And, I'm not kidding when I say this, I'm ecstatic. I played my ass off tonight. Good to break out of the slump!!!!
Now, I just have to find out how to spend my $3.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
...
I have no fucking clue what's wrong with me.
I am currently going through the absolute sickest run in my poker "career". Usually when I say sick, it's some sort of crazy slang that kids use, like, "Did you see that sick Nate Robinson dunk?" or such. No.
I mean sick as in I have the urge to vomit without caring if I get anything in the toilet.
And, basically that's where my game is: in the toilet. I like, can't do anything right at the poker table, online or live. The funny thing is that I cannot blame it on a bad run of cards. I am playing really fucking bad right now. My poker swagger is completely gone. It's gotten to the point where I feel really lucky if I win a pot. As a matter of fact, I feel like I have to get lucky to win a pot. My middle pair has to hit again on the turn or the river, or I have to hit my inside straight draw or my flush draw against the odds to win a pot.
It's not like I'm playing against Phil Hellmuth, either. I'm struggling against average poker players, everyday run of the mill poker players (note to some people who read this more regularly than others: this doesn't include you). Seriously, something's got to change.
I'm smarter poker-wise than I was last year, but it doesn't translate to the actual game, and for whatever reason I'm making ten times as many mistakes. It's fuckin' depressing as hell.
I feel like a basketball team who shoots 20% from the floor against a team that shoots in the mid 60's: like everything that could possibly go wrong is going wrong and there's nothing I can do about it.
I've tried literally everything, and it seems like the harder I try, the worse I play. I just need to TASTE a positive session. That's all; all I want is to be $1 in the black.
$1. Is that too much to ask?
I am currently going through the absolute sickest run in my poker "career". Usually when I say sick, it's some sort of crazy slang that kids use, like, "Did you see that sick Nate Robinson dunk?" or such. No.
I mean sick as in I have the urge to vomit without caring if I get anything in the toilet.
And, basically that's where my game is: in the toilet. I like, can't do anything right at the poker table, online or live. The funny thing is that I cannot blame it on a bad run of cards. I am playing really fucking bad right now. My poker swagger is completely gone. It's gotten to the point where I feel really lucky if I win a pot. As a matter of fact, I feel like I have to get lucky to win a pot. My middle pair has to hit again on the turn or the river, or I have to hit my inside straight draw or my flush draw against the odds to win a pot.
It's not like I'm playing against Phil Hellmuth, either. I'm struggling against average poker players, everyday run of the mill poker players (note to some people who read this more regularly than others: this doesn't include you). Seriously, something's got to change.
I'm smarter poker-wise than I was last year, but it doesn't translate to the actual game, and for whatever reason I'm making ten times as many mistakes. It's fuckin' depressing as hell.
I feel like a basketball team who shoots 20% from the floor against a team that shoots in the mid 60's: like everything that could possibly go wrong is going wrong and there's nothing I can do about it.
I've tried literally everything, and it seems like the harder I try, the worse I play. I just need to TASTE a positive session. That's all; all I want is to be $1 in the black.
$1. Is that too much to ask?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
4-2!?
Sometimes I just don't know.
Like, I truly believe poker is a game of skill, a test of wits, psychological warfare carried out on the felt (or virtual felt). It's a game where you not only calculate odds, but tendencies. When played correctly, it transcends art.
But, then again, there are days--like today--where I feel like all of that can get thrown out the window and ladyluck gives some poor sap a blowjob under the table.
Let me set the table for this one: I've got like $45 in a $.25-$.50 game on Ultimatebet. At one point I had like 80 something, but little mistakes here and there cost me, and, well, I was back down to earth (not that 80 is rushing or anything, but...). I've got A-7 off in the small blind. Folded to the button, an erratic player, who called. I call. Big blind, who had just gotten to the table but hadn't made much noise sitting with around $35, checked.
Flop comes 4-2-7, two diamonds. I'm feelin' the check-raise vibe because I don't want to see a turn with this hand, so I complete part I of the master plan. Big blind thinks for a minute and bets $1.25 into a $1.50 pot. Button calls (he literally can have anything at this point). Back to me, and I raise to $3.50. BB thinks for a minute and calls. At that point I put him on two pair or a decent 7, maybe even A-7. Button folds.
Turn is a ten of hearts, making the board double-suited. I bet $8 into about a $10 pot. He calls.
Now I'm DEFINTELY putting him on two pair.
The river is a queen of hearts, possible flush showing. In full blown Mike Matusow mode, I put him all-in. He thinks real hard, and of course he calls with 4-2 suited. Two piece.
