Armed with a new 23'' widescreen monitor hooked up to my laptop, I set out to take advantage of all the weekend players. I now have plenty of room for 8 tables or more, though I seem to struggle with more than 5 sit-n-gos at a time when we get shorthanded and the action intense. Pokerstars normally see about 160,000 players at peaktimes during the weekdays, but on weekends they push 250,000. Most of these extra players are losing players.
I managed about 60 $20 SNGs over Saturday and Sunday, and mainly because I went 12-3 in headsup matches I saw my balance grow from $737.37 to $989.37 though I did peak at $1063 before I have to admit fatigue set in. I also had a significant number of 4th places but I think they are the price of going for the win. Overall it seems like I have gotten nowhere really since I was originally boomswitched a few weeks ago though I hope I have learned several lessons that will prevent me from going on as brutal a downswing again. Wishful thinking probably.
Apart from having by far the most online players and making some serious coin that way, PokerStars probably have the worst deals for their players - mainly because they don't offer rakeback. Rakeback might sound like a small thing, but it really adds up. Looking at my spreadsheet for this challenge, in the span I have gone from $100 to $1000 I have paid $1073 in buy-in fees for SNGs. Essentially, while I have done well to grow my roll 900%, PokerStars still made more off me than I did off them! These numbers would be ugly with equally busy but losing player. With a standard 30% rakeback deal my balance would be $300 higher. Instead I have gathered a silly amount of PokerStars points that I can trade in for mainly crap.
So far I can get 4 cookie baskets, a DVD player, 18 Pokerstars T-shirts or 4 'Harrington on Hold'em' in either Italian or German. However if I get 2,988,000 more points I get a Porsche Cayman S. Combined with one of the worst bonus offers going, they really are taking the piss. I guess you can when you have 250,000 players though...
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
V: Sign of the devil...or is it?
Gentlemen, this much we can agree on: Despite the mark of the Beast everywhere, Jesus loves me the best.
While tweaking my smallball strategy in the micro-games, the devil pays a most unwelcome visit as I manage to run headlong into 666 not once but twice. Twice! Granted, I could have believed either or both of them when they refused to bend to my hammering the pots on the strength of top pair, but still, truly, we are a cursed people.
The first appearance of the Devil leaves me with about 2200 chips, or 1/2 my stack, and blinds at 25/50. Not great, clearly, but ok. His second appearance, though, is beyond crippling: Blinds are 100/200, and that's me in the big blind all-in with my remaining 125 chips. On the bubble no less, which makes it even more humiliating.
So...all-in with my 125 chips ... sadly they are riding on 54os ... which, when my 5 pairs, is good enough to beat the AJ and A4 callers. I am tripled up to 375.
Oh, but I think we all know where this is going.
Next hand: KQos. All in, of course. Mr. Second 666, the guy with all my chips, calls with pure rags - - either as an act of arrogance or charity, hard to say - and I doubled up again when my K pairs.
Two hands later: 44. All in, of course. Now determined to take me out, Mr. Second 666 calls me with Q6s. This time his 6 cannot summon any brethren at all, my pair holds up, and I am back in the blinds-stealing business with about 2000 chips.
A few more legitimate hands in which I am not only the favorite but my cards stand up, and I'm in the money.
Three handed - me against both Devils. While I should feel beleagured, I am actually quite smug. I am the goddamn chip leader and am having great fun cherry picking the blinds. I have more than a bit of trouble when my 22 runs into First Devil's 77, but I stay the aggressor despite losing chip lead: it's steal, steal, steal until I have the enormous satisfaction of taking out Mr. Second 666 when he himself tries a steal with an unfortunate 96os, and me sitting on JJ. Get thee behind me, Satan, and onto the rail, muthafucka.
HU bodes ill, as First Devil, as the 2:1 chip leader, is putting the pressure on me with heavy raises each time I call from the SB. I figure I have long exhausted any borrowed time anyway, so make good on my promise to him to start gambling. All in with A7, he calls with AQ ... Jesus, of course, sends a 7 my way, and the worm, as they say, has turned. On the next hand, my pimpslap of a reraise his attempted blind steal takes the wind and about 1600 more chips out of him out him, and two hands later I put paid to First Devil when I call his T6 all-in with J9 and the board misses us both.
