![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksMy first attempt to watch the movie Bobby was kyboshed by Virgin Atlantic's complete incompetence these days when it comes to showing movies. The net result was me catching fractured parts of the movie, in no particular order, whenever Virgin could manage to get the system to work.
So, I bought a few DVDs on the way home last night, and Bobby was one of them.
As was the case with my first impression, I had some difficulties with the movie, which I recall describing as "sub-Altman". The film also seems to contain Kennedy supporters to a man -- not just in the campaign team (that, after all, was only to be expected), but also amongst all the other characters. I still recall being told that Bobby Kennedy had been shot and, a few hours later, that he had died. Although very young at the time, I was a great fan of Eugene McCarthy -- the first politician that I felt such enthusiasm for. Indeed, that enthusiasm has never been matched since -- not even for McGovern in '72 (McGovern is still toddling along in his 90s, I believe).
McCarthy is hardly mentioned, and the shots of Kennedy intercut with the movie (which kept reminding me of Nashville, except not as good) made him out to be little short of the second Messiah (although perhaps we had better not read down that route again...)
But, on the positive side, it's hardly fair to expect Emilio Estefez to match Altman, and his clear aim, to encapsulate a decade in a single evening, is not badly done. Sharon Stone is superb, Helen Hunt equally so. Demi Moore was lauded for playing against type, but it was the kind of role she could do in her sleep. Top performances on the male side as well, although, since this appeared to be a collection of Liberal Los Angeles on display, I was surprised that Sean Penn didn't turn up somewhere. I presume Anthony Hopkins (the one disappointment) got the part as a counterpoint for having to play Nixon in the eponymous film.
++++++++++++++++
Things are getting complex on the poker front. Maximising earnings at this time of year is, for me, very much a matter of exploiting the many and several generous bonuses. Party sent me an e-mail saying that I hadn't been seen at the tables "for some time" and just offered me a $35 bonus without a need for a deposit. Well, if you count 10 days as "for some time", you must be darned impatient, is all I can say. 240 points required, so that looks like 35% to 40% rakeback equivalent. You get a few more bucks on top of that by its ordinary reward scheme, plus a couple of bucks on Party points (now redeemable for cash).
Full Tilt, meanwhile, continues to suck me back in like a degenerate slots player, offering a superb bonus if you just qualify for any IronMan in December. You basically get a bonus for each and every Iron Man that you have qualified for this year, which means that just getting into the Bronze Iron Man is, for me, worth a $200 bonus. Add in the $60 or so EV from the freeroll, plus the FPP points, and it's something that I can't turn down.
Even though I should, because I've been running like shit on FTP for three months now. Indeed, over the past two years it's the only site that I can't beat. Statistically, this isn't unlikely, but I get the horrible feeling that my style isn't the right one for the kind of opposition I meet at the $100 buy-in, where I am flat-level after 10k hands. There's an awful lot of check-raising all-in on the flop to continuation bets -- frequently from deep stacks. I have to assume that a number of these bets are two-way semi-bluffs, since data-mining would show that I have a wide range when raising from hi-jack, cut-off or button. I haven't yet been in a situation where I can put this to the test with a call. But, no doubt when I do, opponent will show the business, or his flush draw will hit. That's the way FTP works for me.
These losses are more than couterbalanced by performances elsewhere, where playing in exactly the same way generates a comfortable profit. Simple variance? Possibly. But after three losing days there on the spin I was seriously thinking of shifting from 9-max to 6-max, mainly on the grounds that things couldn't go any worse.
++++++++++++++
Lunch with an old university friend At Le Vagna on Great Portland Street today. If I bump into Chris Evans or Danny Baker, I shall eat elsewhere.
__________________
So, I bought a few DVDs on the way home last night, and Bobby was one of them.
As was the case with my first impression, I had some difficulties with the movie, which I recall describing as "sub-Altman". The film also seems to contain Kennedy supporters to a man -- not just in the campaign team (that, after all, was only to be expected), but also amongst all the other characters. I still recall being told that Bobby Kennedy had been shot and, a few hours later, that he had died. Although very young at the time, I was a great fan of Eugene McCarthy -- the first politician that I felt such enthusiasm for. Indeed, that enthusiasm has never been matched since -- not even for McGovern in '72 (McGovern is still toddling along in his 90s, I believe).
McCarthy is hardly mentioned, and the shots of Kennedy intercut with the movie (which kept reminding me of Nashville, except not as good) made him out to be little short of the second Messiah (although perhaps we had better not read down that route again...)
