Before I went into complete hibernation for awhile, I admit it: I played poker last night.
Shortest retirement ever.
But, honestly, I wanted to play one last time for two reasons. 1) Pending the outcome of my court case, I probably won't have a car for awhile. 2) I wanted to experiment a little bit with my new style to give my play a comparison for when I do return.
First off, I have to say, "Wow." What a thought provoking four hours of poker! I've NEVER in any one game played or saw so many flops. The results weren't great (down $30), but it gave me a starting point.
I might as well let the cat out of the bag and admit that I've been researching "small ball", the style of play that Daniel Negreanu uses so effectively. Earlier, when I first started watching him and analyzing him, I basically thought that his play was creative with a "go big or go home" attitude. I tried that, and lemme tell you... in the long run you'll get crushed.
After a little bit more research, I learned that I was foolishly mistaken. "Small ball" is a style predicated on the image of a faux maniac. I think out of everyone I've played with over the years, Matt L. (cool comment, I actually might chess it up) is one the only person I've seen attain consistent success with it (all six times we played, lol). And, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Matt, but in a nutshell this is small ball:
Small ball is being aggressive without your pots getting out of control. Instead of raising a million times the big blind, I've started raising 3 X the big blind EVERY time I have something. I already consistently do this online, but part two of small ball is what I've basically failed to do correctly my entire poker career.
I like continuation betting, as does Negreneau, but instead of betting the pot right out and taking multiple shots at it, betting a fraction of the pot does pretty much the same trick. If I get called and have nothing, or if I get check-raised (which I anticipate will surely happen) I would just acknowledge that my opponent has something and quit. No more firing multiple blanks into a pot just to fulfill a pre-flop raise.
What I like about small ball is that it maximizes the importance of post flop play and being able gain a better understanding of the motivations behind your fellow players' actions. And, more than likely since people will try to make plays on me more often, it involves more effective thinking on my part. That, and, instead of check-raising to trap, my bets will look like traps. "Does he have it?" "DID YOU MISS!?"
There are a couple more quirks to small ball, but c'mon: I can't give up everything. I'd have to start charging you.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Friday, June 1, 2007
Break
If you haven't read my AIM profile by now, it's official: I'm taking a break from poker.
There are several reasons why I'm doing this. Financially, even though I'm playing okay (not great but OK), I can't afford it. I'm in pretty good debt with my credit card (non-poker related I swear); a lawyer that I'm trying to pay off; a semester of college that I need to somehow generate the money for this summer; a debt to Ryan F. (wired through e-passporte, lol), and I haven't even gotten to Cadence yet. So poker, as of right now, is not good look for me financially, especially with how I like to fully immerse myself into the game.
However...
This is by no means a retirement. I'm using the time off to my advantage from a poker standpoint, too. Think of it as a reflection period. My play is good enough to succeed against lesser players that I won't mention, but when I get to better games, I'm finding that my inability to adapt has been hurting me.
Here's the thing: it's been my belief since I started taking poker seriously that the most consistent players are the ones who are tight-aggressive. I can be tight-aggressive, but it seems like at the table I'm struggling for an identity. Ryan said something the other day that really raised my eyebrows. He said that I remind him of Mike Matusow: I can play solid for hours and then I go on a five minute donk fest, leaving me with nothing.
In short, I'm switching things up a little bit.
I'll catch you when I get back.
There are several reasons why I'm doing this. Financially, even though I'm playing okay (not great but OK), I can't afford it. I'm in pretty good debt with my credit card (non-poker related I swear); a lawyer that I'm trying to pay off; a semester of college that I need to somehow generate the money for this summer; a debt to Ryan F. (wired through e-passporte, lol), and I haven't even gotten to Cadence yet. So poker, as of right now, is not good look for me financially, especially with how I like to fully immerse myself into the game.
However...
This is by no means a retirement. I'm using the time off to my advantage from a poker standpoint, too. Think of it as a reflection period. My play is good enough to succeed against lesser players that I won't mention, but when I get to better games, I'm finding that my inability to adapt has been hurting me.
Here's the thing: it's been my belief since I started taking poker seriously that the most consistent players are the ones who are tight-aggressive. I can be tight-aggressive, but it seems like at the table I'm struggling for an identity. Ryan said something the other day that really raised my eyebrows. He said that I remind him of Mike Matusow: I can play solid for hours and then I go on a five minute donk fest, leaving me with nothing.