From 125 to first place. Take a moment to savor it. The 13 bucks didn't do wonders for my bankroll, but we play this game for other reasons as well.
A chip, chair, and a tiny bit of intervention by Haysoo Christos himself: all a boy needs.
While tweaking my smallball strategy in the micro-games, the devil pays a most unwelcome visit as I manage to run headlong into 666 not once but twice. Twice! Granted, I could have believed either or both of them when they refused to bend to my hammering the pots on the strength of top pair, but still, truly, we are a cursed people.
The first appearance of the Devil leaves me with about 2200 chips, or 1/2 my stack, and blinds at 25/50. Not great, clearly, but ok. His second appearance, though, is beyond crippling: Blinds are 100/200, and that's me in the big blind all-in with my remaining 125 chips. On the bubble no less, which makes it even more humiliating.
So...all-in with my 125 chips ... sadly they are riding on 54os ... which, when my 5 pairs, is good enough to beat the AJ and A4 callers. I am tripled up to 375.
Oh, but I think we all know where this is going.
Next hand: KQos. All in, of course. Mr. Second 666, the guy with all my chips, calls with pure rags - - either as an act of arrogance or charity, hard to say - and I doubled up again when my K pairs.
Two hands later: 44. All in, of course. Now determined to take me out, Mr. Second 666 calls me with Q6s. This time his 6 cannot summon any brethren at all, my pair holds up, and I am back in the blinds-stealing business with about 2000 chips.
A few more legitimate hands in which I am not only the favorite but my cards stand up, and I'm in the money.
Three handed - me against both Devils. While I should feel beleagured, I am actually quite smug. I am the goddamn chip leader and am having great fun cherry picking the blinds. I have more than a bit of trouble when my 22 runs into First Devil's 77, but I stay the aggressor despite losing chip lead: it's steal, steal, steal until I have the enormous satisfaction of taking out Mr. Second 666 when he himself tries a steal with an unfortunate 96os, and me sitting on JJ. Get thee behind me, Satan, and onto the rail, muthafucka.
HU bodes ill, as First Devil, as the 2:1 chip leader, is putting the pressure on me with heavy raises each time I call from the SB. I figure I have long exhausted any borrowed time anyway, so make good on my promise to him to start gambling. All in with A7, he calls with AQ ... Jesus, of course, sends a 7 my way, and the worm, as they say, has turned. On the next hand, my pimpslap of a reraise his attempted blind steal takes the wind and about 1600 more chips out of him out him, and two hands later I put paid to First Devil when I call his T6 all-in with J9 and the board misses us both.
From 125 to first place. Take a moment to savor it. The 13 bucks didn't do wonders for my bankroll, but we play this game for other reasons as well.
A chip, chair, and a tiny bit of intervention by Haysoo Christos himself: all a boy needs.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
V: Mixing it up, or a sick joke about Daniel Negreanu
So I was playing online today -- having downshifted to $3 SNGs to keep the blood loss to a minimum while I try to regain my equilibrium -- and some baboon made a sick and pointless joke about Daniel Negreanu being killed in a head-on collision. A quick Google and Yahoo search of the subject yielded nothing, and a quick sharkscope of said baboon made it clear that, as baboons will, he was compensating for his lack of talent by acting out.
Nonetheless, it got me thinking about Daniel Negreanu and I searched him out on youtube, where I found a series of three instructional videos of his on -- what else? -- how to win at Hold Em. Here's the link to the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeeozbb2_FQ&feature=PlayList&p=8A637CFF3C497E4F&index=0&playnext=1
In truth, these lessons are aimed at taking a strong player and making them pro, a profile I must concede that I don't fit, but they were very helpful, perhaps because they picked up on the "modest gains" approach that I stumbled on recently. In fact, playing "smallball" was the whole thrust of the lessons, but in a way that is very different from mine.
Negreanu says that beginners play "two card" poker -- that is, the lion share of the decision-making is done pre-flop. Pros, on the other hand, make the hard calls after the flop. He advised seeing many more hands combined with a strategy of savvy value betting and blind-stealing. This way, you confuse other players as to what you might have at any time, you can press a hand should you hit while keeping your losses small if you don't, and you trap other players when you do make a monster because they figure you can't catch something every flop.