But, on the positive side, it's hardly fair to expect Emilio Estefez to match Altman, and his clear aim, to encapsulate a decade in a single evening, is not badly done. Sharon Stone is superb, Helen Hunt equally so. Demi Moore was lauded for playing against type, but it was the kind of role she could do in her sleep. Top performances on the male side as well, although, since this appeared to be a collection of Liberal Los Angeles on display, I was surprised that Sean Penn didn't turn up somewhere. I presume Anthony Hopkins (the one disappointment) got the part as a counterpoint for having to play Nixon in the eponymous film.
++++++++++++++++
Things are getting complex on the poker front. Maximising earnings at this time of year is, for me, very much a matter of exploiting the many and several generous bonuses. Party sent me an e-mail saying that I hadn't been seen at the tables "for some time" and just offered me a $35 bonus without a need for a deposit. Well, if you count 10 days as "for some time", you must be darned impatient, is all I can say. 240 points required, so that looks like 35% to 40% rakeback equivalent. You get a few more bucks on top of that by its ordinary reward scheme, plus a couple of bucks on Party points (now redeemable for cash).
Full Tilt, meanwhile, continues to suck me back in like a degenerate slots player, offering a superb bonus if you just qualify for any IronMan in December. You basically get a bonus for each and every Iron Man that you have qualified for this year, which means that just getting into the Bronze Iron Man is, for me, worth a $200 bonus. Add in the $60 or so EV from the freeroll, plus the FPP points, and it's something that I can't turn down.
Even though I should, because I've been running like shit on FTP for three months now. Indeed, over the past two years it's the only site that I can't beat. Statistically, this isn't unlikely, but I get the horrible feeling that my style isn't the right one for the kind of opposition I meet at the $100 buy-in, where I am flat-level after 10k hands. There's an awful lot of check-raising all-in on the flop to continuation bets -- frequently from deep stacks. I have to assume that a number of these bets are two-way semi-bluffs, since data-mining would show that I have a wide range when raising from hi-jack, cut-off or button. I haven't yet been in a situation where I can put this to the test with a call. But, no doubt when I do, opponent will show the business, or his flush draw will hit. That's the way FTP works for me.
These losses are more than couterbalanced by performances elsewhere, where playing in exactly the same way generates a comfortable profit. Simple variance? Possibly. But after three losing days there on the spin I was seriously thinking of shifting from 9-max to 6-max, mainly on the grounds that things couldn't go any worse.
++++++++++++++
Lunch with an old university friend At Le Vagna on Great Portland Street today. If I bump into Chris Evans or Danny Baker, I shall eat elsewhere.
__________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 03:46 pm (UTC)And we used to have that TV's Laurence Llewellyn-Bowen too (lived on Point Hill at the end of King George St). He was a nice chap too. Probably still is, come to that.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 09:05 am (UTC)I think you miss my point. As a respected financial journalist, I couldn't possibly allow myself to be seen in the kind of place frequent by those in the business of show. People might think that I'd got a new job at Heat!.
Then again, if Evans and Baker are in an eating and drinking establishment together, I still think that it's quite possibly tin hat time.
PJ
Full Tilt
Date: 2007-12-07 11:32 am (UTC)I'm a Full Tilt regular (mainly NL100) and we've played together a bit so thought I'd offer my opinion. First of all, you don't mention how many hands this flat streak is over, a critical bit of info if you want to talk about the influence of running well/bad versus strategic problems.
I'm sure you're aware of what sample sizes are relevant here but I think 200k is probably a reasonable number to establish your winrate with any confidence. A decent winner overall might then still have regions of 10k+ breakeven spots depending on style.
I haven't seen too much of this 'check-raising c-bets all-in for a full stack' that you've mentioned, and I seriously doubt that datamining has much to do with this, it strikes me more as unnecessary and highly exploitable lunacy if it really is that frequent. It seems to me that one could shift steal raises to slightly earlier position (only marginally more risky) and tighten way up in the cut-off and obvious steal situations.
Any player who I think is aware of position and the need to raise non-premium hands ought to be re-raising probable light openers a fair bit. When I do it I'm just trying to send a signal to the other players who are awake that there are easier targets on the table and to persuade them to stay out of 'my' pots, and I'm generally not doing this with atc unless their opening standards are outrageously wide.
I think given your general style and approach to the game you ought to be a winner on Full Tilt, there are enough awful fish that given a decent number of hands I can't see you remaining break even for too long. I would be pretty interested in your aggression stats however, mine per street for the NL100 are approx as follows: pre flop: 1%, flop: 2.8%, turn: 2.5%, river 1.2%, total: 1.3%. These figures are low in comparison to a sensible winning game at the NL200 or 400 and certainly way lower than for a limit player at any stakes, but I think an optimal strategy at this level necessarily is more passive to adjust to the fishier player's most common error. How do yours compare?
