Not a good month

[peterbirks]

A fortnightly report of the travails faced by a poker-player trying to improve his "earn".

After trucking in at $30 an hour for the first 27 days of February, I mopved up to $200 buy-in, and added a quick couple of buy-ins to the profit, pushing me to $35 an hour for the month.

Since then, it's been a struggle. I'm up (just) for March, although I'm $200 down in open play. I really feel that I have a handle on the 8-handed tables and that I have just been running badly. And I'm still $200 up at the 8-handed tables for the month. However, overall, my win rate at $200 is less than half that of $100, meaning that I've gained extra volatility for less absiolulte return. Not good. The only compensation is far higher rakeback.

But, once you get to this level, you have to accept that there are more opportunities at 6-handed than elsewhere. Or at least, so I thought. I'm not so sure of this any more. I've certainly found the 6-handed much tougher to play, and I'm down $400 over a few thousand hands. And, unlike the 8-handed tables, I don't feel that I'm running bad. I feel that I'm getting outplayed.

This, I felt, shouldn't be. Many times I've been told that the 6-handed tables are softer. Well, maybe they are, for a certain type of player. Or maybe I'm just not used to the way the opposition is playing.

I'm persevering, but I'm not sure that I am right so to do. Every year I seem to have one game that I venture into, because I have been told how soft it is, only to get slaughtered. Omaha 8ob, Royal Hold'em, PLO (although in the last case I should have just stuck to $100 buy-ins -- I think it was the stake level rather than the game that killed me there).

I suspect that most poker players are like maths teachers -- not too hot on the empathy stakes. They know what works for them, but are very bad at putting themselves inside the heads of people who think in a different way.

But, are the 6-handed games really 'softer'? Sure, people are more likely to call you, but that's only of use to you if you are good at playing to the river and a fine judge of certain areas which, to be honest, I'm not that practised at. And, if I walk in at $200 buy-ins, I'm playing people who are specialist short-handed players. There's very little player overlap with the full-ring games. Sure, the occasional fish appears, but a player who sees 60% of flops in a 6-handed game is tougher to beat than the same opponent in a ring game. Yes, the theory is that the player will lose, so you want to be in a game with fewer players against him rather than more (because then there is a greater share for you). All that I know is .. well, it just doesn't seem to work that way for me. Once again, I suspect that part of the reason for this is that I have far less natural "feel" for the game than many of the poker writers. That means I have to go through long learning periods. Once I've gone through those, my strengths at the game (solid BRM, lack of tiltability, and a dislike of action rather than a seeking of it) bear me in good stead when it comes to regular profit. But getting to that point takes me a long time.

I'm not going to move back to $100 buy-ins en bloc, even though the month has been very disappointing so far, because I really do feel in control at 8-handed. But I have grave doubts about the 6-handed theory. Hell, all of the 2+2 posters seem to be playing short-handed rather than ring at the $200 level! That has disturbing implications for my future poker playing and possible moves up to higher stakes, and might entail some serious analysis of hands to see where I am going wrong.

_____________

Comments

[smizmiatch.livejournal.com]

You're right that 6-max games aren't necessarily softer, but they certainly can be if you find the right tables.
Possessing a working knowledge of shorthanded play gives you more options when selecting games and seeking out fish. I believe game types mostly trend toward getting tougher, so it's important to have more options when choosing what games to play.
I also believe 6-max-specific skills have been critical in my development because shorthanded games emphasize heads-up, positional and bluffing skills.
So I would encourage you to not give up on the shorthanded games, although you don't have to play them all the time.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

You are absoplutely right here smiz. Just as having experience at a higher level is worth it in terms of R&D, even if your profit isn't that great, so experience at short-handed is valuable. I'm going to keep at it, but I really think that I have to do some non-playing research to get the hang of likely ranges. My suspicion is that I've been relaxing my calling and reraising standards a bit too much.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Do you ever bluff? I don't mean following through with a continuation bet when you miss the flop. I'm talking about a serious multi-step bluff throughout a hand ending with forcing a monumental laydown and you scooping the pot with 9-high. I don't remember you ever describing a big bluff you've pulled off and perhaps this is a weakness in your game.

matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I suppose that the honest answer to this is, no. Not in the sense that you describe it. I have considered it, and I have put in bluff reraises on the button pre-flop. I have also, occasionally, fired a second barrel even though I have completely missed. But, no, I've never fired a monumental third barrel. Usually if I have been called on the second barrel, then I give up. However, it's a line worth considering. I would need to pot manipulate a bit more so that there was enough ammunition lefft on the river.

PJ

[hectorjelly.livejournal.com]

I dont have much time now, but ill come back later. You make a good point about empathy - I have always prefered shorter tables. A general rule for me is that the less players at a table the better I do. It feels intuitively to me that shorthanded poker is better, but that is probably just my personal preference.

That all said, the traffic in the mid stakes is nearly all 6max these days, I think the future of poker is definitely going to be 6max (and less). One of the big barriers to this in the past has been the cost to a casino for spreading each table, thats obviously gone now online.

Once you get used to 6 max you may well prefer it. There is much more room for aggressive play because the average hand is so much weaker. There are far more marginal decision, and so if you make those decision better than your opponents on average you will do well.

I think you would be better off maybe dropping down for a short while to get to grips with 6 max. That said if you game select well there are plenty of 6max games in which you would definitely be +EV in. Players playing above 50% of hands are going to be profitable no matter what the format!

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Hector.

Your third para sums it up really. I just have to get the hang of things so that my marginal decisions are better.

I thought about dropping back to $100 for a while to practice 6-handed. It really looks like the 8-handed games are being settled by the tighter full-ring players, beccause the full-ring games are rockfests. So, pastures new may be necessary.

But even the 6-maxes look rather unattractive in terms of players seeing the flop ... although the average pot sizes are nice.

I meant to write something on the "seeking out fish" theory. Although occasionally I look for my "buddies", I really try to concentrate on winning money off the better players (rather than avoiding them) at each level, because I know that these are the players that, at the next level, I will be seeing a higher percentage of. Then again, perhaps there's a plentiful supply of 50%+ players all the way up to $1000 buy-in, so my thheory is all wrong.

PJ

Todd from Whizkidsecrets.com

[(Anonymous)]

Your blog is the first blog I've been to that talks about playing online poker. Thanks for the post, I learned some stuff. I have friends that do online gambling, I'm going to tell one of them about this article. Take care.

-Todd Doyle
Whizkidsecrets.com