Now, I know what you're thinking: "Justin, why the hell are you blogging about this hand? You dug your own grave by being over-aggressive like you usually get after an hour or so. You knew he had a big hand, and that it would take much better story-telling to get him to lay that down. I've lost all respect for you as a player, if I ever had any."
Believe it or not, that's not the hand. After he made that not too overly difficult call against me, I gave him credit as a solid player. Oh boy.
Two hands later I'm dealt JJ Redick. With $13 left, I have enough to not overly panic and push with 26 BBs left, so I raise to $2 with the artist formerly known as the erratic bubble boy behind me. Well, artist formerly known as BB called, as did the actual BB (who at one point had like $212 but had fallen back to reality) and dude in front of me. Great, they think I'm tilting.
Flop comes 10-8-4, two clubs I think. Everybody checks to me.
"Fuck it," I said. "No one has shown any real strength, but for some reason I feel like if I push now I'll get at least one caller."
Push by me. I get two callers: my nemesis' from the previous discussion. I put both of them on tens, until they both check the turn, a 5 of diamonds. I'm thinking to myself, "No ten, no eight, no four."
The river is a four. Okay, not the best card in the world, but, come on... how can you still be in this pot with a...
Dude right behind me bet $10 into what was now a $40 pot. Are you serious?
I knew it before the cards were turned over, that my man had a 4. Maybe A-4 suited.
No. He had 4-2 suited.
...
Okay, so let's break this hand down from his perspective. Believe it or not, I don't have a huge problem with him calling before the flop. It's not the best play in the world, but let's assume that he knew the limper would also call. 4-2 is pretty weak, but he is getting almost 3-1, plus it's suited. I've made such calls, and sometimes I do flop big hands, and playing those connectors can be pretty deceptive if the flop is good. Not in love with the call, but hey, these Internet kids are crazy, so I'll give the call a B- (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt).
On the flop, I like the check. Some people bet out to see where they're at, but checking is right. A+.
But, here is where it goes all wrong. When I go all-in, I may be tilting. I mean, I could have had A-K, A-Q, or A-J, but here's the thing... with two other people behind you, how can you try to make a hero call like that? Oh, and in terms of relative hand strength, you hit the board, but you have the absolute worst kicker in the world. I mean, let's say I'm just making a continuation bet. I raised for a reason; pocket fives would have him crushed. F---(take that as either "F" triple minus or something else).
Ugh. I'm gonna be dreaming about 4-2 all night, because it literally cost me close to a buy-in tonight.
Poker is the most excruciating game in the world. Why do I put myself through so much abuse?
Then again... when I hit quads with 4-2 next time, it'll be the new 8-5.
Like, I truly believe poker is a game of skill, a test of wits, psychological warfare carried out on the felt (or virtual felt). It's a game where you not only calculate odds, but tendencies. When played correctly, it transcends art.
But, then again, there are days--like today--where I feel like all of that can get thrown out the window and ladyluck gives some poor sap a blowjob under the table.
Let me set the table for this one: I've got like $45 in a $.25-$.50 game on Ultimatebet. At one point I had like 80 something, but little mistakes here and there cost me, and, well, I was back down to earth (not that 80 is rushing or anything, but...). I've got A-7 off in the small blind. Folded to the button, an erratic player, who called. I call. Big blind, who had just gotten to the table but hadn't made much noise sitting with around $35, checked.
Flop comes 4-2-7, two diamonds. I'm feelin' the check-raise vibe because I don't want to see a turn with this hand, so I complete part I of the master plan. Big blind thinks for a minute and bets $1.25 into a $1.50 pot. Button calls (he literally can have anything at this point). Back to me, and I raise to $3.50. BB thinks for a minute and calls. At that point I put him on two pair or a decent 7, maybe even A-7. Button folds.
Turn is a ten of hearts, making the board double-suited. I bet $8 into about a $10 pot. He calls.
Now I'm DEFINTELY putting him on two pair.
The river is a queen of hearts, possible flush showing. In full blown Mike Matusow mode, I put him all-in. He thinks real hard, and of course he calls with 4-2 suited. Two piece.
Now, I know what you're thinking: "Justin, why the hell are you blogging about this hand? You dug your own grave by being over-aggressive like you usually get after an hour or so. You knew he had a big hand, and that it would take much better story-telling to get him to lay that down. I've lost all respect for you as a player, if I ever had any."
Believe it or not, that's not the hand. After he made that not too overly difficult call against me, I gave him credit as a solid player. Oh boy.
