Running Nose, Running Bad
Jan. 31st, 2008 01:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksWell, I've kind of been running bad for 11 days now, which is just long enough for me to become convinced that every other player is conspiring to outdraw or outplay me, that the sites are all rigged, and that I am the worst player in Christendom. I've been here before and I'll be here again. So it goes.
And I have a cold too. Life isn't fair.
At Party the worrying factor is that I've now had three losing months and I'm on a 14 buy-in downswing (from 7 buy-ins up to 7 buy-ins down over a three month-period of 12K hands). At times I feel sure that this really is down to running bad, while at others I wonder if I'm being outplayed. I've made a lot of TPTK laydowns where the opponent's stats really make it unlikely that I'm in front, (I've made a few calls with them as well ... usually losing) and my general feeling is that it's just a bad run.
But I think I might need to change my style a bit as well. Trouble is, it isn't drastically obvious precisely where I need to do the tweaking. What do I do when AKs is losing a net $300 and is only winning 28% of showdowns, while AKo is winning $180 and winning 56% of showdowns? That really does look a bit like running bad to me.
But the Party guys are less likely to pay you off at the end, and less likely to fold to your flop CBs. That seems to me to mean I have to focus more on flop and turn betting (I'm no longer so sure about the automatic CB against one opponent -- a point I may return to) and, possibly, on the big river bluff bet at the right time.
Ah yes, the automatic continuation bet. Why? If you check behind with a proportion of hands where you hit (but want to keep the pot smallish, or tempt a bluffer), and check behind on a proportion of hands where you miss (but have six outs or more), there seem to me to be certain hands (where your opponent is not very deep stacked) where a check-behind is okay - even preferable. I've been losing a lot of hands on Party to check-raises that I feel certain are from marginal hands (say, middle pair) at best. These guys have obviously read 2+2; they know what type of boards to do this on.
My main feeling is, if people know that I am going to CB 100% of the time, I make it easier for them. Rather than making it more likely that they will make a mistake, I am making it less likely, because in effect they are acting last on the flop. It's like having a "virtual button" pre-flop if there is a manic raiser on your left.
I'm still pondering bits of this, but I may make that one of my changes on Party. On IP the Continuation bet is still working fine because a check-raise is hardly ever air.
+++
The second worrying factor this month is that I am down in open play on the 100 buy-in (3.5 buy-ins, to be precise). It's deeply concerning to be down at my bread-and-butter game, although I am up five buy-ins on IP.
And, on the plus side, I'm up three buy-ins at $200, and rakeback/bonuses have kept me on target for the year. That's almost a Catch-22 Major Major egg situation -- down at your bread-and-butter game, but still winning over a grand on the month. Frustrating, because it makes me wonder what I could win on the month if I beat the $100 buy-in to the level that I feel that I am capable.
I just ran my numbers for this month on Party to see if there was any "running bad" evidence. I guess that minuses for ALL of AA, AKs, AKo, AQs and AQo either indicates that I am very bad indeed or that I have been unlucky. Filtering the pairs, I'm a net $100 down for those as well. And I'm losing $180 on the button!
Button numbers are odd indeed. Only 25% won when saw flop and only 22% won at showdown (compared with 74%/43% from the Cut-off and 43%/60% from Hi-Jack) .
Yep, definitely a bad run.
The bad thing about these (and I remember this well from my days at limit) is that after you have played for an hour at four tables and nothing much is happening (you've made a few laydowns, things aren't going right, no-one calls when you hit or when you get aces) you start to lighten up your calling standards, simply because you say to yourself "he can't have a hand AGAIN". At limit this is mildly costly. At no limit it's a fucking disaster. In that sense, I've probably been right to make these laydowns. If I'd called, I wouldn't have lost half my profit for the month; I would have lost all of it, and would be printing completed hands and signs of bad beats galore. As it is, I have to ponder "am I being bluffed?". But I've been playing the game a long time now. It actually IS possible for people to make good hands at you again and again over a long period. I chopped it off well in November and December and the first 20 days of January. A 10 buy-in downswing shouldn't be a matter of too great a concern.
++++++++
Virgin Value
An interesting snippet on Virgin slipped out yesterday. As you may know, Mr Pickle is bidding to take over Northern Rock and to rebrand it as Virgin. Quite a plus for Virgin, you might think - extending its brand awareness like that. How much should Virgin pay for the privilege?
