Slippery Times
Aug. 19th, 2007 12:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksForget the Gulf of Mexico and the potential impact of Hurricane Dean on oil prices, look to the here and now and the impact on the price of bananas. Yes, the days of the cheap banana may be over for a year or so.
As a member of the public who drives infrequently, but consumes a fair number of bananas, I am miffed that the BBC seems more concerned about the impact of a hurricane on carbon-negative 4x4 owners from Chiswick, but doesn't give a shit about environmentally conscious banana-eaters from Lewisham.
++++++++++
I think I might treat myself to a new pair of spectacles. There's a nice-looking place in Wardour Street that I know is used by Howard Jacobson, so perhaps I'll go there. I think that my technique should be to ask for something "vaguely trendy, but which marks me out as not living in either Hoxton or Shoreditch". Or perhaps "some glasses that Anthony Head might wear, but Michael Grade wouldn't".
+++++++++++
I've had a few bad stack-offs the past couple of days. And I noticed that at least half of them came about when I was hit by a two-outer on the turn.
So, I had a little think about this (because I really do not like getting stacked off, even when it happens to be set under set, and I'm not the type to moan "oh I'm so unlucky", whinge whinge, "two-outer, unbelievable", whinge whinge, "cold-decked", whinge whinge; far better to think about matters rationally) and decided that, provided I am not giving my opponent the implied odds for his 20-1 shot on the turn, I can afford to pay the opponent off every time and still end up in front.
But is this necessarily the answer? Surely I could end up more often in front if I laid my hand down to his big bets a percentage of the time (often enough that bluffing me is not profitable, but rarely enough that I am not losing money by folding).
The clue to the "big hand" at $100 max is usually the size of the opponent's bet on the turn. Suppose I've raised with AQ to $5.50 (called by a previous limper who is quite loose aggressive - 39/14), and we both have $80 in front of us. (this is a fairish record of one hand, by the way).
Flop comes AQ5 two hearts giving me top two-pair (I have no heart). He checks, I bet $11 into a $13 pot, and he calls. That puts $35 in the pot before rake and we both have $63 in front of us.
Turn brings a seven of spades. He checks. I bet $22 and he raises to $44. Well, I can either fold, call or raise here. Given his aggressive nature, I thought he might be at it with a draw, and reraised all-in. He called. River brought a seven, giving him quad sevens. I reload now. So it goes.
Would he have played the hand the same way with AK (which, if I think about it, is the only hand in his range that I can beat)? Probably not. I think that only 55 or 77, or complete air, make sense here. And these guys don't have the skill to make this kind of minimum reraise play with complete air, ever. If he had reraised all-in on the turn, it might be a coup, but the minimum reraise on the turn doesn't seem to be a coup that often; more often than not, it's what happened in this case. The guy has hit a two-outer. But, if he's going to carry on calling with 77 in those circumstances, then I will be winning an awful large number of $11 off him.
This is something that you fail to spot when you are on a good run. 19 times out of 20 this hand is going to win me $16. One time in 20 it's going to cost me $80. That's a fine equation. In reality, I'd say that 40 times in 60 I'm going to win $5 (because limper will fold to my continuation). 19 times I will win $16 and 1 time I will lose $80. That gives an EV of about $7 a hand, even if I am stacked off.
Oh well, I guess that I shall just have to keep watching opponent's stack on the flop and make sure that I bet enough that he will lose money in the long run by calling that bet if he needs a two-outer to win.
But I still hate getting stacked off.
Here's another hand where perhaps I perhaps put in too much thought, but it's still a tough one to lay down.
I'm on the button with KK and about $80. CO (has $130) raises to $4 (50c $1 blinds). His stats are 24%/4% on a smallish sample. I reraise to $12 and it is passed round to him. He calls.
$25 in pot. $68 effective stacks.
Flop comes 762 two clubs (I have King of clubs)
He checks. I bet $20 and he check-raises all-in.