So, given that my incredibly tight-but-aggressive play has been so feast or famine and typically much more famine, and given my itch to want to play more hands, I thought I'd give this a try.
I stuck to a few of Negreanu's principles:
(1) I played many more hands, especially with low blinds and in late position, and even more so if I could limp in or call for just 2xBB.
(2) From one or two off the button until the button, I would raise 3-4xBB if I had anything playable, and -- critically -- even if I had great starting cards. However, I only did this if there were no previous callers.
(3) If I raised, I followed up post-flop with a bet about 1/2 to 3/4 of the pot. I took down a surpringly large number of pots right then and there. If someone raised hard, I'd typically fold (when I failed to fold because I had a middling hand, disaster typically ensued). If I did flop a monster, though, I got paid big time.
I executed this the most consistently in the last SNG that I played today...and it worked! My stack grew steadily while for the most part I dodged disaster. I did have one terrible, TERRIBLE hand, where I raised preflop with A4os, the flop came A x x, and I went down to the river only to lose to A8. Stupid, stupid, stupid. This took me from 3500 to about 900 chips, with 50/100 blinds, so I wasn't happy at all with my boneheaded play. So much for mixing it up.
Nonetheless...I doubled-up soon after when I made a flush all in with JTh, and then I stuck to the program. And sure enough...1st place, having (semi-)stolen thousands of chips in blinds, picking up pots with value bets, and staying clear of disaster. Oh, and by trapping Mr. A8 to get my chips back with considerable interest: I had raised 4xBB preflop, he called, for about 1600 in the pot. I had 99 and the flop came 678, so I bet 1000, he raised, I went all in, and he called to show AT. A five came, then a ten (for sweet justice), and I was untouchably the big dog.
This strategy worked well three handed as well, though I folded some hands I might ordinarily have pushed, wanting the two shortstacks to cut each other's throats without me doubling them up. In the end, I not only had first, but I felt -- for a change -- that I had executed a strategy that worked and that suited my style.
I think I will stick in the laboratory of the micro-stakes for a bit while I try on this New-greanu suit of clothes. And I will watch those videos many times more.
Nonetheless, it got me thinking about Daniel Negreanu and I searched him out on youtube, where I found a series of three instructional videos of his on -- what else? -- how to win at Hold Em. Here's the link to the first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xeeozbb2_FQ&feature=PlayList&p=8A637CFF3C497E4F&index=0&playnext=1
In truth, these lessons are aimed at taking a strong player and making them pro, a profile I must concede that I don't fit, but they were very helpful, perhaps because they picked up on the "modest gains" approach that I stumbled on recently. In fact, playing "smallball" was the whole thrust of the lessons, but in a way that is very different from mine.
Negreanu says that beginners play "two card" poker -- that is, the lion share of the decision-making is done pre-flop. Pros, on the other hand, make the hard calls after the flop. He advised seeing many more hands combined with a strategy of savvy value betting and blind-stealing. This way, you confuse other players as to what you might have at any time, you can press a hand should you hit while keeping your losses small if you don't, and you trap other players when you do make a monster because they figure you can't catch something every flop.
So, given that my incredibly tight-but-aggressive play has been so feast or famine and typically much more famine, and given my itch to want to play more hands, I thought I'd give this a try.
I stuck to a few of Negreanu's principles:
(1) I played many more hands, especially with low blinds and in late position, and even more so if I could limp in or call for just 2xBB.
(2) From one or two off the button until the button, I would raise 3-4xBB if I had anything playable, and -- critically -- even if I had great starting cards. However, I only did this if there were no previous callers.
(3) If I raised, I followed up post-flop with a bet about 1/2 to 3/4 of the pot. I took down a surpringly large number of pots right then and there. If someone raised hard, I'd typically fold (when I failed to fold because I had a middling hand, disaster typically ensued). If I did flop a monster, though, I got paid big time.
I executed this the most consistently in the last SNG that I played today...and it worked! My stack grew steadily while for the most part I dodged disaster. I did have one terrible, TERRIBLE hand, where I raised preflop with A4os, the flop came A x x, and I went down to the river only to lose to A8. Stupid, stupid, stupid. This took me from 3500 to about 900 chips, with 50/100 blinds, so I wasn't happy at all with my boneheaded play. So much for mixing it up.