In short, I'm switching things up a little bit.
I'll catch you when I get back.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Pretty Cool Hand
Any book or poker pundit will tell you that one of the keys to Hold 'Em is position. Here's an instance where I had to play a pretty good hand out of position.
I was playing $.50-$1 on Full Tilt and received A-K off in the small blind. A creative player in middle position made it $3.50 to go, and with the action folded around to me I had a decision to make. Here's the thing: I could re-raise him, make it, say, $12 to go. If he calls that and I miss my flop, I'd basically be betting at air (one of the worst things you can do in Hold 'Em is check after raising without intending to check-raise). So, instead of going all-out and maybe or maybe not taking the pot down then and there, I smooth called.
Gin on the flop: K of diamonds, 4 of diamonds, K of hearts. Now I have to act first, and I could check, giving him an opportunity to bet at the flop and then raise him, but if he doesn't have a king (which is highly probable), it'll kill my action. So, I go ahead and bet $4 into a $7 pot. He quickly calls. I could put him on a flush draw here, but pocket pair is running through my head.
The turn is a 7 of clubs. Now, here's the seller: I check. By checking it's almost like I'm telling him that I missed the flop. Why would I check after betting? What worries me is that he also checks. He might have boated there, but I'm not crazily worried.
The river is also kind of a downer: a 9 of spades. No flush draw possible, but again, that could be a boat if he has pocket nines. I bet $13, almost like I'm trying to steal it with a pot-sized bet. Of course, he raises to $26, which sets off all kinds of alarms in my head. Could he possibly have hit a set? The only cards that scared me were the 7 and the 9, simply because I doubted that player would raise with 4s in middle position. However, I came to the conclusion that the only reason he raised me on the river was because he felt that I had missed the flop and that I could have no better than 4-5 or A-4, something sloppy, maybe even pocket 5s or 6s.
I could have raised and might have had all of his chips, but I just called. He had pocket eights.
Poker is fun, for everyone... except my opponents, who should've practiced avoidance.
I was playing $.50-$1 on Full Tilt and received A-K off in the small blind. A creative player in middle position made it $3.50 to go, and with the action folded around to me I had a decision to make. Here's the thing: I could re-raise him, make it, say, $12 to go. If he calls that and I miss my flop, I'd basically be betting at air (one of the worst things you can do in Hold 'Em is check after raising without intending to check-raise). So, instead of going all-out and maybe or maybe not taking the pot down then and there, I smooth called.
Gin on the flop: K of diamonds, 4 of diamonds, K of hearts. Now I have to act first, and I could check, giving him an opportunity to bet at the flop and then raise him, but if he doesn't have a king (which is highly probable), it'll kill my action. So, I go ahead and bet $4 into a $7 pot. He quickly calls. I could put him on a flush draw here, but pocket pair is running through my head.
The turn is a 7 of clubs. Now, here's the seller: I check. By checking it's almost like I'm telling him that I missed the flop. Why would I check after betting? What worries me is that he also checks. He might have boated there, but I'm not crazily worried.
The river is also kind of a downer: a 9 of spades. No flush draw possible, but again, that could be a boat if he has pocket nines. I bet $13, almost like I'm trying to steal it with a pot-sized bet. Of course, he raises to $26, which sets off all kinds of alarms in my head. Could he possibly have hit a set? The only cards that scared me were the 7 and the 9, simply because I doubted that player would raise with 4s in middle position. However, I came to the conclusion that the only reason he raised me on the river was because he felt that I had missed the flop and that I could have no better than 4-5 or A-4, something sloppy, maybe even pocket 5s or 6s.
I could have raised and might have had all of his chips, but I just called. He had pocket eights.
Poker is fun, for everyone... except my opponents, who should've practiced avoidance.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
$18,000 Guarantee
Last night while I was looking for a multi-table tourney to hop into, I considered my many options. There was the $20+ 2 90 person sit n go, but that was taking forever to fill up. A 45 person tourney for the same buy-in was nearly full, but I thought to myself, I'm free-rolling off of a $70 win, and I want to challenge myself a little bit.
