Sunday Bloody Sunday

[peterbirks]

Or, as Alan Partridge put it, one has to admire U2 for the way they managed to sum up the bloody day.

I bought my mother a computer for her birthday, and today I went over to install it. Buying the bloody thing is no present at all, but installing it was a true labour of love.

My mother's "office" seems to consist of three chairs and three desks surrounded by kibble. Moving is darned-near impossible, so getting the new computer up-and-running while the old computer was still there, with hardly any access to sockets (phone or electrical), proved difficult.

The main problem, as I anticipated, was getting the thing online. Installing the printer was easy and I forgot to take the CD for the digital camera, so that wasn't possible. Transferring the files was tough as well. The whole thing took four hours and I had a headache by the end of it, unsurprisingly.

I guess it wasn't helped by doing my bollox this morning on PTY and Paradise ($170 on one, $98 on the other), but I wasn't too upset, because I was comfortable with my game.

I was less happy when I got back, where I played badly and soon found myself just over $100 down, mainly through my aggressive play in the wrong places and defensive play in the wrong places. I had a shout at myself and put my head down. Within 20 minutes I was over $100 up, basically through sheer bloody-minded aggression that, if it had gone wrong, might have looked seriously like tilt. But my hands merited their raises pre-flop. The difference was that I kept bashing post flo, despite missing. And in a couple of places I managed to get them to fold, while in two others, I spiked a river. Four hands is all you need.

Unfortunately it all went belly-up when the player on my left beat my JJ with 88 by hitting a flush on the river, and then beating my QQ with 99 by hitting a 9 on the river. In both cases he had been raising like a nutter when I had him in deep trouble, and in both cases he ended up scooping $160+ pots without many outs on the turn. Irritating. I quit $17.50 up, mainly because I began to feel tired, and I will admit that those two hands had shaken me a bit. This was a good case of where Feeney should say that I should smile a little inside, because you want players to play that badly. And, indeed, I made no comments like "you fucking lucky shit", despite wanting to! But it's no use saying to yourself intellectually that you want people to play like that, when you feel that the fates are conspiring against you. It can lead to errors. Best to smile a little inside, but come back another day.

To Gutshot last night to pick up some cash. Andy Ward, Simon Galloway and David Young were there. DY seems to have an amazing ability to attract tossers to him to relate bad beats.

The Youngster's theory about online poker is that it is a lot less complicated than I think - that most of the opposition are wankers, and all I need to worry about is hand selection. An interesting line that perhaps takes contempt for the intellectual capabilities of the opposition further than most.

It's definitely a mistake of mine to overrate the ability of opponents. But even if you rate their "badness" correctly, it's important to know in what way they are bad. For example, loose-passive players often do not have loose raising standards. Indeed, in places their raising standards are tighter than with tight-aggressive players. And some players that you have marked down as very tight are not beyond bluffing from start to finish when the mood takes them.

Once again, I lost a lot of money (say $80) by calling on the river "for value". I haven't seen a desperation bluff bet on the river yet. When they miss, they give up and check. Calling on the river seems to be a chimp play at the moment, unless you have a virtual raising hand. This is closer to the Fox theory than the BDD theory. I may have to reassess my calling strategy on the river, but I'm not quite sure how to reassess it yet. It will require a serious look at hand histories, and, at the moment, I'm just too tired for a whole day of that.


Watching the Star Wars Episode 1 film at the moment. I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the fact that I hated the first three movies is one of the reasons that I quite like this one, which everyone else seemed to loathe!

Comments

[slowjoe.livejournal.com]

I would guess that the "desperation bluffs" will start right about the time that you start folding occasionally.

I'm not a limit player, but I'd suggest folding to the first two such bets of a session, then calling the rest. Note who was at the table for the first two folds, and repeat when half the lineup has changed.

Desperation bluffs

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

This is a very good point, and was one that I had distinctly considered. Presumably the people are checking down on the river because they know that I will call. Once again, however, I fear that we may be giving the opposition too much credit. Watching games for a couple of hours, I might see an average of one "desperation bluff" on the river. And even these could be called "semi-value bets" (the difference being that the desperation bluff is one where you know that you are beaten, and that the only way that you can win is to bet and get your opponent to fold, while the semi-value bluff would be when you have say, AQs, you raised pre-flop, the flop came 853 two spades. You bet and are called. Turn is a deuce of clubs. You bet and are called. River is the Jack of diamonds. You bet, hoping that if your opponent has AK he will fold. In the latter case, it may be better to check and call, hoping that your opponent will bluff a missed straight/lower flush, or that he in turn will check something like 99 in the hole.)

