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.
Monday, April 30, 2007
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.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Bankroll Troubles
I'm pretty much back to ground zero after a sizzling start to the 2007 campaign. Wow, that went quick. As I mentioned a couple posts back, I really have no one to blame for my poorous play except my self. The question is, how do I start over?
Part of it is having a better understanding of my bankroll. I have got to stick to strict guidelines when evaluating what kind of limits I should play at. I agree with the article in the fact that 300 BBs at a specific limit is kind of pushing it, but at .25-.50 normal limits, I would have to figure that $150 is a safe amount.
At least for now.
Part of it is having a better understanding of my bankroll. I have got to stick to strict guidelines when evaluating what kind of limits I should play at. I agree with the article in the fact that 300 BBs at a specific limit is kind of pushing it, but at .25-.50 normal limits, I would have to figure that $150 is a safe amount.
At least for now.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Bluffing
I wanted to link to an article in the Feb. 2007 edition of Bluff Magazine, but unfortunately for whatever reason it isn't on the web site. Looks like they're behind. However, I may have found a better article that plays to my point even more.
In short, the article written by an author whose name I can't remember (I have the print version of the mag and of course I don't have it right in front of me) talked about bluffing a form of advertising, setting people up for later success and when and when not to use it and who to use it against and who to not use it against. Niman Kenkre's article actually compliments that article because it adds one more dimension: bluffing when you smell weakness.
This was a well-played hand by Kenkre. He knew exactly what the other guy had and exploited him for it. It takes a couple of things below the belt to make a play like that with absolutely nothing. In fact, you can only do that when you put the other person on absolutely nothing. Bluffs are overused in today's game (I'm guilty of that sometimes), but knowing when to do it and when not to do it are critical for long-term success.
In short, the article written by an author whose name I can't remember (I have the print version of the mag and of course I don't have it right in front of me) talked about bluffing a form of advertising, setting people up for later success and when and when not to use it and who to use it against and who to not use it against. Niman Kenkre's article actually compliments that article because it adds one more dimension: bluffing when you smell weakness.
This was a well-played hand by Kenkre. He knew exactly what the other guy had and exploited him for it. It takes a couple of things below the belt to make a play like that with absolutely nothing. In fact, you can only do that when you put the other person on absolutely nothing. Bluffs are overused in today's game (I'm guilty of that sometimes), but knowing when to do it and when not to do it are critical for long-term success.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Tonight (Hibachi)
Glad that I got the graded post out the way. Seriously though, check out Poker After Dark.
It's definitely worth a look if you want to learn more about the game or if you want to see REAL poker.
So... here's the post I've been putting off for almost two weeks. Here goes nothing:
I made the common mistake of not only newbie (which I'm not) poker players but gamblers as well. I played over my limit. Skill wise, .50-$1 and $1-$2 aren't over my limits. I feel like whenever I sit down I can play with anybody at any limit. However, I was having so much success both online and live at the $.25-.$.50 level that I felt invincible. Then, it happened.
With roughly $180 sitting in my Full Tilt account one day in the library, I donked every last penny of that in about 20 minutes sitting at $.50-$1 on Full Tilt (they should be paying me for as often as I'm linking to this damn site). It's tough to recall exactly what happened because I pretty much blacked it out, but I think my first bust-out I got sucked out on, and on my re-buy I bluffed it off into someone holding close to the nuts. Luckily, I had $200 waiting in my Click2Pay account from a previous cash out, so I put that in.
Sat down with that and actually ended $50 up for the day. I was proud of myself.
Then, the next night I went to Ryan's house and lost $60 playing $.25-$.50. I didn't play bad, just didn't really catch any cards, and if I remember correctly that was the first time I'd ever seen Jen, this girl who's pretty much just learning poker and is the least-skilled person sitting no matter what table she occupies, finish with a huge night. Most of her chips were at the expense of catching miraculous cards, but to her credit she siphoned chips out of everyone, which ultimately is the name of the game.
Fast forward a couple days later, and this is where the hero has his tragic fall from grace. Through some great play, I somehow have $450 in Full Tilt. Determined to increase my bankroll, I sat down and played 1-2. Somehow my tight online image disappeared. I reverted back into a drunken Daniel Negreneau and saw flops with trash, trying to outplay the other person. Wasn't happening. I admittedly got my ass handed to me. Twice, for two buy-ins at the max allowed at a 1-2 table.
Then, I sat with my last bit of chunk change, hoping for a miracle. No.
I have no more money left in my Full Tilt account.
I think for the year that puts me around +$250.
Don-key.