Well, it doesn't work like that. In fact, the Branston private empire would charge Northern Rock £10m a year for the right to use the Virgin name. Apparently "Virgin" is such a byword for quality that it's worth £10m a year.
And is this payment dependent on profits, turnaround? Is it a kind of sharing the gain scheme, with the money going to taxpayers, debtors, and the like, and Virgin takes its share?
No. Virgin takes that £10m a year out of Northern Rock up front. That's the fee. After that, there might be some profits, which we could share with, er, Virgin.
And the question has to be asked. Why would the Virgin brand be worth £10m a year when Virgin Money has done fuck-all?
At best, I would say that Virgin and Northern Rock would gain equally from a rebranding as Virgin. Northern Rock gains a "respected" brand. Virgin gains brand awareness for its other products. At worst, Northern Rock could lose as Virgin Media founders, Virgin Atlantic turns into a pile of shite, and other Virgin operations stop being paragons of custimer service.
But Virgin (the Mr Pickle interest bit) does this with many of its brands that it does not own all of. It's like a dividend before a dividend. The only possible justification is if it can be positively proved that the addition of the Virgin brand makes it more likely that people will use or buy a product. I think that this is very dodgy ground and I hope that, if Noerthern Rock goes to Virgin, that the £10m upfront payment for brand use is stomped on.
And I have a cold too. Life isn't fair.
At Party the worrying factor is that I've now had three losing months and I'm on a 14 buy-in downswing (from 7 buy-ins up to 7 buy-ins down over a three month-period of 12K hands). At times I feel sure that this really is down to running bad, while at others I wonder if I'm being outplayed. I've made a lot of TPTK laydowns where the opponent's stats really make it unlikely that I'm in front, (I've made a few calls with them as well ... usually losing) and my general feeling is that it's just a bad run.
But I think I might need to change my style a bit as well. Trouble is, it isn't drastically obvious precisely where I need to do the tweaking. What do I do when AKs is losing a net $300 and is only winning 28% of showdowns, while AKo is winning $180 and winning 56% of showdowns? That really does look a bit like running bad to me.
But the Party guys are less likely to pay you off at the end, and less likely to fold to your flop CBs. That seems to me to mean I have to focus more on flop and turn betting (I'm no longer so sure about the automatic CB against one opponent -- a point I may return to) and, possibly, on the big river bluff bet at the right time.
Ah yes, the automatic continuation bet. Why? If you check behind with a proportion of hands where you hit (but want to keep the pot smallish, or tempt a bluffer), and check behind on a proportion of hands where you miss (but have six outs or more), there seem to me to be certain hands (where your opponent is not very deep stacked) where a check-behind is okay - even preferable. I've been losing a lot of hands on Party to check-raises that I feel certain are from marginal hands (say, middle pair) at best. These guys have obviously read 2+2; they know what type of boards to do this on.
My main feeling is, if people know that I am going to CB 100% of the time, I make it easier for them. Rather than making it more likely that they will make a mistake, I am making it less likely, because in effect they are acting last on the flop. It's like having a "virtual button" pre-flop if there is a manic raiser on your left.
I'm still pondering bits of this, but I may make that one of my changes on Party. On IP the Continuation bet is still working fine because a check-raise is hardly ever air.
+++
The second worrying factor this month is that I am down in open play on the 100 buy-in (3.5 buy-ins, to be precise). It's deeply concerning to be down at my bread-and-butter game, although I am up five buy-ins on IP.
And, on the plus side, I'm up three buy-ins at $200, and rakeback/bonuses have kept me on target for the year. That's almost a Catch-22 Major Major egg situation -- down at your bread-and-butter game, but still winning over a grand on the month. Frustrating, because it makes me wonder what I could win on the month if I beat the $100 buy-in to the level that I feel that I am capable.
I just ran my numbers for this month on Party to see if there was any "running bad" evidence. I guess that minuses for ALL of AA, AKs, AKo, AQs and AQo either indicates that I am very bad indeed or that I have been unlucky. Filtering the pairs, I'm a net $100 down for those as well. And I'm losing $180 on the button!
Button numbers are odd indeed. Only 25% won when saw flop and only 22% won at showdown (compared with 74%/43% from the Cut-off and 43%/60% from Hi-Jack) .
