Funds

[peterbirks]

Here's the hand that I promised a day or so ago. I am fully aware that, by failing to give you the outcome of the hand, I will get a response approximating to zero, since poker players are renowned for not making themselves hostages to fortune.

Then again, you have plenty of opportunity to criticise my play at any point, although I promise you that none of my bets were done without thought. If you think that any bet here is "obviously right", then I would contend that you are wrong. But this is distinctly an area where I am feeling my way, so it might help you as a poker player if you try to work out my thought processes, just it would help me to know what other people would have thought at the time. Then again, perhaps the "don't bother thinking about your opponents' thought processes" line is the best one at this level. I'm prejudiced against it, but I can see the argument in its favour.



Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00


Seat 1: ratseht ($96.50 in chips)
Seat 2: ihatepantz ($248.95 in chips)
Seat 3: lolfdsaa ($98.50 in chips) DEALER
Seat 4: Hero ($98.00 in chips)
Seat 5: Villain ($160.70 in chips)
Seat 6: Aussieboy755 ($168.90 in chips)
Seat 7: Basse72 ($32.55 in chips)
Seat 8: nightdive ($93.50 in chips)
Seat 9: Danne4 ($20.73 in chips)
Seat 10: RedHongi ($88.35 in chips)
Hero: Post SB $0.50
Villain: Post BB $1.00

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain [? ?] (stats over 70 hands VPIP 42%. Raise, 22.4% AFs on flop and turn 6.5, 5.
Dealt to Hero [8♡ 8◊]

Folded round to

Hero: Call $0.50
Villain: Check

*** FLOP *** [7♡ 6♣ 7♡]

Hero: Bet $1.50
Villain: Raise $3.00
Hero: Raise $9.00
Villain: Call $7.50

*** TURN *** [7♠]

Hero: Bet $18.00
Villain: Call $18.00

*** RIVER *** [2♣]

Hero: ?????


+++++++

My attempts to link my sterling account to Neteller, since the company told me that I couldn't use my Schwab account any more (I got my money back from that aborted transaction, by the way), descended into predictable farce. I logged in one day to see that Neteller claimed to have made a "micro deposit" in my Smile account. Neteller didn't bother to e-mail me about this, so I have no idea how long that message had been there.

So, I waited for this small amount to appear in my Smile account. And waited. And waited.

After 10 days I e-mailed Neteller to tell them that the money had not arrived. They told me to check my details. I did. They were right. I e-mailed them again. Finally, I got this response:

"I now understand more about your situation and why you are not getting the Micro Deposit. The SMILE Bank is an internet bank which will not have it's own SWIFT code and they will need to route through an intermediary bank. In your case, the intermediary bank is Co Operative Bank PLC.

"The Co Operative Bank PLC is the bank that your SWIFT code is attached to. NETELLER uses an automated wiring system that can only use one set of bank details. If the SWIFT code and bank name don't match, no wires will reach that bank account, so we cannot use the SWIFT code with the SMILE Bank name. If we use the Co Operative Bank PLC. name, it will not be routed to your bank either.

"So in situations like this, if the SMILE bank does not have their own SWIFT code which would allow us to route directly to that bank, it will not work with our automated system. The only way to use an intermediary bank would be to have a set of information for both banks, but our automated system does not use multiple sets of information and cannot do this. While NETELLER is a money transfer service, we are not a financial institution and cannot perform bank wires in all of the different ways that the banks can. The SMILE bank would have provided this SWIFT code for use with other banks but it will not work with your NETELLER Account.

"I'm sorry but this is normally the case with all internet banks as they do not have their own branches or locations but have to route through the larger banks to process wires, and our system is not set up to do this. For this reason, we are not able to make these automated wires to internet banks like the SMILE Bank.

"If you have a different bank account with another bank, please let us know."

So, there you have it from the horse's mouth. I forbore to tell them that, yes, I did have another bank account, and that Neteller is too useless to cope with that one as well.

They then tried to punt their new ATM card at me. GIven the farce surrounding their old ATM card, I just e-mailed them back and told them that I would withdraw my money by cheque "and accept the fees that Neteller imposes".



But, wait, the seventh cavalry was at hand! I'd ordered a withdrawal from Ultimate, and this had promptly arrived converted into pounds sterling. (I desposited that in my Citibank account last night electronically. It will be interesting to see how much I get hit by the exchange transfer back and forth).

