![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksAs a troll might put it, "for someone grinding a profit at Las Vegas, you don't seem to be doing a very good job".
A point which, it must be said, is hard to deny, ameliorated only by the fact that I'm still a long way ahead of the troll in terms of money in the bank and that he's got a tedious job and a bedsit in Kensal Green, and is really just jealous.
A couple of Monday sessions, both at Harrah's and both grim.
1) I sat down in a very lively game (that had clearly been running all night) where, if luck is with you, a big amount of money can be made. Having had a four-day Aces drought (about 1,000 hands, roughly a 1% chance) I got it all in with Ac Ah. Early raises to $10. Japanese iPhone addict raises to $40 and I raise to $80. First raiser folds and Japanese kid goes all in. I call for my remaining $30. Flop comes Qc 3d 8c and he shows QQ, just like my loss with AA on day one. Turn brings Jc and river brings 3c, giving me the flush. Unfortunately it also gave him a full house.
The Japanese kid would later go broke in a $1,000 pot with QQ as an overpair on a T 8 5 board. Opponent had T8.
2) The next loss with Ah As saw a limp UTG and a raise to $13 from me in UTG+1. Five callers, mega-non-lolz.
Flop is Qd Jd 3s. I bet $65. Get two callers. Turn is 3d. I shove. Player on my left raises all in and third guy folds. I call for my remaining $40. He has Qc Kd. River is, of course, a diamond. Down two stacks.
3) Get a stack back from the same guy who hit me with the KQ when I limp re-raise all in preflop with Ad Kd. Board runs out Axxxx and my hand is good. I was either 47/53 or 76/24 on the hand. Probably the former.
End up one stack down after three hours.
I came home and had a nap and drove back in for my final five hours to reach the 80 needed for the freeroll on Wednesday. It was a grim time.
Cliff notes. I busted off three stacks, got a single stack back and then lost most of it again when I and made a hero fold that might have been a stupid fold.
4) The first of the stack-offs was a drift down to $50 and then picking up 9c 8c under the gun. I think that I raised to $7 and decided that the remaining $43 was going in if I had any of the flop.
I was to lose all three of my stacks to the same guy, who was probably better than me. So let's think of it as a learning experience.
The flop came 8d 2d Jd.
This guy bet and I shoved. He called for not much extra and looked worried when a diamond came on the turn. But river was a blank spade. He had As 8h, and his kicker was good.
5) Second stack-off was the one I think that I should have got away from, even if tired, playing badly, and not thinking straight. I had As 9s and called a smallish raise because six players were in. Board came 5h 5s 3s, giving me a four-card-flush and overcards. There's a good chance that someone has trip fives, but it isn't in anyway a certainty.
I lead out for $11 into a $40 pot from early and everyone folds to tricky player who raises me $19 to $30. This is the point at which I should get away. Opponent is capable of raising without a five, but the size of the raise smells. And if he HAS got a five, he can reasonably safely read my hand for what it is, spade overcards.
Turn is a blank. I check and he bets another $30, about half my stack. River is a very irritating nine, giving me two pairs Aces and Nines. I bet and he puts me in for my remaining $30 or so and I call. He has something like 85-off. I played this hand badly and I knew it.
But the point is, one is bound to play some hands badly. You read this in isolation, but over 1000s of hands you make 1000s of decisions. You can't always bring your 'A' game. The trick to winning at poker is not to play perfectly, but to minimize your losses when you aren't playing perfectly. Even if I wasn't on top form, I think I could have got away from this. But the other guy (and he was quite capable of playing the same way without the five, except that I think he would have raised more than $19 on the flop if he hadn't had it) was just a good player and he lulled me into stacking myself off. Well played him.
6) The second stack-off to the same guy was not so bad. I picked up AQ off in mid and reraised an early loose raiser. Tricky guy flatted for about $20, equal to about a sixth of my stack. One other caller.
Board comes Q 4 4 rainbow. I bet $25. Tricky guy calls and other guy folds. Turn is a blank. I check, tricky opponent bets about $20 and I raise all in. He has the four (five four off this time I think).