Regards,
James.
Re: Full Tilt
Date: 2007-12-07 12:28 pm (UTC)The flat streak is over 10K hands, but I also had a long flattish streak at limit (last year's severe downturn in October/November was mainly because of Full Tilt. And I'm a bad loser at 200NL (over a small sample of 1600 hands) whereas on IPoker I am break-even at 200NL over a larger number of hands.
In other words, the only area where I have done better on Full Tilt than on IP (or Stars, or Party) is at 50NL. I freely admit that all of this could be down to simple variance; but it just doesn't feel that way.
You don't mention at what time you play. I'm usually playing at lunchtime/early afternoon US time. You get the very occasional fish, but even those tend to be laggy and with some idea of where they are at -- not loose-passive donators.
My stats on aggression are PF 2.41. Flop 4.70, Turn 2.97, River 1.65. 16.89%/12.32% and 38% won $ when saw flop. That's a point and a bit down on my average elsewhere, but teh worse number is the Won $ at showdown - a woeful 47.5%. Opponents seem better at folding when I am winning and calling me when I am losing!
I've considered this line of less aggression (which seems to me to entail actually trying to win most of your money at showdown with the best hand ... something I'm just not used to) but I just can't seem to get a handle on it.
I suffer far more often on Full Tilt from "jeez, what the fuck has he got?" than I do on other sites. Perhaps this means I should focus less on what my opponent has (and what I think he thinks I have) and more on what I actually have. That's a very rote-type style of play and rather boring, but perhaps that might lead to improved figures.
But, then again, perhaps it's just variance. It's a niggle rather than an annoyance, because I'm doing okay elsewhere.
PJ
Re: Full Tilt
Date: 2007-12-07 04:39 pm (UTC)I usually try to play early mornings UK time - say 6am onwards - until the action drys up in the early afternoon, and then later from 8pm in the evening (at weekends whenever things look appealing). It's fairly easy to decide when to quit the morning games as the average pot size halves and favourite fish go broke or flee the tables.
I do think the games at these stakes are a fair bit tougher than other sites, but the balancing factors are the ease of multitabling, the fact that there are always plenty of tables running and the rakeback. If you are not too bothered about running 8 tables at once and you can ignore some interface niggles, it is possible to get better rakeback deals on smaller, far softer sites.
My own approach to the game is focused on beating up the terrible players whilst appearing dangerous enough to the more switched on types that they avoid messing with me (too often!) I will rarely stay in a game without a couple of weak spots. Sure, with a little thought and analysis it isn't too hard to work out ways to exploit predictable or weak-tight players, but my first recourse will always be to switch tables and provide those actively looking to give away their chips with a solution.
Higher levels are where this strategy will fall down somewhat, but it seems to me that at the $200 buyin and below my worst results have come from the occasions where I, foolishly, attempted to 'play poker' with people who are just looking for the thrill of a quick spin-up (or bust-out). The question I'd ask you is if there is any particular need for you to continue with Full Tilt? Your success at the $50 tables (regardless of whether you are playing higher elsewhere) suggests an easy solution if you want to persevere there. If you are merely playing for maximum profits as I've already said I think there are softer games, but this 10k flat stretch does not mean for a second there is anything wrong with your approach.
James
(P.S. I know exactly what you mean about these laggy semi-fish, but neutralising their game is not too difficult. I find they come in two distinct flavours, the ones who are way too loose pre-flop then play normally, and those who are simply betting machines post-flop. The first kind need to be reraised light often pre. The second type require you to become a calling station post-flop with even quite marginal hands and to make some pretty bad-seeming, sizable river calls. If you can resist the temptation to raise even excellent (but vulnerable) hands till the last minute you can put these guys back in their boxes in short order.)
Re: Full Tilt
Date: 2007-12-07 06:50 pm (UTC)I think I am definitely playing at a tough time of day. Early evening US time (say, 10pm UK time) can be good, but it's better on the Europe-focused sites. That only leaves the 6am to 10am window for FTP, and I can only play those hours at weekends, because those are the hours during the week when the office takes priority!.
I just finished an hour-long session with a small gain. But here's a hand I came up against, once again, just a few hands in. I saw three more examples of this kind of bet (sometimes all-in, sometimes about 2/3rds of the player's stack) in just 120 hands (luckily, only one of them was against me).