Two hands later I'm dealt JJ Redick. With $13 left, I have enough to not overly panic and push with 26 BBs left, so I raise to $2 with the artist formerly known as the erratic bubble boy behind me. Well, artist formerly known as BB called, as did the actual BB (who at one point had like $212 but had fallen back to reality) and dude in front of me. Great, they think I'm tilting.
Flop comes 10-8-4, two clubs I think. Everybody checks to me.
"Fuck it," I said. "No one has shown any real strength, but for some reason I feel like if I push now I'll get at least one caller."
Push by me. I get two callers: my nemesis' from the previous discussion. I put both of them on tens, until they both check the turn, a 5 of diamonds. I'm thinking to myself, "No ten, no eight, no four."
The river is a four. Okay, not the best card in the world, but, come on... how can you still be in this pot with a...
Dude right behind me bet $10 into what was now a $40 pot. Are you serious?
I knew it before the cards were turned over, that my man had a 4. Maybe A-4 suited.
No. He had 4-2 suited.
...
Okay, so let's break this hand down from his perspective. Believe it or not, I don't have a huge problem with him calling before the flop. It's not the best play in the world, but let's assume that he knew the limper would also call. 4-2 is pretty weak, but he is getting almost 3-1, plus it's suited. I've made such calls, and sometimes I do flop big hands, and playing those connectors can be pretty deceptive if the flop is good. Not in love with the call, but hey, these Internet kids are crazy, so I'll give the call a B- (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt).
On the flop, I like the check. Some people bet out to see where they're at, but checking is right. A+.
But, here is where it goes all wrong. When I go all-in, I may be tilting. I mean, I could have had A-K, A-Q, or A-J, but here's the thing... with two other people behind you, how can you try to make a hero call like that? Oh, and in terms of relative hand strength, you hit the board, but you have the absolute worst kicker in the world. I mean, let's say I'm just making a continuation bet. I raised for a reason; pocket fives would have him crushed. F---(take that as either "F" triple minus or something else).
Ugh. I'm gonna be dreaming about 4-2 all night, because it literally cost me close to a buy-in tonight.
Poker is the most excruciating game in the world. Why do I put myself through so much abuse?
Then again... when I hit quads with 4-2 next time, it'll be the new 8-5.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Harrington On Hold 'Em
Cash games haven't been too good to me lately. I've actually gone through about a two month period of playing like absolute dog shit in cash games. I haven't been properly executing small ball, in essence doing what Daniel Negreanu says most players end up doing when adopting small ball--over-extending my hand range.
However, I don't think it's any coincidence that I've been playing better in tournaments. Know why? It's because I limit my hand range to much stricter requirements, a strategy I should start implementing more in my cash games. I'm playing on Ultimatebet.com right now, and I've been doing nothing but playing large 300 + tourneys. Finished seventh in one (where I really should have won as the chip leader for almost half the tournament but...) and I've cashed in two others. 42% success rate in big tournaments isn't bad at all.
Still, in those tournaments, everytime I got knocked out it wasn't because I got unlucky. I made some legitimate bone-headed ass plays to kick me to the rail. For example, 29 BB left near the bubble, and I come over the top of two raisers with pocket tens (guy who called had JJ Redick). Or, how about this one: 50 times the BB after grinding to get that many chips, only to come over the top of a guy who had me covered with only A-Q off. Big mistake on my part, taking a coin flip knowing that he was an aggressive player who hadn't shown that he was capable of laying down a hand (he had 6-6).
Mistakes aside, I think working out of Dan Harrington's Harrington on Hold 'Em: Volume III has helped my tournament game a lot. It gives you good insight for playing after the flop and playing the bubble, two things I have improved but still need work on.
I bring up the Harrington book because it has a scoring system to help evaluate your play. I felt like I made a ton of mistakes in the book, but out of 591 possible points, I scored 457, much better than I thought I would have. In the description in the back of the book, Harrington interprets the score as, "A very good player who should show solid profit in big tournaments."
So, theoretically I should be dominating the field. I should have had a six figure cash by now, a Porsche to compensate for inadequate manhood, and a butler who tells me how good I am. But, the truth is I'm not.
The financial results say that I'm just another fish (literally) in the sea. I eat other fish sometimes, but for the most part I'm the main course. Per the results, I'm certainly no shark.
But, what I learned from this book was that my lack of success doesn't have to do with lack of knowledge. I'm not going to say I know poker inside and out, because I don't, but I know enough to do much better than I have been. No, my lack of success comes with my over-reliance on my heart instead of my head in the heat of the moment.
When I'm talking poker, I'm quick to say, "Oh yeah, what is he doing pushing with A-Q off?"