Yep, definitely a bad run.
The bad thing about these (and I remember this well from my days at limit) is that after you have played for an hour at four tables and nothing much is happening (you've made a few laydowns, things aren't going right, no-one calls when you hit or when you get aces) you start to lighten up your calling standards, simply because you say to yourself "he can't have a hand AGAIN". At limit this is mildly costly. At no limit it's a fucking disaster. In that sense, I've probably been right to make these laydowns. If I'd called, I wouldn't have lost half my profit for the month; I would have lost all of it, and would be printing completed hands and signs of bad beats galore. As it is, I have to ponder "am I being bluffed?". But I've been playing the game a long time now. It actually IS possible for people to make good hands at you again and again over a long period. I chopped it off well in November and December and the first 20 days of January. A 10 buy-in downswing shouldn't be a matter of too great a concern.
++++++++
Virgin Value
An interesting snippet on Virgin slipped out yesterday. As you may know, Mr Pickle is bidding to take over Northern Rock and to rebrand it as Virgin. Quite a plus for Virgin, you might think - extending its brand awareness like that. How much should Virgin pay for the privilege?
Well, it doesn't work like that. In fact, the Branston private empire would charge Northern Rock £10m a year for the right to use the Virgin name. Apparently "Virgin" is such a byword for quality that it's worth £10m a year.
And is this payment dependent on profits, turnaround? Is it a kind of sharing the gain scheme, with the money going to taxpayers, debtors, and the like, and Virgin takes its share?
No. Virgin takes that £10m a year out of Northern Rock up front. That's the fee. After that, there might be some profits, which we could share with, er, Virgin.
And the question has to be asked. Why would the Virgin brand be worth £10m a year when Virgin Money has done fuck-all?
At best, I would say that Virgin and Northern Rock would gain equally from a rebranding as Virgin. Northern Rock gains a "respected" brand. Virgin gains brand awareness for its other products. At worst, Northern Rock could lose as Virgin Media founders, Virgin Atlantic turns into a pile of shite, and other Virgin operations stop being paragons of custimer service.
But Virgin (the Mr Pickle interest bit) does this with many of its brands that it does not own all of. It's like a dividend before a dividend. The only possible justification is if it can be positively proved that the addition of the Virgin brand makes it more likely that people will use or buy a product. I think that this is very dodgy ground and I hope that, if Noerthern Rock goes to Virgin, that the £10m upfront payment for brand use is stomped on.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-31 03:58 pm (UTC)Matt Harrison
c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 01:00 pm (UTC)At the stakes we are playing if there are too many decent or tricky opponents, I simply force myself get up and leave. Much as my ego would prefer it I don't think we should try too hard to adjust to their counter plays - there are usually softer games available.
Having said that, c-betting 100% of the time is a bit too exploitable unless the other guy really is comatose. What do you think about this kind of scenario:
You standard raise in EP with AK (sooted or the other kind) and get one caller on the cut-off or button. The flop comes down A 7 3 rainbow, the caller being relatively unknown to you at this point.
Now if I'd raised in late position and been called in the blinds I'd generally c-bet this flop 70%+ regardless of my starting hand, but in the situation as I've laid out what would be your general plan?
Next thing: I seriously doubt you can convincingly lay claim to the worst player title, you probably are just on a bad run. Although there are probably plenty of weaknesses in all our games, the average player has holes you can drive a truck through. The key difference being you actually think about what you are doing I believe.
However, this bad run may provide motivation to change things up a bit which might not be a terrible thing. Personally I'm starting an experiment I've told myself for the last couple of years that I really must get around to - the much reviled short-stacking wheeze. I'd to finally satisfy myself as to the truth of claims that you can achieve a comparable winrate to a skillfully played big stack.
I mention this since your approach to the game is fairly analytical/mathematical and might be well suited to refining just such an approach, it might even be fun.
Best of luck,
James.
Re: c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 01:26 pm (UTC)Personally, neither is for me. The first is just a case of auto-pilot (you really could play it according to a relatively simple script) and will never require any decisions on turn and river. On the plus side, it should win you money in bad games. On the minus side, it won't win you much and at $100 buy-in is likely to be a small loser (except at weekends). Too many full-stack players know how to counterplay short-stackers; and the small variables that there are in their plays are chronic giveaways. For example, suppose a short-stack goes all in from the button after one looseish raise and a couple of callers. Range here is what? (I know, but I'm not saying).
