Throughput Month
Aug. 8th, 2009 08:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksWell, if the aim was just throughput for the month, I've been doing darned well. 9,500 hands in the first 8 days is good. I also went off like a rocket, but then suffered a horrible 600 hands this morning (before 8.30am!) on Stars, where I had the double whammy of getting horrible cards (i.e., good cards that found better cards against them) AND running bad, so a $300 minus EV became a minus $700 in reality.
I've recoved the situation somewhat through the day, and the net result for the month so far is still pleasing. My win rate per 100 hands is on a par with the year so far, but I'm getting in about 45% more hands per hour. Mathematicians will therefore have worked out that my hourly rate is 45% ahead of average for the year, clocking in at $32.72.
To bore you rigid with further stats, that would mean that, if I could play the whole year as I have for the month so far (which has been about "average" in terms of luck) I could expect to win about $35k. That's good, but not good enough. However, we'll see how the rest of the month pans out, and then the rest of the year, before taking a view on 2010.
Stakes have mainly been $200 BI, with some $400 (Party) and some $100 (Pacific, but I'm beginning to think that the value there has gone and that I mgiht as well focus on Party and Stars, with one other as-yet-undecided site for entertainment and to prevent too much ennui). The rakeback on Pacific isn't as good as it was, either. They bashed the affiliate deal and brought in a 'special' reward scheme for people who had a rakeback deal in place. That works out at about 15% rakeback, which ain't worth shit in the current competitive environment.
The $400 BIs on Party are distinctly livelier than the $200 BIs, probably because there are fewer six-or-more-tablers. We are also getting near the top of the tree in terms of full-ring players on the site. Frontera78, for example, happily plays the $5-$10 games or $10-$20 games if they are around, and appears to do well in those. I've been watching the techniques of the "better" players at the high-level full-ring games, and I'm beginning to get a handle on them. Of course, were I to play them, they would quickly get a handle on ME (they don't rise to the top by playing ABC poker) and the whole caboodle would probably be negative EV for me in at least the short term. I six-tabled at $200 and $400 for 80 minutes and four-tabled at $200 for another 45 minutes this evening. That's because most of the play is automatic. It's surprising how predictable many players are, even at $400. That doesn't mean that they are bad, but it does mean that you can narrow their ranges quite accurately.
That said, the game moves on. I'm beginning to see some new plays this month that weren't around before, although the sample size is such that I can't yet be sure that they aren't an aberration. More people finally seem to be sussing out that (a) donk leads have their place, depending on stack size and flop and (b) that a monotone board probably scares your opponent as much as it does you.
$200 USD NL Texas Hold'em - Saturday, August 08,
Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: Villain_1 ( $230.90 USD )
Seat 2: AARothstein ( $200 USD )
Seat 3: mikla555 ( $267.05 USD )
Seat 4: slowbuck ( $261.38 USD )
Seat 5: SokonaSinuun ( $200 USD )
Seat 6: hoog77 ( $273 USD )
Seat 7: Hero ( $200 USD )
Seat 8: pokerpoker36 ( $193 USD )
Seat 9: bluemoody ( $460.68 USD )
pokerpoker36 posts small blind [$1 USD].
bluemoody is sitting out
Villain_1 posts big blind [$2 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Q♣; K♣; ]
AARothstein folds
mikla555 folds
slowbuck raises [$8 USD]
bluemoody has left the table.
SokonaSinuun folds
Hero calls [$8 USD]
pokerpoker36 folds
Villain_1 calls [$6 USD]
I've loosened up my willingness to cold-call raises on the button and also increased my willingness to cold-call rather than reraise. Much depends on the stacks in the blinds and the tendency of those blinds to try squeeze-plays.
** Dealing Flop ** [ T◊;, 9♣;, 6◊; ]
Villain_1 bets [$10 USD]
slowbuck folds
Hero calls [$10 USD]
Villian here is noticeably aggressive. A lead-out on this kind of flop against a raiser and a cold-caller could be anything, really. But my flat-call here should get him thinking. I've cold-called a raise and flat-called a lead-out on a drawing board. With luck he is already a bit confused and worried, because he knows that I'm too tight-aggressive to do this with mjany hands. That's good, because I don't think my actual holding is on his radar.
** Dealing Turn ** [ A♣; ]
Villain_1 bets [$22 USD]
Hero calls [$22 USD]
That ace is a great card for me. I know Villain will lead out again on just about anything, so a cold-call from me now looks like AQs or something. It's a bonus that I've actually picked up a backdoor nut flush draw and a gutshot, and my actual hand is probably still not on his radar. The stack size/pot-size ratio is also building nicely.