I was unlucky flopping TPTK and he was lucky flopping the four. There was $20 of my money in there already. So I will always play this hand this way because in the long run it is a profitable line. And this was not a case of me being able to sense whether opponent had hit his hand or not. So, $360 down for the evening.
7) I got a buy-in back with QQ, check-raising all-in on the turn on a board of 8h 5s 2s. Opponent had As 8s. No help for him on river, and I am back to $240 down, $360 down on day.
Unfortunately that left me with $250 or so in front of me, and then a rich old Texan guy with $700 (won at table games) and a big drink in his hand sits down at the game. He is told that the maximum is $300.
8) He looks clueless, so when I put in a raise with Ad Td and he calls, I'm not unhappy to see a flop of Th 5s 4d. He bets $12 (with some help from the dealer) and I raise to $25. He calls (once again with some help from the dealer). Turn is a deuce. He bets $12 again. This time I raise to $35. Only in retrospect is this an error and only in retrospect might my subsequent line have been wrong. Old guy suddenly wakes up and says "let's make it $50". Is told that he cannot underraise and that he has to make it $60. Which he does.
Bleaaaggh. I should have cold-called him down.
And if I only had $120 in front of me my decision wouldd also be easy. All of it goes in.
But I have $250 in front of me. I am out of my comfort zone. In retrospect (I saw how the guy played later hands) I should shove all in, even though if I lose I am $480 down for the night. If he folds I am back to about $50 down and if he calls and I win, I am about $100 up for thenight and level for the day.
But, and this is also a factor, it is "only" $25 to call, and there is no certainty he will bet the river. I might also improve on the river with an Ace or a Ten. If he does bet the river, he might bet small.
So I call.
River is a Jack and he bets $60. I know that in normal circumstances a $60 bet into you when you have second-pair is an autofold, I knew that it was far from the case here. My instincts were telling me that the deuce on the turn gave him two-pair. The $60 was just a bit too big. Many bad, players can be worked out by their bet-sizing, which matches uncannily the strength of their hand.
BUT, this guy was no good. Maybe he had JT, maybe he had QT. I tanked for a minute (very unusual for me) and decided to fold.
Back to $360 down for the night and $480 down for the day.
It is here that we come across some of the few positive aspects of the evening. I didn't tilt, I didn't get annoyed. I kept playing as I normally play, for perhaps another 90 minutes. I got AJ in mid, raised, got three callers, continuation betted an Axx flop (two callers) and had the courage to go all-in on a blank turn (about a pot-sized bet) which was enough to take it down. Proper play played properly.
And I left when I felt that I was getting tired, even though the rich guy was still around. In other words, I learnt my lesson from the previous Friday.
(The madness of this guy, whose bets were randomly sized and whose hands were equally random to match, was illustrated by a huge multi-way all-in with a couple of $70 stacks, one $200 stack and the rich guy. The $200 stack scooped the lot with KT on a bouard of Txxxx.)
These games can be profitable (albet volatile) but they are not games in which I have played a lot and they are not therefore games where, through experience, I have worked out the best lines. I have to play them to work out the best lines, and I have to accept the volatility. But for the moment I am sure I have a higher EV in the tighter day games where there are fewer multi-wayers, lower volatility, and pots can be won through reasonably intelligent play.
If we take poker "levels" as being 0 to 10, with me being something like a level four player, I reckon that the tricky guy I was up against in the evening was a level six or something. I can cope with level five players, steering clear of them. My ideal opponents are level two and level three, because I can get inside their heads. But level 0 and level 1 players are difficult for me. I have to "unlearn" stuff in my head such as "he can't have this because he did this" sort of thinking.
I also have to completely restrategize because there are so many multi-way pots. Much of poker is learnt behaviour. You see something happen again and again and again, and you know what to do. This is why Londoners can walk London's streets so much more confidently than tourists.
Just because a game is weaker that does not mean it is easier, at least, not until you have had lots of practice. The harmonica is an "easier" instrument to play than a sitar, but that didn't mean that Ravi Shankar could put down his sitar and outperform Larry Adler.