Second scenario. Short stack raises half his stack after a single raiser.
Third scenario. Short stack raises all-in from button or eitehr of the blinds to a single raiser.
All these have clearly defined ranges if the short-stacker is a multi-tabler and not a massive loser.
Now, the half-stack scenario. Well, I tried this, and that too wasn't for me. I've discovered that a full stack gives you what Lederer calls leverage, even if opponent is only a half-stack. Of course, this makes no sense at all, but I've experienced it. Full stacks (and full-stacks-plus even more so) make other full stacks more hesitant to call. Given that much of my profit comes from taking pots down rather than going to showdown, I don't like to give up that edge.
Now, the AK scenario.
Assume we are both full stacked and I have raised to 3.5x. That puts $8 in the pot and we have $96 left (numbers slightly rounded).
It's a non-drawy board, so some would argue for betting something like half the pot here. My prejudice against that is that if opponent flat-calls, you haven't really narrowed his range. You might be winning, or you might be stuffed.
At $100 buy-in midweek, calls on the button here on IP don't usually have a great range (there are a few players who are an exception to this). I'd guess that as much as half the time it's a pair of some kind. Few opponents float with something like A7s or A3s.
So, given opponent's range, you are probably in front of either a pair or a suited connector or AQs maybe AQo. I'd bet $7 here whatever I held. If I have 55 or upwards, I probably get better pairs to fold, but if I'm called, I know that I am in trouble. If I bet the seven bucks with AK, and I get called, I'm either going to CB the turn with a 2/3-size of the pot ($15), or go into check-call mode. Either way, I'm not going to get stacked off. If the money goes in against you on that board, you are beaten. $25 would be my maximum loss ($3+$7+$15) unless opponent flat-called turn and then chiselled for $10 or less on the river, in which case it's hard to fold.
PJ
Re: c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 05:00 pm (UTC)Never tried the ultra short variety in hold'em but have plenty of experience at Omaha where the thinking is rather different. The intention is to build a decent stack constructed with other people's money first. You can then try busting them with less personal risk in the inevitable made hand + backups versus huge combo-draw pots. This approach can be highly successful - one of the biggest Full Tilt 200/400 PLO winners is a short stacker.
With regards to the hold'em we always prefer to play the more manly less by rote strategies, but this is where (for me at least) ego plays a part and should be ignored. Trying to 'play poker' in a SnG tournament or a fast MTT is usually a recipe for disaster, so I've decided to keep an open mind about a different approach to cash games too - whatever wins the money basically.
I've seen quite a few theoretical versions of the ultra short idea and obviously the many dodgy attempts at it online, so I'm not sure I could give an accurate range in the example you quoted. Sometimes you catch these guys out very light indeed, tighter ones might be pushing here with 77+ and A10s+ eg.
Been thinking about this quite a bit and have come up with some elaborations I've not read so far. The key to it working well and obtaining a decent win-rate I think would be inducing loose calls, and I have some quite specific ideas as far as this goes. You'll have to take my word when I suggest that the majority of full-stacked cash game players, good or bad will not know how to effectively counter some of the plays I have in mind, unless you're interested enough to discuss the idea in an email.
When you're talking about what type of game to try this in, I suppose I always try to sit at a 'bad' table anyway, but I think this little caper could do well in aggressive situations too - say the 2/4 NL on 'Tilt for example. That's actually the main reason for my experiment. When there is a lot of light raising and reraising going on, even with players who are fairly wise to the ultra shorty tricks, the point is this: they're not actually playing you at all. They are slugging it out with deep stacked foes and although they'd prefer it if you didn't double up, it's more important EV-wise for them to focus on the, erm, proper players at the table.
Post flop you're far more likely to get protection in a tricky bluff-rebluff environment than a different type of game you'd probably consider 'bad' when full stacking - a loose passive table full of calling stations wanting to see every river after they've put in any chips. I think I'll have to try at the $100 tables first and hope that they will be sufficiently aggressive, I'm not certain yet how much your winrate depends on this protection. I think though that in NL your profits would come mainly from loose callers who misjudge your pre-flop range and players who try to draw on the flop without sufficient odds.
Part two to follow...