So, while I sat impatiently in a $.25-.$50 cash game, I saw a pink flash in the comment box: "$18,000 Guarantee ($69 +6) starts in five minutes." I inquired and, what do you know, there was a celebrity sighting in the tournament. The two biggest players of a note were "highplaya", who won a Full Tilt Online Poker Series event and thus got his own avatar, and, more importantly, Aaron Bartley, a player who from time to time I see on television, most recently at the 2006 WSOP, where he finished 137. The fact that they were playing combined with close to $5,000 for the winner heavily influenced my decision.
Throughout the tourney I employed my new T.J. Cloutier strategy for playing these things: chip up and stay out of trouble. The second part was easy; I saw only 15% of the flops during my stay. However, even though I was staying out of trouble, I went completely card dead for almost 20 hands. The good news is I watched several players fall victim to overaggression. The bad news was as we approached the bubble I was running extremely low on chips. In fact, during the time I went card dead, I went from nearly $8,000 to $2,400... without even playing a hand.
With 40 people left in the tourney, I started getting really nervous and found myself constantly checking the tourney info. I was pretty much hovering around 36 and 37. Did I mention that 36 players cash?
I have 5s in the BB with 37 players left. Bartley made it $1,800 to go. I had $2,400 left. I hated the decision but I had to push. Much to my surprise he turned over the Doyle offsuit. "No ten, no ten, no ten."
Ten.
I played for three hours and outlasted 277 players. I needed to outlast 278.
What a waste, but I learned a valuable lesson. Don't be afraid to die. That, and to be honest, if I was going to be busted by anyone, I guess I'm glad it was Bartley.
I just wish he knocked me out with a better hand.
So, while I sat impatiently in a $.25-.$50 cash game, I saw a pink flash in the comment box: "$18,000 Guarantee ($69 +6) starts in five minutes." I inquired and, what do you know, there was a celebrity sighting in the tournament. The two biggest players of a note were "highplaya", who won a Full Tilt Online Poker Series event and thus got his own avatar, and, more importantly, Aaron Bartley, a player who from time to time I see on television, most recently at the 2006 WSOP, where he finished 137. The fact that they were playing combined with close to $5,000 for the winner heavily influenced my decision.
Throughout the tourney I employed my new T.J. Cloutier strategy for playing these things: chip up and stay out of trouble. The second part was easy; I saw only 15% of the flops during my stay. However, even though I was staying out of trouble, I went completely card dead for almost 20 hands. The good news is I watched several players fall victim to overaggression. The bad news was as we approached the bubble I was running extremely low on chips. In fact, during the time I went card dead, I went from nearly $8,000 to $2,400... without even playing a hand.
With 40 people left in the tourney, I started getting really nervous and found myself constantly checking the tourney info. I was pretty much hovering around 36 and 37. Did I mention that 36 players cash?
I have 5s in the BB with 37 players left. Bartley made it $1,800 to go. I had $2,400 left. I hated the decision but I had to push. Much to my surprise he turned over the Doyle offsuit. "No ten, no ten, no ten."
Ten.
I played for three hours and outlasted 277 players. I needed to outlast 278.
What a waste, but I learned a valuable lesson. Don't be afraid to die. That, and to be honest, if I was going to be busted by anyone, I guess I'm glad it was Bartley.
I just wish he knocked me out with a better hand.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Interpreting Poker Academy 2.0 Data
I should probably use the software more often, but after looking at my statistics on Poker Academy 2.0, I understand partially why I've been as inconsistent as I have been. Even though you can't play for money on Poker Academy's software, I try to play the exact same way I would play in a live cash game or multi-table tournament, so the results are very believeable. By the way, these stats are based on about 400 hands or so.
My pre-flop percentage, in my opinion, is probably the most solid part of my game right now. Sure, sometimes I can switch gears and become maniacal, but I'm proud that I'm only seeing 22% flops (this is probably tournament data, and I'd say add 10% in a cash game). Every time I sit down against new players I immediately have a solid image. Until I see a flop.
While my pre-flop percentage is great, my post-flop aggression is insane! On a 4.0 scale, I scored an 8.7 in aggression. Some poker pundits would applaud that and repeat the old adage, "The hand doesn't begin until the flop." As I've probably mentioned before, aggressive post flop play can be your savior or your ride to the ATM. I've been guilty many times of trying to be too creative and pick-up pots. Maybe it's because I don't play nearly as many flops as I used to and I'm trying to over-compensate and takedown every pot I enter. I don't know.