It's the same in these "softer" games. A level two player who is used to playing these games will outperform a level four player who is used to playing a different type of game.
Now $410 down for the trip.
Losing $450 in a day is, of course, less enjoyable than winning it. And poker is a game that seems incredibly easy when things are going right, and very difficult when things are going wrong. And, when things ARE going wrong, it is immeasurably harder to continue to play well. In that sense, yesterday was not that downheartening. Despite getting Aces cracked twice (I'm now 0 for 3 in Aces all in pre-flop, and yesterday I was 0 for 2 with Aces when I was 80% both times – although in the second case the final money went in on the turn. If I had won all four of these, I would be up about $900 rather than down $410) and not getting the rub of the green for most of the day, I kept my cool.
But, eventually, you have to look at the bottom line because that is the only way of keeping score. You have to decide whether you are good enough, but are being unlucky, or whether you aren't good enough. This is not a cut-and-drieg decision, and there are many players out there carrying on playing because they are deluded in thinking that they are unlucky, rather than bad.
It's almost a Phil Dickian problem. Is my perception correct, or am I in fact not good enough?
Unlike most players, I have spent 15 years being racked by this self-doubt. That's an advantage rather than a disadvantage, in that I suspect my grasp on reality is greater than that of most poker players, which should in turn mean that I am more likely to spot that it's time to call it a day.
The last time I had a losing trip to LV was in April 2007, and then I didn't come back for more than four years. And I didn't really miss it.
And, of course, the trip isn't over. I might end up breaking even. I might end up $1,000 down. Neither is that significant in the grand scheme of things. I'm never going to be in the situation where I am playing poker and having to win to eat.
When I get back to London I am thinking of doing a version of the bonus-hunting circuit in the London casinos, although I am not sure that I will be able to stand the company. If I don't enjoy it, I will quit fairly sharpish. But it would be an interesting experiment.
Online, I also need to re-evaluate, but that's a topic for another day!
Not sure what I am going to do today. The apartment is cleaned on Mondays, else I might have just sat around. This is the kind of day when the hot weather is such bad news, because I would love to go for a long walk. That's not feasible when it 106f out there.
Onwards!
A point which, it must be said, is hard to deny, ameliorated only by the fact that I'm still a long way ahead of the troll in terms of money in the bank and that he's got a tedious job and a bedsit in Kensal Green, and is really just jealous.
A couple of Monday sessions, both at Harrah's and both grim.
1) I sat down in a very lively game (that had clearly been running all night) where, if luck is with you, a big amount of money can be made. Having had a four-day Aces drought (about 1,000 hands, roughly a 1% chance) I got it all in with Ac Ah. Early raises to $10. Japanese iPhone addict raises to $40 and I raise to $80. First raiser folds and Japanese kid goes all in. I call for my remaining $30. Flop comes Qc 3d 8c and he shows QQ, just like my loss with AA on day one. Turn brings Jc and river brings 3c, giving me the flush. Unfortunately it also gave him a full house.
The Japanese kid would later go broke in a $1,000 pot with QQ as an overpair on a T 8 5 board. Opponent had T8.
2) The next loss with Ah As saw a limp UTG and a raise to $13 from me in UTG+1. Five callers, mega-non-lolz.
Flop is Qd Jd 3s. I bet $65. Get two callers. Turn is 3d. I shove. Player on my left raises all in and third guy folds. I call for my remaining $40. He has Qc Kd. River is, of course, a diamond. Down two stacks.
3) Get a stack back from the same guy who hit me with the KQ when I limp re-raise all in preflop with Ad Kd. Board runs out Axxxx and my hand is good. I was either 47/53 or 76/24 on the hand. Probably the former.
End up one stack down after three hours.
I came home and had a nap and drove back in for my final five hours to reach the 80 needed for the freeroll on Wednesday. It was a grim time.
Cliff notes. I busted off three stacks, got a single stack back and then lost most of it again when I and made a hero fold that might have been a stupid fold.
4) The first of the stack-offs was a drift down to $50 and then picking up 9c 8c under the gun. I think that I raised to $7 and decided that the remaining $43 was going in if I had any of the flop.