Re: c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 05:03 pm (UTC)Back to the AK c-bet question. I usually c-bet these flops if I've raised in LP no matter what cards I hold, but I'd bet a bit less (half pot) since if I really had an ace I'd obviously want a call from the blinds with their random holding. This means I'm called more often when bluffing too, but in position with small betting it's never going to lead to a particularly tough or expensive spot. UTG however I've been experimenting with checking here quite often.
I find that often these late position callers are looking to Gus Hansen you with whatever two cards they find in the cut-off or button. When you check, since you are almost always betting ace-high boards I think a lot of players might put you on a reasonable hand that doesn't contain an ace, say tens to kings, alternatively on one of your occasional range balancing semi-bluff hands: suited connecters or small pairs. I don't think too many folk consider a one pair hand worth slowplaying, but since there are no real draws here when you check you are allowing yourself to be bluffed from all kinds of hands that would be unlikely to call a bet, to me this seems like an ideal candidate for sandbagging. You'd have to be aware of players that would never three-barrel with napkins, saving yourself a fair bit of money those times when you happen to be up against a low set - kind of hard for them to shove all-in when it seems apparent you just have an underpair.
James.
Re: c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 06:33 pm (UTC)Things I've taken from your posts:
1) So much depends on the style of the table (or site). I like your line that what you want as a short-stacker is aggressive full-stacked opponents who are slugging it out with each other. That's obviously true, but it hadn't occurred to me because in the IP games, where short-stackers in the full-ring games are probably more than 50% of the table, the full-stackers care as much about the short-stackers as they do the full-stackers. In fact, more so. Why play a difficult game against a full-stacker when you can play an easy one against a short-stacker?
Although it's another obvious point, some people seem to miss it. This is that, if I am in the Cut-off and I have three short-stackers to my left, then I am also a short stack. I have no more than the largest of the three stacks on my left.
The "win-potential" of short stacks, it seems to me, is mainly to induce calls from full stacks because it is "only" a small amount of money, compared to your stack. But this is an optical illusion. If I have a three grand bankrol;l and $100 at the table, and opponent has a three grand bankroll and $20 at the table, the $20 to him is no more nor less important than the $20 is to me. If he loses, he reloads with $20. If I lose, I reload with $20.
However, many full-stack players don't have three grand bankrolls. They have a 200 bankroll for the night, and it this that the three-grand bankrolled short-stacker hopes to exploit.
2) The "Everyone is Gus Hansen these days" line.
I think I've seen a few of these compulsory floaters on the button, mainly on Full Tilt, but there are some on Stars. On IP your "check" line will get you nowhere. Nearly all opponents will check behind with their pair. Now, you might get a bet out of them with something like AJs, but if you are committed to check-raising, then you have to hope the bet comes out from the hand that misses more often than from the hand that hits. In aggressive games (say, Full Tilt) I can see your point. Although it isn't going to work more than once against the same player or any other aware player at the table.
This is one of those "nice lines for a short while, before everyone starts trying it". But I think you can see where it heads once it becomes a known -- the same route as the squeeze play from the blinds.
PJ
Re: c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 06:42 pm (UTC)GAME #825089741: Texas Hold'em NL $0.50/$1.00 01-Feb-2008
Villain here is 18.5%/6.05% over quite a large sample. Not very aggressive pre-flop but quite aggressive on flop and turn. I know this guy and, I assume, he knows me. This is quite relevant to how the hand played out. Comments are from opponent’s point of view.
Seat 1: PokeriHai4 ($10.40 in chips) DEALER
Seat 3: M1sKa667JT ($48.85 in chips)
Seat 4: Villain ($201.52 in chips)
Seat 5: Sunfire01 ($17.00 in chips)
Seat 6: cmd664 ($17.00 in chips)
Seat 7: apone7 ($82.10 in chips)
Seat 8: Hero ($87.40 in chips)
Seat 9: knekten1 ($15.00 in chips)
Seat 10: schadeauch ($100.00 in chips)
M1sKa667JT: Post SB $0.50
Villain: Post BB $1.00
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [K♡ T◊]
Sunfire01: Fold
cmd664: Fold
apone7: Fold
Hero: Raise $3.50
knekten1: Fold
PokeriHai4: Fold
M1sKa667JT: Fold
Villain: (Big Blind) Call $2.50
*** FLOP *** [K♣ 6◊ 6♠]
Villain: Check
Hero: Bet $4.50
Villain: Raise $11.00
This is a perfect check-raise situation for Villain. He knows I’m going to CB here. I’ve put in a roughly half-pot bet, and it’s like a red rag to a bull. ‘He can’t have a king. He would have bet more with a king’, assumes Villain. I’m going to CR him off this. He can’t three-bet me, even with a king, because he’s worried that I might have a six. With anything else, he has to fold. And if he does have a king, and he calls, well, my Ace is three outs.