Also, my won showdown percentage is pretty inconsistent at 57%. Ideally I'd like that number to be at least 65-70% (of course, ideally 100% is cool, too). I can think of two reasons why this number isn't higher than it is. First, and this is something I'm still trying to master, often I get into situations where if I bet and I'm called I'm beat. This happened to me twice when I was in Atlantic City this past week. Once I held queens and the board was 10-9-8-7-X. Dude bet $40 and I moved all-in for about $130. The reason I did it was because I strongly felt like he didn't have a jack and that I could push him off the hand. It took him awhile, but he called with pocket sixes. Strong call.
The second incident happened pretty much as a result of the first incident. I limp with A-6 of clubs (a mistake in itself) and nobody raised behind me. Flop comes 4-3-2, two spades. Small blind bets $15 and all five of us called (I guess I called with a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw with the intention of bluffing on the turn). Turn is a 10 of spades. Small blind bets $30, and after one caller, I make it $90. Ryan, sitting to my left, agonizes and folds (he later told me he folded the wheel). Small blind thinks for a minute and calls. Dude in front of me folded.
The river is a complete blank. Small blind checks. How do you follow a $90 bet? "All-in," I say as I lean back in my chair feigning strength. It takes him a long time, but he made the call with 6-5 of spades. Afterwards, he says to me, "If I hadn't seen you make the play with those queens I would have folded."
Reason number two is that I committ another poker sin far too often: calling knowing I'm losing but paying for re-assurance that I was right. That's gotta stop.
About to go hit up a multi-table tourney. Wish me luck.
My pre-flop percentage, in my opinion, is probably the most solid part of my game right now. Sure, sometimes I can switch gears and become maniacal, but I'm proud that I'm only seeing 22% flops (this is probably tournament data, and I'd say add 10% in a cash game). Every time I sit down against new players I immediately have a solid image. Until I see a flop.
While my pre-flop percentage is great, my post-flop aggression is insane! On a 4.0 scale, I scored an 8.7 in aggression. Some poker pundits would applaud that and repeat the old adage, "The hand doesn't begin until the flop." As I've probably mentioned before, aggressive post flop play can be your savior or your ride to the ATM. I've been guilty many times of trying to be too creative and pick-up pots. Maybe it's because I don't play nearly as many flops as I used to and I'm trying to over-compensate and takedown every pot I enter. I don't know.
Also, my won showdown percentage is pretty inconsistent at 57%. Ideally I'd like that number to be at least 65-70% (of course, ideally 100% is cool, too). I can think of two reasons why this number isn't higher than it is. First, and this is something I'm still trying to master, often I get into situations where if I bet and I'm called I'm beat. This happened to me twice when I was in Atlantic City this past week. Once I held queens and the board was 10-9-8-7-X. Dude bet $40 and I moved all-in for about $130. The reason I did it was because I strongly felt like he didn't have a jack and that I could push him off the hand. It took him awhile, but he called with pocket sixes. Strong call.
The second incident happened pretty much as a result of the first incident. I limp with A-6 of clubs (a mistake in itself) and nobody raised behind me. Flop comes 4-3-2, two spades. Small blind bets $15 and all five of us called (I guess I called with a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw with the intention of bluffing on the turn). Turn is a 10 of spades. Small blind bets $30, and after one caller, I make it $90. Ryan, sitting to my left, agonizes and folds (he later told me he folded the wheel). Small blind thinks for a minute and calls. Dude in front of me folded.
The river is a complete blank. Small blind checks. How do you follow a $90 bet? "All-in," I say as I lean back in my chair feigning strength. It takes him a long time, but he made the call with 6-5 of spades. Afterwards, he says to me, "If I hadn't seen you make the play with those queens I would have folded."
Reason number two is that I committ another poker sin far too often: calling knowing I'm losing but paying for re-assurance that I was right. That's gotta stop.
About to go hit up a multi-table tourney. Wish me luck.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Breaking Through the Wall
More so than ever, this year my poker play has been REALLY up and down. There are times when I think I'm truly not meant to play this game for any reason other than for fun. That may be true; some people have it, some people don't. However, just when I'm thinking that, I do something spectacular, like a great read, a good lay-down, or in a grander scheme, beating a high level game or winning a couple tourneys in a row.
I've got the skill set. There is no one poker situation out there that I haven't seen thanks to thousands upon thousands of hands player both online and live. And yet, I'm struggling to show progress. I know I'm better than I was at this point last year. It's not even close. I find myself constantly thinking about the game and ways I can improve.