Nonetheless...I doubled-up soon after when I made a flush all in with JTh, and then I stuck to the program. And sure enough...1st place, having (semi-)stolen thousands of chips in blinds, picking up pots with value bets, and staying clear of disaster. Oh, and by trapping Mr. A8 to get my chips back with considerable interest: I had raised 4xBB preflop, he called, for about 1600 in the pot. I had 99 and the flop came 678, so I bet 1000, he raised, I went all in, and he called to show AT. A five came, then a ten (for sweet justice), and I was untouchably the big dog.
This strategy worked well three handed as well, though I folded some hands I might ordinarily have pushed, wanting the two shortstacks to cut each other's throats without me doubling them up. In the end, I not only had first, but I felt -- for a change -- that I had executed a strategy that worked and that suited my style.
I think I will stick in the laboratory of the micro-stakes for a bit while I try on this New-greanu suit of clothes. And I will watch those videos many times more.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
V: Aargh!
Starting balance: $412.80
Cannot win no matter what. Tourney or cash game, makes no difference. JJ cracked by A6, JJ cracked by KT, top pair chased to the river by AK who of course catches his A, all-in flush draws catching their flushes, KcKs cracked by QdQh when four hearts hit the board, ATd cracked by J6, and so on and so on and so on... I am getting deep new insights into tilt, I will grant that, and it would seem that the laws of chance have chosen to spread their cheeks and demonstrate quite graphically what they feel about my Freudian musings.
Ending balance: $350.35
No no no no....$289.35
Time for another few days off. Another afternoon of this and I'll be rebuying for sure.
Cannot win no matter what. Tourney or cash game, makes no difference. JJ cracked by A6, JJ cracked by KT, top pair chased to the river by AK who of course catches his A, all-in flush draws catching their flushes, KcKs cracked by QdQh when four hearts hit the board, ATd cracked by J6, and so on and so on and so on... I am getting deep new insights into tilt, I will grant that, and it would seem that the laws of chance have chosen to spread their cheeks and demonstrate quite graphically what they feel about my Freudian musings.
Ending balance: $350.35
No no no no....$289.35
Time for another few days off. Another afternoon of this and I'll be rebuying for sure.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
V: Plugging leaks
Caution: Annyoing psychological insights ahead
As Douchebag and I were saying last night, when things click, it feels like it will stay that way forever, like you've finally figured it out, but that never seems to be the case. So far at least, Douchebag and I are prone to the same rhythms of dramatic swings both up and down (granted, his swings up are both longer and upper). For sure I at least vacillate between tight controlled poker that makes me proud to have a seat at the table, and the card-table equivalent of sitting in the sandbox and smearing myself with my own droppings.
So, lo and behold, maybe this exercise and this blog are actually doing what we'd hoped they would do: make us really focus on our leaks and get to plugging them. I've always known mine was impatience -- that's no surprise -- but I am starting to realize the many forms that impatience takes. I always viewed it as the ill-timed bluff when I am bored, or a late-game tendency to get wildly over-involved in pots where I am a sure loser. And that's part of it. But it's also betting way beyond value in the hopes of taking down a pot then and there, thus cheating myself of possible value while overexposing myself in the event that things don't go as planned. It's falling in love with my cards because I don't want to do the difficult work of arriving at a considered judgment that takes the board, position and the simple humanity of the other players into account. It's resorting to all-in rather than value betting. And so on, and so on. I realize that I have an extraordinary amount of work to do, but this insight is a start at least.
For Douchebag, the big leak is apparently lack of confidence, and for Badger, a strong tendency towards passivity (a close cousin but not an identical twin). The problem too, of course, is that, while identifying leaks is hard enough, plugging them is much, much harder. Quite obviously so, because they wouldn't be leaks if they were so easily fixed. Being both a literary geek and a Freudian-minded Jew, I am inclined to think about the deeper psychological roots of why I fuck up, inspired in large measure by an essay written by the playwright David Mamet, who was himself a very strong player.