I was to lose all three of my stacks to the same guy, who was probably better than me. So let's think of it as a learning experience.
The flop came 8d 2d Jd.
This guy bet and I shoved. He called for not much extra and looked worried when a diamond came on the turn. But river was a blank spade. He had As 8h, and his kicker was good.
5) Second stack-off was the one I think that I should have got away from, even if tired, playing badly, and not thinking straight. I had As 9s and called a smallish raise because six players were in. Board came 5h 5s 3s, giving me a four-card-flush and overcards. There's a good chance that someone has trip fives, but it isn't in anyway a certainty.
I lead out for $11 into a $40 pot from early and everyone folds to tricky player who raises me $19 to $30. This is the point at which I should get away. Opponent is capable of raising without a five, but the size of the raise smells. And if he HAS got a five, he can reasonably safely read my hand for what it is, spade overcards.
Turn is a blank. I check and he bets another $30, about half my stack. River is a very irritating nine, giving me two pairs Aces and Nines. I bet and he puts me in for my remaining $30 or so and I call. He has something like 85-off. I played this hand badly and I knew it.
But the point is, one is bound to play some hands badly. You read this in isolation, but over 1000s of hands you make 1000s of decisions. You can't always bring your 'A' game. The trick to winning at poker is not to play perfectly, but to minimize your losses when you aren't playing perfectly. Even if I wasn't on top form, I think I could have got away from this. But the other guy (and he was quite capable of playing the same way without the five, except that I think he would have raised more than $19 on the flop if he hadn't had it) was just a good player and he lulled me into stacking myself off. Well played him.
6) The second stack-off to the same guy was not so bad. I picked up AQ off in mid and reraised an early loose raiser. Tricky guy flatted for about $20, equal to about a sixth of my stack. One other caller.
Board comes Q 4 4 rainbow. I bet $25. Tricky guy calls and other guy folds. Turn is a blank. I check, tricky opponent bets about $20 and I raise all in. He has the four (five four off this time I think).
I was unlucky flopping TPTK and he was lucky flopping the four. There was $20 of my money in there already. So I will always play this hand this way because in the long run it is a profitable line. And this was not a case of me being able to sense whether opponent had hit his hand or not. So, $360 down for the evening.
7) I got a buy-in back with QQ, check-raising all-in on the turn on a board of 8h 5s 2s. Opponent had As 8s. No help for him on river, and I am back to $240 down, $360 down on day.
Unfortunately that left me with $250 or so in front of me, and then a rich old Texan guy with $700 (won at table games) and a big drink in his hand sits down at the game. He is told that the maximum is $300.
8) He looks clueless, so when I put in a raise with Ad Td and he calls, I'm not unhappy to see a flop of Th 5s 4d. He bets $12 (with some help from the dealer) and I raise to $25. He calls (once again with some help from the dealer). Turn is a deuce. He bets $12 again. This time I raise to $35. Only in retrospect is this an error and only in retrospect might my subsequent line have been wrong. Old guy suddenly wakes up and says "let's make it $50". Is told that he cannot underraise and that he has to make it $60. Which he does.
Bleaaaggh. I should have cold-called him down.
And if I only had $120 in front of me my decision wouldd also be easy. All of it goes in.
But I have $250 in front of me. I am out of my comfort zone. In retrospect (I saw how the guy played later hands) I should shove all in, even though if I lose I am $480 down for the night. If he folds I am back to about $50 down and if he calls and I win, I am about $100 up for thenight and level for the day.
But, and this is also a factor, it is "only" $25 to call, and there is no certainty he will bet the river. I might also improve on the river with an Ace or a Ten. If he does bet the river, he might bet small.
So I call.
River is a Jack and he bets $60. I know that in normal circumstances a $60 bet into you when you have second-pair is an autofold, I knew that it was far from the case here. My instincts were telling me that the deuce on the turn gave him two-pair. The $60 was just a bit too big. Many bad, players can be worked out by their bet-sizing, which matches uncannily the strength of their hand.