Now, I've seen this play before with pairs ranging from nines to Jacks. The theory is that you might get called by a worse hand (a flush draw - although AK of clubs is very marginally the favourite here) or make a better hand (a higher pair) fold. I can't place him on a set, not with the stats he has. So I call. And he shows Aces.
The problem here was that, although the way he played the hand is good with Jacks down to nines (because it's very hard to call with a weak overpair) it is only good with Aces if I have KK or, perhaps, QQ. He is never going to get a better hand to fold, and he's only getting a few worse hands to call. Of course, KK and QQ are slap bang in my reraising range, which perhaps makes the play not so bad. I'm a bit all at sea in this situation against this kind of player. If he was a bit laggier, it would be an easy call, but it looks as if quite a few of the more passive-conservative players at this level just call the reraise when they have AA, and then check-raise all in provided the board doesn't contain a K or a Q.
I still can't see me getting away from this one though.
Here's a third one where my opponent's passivity caught me out.
I'm in the CO and get 22 with about $100 in front of me. It's passed round to me and I raise it to $4.50. Big blind calls (with about $90 I think). I have only just sat down.
$9 in pot, $91 behind.
Flop comes 238 rainbow, giving me a set of deuces.
BB checks and I bet $7. Opponent calls. $23 in pot. $84 behind
Turn brings Queen, matching one of the suits on board.
He checks and I start working out how much I can get off this guy if he has AQ.
I bet $19. He raises to $38. I reraise all-in and he calls. He shows QQ.
Well, the failure to pop back at me either pre-flop or on the flop definitely caught me out. Do these people have no gamble at all?
Amidst this sequence of stack-offs, I spend most of the time ripping the opposition to shreds, which makes it even more frustrating. Figures for the past 14 days are:
+$50.27
+$59.60
-$79.42
-$26.84
+$95.81
-$23.18
+$274.26
-$145.93
+$61.48
-$28.10
+$124.00
-$218.17 (two of the above hands came on this day, plus the KK v AQ at $200 buy in mentioned a couple of posts ago :-)
+$62.90
-$30.10
But all of them conceal some lumpy swings. It's also my worst run in the four months since I moved to NL, with rakeback and bonuses effectively providing my only profit.
++++++++
The Washing Machine is Fixed! I'm sure that "service people" must be vaguely surprised these days at the largesse with which £60 is handed over for a half-hour's work ("Rubber Ban' and piece of plasti' caught in pump. Fan not turn", said my admirably efficient, but not particularly fluent in English, washing machine engineer). But when I think of the lazy fucks generating more than a hundred bucks an hour for sitting down at a computer working out the right way to play a pair of eights (and of course, I wish I could include myself in this esteemed category), I reckon that any bloke willing to hump a washing machine onto its side and cure a problem that's driving me fucking mad, deserves every penny he asks for.
++++++++++++++++++++++
As a member of the public who drives infrequently, but consumes a fair number of bananas, I am miffed that the BBC seems more concerned about the impact of a hurricane on carbon-negative 4x4 owners from Chiswick, but doesn't give a shit about environmentally conscious banana-eaters from Lewisham.
++++++++++
I think I might treat myself to a new pair of spectacles. There's a nice-looking place in Wardour Street that I know is used by Howard Jacobson, so perhaps I'll go there. I think that my technique should be to ask for something "vaguely trendy, but which marks me out as not living in either Hoxton or Shoreditch". Or perhaps "some glasses that Anthony Head might wear, but Michael Grade wouldn't".
+++++++++++
I've had a few bad stack-offs the past couple of days. And I noticed that at least half of them came about when I was hit by a two-outer on the turn.
So, I had a little think about this (because I really do not like getting stacked off, even when it happens to be set under set, and I'm not the type to moan "oh I'm so unlucky", whinge whinge, "two-outer, unbelievable", whinge whinge, "cold-decked", whinge whinge; far better to think about matters rationally) and decided that, provided I am not giving my opponent the implied odds for his 20-1 shot on the turn, I can afford to pay the opponent off every time and still end up in front.