In "The Things Poker Teaches," Mamet wrote:
Poker reveals to the frank observer something else of import--it will teach him about his own nature. Many bad players do not improve because they cannot bear self-knowledge. The bad player will not deign to determine what he thinks by watching what he does. To do so might, and frequently would, reveal a need to be abused (in calling what must be a superior hand); a need to be loved (in staying for "that one magic card"); a need to have Daddy relent (in trying to bluff out the obvious best hand), etc. It is painful to observe this sort of thing about oneself. Many times we'd rather suffer on than fix it....
The same is said of Go, of chess, of any great game truly worth engaging with: whatever your personality, its strengths and most definitely its flaws, are mirrored right back at you if you are only able and willing to see them. And at least as far as I go, Mamet (and others) was spot on, though I'll spare you the details.
This all is perhaps deeper and more uncomfortable than a jokey poker blog is supposed to be, but, well, making people uncomfortable has been my speciality since the mid-1970's. Besides, I think about all those hours I spent plumbing my own murky depths on the psychologist's couch and figure "hell, why shouldn't they suffer too?"
Something to consider, at any rate. Who knows? Maybe we'll all emerge from all this slightly better people and not just slightly better card players.
As Douchebag and I were saying last night, when things click, it feels like it will stay that way forever, like you've finally figured it out, but that never seems to be the case. So far at least, Douchebag and I are prone to the same rhythms of dramatic swings both up and down (granted, his swings up are both longer and upper). For sure I at least vacillate between tight controlled poker that makes me proud to have a seat at the table, and the card-table equivalent of sitting in the sandbox and smearing myself with my own droppings.
So, lo and behold, maybe this exercise and this blog are actually doing what we'd hoped they would do: make us really focus on our leaks and get to plugging them. I've always known mine was impatience -- that's no surprise -- but I am starting to realize the many forms that impatience takes. I always viewed it as the ill-timed bluff when I am bored, or a late-game tendency to get wildly over-involved in pots where I am a sure loser. And that's part of it. But it's also betting way beyond value in the hopes of taking down a pot then and there, thus cheating myself of possible value while overexposing myself in the event that things don't go as planned. It's falling in love with my cards because I don't want to do the difficult work of arriving at a considered judgment that takes the board, position and the simple humanity of the other players into account. It's resorting to all-in rather than value betting. And so on, and so on. I realize that I have an extraordinary amount of work to do, but this insight is a start at least.
For Douchebag, the big leak is apparently lack of confidence, and for Badger, a strong tendency towards passivity (a close cousin but not an identical twin). The problem too, of course, is that, while identifying leaks is hard enough, plugging them is much, much harder. Quite obviously so, because they wouldn't be leaks if they were so easily fixed. Being both a literary geek and a Freudian-minded Jew, I am inclined to think about the deeper psychological roots of why I fuck up, inspired in large measure by an essay written by the playwright David Mamet, who was himself a very strong player.
In "The Things Poker Teaches," Mamet wrote:
Poker reveals to the frank observer something else of import--it will teach him about his own nature. Many bad players do not improve because they cannot bear self-knowledge. The bad player will not deign to determine what he thinks by watching what he does. To do so might, and frequently would, reveal a need to be abused (in calling what must be a superior hand); a need to be loved (in staying for "that one magic card"); a need to have Daddy relent (in trying to bluff out the obvious best hand), etc. It is painful to observe this sort of thing about oneself. Many times we'd rather suffer on than fix it....
The same is said of Go, of chess, of any great game truly worth engaging with: whatever your personality, its strengths and most definitely its flaws, are mirrored right back at you if you are only able and willing to see them. And at least as far as I go, Mamet (and others) was spot on, though I'll spare you the details.
This all is perhaps deeper and more uncomfortable than a jokey poker blog is supposed to be, but, well, making people uncomfortable has been my speciality since the mid-1970's. Besides, I think about all those hours I spent plumbing my own murky depths on the psychologist's couch and figure "hell, why shouldn't they suffer too?"
Something to consider, at any rate. Who knows? Maybe we'll all emerge from all this slightly better people and not just slightly better card players.
Out of the slump?
That was a long night of poker, but hopefully also a turning point for me. That said it is always so much easier in the weekend. All the weekend-players are out in full force, and a quick sharkscoping of a table during the week vs on the weekend (in Europe/US prime time that is) will show that. A quick scope on a weekday at the wrong hours will show a table full of sharks and people playing pro or semi-pro - not what you want.