BUT, this guy was no good. Maybe he had JT, maybe he had QT. I tanked for a minute (very unusual for me) and decided to fold.
Back to $360 down for the night and $480 down for the day.
It is here that we come across some of the few positive aspects of the evening. I didn't tilt, I didn't get annoyed. I kept playing as I normally play, for perhaps another 90 minutes. I got AJ in mid, raised, got three callers, continuation betted an Axx flop (two callers) and had the courage to go all-in on a blank turn (about a pot-sized bet) which was enough to take it down. Proper play played properly.
And I left when I felt that I was getting tired, even though the rich guy was still around. In other words, I learnt my lesson from the previous Friday.
(The madness of this guy, whose bets were randomly sized and whose hands were equally random to match, was illustrated by a huge multi-way all-in with a couple of $70 stacks, one $200 stack and the rich guy. The $200 stack scooped the lot with KT on a bouard of Txxxx.)
These games can be profitable (albet volatile) but they are not games in which I have played a lot and they are not therefore games where, through experience, I have worked out the best lines. I have to play them to work out the best lines, and I have to accept the volatility. But for the moment I am sure I have a higher EV in the tighter day games where there are fewer multi-wayers, lower volatility, and pots can be won through reasonably intelligent play.
If we take poker "levels" as being 0 to 10, with me being something like a level four player, I reckon that the tricky guy I was up against in the evening was a level six or something. I can cope with level five players, steering clear of them. My ideal opponents are level two and level three, because I can get inside their heads. But level 0 and level 1 players are difficult for me. I have to "unlearn" stuff in my head such as "he can't have this because he did this" sort of thinking.
I also have to completely restrategize because there are so many multi-way pots. Much of poker is learnt behaviour. You see something happen again and again and again, and you know what to do. This is why Londoners can walk London's streets so much more confidently than tourists.
Just because a game is weaker that does not mean it is easier, at least, not until you have had lots of practice. The harmonica is an "easier" instrument to play than a sitar, but that didn't mean that Ravi Shankar could put down his sitar and outperform Larry Adler.
It's the same in these "softer" games. A level two player who is used to playing these games will outperform a level four player who is used to playing a different type of game.
Now $410 down for the trip.
Losing $450 in a day is, of course, less enjoyable than winning it. And poker is a game that seems incredibly easy when things are going right, and very difficult when things are going wrong. And, when things ARE going wrong, it is immeasurably harder to continue to play well. In that sense, yesterday was not that downheartening. Despite getting Aces cracked twice (I'm now 0 for 3 in Aces all in pre-flop, and yesterday I was 0 for 2 with Aces when I was 80% both times – although in the second case the final money went in on the turn. If I had won all four of these, I would be up about $900 rather than down $410) and not getting the rub of the green for most of the day, I kept my cool.
But, eventually, you have to look at the bottom line because that is the only way of keeping score. You have to decide whether you are good enough, but are being unlucky, or whether you aren't good enough. This is not a cut-and-drieg decision, and there are many players out there carrying on playing because they are deluded in thinking that they are unlucky, rather than bad.
It's almost a Phil Dickian problem. Is my perception correct, or am I in fact not good enough?
Unlike most players, I have spent 15 years being racked by this self-doubt. That's an advantage rather than a disadvantage, in that I suspect my grasp on reality is greater than that of most poker players, which should in turn mean that I am more likely to spot that it's time to call it a day.
The last time I had a losing trip to LV was in April 2007, and then I didn't come back for more than four years. And I didn't really miss it.
And, of course, the trip isn't over. I might end up breaking even. I might end up $1,000 down. Neither is that significant in the grand scheme of things. I'm never going to be in the situation where I am playing poker and having to win to eat.
When I get back to London I am thinking of doing a version of the bonus-hunting circuit in the London casinos, although I am not sure that I will be able to stand the company. If I don't enjoy it, I will quit fairly sharpish. But it would be an interesting experiment.
Online, I also need to re-evaluate, but that's a topic for another day!
Not sure what I am going to do today. The apartment is cleaned on Mondays, else I might have just sat around. This is the kind of day when the hot weather is such bad news, because I would love to go for a long walk. That's not feasible when it 106f out there.
