.00
Hero: Call $3.00

*** RIVER *** [C2]

Not a bad river card for me either. And the bet that follows looks to indicate a modest Ace.

Villain: Bet $5.00
Hero: Raise to $15.00
Villain: Call $10.00

*** SUMMARY ***

Total pot $45.15 Rake $2.35
Hero: wins $45.15

+++++++++++

I've just started reading "The Long Tail" by Chris Anderson. It's a quite nicely written piece about the new economics of online sales, millions of niche markets. Only a few chapters in, and it doesn't look to me as if there will be any startling insights. But, pleasant enough.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I really dont like this check. These kind of players will stack with tpbk. You have put money in his pocket.

gl

bdd

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Very hard to get stack-offs with TPTK, let alone TPBK, during the afternoon Dave. Late on Friday or saturday night, you might be right. Monday afternoon, definitely not. I think I got the most out of him that I could. Indeed, I was worried that the $10 raise was too high, and he took some time to call it, which either indicated that he was thinking about folding, or he had a bad connection.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Pete,

The way you've played it makes it look more suspicious, not less. When you raise on a completely blank river it looks very frightening. If you had just bet flop, turn and river you would have made more. And you should play 6 max. Tighter players by their very nature gravitate to full ring NL. 6 Max is much better action and much worse players.

gl

bdd

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

If I had played it bet on flop, bet on turn, it would have gone: call the $4, fold.

Do I know this for a fact? No. But neither do you. I think I got the most that I could out of this hand, because, well, even in only 20,000 hands, it's a situation that crops up quite frequently. Of course, you can say that every time I play this way and they fold, they do not have Ace and a bad kicker, and there is no way I can gainsay that, so I'm really on a loser to nothing against such statements as "he would do this", because all I can show is what happened in real life, not what would have happened if I had done something different. If you say "he would have done this if you did that", I have no defence. I could argue that the way I played it made it look to him like a desperate attempt to win a hand that I knew I was losing. Sure, the way I played it made it look more suspicious to you, but I wasn't playing you. I was playing a $50 buy-in player with stats of something like 29/5. And what I do know is that I can't recall a single case of a player being stacked off with that kind of hand in the blind, unless that player put the money in first.

And what if he has second pair? That might gain some money this way that your line does not.

On the 6-max suggestion:

I've tried some 8-max and my results have been slightly worse than at full ring. I'm not sure why you are in such desperate search of loose action players, when weak-tight players are the easiest to make consistent money from. (Well, actually, I do know why. It's because these are the players from whom you win the most money. But that doesn't mean that they are the players from whom I would win the most money. Because I am not you.) This seems to run with your line that the object of the game is to stack off your opponent, whereas I seem to be making most of my money through small pots that aren't contested beyond the flop, and through avoiding getting stacked off myself when a weak-tight player wakes up with a hand. Playing 6-max against some laggy mavericks would require a completely different style -- one which I'm not used to. I suspect that, at the moment, your recommendation would lead to a worsening of my bankroll rather than an acceleration of my profit. Perhaps some time in the future. But not now. People usually recommend that I take up games that suit them (or play in a style that suits them), rather than ones which will suit me. Because I've spent so long playing these afternoon players, I'm far less used to the manic gambling games played late at night at the weekend. I also do not spend hours in search of the "softest" tables or the ones with the highest percentage seeing the flop. This is because I've discovered that the time spent doesn't get reflected in a an increase in my average win. So, I tend to play in what might defined as shit games at low stakes. But just because these players try to play well, there is a reason that they are at the lower stakes. Their weaknesses lie elsewhere than in "call, call, call". One particular example of this is that I love playing the short stacks. Why anyone should object to short stacks sitting down in games baffles me. They are invariably poorer players (in both senses of the word) than the average full-stack player, and their short stack compels them to play in a particular style that makes counter-plays simple. Full stack players, meanwhile, tend to be trickier.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Pete,

I'm not sure if there is much merit in discussing the play of this hand as you seem convinced you are right, and I can't perusade you (of course, you may very well be right too.) And seemingly no one else wants to chip in either way. What I will say, and feel more confident about, is that the things you say in the second paragraph are only true if you never intend to leave the stakes you are playing now. This is somewhat analagous to what you did in limit holdem. You built a game that could beat the lower stakes but you stated struggled at higher. To be frank I don't know enough to comment on that in limit holdem. But I've played NL cash from 1-2 to 10-20 for a good chunk of time and hands. If you do intend to move up then its essential to build a game that scales, not one you have to dismantle and rebuild at every stake jump.

gl

bdd

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Fair do's, Dave. I do appreciate your feedback, and your point about "scaling up" or, rather "having a scalable game", has given me an idea for an article. So, all is not wasted!

I do feel that you are still a little hidebound by the fact that you were around a long time before internet poker started. And I also think it's clear that, while I lean towards the Chen/Ankemann kind of thinking, yours is more of a "this is what works" line.

Now, you are quite right that I should have moved up in stakes faster at limit. I know that I am horribly risk-averse. You are probably right that I should move up faster in NL; and this could necessitate a rebuild of my game. This, in a way, would mean that the faster I move up the better, because the less likely it is that "bad habits", that work at lower levels, but not at higher levels, will become ingrained.

However. a couple of notes in my defence.

1) I've increased my winnings year on year every year since 2000, with one exception (2006 vs 2005 - the former being slightly distorted by a short-term winning "tear" that I had at $15-$30).

2) Your definition of "move up" is a bit too narrow for the Internet age. I think that this is one reflection of your pre-Internet history. It's that point which gave me the idea for the article. So, thanks!.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

I guess just to qualify, 'cos I'm aware that I tend to type less than I mean, I don't necessarily mean moving up stakes quicker. I mean that if you build a game that beats certain stakes but not higher ones then you have a problem as to how you will try and make more money, if that is even a goal. Its not so much speed as scalability. BTW, I've read the Chen book. I can't say I was a great fan, but whatever. I actually think that the "problem", which is far to strong a word, I have is actually related to the kind of things Chen and the like talk about, such as balancing plays. IMO, the miniraise UTG and the checking TPTK on the flop both fall into those camps, as it is hard to see how you would balance them, or at least you haven't talked about balancing them. Now at higher stakes this does start to matter, as does creating certain meta game characteristics, i.e. continutation betting a huge amount of time.

On two other points, whilst I'm there:

1. I don't judge you on the stakes you play. I've always understood people play for very different reasons and for very different goals. As a comparison, until fairly recently Andy W was playing small stakes as well. I just have a lot less to say about donkaments.

2. The "beating tight weakies" thing again comes under meta factors. After a certain level, these guys all but disappear and full ring NL becomes a nightmare of very good set miners. True, the 6 handed attracts looser players but they are also worse players, and exploitable.

gl

bdd

hand converter

[(Anonymous)]

Your hand converter sucks: SK D2, wtf?

It gave me a headache trying to follow the action.

Thanks.

Re: hand converter

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I run my own macro, but I've only been on the IPoker site for a short while, so I haven't rewritten the macro to cope with IPoker's weird way of describing the cards.

Then again, the descriptions are perfectly comprehensible for anyone not spoonfed on the hand converters now available. I spent years reading bridge hands in that format, so it's fairly easy for me to read very fast. I should have realized that for some people it would be difficult.

However, I haven't got time to rewrite the macro at the moment. So I shall just stop posting hand histories from now on.

That should stop you getting your headaches, you poor soul.

Satisfied?

PJ