Anyway, a couple of days with countless $20 SNGs and I have grinded my way back up to $733.37.
I would also love to be able to say that I am getting closer to solving my mental block that causes these silly swings in my form. Of course poker is a game of variance and you run both good and bad. Today I ran very neutral, but I played much better. Can I pin point what I do differently when I win? Sort of, but can I emulate it when things are not going well? That remains to be seen. This is, and has been for years, my big challenge. I need to find some sort of reset button in my head that erases all the bad beats, the lost coinflips and the scars from 4th places. A way to forget the last game and just play 'my game'. Some sort of method to recalibrate. Sounds a lot like monkey tilt I suppose, but my 'tilt' seems to force me in to caution (and ultimately failure) as opposed to 'classic tilt' with recklessness and spewing chips.
For now just happy to have broken the streak and regained some confidence.
Anyway, a couple of days with countless $20 SNGs and I have grinded my way back up to $733.37.
I would also love to be able to say that I am getting closer to solving my mental block that causes these silly swings in my form. Of course poker is a game of variance and you run both good and bad. Today I ran very neutral, but I played much better. Can I pin point what I do differently when I win? Sort of, but can I emulate it when things are not going well? That remains to be seen. This is, and has been for years, my big challenge. I need to find some sort of reset button in my head that erases all the bad beats, the lost coinflips and the scars from 4th places. A way to forget the last game and just play 'my game'. Some sort of method to recalibrate. Sounds a lot like monkey tilt I suppose, but my 'tilt' seems to force me in to caution (and ultimately failure) as opposed to 'classic tilt' with recklessness and spewing chips.
For now just happy to have broken the streak and regained some confidence.
Badger's Come-to-Jesus (Ferguson) Moment
OK. So I know this is my second entry today, after a bit of an absence, but I have been convinced of something: stop slow-playing in tourneys, Badge!
I have played 6 SNGs tonite, finishing 1st once, 2nd twice, and waaay back the other 3. Bad play on the 3 I lost, right?
Well, sort of...in that I have had great starting hands...and then screwed myself via "cagey" slow-play (clearly, I am always the coyote, never the road-runner!)
Despite the dual deities' (Harrington's and Sklansky's) advice, I opted, retardedly, to slow-play a KK, an AA and (post-flop) a low-straight. Guess what? Every single one of those "winning" hands either ended in my elimination, or my crippling to the point that I was effectively eliminated.
I am now about 99% converted to the theology of "value-betting" in tourneys (but not for cash games--totally different animal). I KNOW that when one is learning to play poker, the trap is a nice weapon to harvest more cash. But it is probably an over-used weapon (even in cash games) and an RPG that detonates in your face in a tourney!
Sure, it is nice to win a few more chips if your slow-play; but if your opponent flops or turns his 2nd pair (or straight, or flush) are you really laying down your top pair (or two pair or low flush)? Not unless you're Daniel Negraneau!
Herr and Douchebag, curious to hear your thoughts. Coming to realize that this has been a major leak in my tourney place. Indeed, comin' to Jesus!
I have played 6 SNGs tonite, finishing 1st once, 2nd twice, and waaay back the other 3. Bad play on the 3 I lost, right?
Well, sort of...in that I have had great starting hands...and then screwed myself via "cagey" slow-play (clearly, I am always the coyote, never the road-runner!)
Despite the dual deities' (Harrington's and Sklansky's) advice, I opted, retardedly, to slow-play a KK, an AA and (post-flop) a low-straight. Guess what? Every single one of those "winning" hands either ended in my elimination, or my crippling to the point that I was effectively eliminated.
I am now about 99% converted to the theology of "value-betting" in tourneys (but not for cash games--totally different animal). I KNOW that when one is learning to play poker, the trap is a nice weapon to harvest more cash. But it is probably an over-used weapon (even in cash games) and an RPG that detonates in your face in a tourney!
Sure, it is nice to win a few more chips if your slow-play; but if your opponent flops or turns his 2nd pair (or straight, or flush) are you really laying down your top pair (or two pair or low flush)? Not unless you're Daniel Negraneau!
Herr and Douchebag, curious to hear your thoughts. Coming to realize that this has been a major leak in my tourney place. Indeed, comin' to Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