What really opened my eyes to the fact that I can potentially be a very good player is the fact that I placed 73rd out of nearly 1500 players in Full Tilt's nightly "Midnight Madness", and while I don't want to over-analyze it (it was, after all, only one tournament), I played just about as well as I can play. I got very unlucky in three instances (including my knockout where Cowboys lost to Big Slick), and felt that I made all the plays I needed to make to win.
I'm finding that the key to surviving one of these large tournaments is to basically stay out of trouble, play as many small pots as possible, and in big pot situations get my chips in with the best of it. The main thing that would encompass all of those above qualities would be staying disciplined.
And, honestly that's probably my biggest problem regarding poker, whether it's bankroll management or deciding whether or not to play suited connectors. I've got to pick my spots better.
I'm planning on playing a couple of tourneys in Atlantic City this summer to see where my game is at. I'll keep you all informed.
I've got the skill set. There is no one poker situation out there that I haven't seen thanks to thousands upon thousands of hands player both online and live. And yet, I'm struggling to show progress. I know I'm better than I was at this point last year. It's not even close. I find myself constantly thinking about the game and ways I can improve.
What really opened my eyes to the fact that I can potentially be a very good player is the fact that I placed 73rd out of nearly 1500 players in Full Tilt's nightly "Midnight Madness", and while I don't want to over-analyze it (it was, after all, only one tournament), I played just about as well as I can play. I got very unlucky in three instances (including my knockout where Cowboys lost to Big Slick), and felt that I made all the plays I needed to make to win.
I'm finding that the key to surviving one of these large tournaments is to basically stay out of trouble, play as many small pots as possible, and in big pot situations get my chips in with the best of it. The main thing that would encompass all of those above qualities would be staying disciplined.
And, honestly that's probably my biggest problem regarding poker, whether it's bankroll management or deciding whether or not to play suited connectors. I've got to pick my spots better.
I'm planning on playing a couple of tourneys in Atlantic City this summer to see where my game is at. I'll keep you all informed.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Inspiration
Inspired by some of my online sessions today, I am going to define what exactly a bad beat is using my own words and a couple of audio/visual examples.
Here is my definition of a bad beat (some people's definitions differ a little bit): a bad beat is when, statistically, your hand, under normal conditions, would beat your opponent's hand, at the very least, three times out of four. In other words, when your hand is a 75% or 3-1 favorite. before the flop.
In sticking with the criteria, I consider this a bad beat statistically. To his credit, Gus Hansen played it beautifully, and Daniel Negreanu (in my opinion the best player in the world, period) remarkably almost mucked it, but Hansen had a 4% of catching the case five to take down the pot.
Now, a ton of people misuse the terminology "bad beat". For example, in Rounders (great movie) where Matt Damon turned the under full against KGB's big full, that's not neccesarily in bad beat in my mind. Pre-flop KGB is a HUGE favorite over A-9 of clubs with his aces. Now, if Damon won this hand, that would be a pretty bad beat. This hand is what's known as a "cooler", being beat by the only other hand that can possibly beat you.
I've had my share of both and I've also been on the other side. If you play any amount of poker I'm sure you'll experience them, too. But, the important thing to remember is to remain level-headed no matter what.
Here is my definition of a bad beat (some people's definitions differ a little bit): a bad beat is when, statistically, your hand, under normal conditions, would beat your opponent's hand, at the very least, three times out of four. In other words, when your hand is a 75% or 3-1 favorite. before the flop.
In sticking with the criteria, I consider this a bad beat statistically. To his credit, Gus Hansen played it beautifully, and Daniel Negreanu (in my opinion the best player in the world, period) remarkably almost mucked it, but Hansen had a 4% of catching the case five to take down the pot.
Now, a ton of people misuse the terminology "bad beat". For example, in Rounders (great movie) where Matt Damon turned the under full against KGB's big full, that's not neccesarily in bad beat in my mind. Pre-flop KGB is a HUGE favorite over A-9 of clubs with his aces. Now, if Damon won this hand, that would be a pretty bad beat. This hand is what's known as a "cooler", being beat by the only other hand that can possibly beat you.
I've had my share of both and I've also been on the other side. If you play any amount of poker I'm sure you'll experience them, too. But, the important thing to remember is to remain level-headed no matter what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)