** Dealing River ** [ 5♠ ]
Villain_1 checks
Villain gives up. Time to pull the trigger.
Hero bets [$86 USD]
Villain_1 folds
Hero does not show cards.
Hero wins $172 USD
Another interesting hand that worked well.
$400 USD NL Texas Hold'em - Saturday, August 08,
Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: Umstien ( $204.86 USD )
Seat 2: freeeeetrees ( $426.45 USD )
Seat 3: sluzzi1 ( $404.55 USD )
Seat 4: jackie22222 ( $854.78 USD )
Seat 5: slowbuck ( $695.82 USD )
Seat 6: Hero ( $400 USD )
Seat 7: Villain_2 ( $429.66 USD )
Seat 8: LoveEmGirlz ( $76 USD )
Seat 9: Bubblegumz ( $452.70 USD )
Villain_2 posts small blind [$2 USD].
LoveEmGirlz posts big blind [$4 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ J◊; J♣; ]
Bubblegumz folds
Umstien folds
freeeeetrees folds
sluzzi1 folds
jackie22222 folds
slowbuck folds
Hero raises [$12 USD]
Villain_2 calls [$10 USD]
This villain is a different ketttle of fish. Far less aggressive, far more ABC, but also unlikely to be in the hand on thin air. Rather than play against opponent's wide range, instead I have to work out how he will play a narrower range. He's cold-called in the small blind, so it's probably some kind of pair, possibly AQs or AKo.
LoveEmGirlz folds
** Dealing Flop ** [ 5◊;, 7♡;, 8♣; ]
Villain_2 bets [$32 USD]
Hero calls [$32 USD]
Villain is unlikely to lead out a set here for that kind of money. I reckon it's either QQ, 66, 99, or the other JJ.
** Dealing Turn ** [ T♠ ]
Villain_2 bets [$44 USD]
That's a scare-card for him if my read is correct. He's bet $44, half the pot, after a pot-plus size bet pre-flop. It perpetually amazes me how many players even at these levels get this the wrong way round. Bet half the pot on the flop and the pot-sized bet on the turn, for christ's sake.
Hero raises [$112 USD]
Villain_2 folds
Hero wins $244.50 USD
This is an interesting hand because it's quite player-specific. He would always three-bet preflop with AA or KK, and he would never lead out with a set. He's also unwilling to put in his entire stack with a marginal hand, and his bet on the turn makes me suspect that this is a marginal hand. I still can't decide between 66 or QQ.
Me having position also makes a big difference here. This would be a classic hand where, if I'd defended a raise with JJ in the small blind, I would be in horrible trouble. If you are going to play JJ (or QQ) from the blinds when you are both full-stacked, then you might as well reduce the importance of position by getting in your three-bet early. Similarly, there is no shame in folding. The argument "but you probably have the best hand" isn't worth jackshit, because if you do have the best hand you are going to win far less than you will lose if you do not have the best hand. The difficult part is calculating how much more than 50% of the time you need to have the best hand for it to be profitable to come in.
And I'm still $300 down for the day.... :-)
I've recoved the situation somewhat through the day, and the net result for the month so far is still pleasing. My win rate per 100 hands is on a par with the year so far, but I'm getting in about 45% more hands per hour. Mathematicians will therefore have worked out that my hourly rate is 45% ahead of average for the year, clocking in at $32.72.
To bore you rigid with further stats, that would mean that, if I could play the whole year as I have for the month so far (which has been about "average" in terms of luck) I could expect to win about $35k. That's good, but not good enough. However, we'll see how the rest of the month pans out, and then the rest of the year, before taking a view on 2010.
Stakes have mainly been $200 BI, with some $400 (Party) and some $100 (Pacific, but I'm beginning to think that the value there has gone and that I mgiht as well focus on Party and Stars, with one other as-yet-undecided site for entertainment and to prevent too much ennui). The rakeback on Pacific isn't as good as it was, either. They bashed the affiliate deal and brought in a 'special' reward scheme for people who had a rakeback deal in place. That works out at about 15% rakeback, which ain't worth shit in the current competitive environment.