Hero: Raise $22.00
Oh. Fuck. Maybe it’s Aces. AK at least. I’m clearly not pushing him off the hand now. Best cut my losses.
Villain: Fold
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $43.55 Rake $1.45
Hero: wins $43.55
Re: c-bets and running bad
Date: 2008-02-01 07:43 pm (UTC)The initial raise of your c-bet is a clear example of what I think of as pairedboarditus, and it's quick and easy to pop into the notes. Some people just can't resist having a go seemingly every time because they know it's much harder for any starting hand to connect. I also usually bet half-pot here because when I do have a king, what the heck am I scared of?
Nothing, that's what, except a better king perhaps and the extremely remote chance somebody's actually called with a random 6 hand. When bluffing here there's a better risk/reward ratio too, and it's a bet with a fairly high success rate when you instead try it from the blinds (not in a raised pot) even when there are multiple opponents.
Regarding the points you made:
1) In the scenarios we've been discussing I reckon you're quite right, I think I'm now so used to the conditions on Full Tilt that this colours my analysis of poker in general. I'd almost forgotten that I do still occasionally play on the OnGame (Poker Room?) network because my Mansion poker account switched there recently. On that site I play cash as well, but it's such a different kettle of fish. Before I sit down to play I have to repeat the mantra, 'No bluffing, no bluffing, don't you ever ever bluff' fifteen time at least. Well naturally it's hard to follow this to the letter as it just slightly hampers a reasonable strategy, but I'll practically never two-barrel, three would be suicidal!
The short stacking is probably not such a great idea when there are other such players seated, if there are more than one or possibly two I'll find another table as this would certainly reduce the effectiveness of my wicked plan. Hopefully on 'Tilt this will not be too much of an issue.
2) On Mansion I'd find no need to check either. Generally, if a player has any pair or cards that look pretty (regardless of how they connect with the board), they're likely calling to the river. On Full Tilt, if you've burnt the Gus disciple once or twice with your slowplay then take note, and by all means switch up your play. If they are really wise to it two good things could happen: they might later see a straight bet-out as weak, or they may be fooled into checking behind when you have a draw instead of a made hand.
J.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 07:38 am (UTC)I've just got home and I'm tired and I'll admit that I've not read all of the above comments, so maybe someone's made this point already - but have you considered the possibility that you're being cheated online?
I'm struck by the total failure of Absolute Poker to notice what was glaringly obvious to players once they had a fraction of the data at their disposal that Absolute itself had. It makes me pessimistic about the effectiveness of security elsewhere. A few years ago I dismissed claims of mass collusion but I'm increasingly thinking that it could be true now. You've had a really long dry spell and you're an intelligent thinking player using pokertracker/office etc. You ought to be doing better than this.
A few people have suggested to me that players are sharing info on hands with each other are playing 'non correlated' holdings and folding correlated hands. I can't get this idea out of my head now. It would explain a lot. You get action when your opponents have cards they know to be fresh - and you don't when they know they are drawing thin. Hard to prove and devastating in the long run.
DY
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 10:00 am (UTC)If there were any collusion cheating, my guess would be (of the games I am playing) amongst Party Poker's German short-stackers. As you say, this stuff is hard to prove, and I would say that if it exists it's relatively rare. And it would be an easier system to set up in a 6-handed game. It's also easier to cheat in PLO and, finally, why do it for only a $20 buy-in (the short stack at 50c-$1 blinds)?
My personal hunch is, no. And my "running bad" period is only over 10 days and 5,000 or so hands. I ran well for 10 weeks before that.
That said, the non-correlated collusion is a worry. If there are three Germans playing short-stacked on Party at the same table, all sitting in the same college campus room, then the "best of three" approach (or the "well, one of us is likely to beat him as we are all drawing to different things") is always a concern.