FullTiltPoker - $0.50/$1 - No Limit Hold'em -
Seat 1: cypher2045 ($20.05)
Seat 2: JoNNy_GilBert0 ($111.80)
Seat 3: svwerder3 ($95)
Seat 4: Trullibert ($20)
Seat 5: wingsclipped ($73.40)
Seat 6: ImGonnaPush ($168.40)
Seat 7: villain ($152.80)
Seat 8: BuckyLastard ($100)
Seat 9: hero ($124.75)
Hero posts the small blind of $0.50
cypher2045 posts the big blind of $1
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [As Qh]
JoNNy_GilBert0 folds
All fold to:
villain raises to $2
this is a not uncommon raise in these games.
BuckyLastard folds
hero raises to $7
A reraise to this level will get a fold from the mini-raiser the maority of the time. If he had raised a bit more, say, to 4.5BB, I sometimes flat call with AQo and then lead out, sometimes I call and check, and sometimes I smack it straight back. The relatively deep stacks here make things difficult for me.
cypher2045 folds
villain calls $5
*** FLOP *** [5s Qd 9s]
TPTK but a danger against JT or two spades, I don't see what I can do apart from lead out here, with enough of a bet to make it look like more than a "standard" continuation.
Hero bets $14
Villain raises to $81
That leaves him $70 behind and, if I call, I have just $35 behind. If I had to put the guy on any hand at all here, it would be KK, but he could easily have a drawing hand as well. I have no stats on the guy and I've managed to get myself into a difficult position. But this kind of overbet is something relatively new.
Hero folds
If I've made a mistake earlier, I don't think there's any need to compound it by making a bigger one here.
Villain wins the pot ($40.85)
So, either I don't reraise to $7 (but this seems to have been profitable in the long run), or I bet a different amount on the flop (but this seems to have been profitable in the past). It's only recently that this odd kind of counterplay has hit me again and again (maybe six or seven times in a week, over a thousand hands or so). If it carries on, it's clear that I jhave to bite the bullet and start putting all my money in with TPTK.
I strongly suspect that this line is a response to most players' unwillingness (at this time of day) to put in their entire stack with TPTK. If this bet elicits a fold just 67% of the time or more, it's profitable (actually, it's better than that, because sometimes the player will be called but will get lucky). My guess is that this raise elicits a fold about 90% of the time.
Solution? I dunno. Restructure play from the Blind? Reraise with a wider range? Call more often rather than reraise? I'm a bit puzzled by it, to be honest.
PJ
Re: Full Tilt
Date: 2007-12-07 09:04 pm (UTC)In your place I generally like to reraise the same amount pre-flop and be happy to take it down there and then when OOP. I have recently been experimenting with making large (perhaps excessive) reraises in spots like this with the notion that aces or kings ought to come back over the top, and lesser pairs ought to switch to 'set or bet' mode post-flop - whether this is a sensible idea or not is arguable but it seems to be working so far. When called I'm betting about half pot on any flop, I'd concede that this sequence could tend to increase variance somewhat but I'm also doing this with QQ+ which I hope will balance things out.
I've seen this pre-flop min-raise often too, and there are some players for whom it tends to signal aces or kings scared to get no action, but as I said I like the reraise as it is very often as simple as it looks: weak bets for weak hands, and unless I know the player this is my default assumption. If however I know they are a 'betting machine' post-flop and will never fold to a reraise, then that's about the only situation where I prefer to just call.
Now to the flop in question. I think you probably later discovered if you made a bad fold or not, but in my opinion if their play afterwards did not seem wild and OTT aggressive you probably saved yourself getting stacked (or needing a hero suckout) versus a pair of kings or a set. In the villian's shoes with kings I'd be torn between either raising back to $21 or so, or calling then committing on any flop not containing an ace.
Anyone at this level who bases their game around making relatively large pure bluffs (especially when shown a reasonable amount of strength), on the assumption they'll generally get a fold is making a big error, regardless of the time of day. They only have to be wrong a couple of times per session to wipe out profits from less high risk plays and then some. I confess that I haven't seen this on the tables myself but surely premise of this play (as a pure bluff) is quite wrong. The best way to extract chips from weak-tight players is surely not when they wake up with a hand to reraise you with, and then bet full pot on a board that may well have given them TPTK or an overpair?
So my analysis of this hand puts a rational player usually on an overpair or a set. Perhaps a set of threes makes sense in the context of the min-raise? On the flop they could have either been a weak-tight afraid of the flush draw, or a smarter player making use of the possible draw to elicit a pot-committing call from top pair suspicious of a large semi-bluff. If you didn't have the As then I'd suggest they could have been on this type of semi-bluff with plenty of nut outs as backup.
If they just had a mid-pair, flush draw or were betting with air counting on you folding 90% of the time after the sequence you described, buddy list them and you will soon take all of their money.
James.