"Pocket tens in the face of two raisers? Save your chips."
"You flopped a small flush, but what did you think when he raised you? I would have laid it down."
Throughout my career, in the face of anxiety, I have been a losing player. I can bet a set on the flop for value and check the turn, check-raise on river with nothing successfully, or steal the blinds under the gun with 5-2 off (true story), but I can't fold aces at any point in the hand, drop the second nut flush, or fold a boat.
It's mental. It's all mental. And, until I figure out how to get out of my own way, 457 score or not, I will be a losing player.
However, I don't think it's any coincidence that I've been playing better in tournaments. Know why? It's because I limit my hand range to much stricter requirements, a strategy I should start implementing more in my cash games. I'm playing on Ultimatebet.com right now, and I've been doing nothing but playing large 300 + tourneys. Finished seventh in one (where I really should have won as the chip leader for almost half the tournament but...) and I've cashed in two others. 42% success rate in big tournaments isn't bad at all.
Still, in those tournaments, everytime I got knocked out it wasn't because I got unlucky. I made some legitimate bone-headed ass plays to kick me to the rail. For example, 29 BB left near the bubble, and I come over the top of two raisers with pocket tens (guy who called had JJ Redick). Or, how about this one: 50 times the BB after grinding to get that many chips, only to come over the top of a guy who had me covered with only A-Q off. Big mistake on my part, taking a coin flip knowing that he was an aggressive player who hadn't shown that he was capable of laying down a hand (he had 6-6).
Mistakes aside, I think working out of Dan Harrington's Harrington on Hold 'Em: Volume III has helped my tournament game a lot. It gives you good insight for playing after the flop and playing the bubble, two things I have improved but still need work on.
I bring up the Harrington book because it has a scoring system to help evaluate your play. I felt like I made a ton of mistakes in the book, but out of 591 possible points, I scored 457, much better than I thought I would have. In the description in the back of the book, Harrington interprets the score as, "A very good player who should show solid profit in big tournaments."
So, theoretically I should be dominating the field. I should have had a six figure cash by now, a Porsche to compensate for inadequate manhood, and a butler who tells me how good I am. But, the truth is I'm not.
The financial results say that I'm just another fish (literally) in the sea. I eat other fish sometimes, but for the most part I'm the main course. Per the results, I'm certainly no shark.
But, what I learned from this book was that my lack of success doesn't have to do with lack of knowledge. I'm not going to say I know poker inside and out, because I don't, but I know enough to do much better than I have been. No, my lack of success comes with my over-reliance on my heart instead of my head in the heat of the moment.
When I'm talking poker, I'm quick to say, "Oh yeah, what is he doing pushing with A-Q off?"
"Pocket tens in the face of two raisers? Save your chips."
"You flopped a small flush, but what did you think when he raised you? I would have laid it down."
Throughout my career, in the face of anxiety, I have been a losing player. I can bet a set on the flop for value and check the turn, check-raise on river with nothing successfully, or steal the blinds under the gun with 5-2 off (true story), but I can't fold aces at any point in the hand, drop the second nut flush, or fold a boat.
It's mental. It's all mental. And, until I figure out how to get out of my own way, 457 score or not, I will be a losing player.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
I've been dry from real money poker for the last three and a half weeks, but poker is still a presence in my life that I can hardly escape, nor do I really want to.
I've been playing Poker Academy 2.0 a couple times a week not only working on my game but also my money management. I simulated what I want to do when I actually do accumulate some scratch, and that is I started myself with a $1,000 bankroll and I try to play within my limits. I've mostly been hitting up $.25-$.50, $.50-$1 and a couple $50 buy-in tournaments. You may laugh and ask, "How can a computer program possibly be as realistic as online and live poker?"
Like online and live poker, each player in the program has a completely different style, and the better ones adapt to your game at a faster rate. To be honest, I feel like the computer has put me in just as many marginal situations as real poker. I feel my game improving, and I guess that's the purpose.
But enough about me and more about the World Series of Poker. Up until the granddaddy of them all, I'd been following the series casually. I know that Phil Hellmuth and Allen Cunningham both notched bracelets (Hellmuth's record setting 11th) and that Tom Schneider, the WSOP player of the year, is having a hell of a tournament with three final tables and a bracelet. However, maybe it's ESPN's fault, but I feel it's all about what happens in the main event.
Play started two days ago, and I can already tell that this year's field will be much smaller than last year's. It'll probably be around the size of the 2005 main event when more than 5,500 sat.
There are storylines buzzing all around, but for me it comes down to this: recognizeable veteran, Internet whizkid, or average Joe off the street who decided to give the WSOP a try?