The $400 BIs on Party are distinctly livelier than the $200 BIs, probably because there are fewer six-or-more-tablers. We are also getting near the top of the tree in terms of full-ring players on the site. Frontera78, for example, happily plays the $5-$10 games or $10-$20 games if they are around, and appears to do well in those. I've been watching the techniques of the "better" players at the high-level full-ring games, and I'm beginning to get a handle on them. Of course, were I to play them, they would quickly get a handle on ME (they don't rise to the top by playing ABC poker) and the whole caboodle would probably be negative EV for me in at least the short term. I six-tabled at $200 and $400 for 80 minutes and four-tabled at $200 for another 45 minutes this evening. That's because most of the play is automatic. It's surprising how predictable many players are, even at $400. That doesn't mean that they are bad, but it does mean that you can narrow their ranges quite accurately.
That said, the game moves on. I'm beginning to see some new plays this month that weren't around before, although the sample size is such that I can't yet be sure that they aren't an aberration. More people finally seem to be sussing out that (a) donk leads have their place, depending on stack size and flop and (b) that a monotone board probably scares your opponent as much as it does you.
$200 USD NL Texas Hold'em - Saturday, August 08,
Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: Villain_1 ( $230.90 USD )
Seat 2: AARothstein ( $200 USD )
Seat 3: mikla555 ( $267.05 USD )
Seat 4: slowbuck ( $261.38 USD )
Seat 5: SokonaSinuun ( $200 USD )
Seat 6: hoog77 ( $273 USD )
Seat 7: Hero ( $200 USD )
Seat 8: pokerpoker36 ( $193 USD )
Seat 9: bluemoody ( $460.68 USD )
pokerpoker36 posts small blind [$1 USD].
bluemoody is sitting out
Villain_1 posts big blind [$2 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Q♣; K♣; ]
AARothstein folds
mikla555 folds
slowbuck raises [$8 USD]
bluemoody has left the table.
SokonaSinuun folds
Hero calls [$8 USD]
pokerpoker36 folds
Villain_1 calls [$6 USD]
I've loosened up my willingness to cold-call raises on the button and also increased my willingness to cold-call rather than reraise. Much depends on the stacks in the blinds and the tendency of those blinds to try squeeze-plays.
** Dealing Flop ** [ T◊;, 9♣;, 6◊; ]
Villain_1 bets [$10 USD]
slowbuck folds
Hero calls [$10 USD]
Villian here is noticeably aggressive. A lead-out on this kind of flop against a raiser and a cold-caller could be anything, really. But my flat-call here should get him thinking. I've cold-called a raise and flat-called a lead-out on a drawing board. With luck he is already a bit confused and worried, because he knows that I'm too tight-aggressive to do this with mjany hands. That's good, because I don't think my actual holding is on his radar.
** Dealing Turn ** [ A♣; ]
Villain_1 bets [$22 USD]
Hero calls [$22 USD]
That ace is a great card for me. I know Villain will lead out again on just about anything, so a cold-call from me now looks like AQs or something. It's a bonus that I've actually picked up a backdoor nut flush draw and a gutshot, and my actual hand is probably still not on his radar. The stack size/pot-size ratio is also building nicely.
** Dealing River ** [ 5♠ ]
Villain_1 checks
Villain gives up. Time to pull the trigger.
Hero bets [$86 USD]
Villain_1 folds
Hero does not show cards.
Hero wins $172 USD
Another interesting hand that worked well.
$400 USD NL Texas Hold'em - Saturday, August 08,
Seat 6 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: Umstien ( $204.86 USD )
Seat 2: freeeeetrees ( $426.45 USD )
Seat 3: sluzzi1 ( $404.55 USD )
Seat 4: jackie22222 ( $854.78 USD )
Seat 5: slowbuck ( $695.82 USD )
Seat 6: Hero ( $400 USD )
Seat 7: Villain_2 ( $429.66 USD )
Seat 8: LoveEmGirlz ( $76 USD )
Seat 9: Bubblegumz ( $452.70 USD )
Villain_2 posts small blind [$2 USD].
LoveEmGirlz posts big blind [$4 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ J◊; J♣; ]
Bubblegumz folds
Umstien folds
freeeeetrees folds
sluzzi1 folds
jackie22222 folds
slowbuck folds
Hero raises [$12 USD]
Villain_2 calls [$10 USD]
This villain is a different ketttle of fish. Far less aggressive, far more ABC, but also unlikely to be in the hand on thin air. Rather than play against opponent's wide range, instead I have to work out how he will play a narrower range. He's cold-called in the small blind, so it's probably some kind of pair, possibly AQs or AKo.
LoveEmGirlz folds
** Dealing Flop ** [ 5◊;, 7♡;, 8♣; ]
Villain_2 bets [$32 USD]
Hero calls [$32 USD]
Villain is unlikely to lead out a set here for that kind of money. I reckon it's either QQ, 66, 99, or the other JJ.