But is this necessarily the answer? Surely I could end up more often in front if I laid my hand down to his big bets a percentage of the time (often enough that bluffing me is not profitable, but rarely enough that I am not losing money by folding).
The clue to the "big hand" at $100 max is usually the size of the opponent's bet on the turn. Suppose I've raised with AQ to $5.50 (called by a previous limper who is quite loose aggressive - 39/14), and we both have $80 in front of us. (this is a fairish record of one hand, by the way).
Flop comes AQ5 two hearts giving me top two-pair (I have no heart). He checks, I bet $11 into a $13 pot, and he calls. That puts $35 in the pot before rake and we both have $63 in front of us.
Turn brings a seven of spades. He checks. I bet $22 and he raises to $44. Well, I can either fold, call or raise here. Given his aggressive nature, I thought he might be at it with a draw, and reraised all-in. He called. River brought a seven, giving him quad sevens. I reload now. So it goes.
Would he have played the hand the same way with AK (which, if I think about it, is the only hand in his range that I can beat)? Probably not. I think that only 55 or 77, or complete air, make sense here. And these guys don't have the skill to make this kind of minimum reraise play with complete air, ever. If he had reraised all-in on the turn, it might be a coup, but the minimum reraise on the turn doesn't seem to be a coup that often; more often than not, it's what happened in this case. The guy has hit a two-outer. But, if he's going to carry on calling with 77 in those circumstances, then I will be winning an awful large number of $11 off him.
This is something that you fail to spot when you are on a good run. 19 times out of 20 this hand is going to win me $16. One time in 20 it's going to cost me $80. That's a fine equation. In reality, I'd say that 40 times in 60 I'm going to win $5 (because limper will fold to my continuation). 19 times I will win $16 and 1 time I will lose $80. That gives an EV of about $7 a hand, even if I am stacked off.
Oh well, I guess that I shall just have to keep watching opponent's stack on the flop and make sure that I bet enough that he will lose money in the long run by calling that bet if he needs a two-outer to win.
But I still hate getting stacked off.
Here's another hand where perhaps I perhaps put in too much thought, but it's still a tough one to lay down.
I'm on the button with KK and about $80. CO (has $130) raises to $4 (50c $1 blinds). His stats are 24%/4% on a smallish sample. I reraise to $12 and it is passed round to him. He calls.
$25 in pot. $68 effective stacks.
Flop comes 762 two clubs (I have King of clubs)
He checks. I bet $20 and he check-raises all-in.
Now, I've seen this play before with pairs ranging from nines to Jacks. The theory is that you might get called by a worse hand (a flush draw - although AK of clubs is very marginally the favourite here) or make a better hand (a higher pair) fold. I can't place him on a set, not with the stats he has. So I call. And he shows Aces.
The problem here was that, although the way he played the hand is good with Jacks down to nines (because it's very hard to call with a weak overpair) it is only good with Aces if I have KK or, perhaps, QQ. He is never going to get a better hand to fold, and he's only getting a few worse hands to call. Of course, KK and QQ are slap bang in my reraising range, which perhaps makes the play not so bad. I'm a bit all at sea in this situation against this kind of player. If he was a bit laggier, it would be an easy call, but it looks as if quite a few of the more passive-conservative players at this level just call the reraise when they have AA, and then check-raise all in provided the board doesn't contain a K or a Q.
I still can't see me getting away from this one though.
Here's a third one where my opponent's passivity caught me out.
I'm in the CO and get 22 with about $100 in front of me. It's passed round to me and I raise it to $4.50. Big blind calls (with about $90 I think). I have only just sat down.
$9 in pot, $91 behind.
Flop comes 238 rainbow, giving me a set of deuces.
BB checks and I bet $7. Opponent calls. $23 in pot. $84 behind
Turn brings Queen, matching one of the suits on board.