It'd be cool to see one of the first two come away with the title this year, but the beauty of the series is the fact that anyone can win.
With that in mind, here are some of the players I'm rooting for:
Daniel Negreanu
He's probably one of the top five poker players in the world in my estimation, and he's proven that with 26 cashes and three bracelets, but in order to be the best, he's got to conquer the massive main event field. I don't know if his crafty style of play translates very well to this huge field of amateurs, but no one has better instincts than this man.
Phil Ivey
You can probably cut and paste a lot of what I said about Negreanu and transfer it down to Ivey. He's got five bracelets (amazingly none in Hold 'Em) and 26 cashes, and if you ask people who the best player in the world is, Ivey is definitely on that short-list. If he doesn't get too bored I think he'll at least cash, but if he gets hungry, I really do think he's got a shot.
Paul Wasicka
He finished 2nd last year, which is cool and all but I wanted to see what he did after the WSOP. Well, he's actually one of the hottest players of the past 12 months, having amassed a sick run of finishes which included the National Heads-Up Championship this year and a 4th place finish at the LA Classic. His tight-aggressive game is geared perfectly for this tournament, and it seems like he's always making the right decision. Plus, his backstory of how he got started kind of reminds me of me.
Joe Hachem
He followed up his win in 2005 with an impressive 2006, and while he's been fairly quiet this year, I think a victory in the Main Event would go a long way in solidifying his status as a legitimate player in the poker world. He's already out of Day 1, which is cool because that means he's made it out of Day 1 three years in a row. He must be doing something right.
Irv Gotti
I can't believe big man made it out of Day 1... anything's possible.
I've been playing Poker Academy 2.0 a couple times a week not only working on my game but also my money management. I simulated what I want to do when I actually do accumulate some scratch, and that is I started myself with a $1,000 bankroll and I try to play within my limits. I've mostly been hitting up $.25-$.50, $.50-$1 and a couple $50 buy-in tournaments. You may laugh and ask, "How can a computer program possibly be as realistic as online and live poker?"
Like online and live poker, each player in the program has a completely different style, and the better ones adapt to your game at a faster rate. To be honest, I feel like the computer has put me in just as many marginal situations as real poker. I feel my game improving, and I guess that's the purpose.
But enough about me and more about the World Series of Poker. Up until the granddaddy of them all, I'd been following the series casually. I know that Phil Hellmuth and Allen Cunningham both notched bracelets (Hellmuth's record setting 11th) and that Tom Schneider, the WSOP player of the year, is having a hell of a tournament with three final tables and a bracelet. However, maybe it's ESPN's fault, but I feel it's all about what happens in the main event.
Play started two days ago, and I can already tell that this year's field will be much smaller than last year's. It'll probably be around the size of the 2005 main event when more than 5,500 sat.
There are storylines buzzing all around, but for me it comes down to this: recognizeable veteran, Internet whizkid, or average Joe off the street who decided to give the WSOP a try?
It'd be cool to see one of the first two come away with the title this year, but the beauty of the series is the fact that anyone can win.
With that in mind, here are some of the players I'm rooting for:
Daniel Negreanu
He's probably one of the top five poker players in the world in my estimation, and he's proven that with 26 cashes and three bracelets, but in order to be the best, he's got to conquer the massive main event field. I don't know if his crafty style of play translates very well to this huge field of amateurs, but no one has better instincts than this man.
Phil Ivey
You can probably cut and paste a lot of what I said about Negreanu and transfer it down to Ivey. He's got five bracelets (amazingly none in Hold 'Em) and 26 cashes, and if you ask people who the best player in the world is, Ivey is definitely on that short-list. If he doesn't get too bored I think he'll at least cash, but if he gets hungry, I really do think he's got a shot.
Paul Wasicka
He finished 2nd last year, which is cool and all but I wanted to see what he did after the WSOP. Well, he's actually one of the hottest players of the past 12 months, having amassed a sick run of finishes which included the National Heads-Up Championship this year and a 4th place finish at the LA Classic. His tight-aggressive game is geared perfectly for this tournament, and it seems like he's always making the right decision. Plus, his backstory of how he got started kind of reminds me of me.
Joe Hachem
He followed up his win in 2005 with an impressive 2006, and while he's been fairly quiet this year, I think a victory in the Main Event would go a long way in solidifying his status as a legitimate player in the poker world. He's already out of Day 1, which is cool because that means he's made it out of Day 1 three years in a row. He must be doing something right.
Irv Gotti
I can't believe big man made it out of Day 1... anything's possible.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Well...
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)