Then I arrived home this afternoon and another cheque that I had ordered, from Party, had arrived. Yes, the same Party Poker that was one of the first to cry "we're outta here" when the US laws were passed. And, God bless 'em, the cheque was in dollars. Finally I have a route to get money out of US poker accounts and into my dollar bank accounts without exchange fees. Mind you, Party did charge $5 on the $500 cheque "because we can", but that's a minor irritation. I shall be skipping happily to Citibank tomorrow to proudly present my "petty cash" cheque.

I remember my first cheque, from Paradise in 2000 (dollars only in those days) for the massive sum of $400 (in the days when it was $1.42 to the £!) and I was made up. I'd only deposited $200 (which I had already withdrawn back to my card, and there it was, pure profit, to be paid into my nice shiny new Schwab account. My dream at that time was to win $2,000 in a year, I think.

++++++++


Here's how the hand went down:

Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1
Table Astatine: Ten Players
Seat 4: Hero ($98.00 in chips)
Seat 5: Villain ($160.70 in chips)

Hero: Post SB $0.50
Villain: Post BB $1.00

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Villain [9♡ 6♡]
Dealt to Hero [8♡ 8◊]

Aussieboy755: Fold
Basse72: Fold
nightdive: Fold
Danne4: Fold
RedHongi: Fold
ratseht: Fold
ihatepantz: Fold
lolfdsaa: Fold

Hero: Call $0.50
Villain: Check

*** FLOP *** [7◊ 6♣ 7♡]

Hero: Bet $1.50
Villain: Raise $3.00
Hero: Raise $9.00
Villain: Call $7.50

*** TURN *** [7♠]

Hero: Bet $18.00
Villain: Call $18.00

*** RIVER *** [2♣]

Hero: Bet $18.00
Villain: Call $18.00

*** SUMMARY ***

Total pot $92.00 Rake $3.00
Hero: wins $92.00

Comments

Suspicious

[(Anonymous)]

You should have folded on the flop. His raise made it clear that he had the other two sevens of hearts for the unbeatable quad-flush.

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Yes, I was worried about that.

See the minefields that appear without proof-reading?

Sould be 7d on the flop.

PJ

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Sould be?

Should be.

Re: Suspicious

[(Anonymous)]

Just so you get at least one response for your pains:

His stats look awesomely loose and aggressive for a full-ring game. Even at my laggiest I don't often get that close at 6 max. Still, I would have raised 88 in the SB, if only because it makes it a bit easier to place his range. As it is, you have no clues as to whether he has a 7, which doesn't help. On the flop, his minraise is the key I think. He presumably discounts you having a 7, due to your lead out, so he makes a small representation of having it himself. But I don't like the look of that raise and the subsequent call. His next two calls seem to indicate he has something worth showing. An overpair to your 88 looks unlikely, as one would think he'd bet these preflop. Calling doesn't seem to fit a straight draw terribly well, given his aggression and the fact that you say he's not an idiot. I think he's quite likely to have the 7 with a weak kicker. You can beat a 6X or a low pair though.

I'd check the river and call any bet lower than the pot (purely because presuambly he will come at you with air often enough?) Then curse as he flips over 37o.

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

All of which is remarkably close to my own analysis at the time, although I'll leave it a few hours before printing the final result.

I was v close to raising pre-flop but decided against on the grounds that a raise by me and a call by him told him more about my hand than it told me about his. It also increased the size of the pot, which wasn't something that I wanted to do with this hand pre-flop (I think we can assume fairly safely that opponent is folding nothing here, given his stats). I like the principle of keeping pots small where you might well be winning (i.e., have showdown value) but are unlikely to have a nut hand or are OOP, while building bigger pots where you are in position or have a chance of getting the nuts. 88 in the blind against one opponent OOP is not a hand where you want to build a big pot if you follow this line. I felt that limping might also generate some betting from him when I am winning if a raggy flop came down, which it would not do if I raised and then got called by him. My whole train of thought here was to try to win a medium-sized pot, but not to get stacked off myself and, if I lost, to keep losses to a minimum.


Of course, if you raise, get called and hit a flop like 8JA, then you curse yourself.

PJ

Re: Suspicious

[(Anonymous)]

"decided against on the grounds that a raise by me and a call by him told him more about my hand than it told me about his"

Classic. You have a seemingly inexhaustible ability to come up with reasons for not raising in every conceivable situation. 88 is a strong hand for the situation pre-flop and you should raise. You're charging him to see a flop because you'll be out of position and because you reckon to have the best hand right now. I'm done if he can call the flop re-raise.

matt

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

This line has been working very well for me against aggressive players matt.