But, you know what? At least I'm up. And, it's not like I'm oblivious to what I've been doing. I can't lie and say I've been getting unlucky. I've been so self-destructive in my play over the past two weeks. I have to buckle down. I'm seeing way too many flops. During this streak I think I'm seeing flops at a ridiculous 40% rate. Some people can get away with that, but that's not my style.
I can switch gears. I can be hyper-aggressive, and a lot of times that will end up netting me some serious dough. But, poker isn't a sprint. It's a marathon. It's about getting consistent results over time and more often than not making the right play. I haven't been doing that. So, until further notice it's back to grinding. Tight-aggressive play. Realistic limits. Asking myself, "Is this really the right play at this point in the hand against this person?"
In other words, back to Tripset. Tonight.
It's definitely worth a look if you want to learn more about the game or if you want to see REAL poker.
So... here's the post I've been putting off for almost two weeks. Here goes nothing:
I made the common mistake of not only newbie (which I'm not) poker players but gamblers as well. I played over my limit. Skill wise, .50-$1 and $1-$2 aren't over my limits. I feel like whenever I sit down I can play with anybody at any limit. However, I was having so much success both online and live at the $.25-.$.50 level that I felt invincible. Then, it happened.
With roughly $180 sitting in my Full Tilt account one day in the library, I donked every last penny of that in about 20 minutes sitting at $.50-$1 on Full Tilt (they should be paying me for as often as I'm linking to this damn site). It's tough to recall exactly what happened because I pretty much blacked it out, but I think my first bust-out I got sucked out on, and on my re-buy I bluffed it off into someone holding close to the nuts. Luckily, I had $200 waiting in my Click2Pay account from a previous cash out, so I put that in.
Sat down with that and actually ended $50 up for the day. I was proud of myself.
Then, the next night I went to Ryan's house and lost $60 playing $.25-$.50. I didn't play bad, just didn't really catch any cards, and if I remember correctly that was the first time I'd ever seen Jen, this girl who's pretty much just learning poker and is the least-skilled person sitting no matter what table she occupies, finish with a huge night. Most of her chips were at the expense of catching miraculous cards, but to her credit she siphoned chips out of everyone, which ultimately is the name of the game.
Fast forward a couple days later, and this is where the hero has his tragic fall from grace. Through some great play, I somehow have $450 in Full Tilt. Determined to increase my bankroll, I sat down and played 1-2. Somehow my tight online image disappeared. I reverted back into a drunken Daniel Negreneau and saw flops with trash, trying to outplay the other person. Wasn't happening. I admittedly got my ass handed to me. Twice, for two buy-ins at the max allowed at a 1-2 table.
Then, I sat with my last bit of chunk change, hoping for a miracle. No.
I have no more money left in my Full Tilt account.
I think for the year that puts me around +$250.
Don-key.
But, you know what? At least I'm up. And, it's not like I'm oblivious to what I've been doing. I can't lie and say I've been getting unlucky. I've been so self-destructive in my play over the past two weeks. I have to buckle down. I'm seeing way too many flops. During this streak I think I'm seeing flops at a ridiculous 40% rate. Some people can get away with that, but that's not my style.
I can switch gears. I can be hyper-aggressive, and a lot of times that will end up netting me some serious dough. But, poker isn't a sprint. It's a marathon. It's about getting consistent results over time and more often than not making the right play. I haven't been doing that. So, until further notice it's back to grinding. Tight-aggressive play. Realistic limits. Asking myself, "Is this really the right play at this point in the hand against this person?"
In other words, back to Tripset. Tonight.
Poker After Dark
Given my current struggles, I've been going back to the drawing board. I've been reading more than playing lately, and I've also been watching.
Mostly I've been watching Poker After Dark, and I have to tell you: by far it's the best poker show on television. I almost hate watching anything else.
The World Series of Poker pretty much gave birth to the televised poker era, and it's a good reference point, especially for people just starting to get into the game. However, by now most of you know that the Series is so cut and edited that, for the most part you don't get a chance to watch anyone play poker. You get vignettes and snippets for how people play, but they only show the big hands most of the time. You don't usually see the blind stealing raises or the hands that people fold on the regular, like 6-5 off suit or A-7 off suit. You see the amazing bluffs, calls, or coolers, the equivalent of Sportscenter showing Kobe Bryant throw it down in traffic without showing you his other 40 points.
Poker After Dark, however, is great because the editing is minimal. You see everything: the cards that people play, how they bet, how they react to certain hands (I swear I've got a million tells on Jamie Gold). Actually one of the better parts of it is that the commentators don't over-talk. The players are the ones who dictate the conversation, talking about everything from who won which bracelet to how Jerry Buss, owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, did an excellent job of setting the Lakers up for success.