But the key here is really a feel for the game. If you play for a long time and you NEVER get a situation where you have two opponents that are, for example, drawing to the same flush, then you can be fairly certain that there is cheating going on on a grand scale. The difficult part is if it is going on on a minor scale.
If it is, then it might be impacting my win rate. But I have to say "this comes with the territory", just as road-gamblers in the past took the risk of police raids or vigilante muggings. If I am playing in that kind of game it's going to look like a "non-action" game most of the time anyway. If I get action all of a sudden, and I'm in shit, I am likely to leave the table whether it's straight or bent. In other words, my natural metagame protects me against colluding tables, if they are out there.
I'll keep playing while I'm winning. If cheating takes off, most of those players aren't very good at poker anyway, so I might actually still be a net winner with them at the tables. Luckily I keep detailed stats, so I can be fairly sure when I am not a winner. At that point, I stop.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 01:54 pm (UTC)I think the chances of you being effectively cheated at those stakes is a number approaching zero. The Absolute and the Betfair cheating was all done at uber high stakes, where it makes sense.
As to the bad run stuff, well its dangerous to look at raw PT stats to try and decode it. You could be -ve on AA because you played it badly, not because you run badly. Big bet poker results in the short term are so skewed by big pots that the best way to look at these kind of scenarios is to review the individual hands, ideally in order.
In general you seem to be complaining, in a very general sense or undertone, that the games are too nitty, but this is what happens in full ring NL. As posters have said here in the past, you should focus on 6 max.
gl
bdd
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 02:16 pm (UTC)I agree that you need to analyze individual hands. I put the raw stats in because it was briefer. In fact, I am most concerned about my play of AKo and AKs and it's here that I am looking hard at where I might be going wrong. I know of the possible "solutions" -- everyone has their own favourite that they say works for them. I just have to find the one that works for me.
The AA hands look to me to be bad luck -- just an unusual propostion of pairs hitting sets when the callers were not getting the odds to call pre-flop. That or flushes hitting on the turn when, once again. it was very hard for me to get away from the hand.
I've been focusing on 8-max on IP and that is working okay.
As for the 6-max point. Well, I have actually looked at that possibility. But I think that you ought to look at the raw data before making sweeping statements. The 6-max games on Party at $100 buy-ins look worse than the full ring games. I think that a whole bunch of nits have given up on 10-max and have moved to 6-max. Certainly, from what I could see of the average game, the 6-max seemed no more attractive here. Perhaps 18 months ago, but not today. or perhaps at $400 buy-in and above, but not, so far as I can see, at $100 buy-in on Party.
I don't know why the 8-max seems better than the 6-max on the IP network, but it does.
One odd thing that I have found is that the conventional wisdom on the advantage of position seems oddly skewed for me. I'm doing well on the button, but my performance in the CO is weak. Hi-Jack is better, but weaker than I would expect. the middle positions are about in line with expectarion, and then UTG and UTG+1 are startlingly good. Indeed, UTG is better per hand than the cut-off., and is half as good as the button. I'm slightly unhappy with the SB (-0.09 PTBB per hand) and BB (-.20 PTYBB per hand), even though the cash figures are better than for when I played limit.
This seems to fly in the face of everything I have read on 2_2 (or, indeed, from your esteemed self) on the advantage of position in NL. Are other players overvaluing position? Is this a case where, although position is very valuable multi-way, when hands are head-sup most of the time, it's often the person who gets some money in first who takes it?
I don't know.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2008-02-02 02:23 pm (UTC)Another problem I have with 6-max (and I know that this is something that I need to work on) is that it's much more about winning the hand at showdown. That may sound stupid, that I'm not that good at wiining hands at showdown, but what I mean is that I'm more comfortable at winning hands without showdowns. I'm not used to players bashing money in on marginal "I might be winning" hands. This means that I have to adjust my default assumption of "well, that's an all-in; it's the nuts" or "that's an all-in, but I know it's meaningless because he's a maniac" because, quite often in 6-max, it isn't anything like the nuts and it isn't a maniac. It's something in between. That requires finer gradations of judgement that I need to work on.
Then again, if you play nittily in 6-max and shove for value, I guess you are more likely to be called. Cash extraction in full ring needs to be rather more subtle.
PJ