** Dealing Turn ** [ T♠ ]
Villain_2 bets [$44 USD]
That's a scare-card for him if my read is correct. He's bet $44, half the pot, after a pot-plus size bet pre-flop. It perpetually amazes me how many players even at these levels get this the wrong way round. Bet half the pot on the flop and the pot-sized bet on the turn, for christ's sake.
Hero raises [$112 USD]
Villain_2 folds
Hero wins $244.50 USD
This is an interesting hand because it's quite player-specific. He would always three-bet preflop with AA or KK, and he would never lead out with a set. He's also unwilling to put in his entire stack with a marginal hand, and his bet on the turn makes me suspect that this is a marginal hand. I still can't decide between 66 or QQ.
Me having position also makes a big difference here. This would be a classic hand where, if I'd defended a raise with JJ in the small blind, I would be in horrible trouble. If you are going to play JJ (or QQ) from the blinds when you are both full-stacked, then you might as well reduce the importance of position by getting in your three-bet early. Similarly, there is no shame in folding. The argument "but you probably have the best hand" isn't worth jackshit, because if you do have the best hand you are going to win far less than you will lose if you do not have the best hand. The difficult part is calculating how much more than 50% of the time you need to have the best hand for it to be profitable to come in.
And I'm still $300 down for the day.... :-)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 11:16 am (UTC)Errr ... what? The received wisdom is that you should be betting pot-sized bets on co-ordinated flops (like this) and half-pot on dry boards. -- matt
no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 12:11 pm (UTC)The briefest way that I can think of to respond to your point is to say that I really enjoy playing opponents whose bet-sizing on the flop is dictated by the texture of the board.
As I've written before, I think that much perceived wisdom on what play is correct is based on undeclared assumptions of which the writer (e.g., to take a name at random, Dan Harrington) is apparently unaware. This can cause problems later on when they suddenly discover that "they just can't win online". The dynamism of poker (i.e., its speed of evolution) means that counter-plays to various simple strategems are developed rapidly.
As such, I'm not even sure that "bet-sizing according to board texture" even IS the perceived wisdom in the games I play, mainly because I try to avoid reading the 2+2 strategy boards too much. But I hope that it is.
In the case above, if the guy is going to bet heavily on the flop, then he has to make his story consistent. He didn't; he wimped out on the turn. Now, suppose instead he bets half-to-two-thirds-pot on the flop and then full-pot-plus on the river? That's a far more potent combination to my way of thought and poses me considerably more problems given what he should see as my range.
PJ
________________
no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 12:58 pm (UTC)I have bizarrely won a package to EPT Kiev from FPPs so will be re-reading your experience of Monte Carlo as I have no idea what to expect. -- matt
no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 01:08 pm (UTC)I don't intend to go into this bet-sizing matter any further, since I know that you have your views on various matters in No Limit about which we will never agree. People should play in whatever way that works for them, and should only start wondering seriously about their assumptions when they come up with the line "I just can't understand why I'm not winning". Like I said, I think that bet-sizing according to flop texture can get you into an awful lot of trouble, and I like playing opponents who do it.
There's also more than one way to deny an opponent implied odds!
PJ
no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 01:59 pm (UTC)Given your first sentence, are you positing that any bet-sizing only "using public information" is unexploitable? Because I can think of many many examples where this is not true.
As such, your argument seems to rest more on the second sentence, but I can think of examples where that also isn't necessarily true. This was what I meant by some "facts" turning out, when looked at more closely, to be "assumptions". Then, if the game changes, the "fact" actually becomes a lie, and can cost the person who assumes it to be a self-evident an unalterable truth a lot of money.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-09 03:26 pm (UTC)I'm a bit surprised by the second half of the sentence. How good is "good enough"? I do remember you posting a little while ago about how large you felt your bankroll had to be if you were to move to 6-max or up in stakes in full ring games, while still leaving you the sort of bankroll to let you cover a 10/20-buyin swing, so my initial interpretation is that "good enough" relates to that. I just hope you aren't going to be disappointed until you have all the money in the poker economy. On the other hand, if you just want to feel like you're getting better and better, and you want to keep making 20% more money each year than the previous one, I can understand that - though you may decide that you don't want to commit to this level of throughput forever and still be a winning player at a much lower volume.
I don't know whether you regard poker as a lucrative hobby or as a second part-time job, but US$32/hr, without tax to pay, is an hourly rate not to sniff at.