Onwards!
hand reviews / thoughts about the way you view soft games
Date: 2015-07-14 08:06 pm (UTC)As9s in LP: there is a great thread in live no limit forum on 2+2 where the author explains why often the response to a long hand history is simply: "fold pre" and the OP gets annoyed that people don't elaborate on what OP thinks the tough spot in the hand is. But OP misses the point, whichis, if you fold pre, you wouldn't have been in this spot. This is a classic: "fold pre" spot, given your stack size. But, another 2+2 classic, "as played" don't bet if you hate a raise. Just see if you get the right pot odds to draw or not, even if this turns your hand face up (no one is laying down trip 5s here anyway). But again, preflop here just isn't very good because your A is bad often, your 9 is bad often, A9 can't make a straight, it's just an overal -EV play. fold pre!
AQ: a tricky guy on your left cold-calls your 3bet for $20 or am I misreading this? You must have minraised him, making it easy for tricky guy to play against you (unless you were re-raising alot of other hands) so you might have given him the proper odds to play a well-disguised hand against you in position.Why is a tricky guy to your left?
Hands against old Texan: "My instincts were telling me that the deuce on the turn gave him two-pair." Seriously, if you can sniff stuff like this out, you should play higher.
" is here that we come across some of the few positive aspects of the evening. I didn't tilt".
I disagree, as stated above, playing 98s UTG with a shortstack, making decisions before you examined all the information is a form of tilt.
I'd like to touch on a few observations you made:
"But for the moment I am sure I have a higher EV in the tighter day games where there are fewer multi-wayers, lower volatility, and pots can be won through reasonably intelligent play."
This, certainly, can't be correct. The lowest expected winrate is in tight 1/2 games where everyone is a shortstack. It reminds me a bit of people complaining in the early days of online poker that their raise with AJ from EP was called by 6 players and they didn't know what to do and rather play it heads-up, cbet a Axx flop and take it down. To which the tongue-in-cheek-reply from fellow players was: "you need to move up where they respect your raises". If your above logic was true, then you need to find a nitty 1/2 game where everyone is solid preflop and nitty postflop (next time you are in Vegas, make the drive to Green Valley Ranch to see such a game). I hope you see how ludicrous that statement is when it's turned on the other side.
You also wrote this:
"It's the same in these "softer" games. A level two player who is used to playing these games will outperform a level four player who is used to playing a different type of game."
You label yourself a level 4 player. At which level do you rank a player who has the ability to adjust? 5 and above? If so, I would somewhat agree with your statement. A Level 6 players, who can doubel barrel good cards, bluff good rivers, value bet thin will loose his shirt if he is in a game filled with OMCs because it doesn't matter that the turn is a good barrel card and the river is great card to bluff in this spot because the OMC has the better hand just by the mere fact that he actually arrived here on the river where there was action on 2 previous streets. So yes, if that player can't adjust, he will loose because the OMC reduces the game of Poker to just trading hand distributions.
You clearly demonstrated you can adjust to players at your table so just by having better fundamentals, you will always beat the guy who is lower on the skill-ladder of poker. I seems you simply don't want to play a style of poker which is higher variance, forced upon the level 0/1 donk as you have to give up control to some extent. Higher Vol? Yes. Lower EV? Definitely not.
You further mention this:
"Despite getting Aces cracked twice (I'm now 0 for 3 in Aces all in pre-flop, and yesterday I was 0 for 2 with Aces when I was 80% both times – although in the second case the final money went in on the turn. If I had won all four of these, I would be up about $900 rather than down $410) and not getting the rub of the green for most of the day, I kept my cool."
Aces in terms of hand distribution is such a tiny amount of where your winnings come from, it's not worth thinking about it like this.
Not only is it not worth doing this, but it's also plain wrong because you didn't keep track of all the hands where your flush got there, or you flopped a set vs a big hand someone else had... you see where this is going. Writing the above thing with Aces and then, right in the next paragraph, you say you have a bigger grasp on reality (which I would have agreed with as well) is interesting.