I see what you are saying about a raise for value. But being OOP, a raise can build a big pot in a situation where I don't want a big pot. I'd much rather reraise in the BB with 88 than raise in the SB with 88.

My stats are 17/12 with a flop AF of 4.76 and turn of 2.89, so clearly I raise a fair amount. I think that raises from the SB "for value" are one of the biggest losers going in NL, because you end up winning a little or losing a lot. I think that you might well be raising in positions just because "that is what you do".

I'm much more likely to put in a raise here with something like 65s up to T9s. 88 has showdown value heads up, but I don't want to get myself stacked off finding out that it's behind.

PJ

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Actually Matt. I don't think that you have really thought this through (your comment on my style).

There is bound to be "selection bias" in the hands that I print, because the multitude of hands where I raise pre-flop don't tend to generate hands worthy of comment. Often I win pre-flop. If I don't, I tend to win on the flop. If it looks like I'm beaten, I give up. But little of interest happens.

A few stats from the IP network:

Att to steal blinds: 34.35% (516 times out of 1,502)
Won % when saw flop 38% (1,541 times out of 4,055)
SB: PF Raise 8.39%. Raise first in, 4.71%

Are these really the stats of someone who has a seemingly inexhaustible ability to come up with reasons for not raising in every conceivable situation?

Obviously not. Therefore, when I don't raise, I've got reasons for failing so to do. They may not always be right (that, I will willingly admit) but they are logically thought out. And one of the most important considerations that I have is "do I want to build a big pot with this kind of hand?" vs "Is this the kind of hand which I am likely to think is probably winning even if it fails to improve, but which is not going to be a certainty"?

You assign a great deal of weight to the strength of the hand. as if you are playing double dummy. But you aren't playing double dummy. You are OOP with a hand that will often leave you extremely uncertain. My raise achieves little because this guy is going to call a modest-size raise with virtually anything, so I don't narrow his range. Then, unless I get a very good flop or I hit my set, I am going to be in a very difficult situation. It's defintely not a "pot builder" hand.

PJ

Re: Suspicious

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't say you never raised. I said you had an inexhaustible ability to come up with reasons for not raising. You seem to be proving me correct. :)

Would you raise with JJ here? And if so, why?

matt

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

OK. Fair do's. I admit that my reserves of justifications are inecaustible. So, er, what you are saying is that I have shown a large number of reasons for doing what I do?

Would you prefer that I detail no reasons whatsoever? That, after all, appears to be the standard line on 2+2.

"Easy fold"

"Easy raise"

"If you fold here, you are a donk".

"If you limp here, you will go broke".

"Only a donk considers raising here".

And so on.

Yes, I try to put into words my reasons for doing things. I think this is a better way to go about it than the above. I see so much of "this guy is obviously a fish" without any backing for the line apart from "he did something that the books that I've read don't recommend and which I wouldn't do myself". At the tables you normally see it when a deep-stacked guy has called a small raise pre-flop with 63 and promptly stacked off another deep-stacked guy who had AA, with a flop of Q64 rainbow and a too-small continuation bet from the AA.

Now, suppose I answer "No", to your second question? Then you can come back with "What about QQ?" If I answer No to that as well, you can ask "what about KK?"

In turn, I can say to you, "what about 55?" and then carry on down.


I don't do the same thing with the same cards all the time. Although we are still in a small sample, I see that in nine cases with 88 in the SB I have raised three times, limped three times and folded three times.

You seem to put a hell of a lot of faith in the "strength" of hands pre-flop, but, as you know, hands are much "closer together" pre-flop than they are post-flop. If you both are relatively deep-stacked, I'm tempted to play more cagily pre-flop in this kind of situation, particularly against aggressive players, no matter what cards I hold (the exception would be the previously mentioned medium-suited connectors). Against short-stacked tight players, I throw in a decent raise with any two cards, and just take it down 95% of the time.

Against deep-stacked opponents, I far prefer to see a flop for as little as possible if my hand has showdown value unimproved.

I think Ferguson has made the interesting point somewhere, in that before you bet or raise, you should ask yourself why you are doing it. He makes the further pioint that you should play the hand more straightforwardly as it progresses to the end. I agree with both of these arguments. Your justification here was, I believe, "charging him to see a flop". But what does that really mean? You are also charging yourself to see a flop. Presumably you are happy to pay this because you are ahead against the majority of hands. But (and I repeat the point), you are not playing this double-dummy. Against weak-tights, you raise, and then (if he calls) continue on most flops, because you know he will miss 2/3 of the time and will fold when he does.