He checks and I start working out how much I can get off this guy if he has AQ.
I bet $19. He raises to $38. I reraise all-in and he calls. He shows QQ.
Well, the failure to pop back at me either pre-flop or on the flop definitely caught me out. Do these people have no gamble at all?
Amidst this sequence of stack-offs, I spend most of the time ripping the opposition to shreds, which makes it even more frustrating. Figures for the past 14 days are:
+$50.27
+$59.60
-$79.42
-$26.84
+$95.81
-$23.18
+$274.26
-$145.93
+$61.48
-$28.10
+$124.00
-$218.17 (two of the above hands came on this day, plus the KK v AQ at $200 buy in mentioned a couple of posts ago :-)
+$62.90
-$30.10
But all of them conceal some lumpy swings. It's also my worst run in the four months since I moved to NL, with rakeback and bonuses effectively providing my only profit.
++++++++
The Washing Machine is Fixed! I'm sure that "service people" must be vaguely surprised these days at the largesse with which £60 is handed over for a half-hour's work ("Rubber Ban' and piece of plasti' caught in pump. Fan not turn", said my admirably efficient, but not particularly fluent in English, washing machine engineer). But when I think of the lazy fucks generating more than a hundred bucks an hour for sitting down at a computer working out the right way to play a pair of eights (and of course, I wish I could include myself in this esteemed category), I reckon that any bloke willing to hump a washing machine onto its side and cure a problem that's driving me fucking mad, deserves every penny he asks for.
++++++++++++++++++++++
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
the min-raise and stacking off
Date: 2007-08-20 06:17 am (UTC)Its killing me really. these stack-offs when getting min-raises are driving me insane and I can´t seem to fix it. the fear I have is that if I move up in limits to NL200, that I have forced myself by then to give the min-raises credit and thinking players will get me off a hand very cheaply.
gl.
Marc
Re: the min-raise and stacking off
Date: 2007-08-20 12:10 pm (UTC)I think there are two matters at issue here. In the case I comment on, he called when he shouldn't have, and got lucky. In that scenario, providing I am not giving him implied odds of 20/1, then I can get stacked off every time he hits a two-outer on the turn, and still finish up in front. The only important factor there is an adequate bankroll.
However, he could just as easily have had 55 and hit his set on the flop. This is a more complex area. Let's not worry about $200 buy-ins at the moment. The question is, how often will someone who check-raises the turn (or raises the turn) have TPTK beaten? If the initial board was unthreatening (say, AQ5 rainbow) then a set of fives can slow play the flop. It's not so easy on a draw-heavy board.
My experience has been that this mini-raise on the turn always has TPTK beaten. You might make an exception on the rare occasion that a complete maniac appears. So it seems to me that TPTK can lay down without much worry. You might stay in if the bet gives you implied odds to a four-outer, but this is marginal.
However, opponent might also play this way with Top-and-bottom two pair, top-two-pair, but probably not bottom-two or middle and bottom.
That would seem to indicate that in this situation on the turn you can usually fold just top pair, always call with top-two-pair, and think very hard with top-and-bottom or top-and-middle (leaning towards a fold with the former and a call with the latter).
When you get to the $200 level, play the same way, but keep an eye out for potential smart-arses who know that you are good enough to fold to the min reraise. Obviously they will have played with you for quite a few hands, and will have a relatively strong percentage on PT. They will also be full-stacked. That cuts down the proportion of players likely to do it against you quite a fair way.
PJ
Nana!!
Date: 2007-08-20 08:38 am (UTC)He was eating bananas like they were going out of fashion and when asked why, he pointed to the national shortage of bananas they are suffering in Oz.
Apparently there is some sort of banana blight going round which is severely reducing supply, and as we all know, reduce the supply and the price goes up. He said that many people were having to stop buying them because they had become so expensive.
Re: Nana!!
Date: 2007-08-20 12:12 pm (UTC)PJ