I've taken this idea on board, though. I think it has some merit at the times I play, when you tend to get more professionals sitting in for a long time. But, whould the multi-tablers notice? Perhaps folding the first three such bets?

Pete

[(Anonymous)]

Pete,

I'm not sure you are interpreting my one line advice in the spirit it was given. Firstly it refers to big pots, so ones where you are getting something like 10 to 1 on that final call or more. Also, it doesnt refer to situations where you bet and are raised, or other signs of significant strength. Normally it is best used when you show weakness on the river by checking and then calling a bet. And of course it often feels like its "not working" because it is only supposed to work 1 in 10 times or so.

gl

bdd

Old Man River

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

My river play is definitely something I am least happy with. Although wanting to win fewer showdowns might seem an odd way to go about it!

I'm fairly certain that I want to increase my percentage win when I see the flop and I am prepared to accept a drop in showdowns won as a result. The question is, how to go about this. One way is clearly to see a fall in showdowns won where I am the called rather than the caller. If the average pot is 8 times the final bet, then I only need to be not called once when I am in behind (and betting) out of six times that I make the bet, to be in front on the deal.

Most of these pots are won on the turn rather than the river, though.

I have been studying some other players' styles and I think that I have found a possible route here. More interestingly, I think that I have found a counter-strategy to the play (every strategy has a counter-strategy. If it doesn't, then the game is "solvable" and becomes no more interesting than Connect 4.)

Re: Old Man River

[(Anonymous)]

Changes are high that you play and write about "solvable" game Pete =) It's just not solved yet. And even if it would be solved, it could still be interesting to play against opponent who does not use the optimum strategy as the game-theoretic optimum strategy would not be the best one against him.

But yes, I think I know what you mean.

Short comment about the limit hands you posted earlier.

QTs is probably too weak to play btf from that position. Also I'm very surprised that the hand did not got all the way to river, with that flop action it usually does.

Threebetting from SB against buttonraiser does not mean powerhouse. Vulnerable marginal hands are played this way too. AQ is too good hand to fold for 1bet on that flop.

I don't have strong opinions about the last one, situation is quite unusual, so no comments (yet).

good luck
Aksu

Quiz Time

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Tonight, while playing the bonus comp on Betfair, I went through the 530 hands of $5-10 6-handed I have played on Party recently, counting how many of the hands bet on the river that we saw were :

No pair
A pair less than top pair
Top pair
Better than top pair

Obviously a few hands were awkward to classify, but when the top card on the board was paired and someone had trips, I counted that as "Better than top pair", and similarly a flush or a straight if 4 to a flush/straight was on the board. These didn't affect the figures much, people had "what they were supposed to" in about the same proportions.

So out of 127 observed betting hands, how many in each category would you guess ? Or percentages if you prefer.

Similarly I saw 15 raising hands on the river. How many of those in each category ?

The answers, of course, may surprise you !

Andy.

Re: Quiz Time

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

No time to look at this at the moment, Andy. But I would like to point out that short-handed is quite quite different from a ring game. Of those 530 at short-handed (a game I play very rarely), hmm. In order of frequency (least frequent from the start): No pair, top pair, a pair less than top pair, better than top pair. In percentages, probably not a lot of difference (so, it's a bit like Who Wants to be a Millionaire...); 20%, 22%, 26%, 32%.

Of the raising hands. I'd say 12 better than top pair, 1 middle pair/bottom pair, and 2 no pairs (missed straights and/or flushes).

I will do a similar analysis on my ring game stats soon. Honest.

Now, shoot me down in flames.

Re: Quiz Time

[andy-ward-uk.livejournal.com]

Sorry for keeping you in suspense all day, I was at work and the numbers were at home.

So, the actual results were, out of 127 hands bet :

11 no pair (9%)
19 pair less than top pair (15%)
37 top pair (29%)
60 better than top pair (47%)

I was surprised how many were better than top pair. These numbers imply that when you call a bet on the end with top pair medium kicker, you're more than 50% likely to lose ! Although of course the pot odds will compensate.

It was noticeable how many of the "pair less than top pair" bets were from the same people. This is definitely something worth noting if you see someone do it. As for the bluffs, trying to pick one off does depend on the circumstances and the opponent, but against a passive player in a non-obvious bluffing situation, it could easily be 20-1 against your unimproved AK winning !

Of 15 raising hands, 13 were better than top pair. One was top pair, but as the bet was $10 and the "raise" $14 all in, you could dispute whether this counted as a raise. Leaving 1 raise on the river with third pair out of 500 hands. And he could just have pressed the wrong button :-)

Andy.