It's good stuff, and if you're interested in becoming a serious player or just want to see what real poker is like, you can tune in at two o'clock in the morning. And, if you aren't a night owl like me, just click the link and you can watch it in the library, kind of like I'm doing now.
Mostly I've been watching Poker After Dark, and I have to tell you: by far it's the best poker show on television. I almost hate watching anything else.
The World Series of Poker pretty much gave birth to the televised poker era, and it's a good reference point, especially for people just starting to get into the game. However, by now most of you know that the Series is so cut and edited that, for the most part you don't get a chance to watch anyone play poker. You get vignettes and snippets for how people play, but they only show the big hands most of the time. You don't usually see the blind stealing raises or the hands that people fold on the regular, like 6-5 off suit or A-7 off suit. You see the amazing bluffs, calls, or coolers, the equivalent of Sportscenter showing Kobe Bryant throw it down in traffic without showing you his other 40 points.
Poker After Dark, however, is great because the editing is minimal. You see everything: the cards that people play, how they bet, how they react to certain hands (I swear I've got a million tells on Jamie Gold). Actually one of the better parts of it is that the commentators don't over-talk. The players are the ones who dictate the conversation, talking about everything from who won which bracelet to how Jerry Buss, owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, did an excellent job of setting the Lakers up for success.
It's good stuff, and if you're interested in becoming a serious player or just want to see what real poker is like, you can tune in at two o'clock in the morning. And, if you aren't a night owl like me, just click the link and you can watch it in the library, kind of like I'm doing now.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Swings of Online Poker
I lie to you not. I was actually going to post an entry that would have told you that I was up $1034 for the year, and I was going to talk about how much I was rushing, how I was making incredible decisions and how I was the best player in the world. I guess this would have been maybe five days ago. I actually still have the draft saved.
But, I am now down almost $300 since then. To be exact, for the year I'm at $766. Still a good $200 up from when I last wrote but disconcerting nonetheless.
For the most part all of these losses have been online. In fact, come to think of it they have been. To anyone unfamiliar with poker, it's a huge difference. Twice as many hands, no physical tells to rely on, and the variable of distraction forever compounding things. I've found that when I've been playing well online, it's because I've limited my hand selections. When I go through swings like this, it's usually because I try to get too creative and see flops with marginal holdings. Simple enough, right? I just have to tighten my ship.
I'm not overly worried. I know the money's coming back. I'm really looking forward to getting back to live play tonight.
After watching "Poker After Dark" the last couple of days on NBC, I've come to really respect Gus Hansen's game. For the most part, people can play what's known as "ABC" or by-the-book poker and do a fine job, even make a living off of it. But, the reason why I think Hansen is one of the best is that he deviates from cut and dry poker. Granted, if you want to play like him at a high level I think you need a massive roll and maybe a few shots of Smirnoff, but check out his escapades under the "Poker Superstars III" posting. Even if you know he's full of bulldog manure, he ultimately does put you to a decision, most of the time for a large sum or all of your chips. As you'll see in the post, sometimes he doesn't even look at his hole cards. Gambler? Yes. But, most of the best players in the world are.
But, I am now down almost $300 since then. To be exact, for the year I'm at $766. Still a good $200 up from when I last wrote but disconcerting nonetheless.
For the most part all of these losses have been online. In fact, come to think of it they have been. To anyone unfamiliar with poker, it's a huge difference. Twice as many hands, no physical tells to rely on, and the variable of distraction forever compounding things. I've found that when I've been playing well online, it's because I've limited my hand selections. When I go through swings like this, it's usually because I try to get too creative and see flops with marginal holdings. Simple enough, right? I just have to tighten my ship.
I'm not overly worried. I know the money's coming back. I'm really looking forward to getting back to live play tonight.
After watching "Poker After Dark" the last couple of days on NBC, I've come to really respect Gus Hansen's game. For the most part, people can play what's known as "ABC" or by-the-book poker and do a fine job, even make a living off of it. But, the reason why I think Hansen is one of the best is that he deviates from cut and dry poker. Granted, if you want to play like him at a high level I think you need a massive roll and maybe a few shots of Smirnoff, but check out his escapades under the "Poker Superstars III" posting. Even if you know he's full of bulldog manure, he ultimately does put you to a decision, most of the time for a large sum or all of your chips. As you'll see in the post, sometimes he doesn't even look at his hole cards. Gambler? Yes. But, most of the best players in the world are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)