But, against an aggressive player, the scenario changes. How are you going to make money from this guy? By raising and charging both him and yourself to see the flop? Or by letting him hang himself?

2+2 had a nice thread on this a while ago on how an aggressive player's range is much much wider if you check-call rather than take the lead.

That's my starting point here - how am I going to maximise my EV against this player? Your starting point appears to be "How does 88 perform against a random hand double dummy?"

And, yes, these are more of the inexaustible supply of reasons. But, well, surely it's a pleasant change from "Raising here is a donk play, you twat." (copyright, 2+2).


PJ

Re: Suspicious

[(Anonymous)]

"So, er, what you are saying is that I have shown a large number of reasons for doing what I do?"

I'd say it was more case of having a large number of reasons for things you DON'T do. Another revealing comment you made was about being uncertain post-flop with 88. That's what makes poker interesting! It should be embraced, not feared.

Fortunately as a "math guy" I am untroubled by such matters and I will happily and invariably raise 88 here because it's probably the best hand. If raising QQ UTG on a full table (and hence out of position to any non-blinds caller) is +EV then it's self-evident to me that so is raising 88 into one potential caller. Yes I am charging myself to see a flop too but (a) I already have a reasonably strong made hand and (b) he may fold and surrender his big blind.

matt

Re: Suspicious

[(Anonymous)]

OK I always leave matt to do the berating here, but as first replier I think I´ll throw in another comment (from a few countries away from the last, hence the delay).

Raise the 88. Obviously he calls or raises you, because that´s what he does. But you´re really not building a big pot. If you hit your set you´re stacking him expertly with rubbish, if an ace, king or queen falls you checkraise him for about half your stack (and he will very often fold there and then). If he comes over the top again, you´ve got outdrawn and after a suitably dramatic pause you fold, dignity and expectation intact.

Lurker

Re: Suspicious

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I've no great prejudice against this line (I'm somewhat more prejudiced against the matter of playing your own hand rather than playing the situation, because I feel that this can lead to easier counter-exploitation) but its potential flaw seems to me that, unless a fair amount of your profit in this hand comes from some kind of showdown, you might as well have deuce-three. As you say, I can raise pre-flop and, if A, K or Q falls (about 60%?) I check-raise for half my stack and, "very often" (let's take that as 80%) of the time he will fold. Well, hell, I might as well have three-deuce for nearly half the scenarios you mention. Meanwhile you will hit your set your 11% of the time and, since you are cr-ing the flop, stack him off 20% of that (if we assume he will fold to the cr 80% of the time). That's a stack-off just 2% to 3% of the time.

Add in the flop scenarios where 23 looks good and 88 looks bad, and you seem to me to be running close to a line of thought where the fact that you have 88 is secondary to the line of play.

It would be interesting to run it through on the numbers above, but I suspect that both 23 and 88 would be winners, with 23 not far behind.

The downside here is that, following your line with 88, there is a chance that, after one of those ghastly pauses when you and your opponent know that you are going to fold (I hate those!) you will be folding the winning hand. You have turned a good hand pre-flop, with unimproved showdown value, into a seven-deuce. If you have 23, you know that you are folding a losing hand, so your fold cannot be "a mistake".

I haven't really explained this very well, but I think that it's an important point. Sklansky covers this at some length somewhere or other.

On Matt's point that "he may fold and surrender his blind". Yes, I accept this, but in a sense my check with 88 has a partial slow-play about it. This kind of opponent (as was shown to be the case) might lose more if I let him in. If I raise and he auto-calls, I've defined my hand more than if I limp, and he has more to play with (in terms of information), in a bigger pot, in position. So, I guess that I am valuing the information that I am giving away higher than I am valuing the extra money in the pot with a hand that is favourite. To condemn that out-of-hand is a bit unfair, I think. I accept that I might be too big a fan of "rope-a-dope" and that playing an ABC TAG game might win more, but once again you have to assess levels of mental comfort. Changing to a different style needs to be taken in baby steps (witness the disasters that have befallen many good golf players when they have tried to correct their unorthodox style).

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

I have a Smile bank account and Neteller managed to link to it no problem.

Unfortunately I have been having similar hassles to yourself with regard to getting a dollar account link in place. Most irritating, but more the fault of a bunch of right wing nut jobs across the pond, than Neteller, I think.


-----------------------------------
http://pokerdiv.blogspot.com