Thursday, December 30, 2010

Keeping it simple

Last night, I kept it simple:

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 30 hands and saw flop:
- 3 out of 3 times while in big blind (100%)
- 3 out of 4 times while in small blind (75%)
- 14 out of 23 times in other positions (60%)
- a total of 20 out of 30 (66%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 1 (100%)
Pots won without showdown - 1

To go to showdown only once in 30 hands may be a record for me; I'll have to check. The fact that I came out in the black winning only 2 of 30 hands is a real eye-opener; I need to play this patiently way more often!

delta: $15,685
balance: $838,531

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Bad beat

Last night I hit the felt again, and the way it happened was extra painful. I find myself forced to revise my philosophy on "bad beats". To recap, up to now I've claimed that the concept of a bad beat is nothing other than a tactless way of expressing one's displeasure with a statistically improbable event; in other words, sour grapes. That might be true in an ideal poker world; however, in the real poker world, play is often far from ideal. Let me first show you the hand that did me in; afterward, I'll explain what I mean.

Table 'Bohlinia VI' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: (50597 in chips)
Seat 2: (34200 in chips)
Seat 3: (49800 in chips)
Seat 4: neostreet (34600 in chips)
Seat 5: (83394 in chips)
Seat 6: (52400 in chips)
Seat 7: (11000 in chips)
Seat 8: (7700 in chips)
Seat 9: (41100 in chips)
neostreet: posts small blind 100
Seat 5: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [Ad Ac]
Seat 6: calls 200
Seat 7: calls 200
Seat 8: calls 200
Seat 9: calls 200
Seat 1: calls 200
Seat 2: calls 200
Seat 3: folds
Seat 3 leaves the table
neostreet: raises 200 to 400
Seat 5: raises 600 to 1000
Seat 6: calls 800
Seat 7: calls 800
Seat 8: calls 800
Seat 9: calls 800
Väns Fhüdher joins the table at seat #3
Seat 1: calls 800
Seat 2: calls 800
neostreet: raises 8000 to 9000
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: calls 8000
Seat 7: raises 2000 to 11000 and is all-in
Seat 8: calls 6700 and is all-in
Seat 9: folds
Seat 1: folds
Seat 2: calls 10000
neostreet: calls 2000
Seat 6: calls 2000
*** FLOP *** [2d Js Ks]
neostreet: bets 23600 and is all-in
Seat 6: calls 23600
Seat 2: folds
*** TURN *** [2d Js Ks] [Jd]
*** RIVER *** [2d Js Ks Jd] [9d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
neostreet: shows [Ad Ac] (two pair, Aces and Jacks)
Seat 6: shows [Kd 5d] (a flush, King high)
Seat 6 collected 47200 from side pot-2
Seat 7: shows [8c 6h] (a pair of Jacks)
Seat 6 collected 13200 from side pot-1
Seat 8: shows [Tc Td] (two pair, Jacks and Tens)
Seat 6 collected 41500 from main pot

Seat 6 had two pair, kings and jacks, after the flop. The only way he should have figured he could beat me was if he hit a king for a full house or hit running diamonds for a diamond flush. He should have known by the way I was betting that I had pocket rockets. A jack would have done him no good, since that would have given me a better full house than his. There's no way he should have called my $23,600 bet. If he'd been playing rationally, he would have folded, and I would have won the pot. However, since he didn't play rationally, and the running diamonds hit, he basically stole the pot from me. That's a bad beat!

I admit, there's more than a whiff of sour grapes about this. The thing is, I'd play the same hand the same way every time. I have no misgivings about the correctness of my play.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 14 hands and saw flop:
- 1 out of 2 times while in big blind (50%)
- 2 out of 3 times while in small blind (66%)
- 5 out of 9 times in other positions (55%)
- a total of 8 out of 14 (57%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 3 (33%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $-40,000
balance: $822,846

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

A tale of two flushes

Last Thursday night, my mini win streak came to a screeching halt. I hit the felt after 69 hands; another "long is wrong" kind of night. My biggest loss on a single hand was $15,400; here's how it went down:

Table 'Algunde VIII' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: (36400 in chips)
Seat 3: (15400 in chips)
Seat 4: (22466 in chips)
Seat 5: (24800 in chips)
Seat 7: neostreet (24100 in chips)
Seat 8: (39600 in chips)
Seat 9: (42958 in chips)
Seat 4: posts small blind 100
Seat 5: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [9h Kc]
neostreet: calls 200
Seat 8: folds
Seat 9: calls 200
Seat 1: calls 200
Seat 3: calls 200
Seat 4: calls 100
Seat 5: checks
*** FLOP *** [2s 4s Ks]
Seat 4: checks
Seat 5: bets 200
neostreet: calls 200
Seat 9: calls 200
Seat 1: calls 200
Seat 3: raises 1000 to 1200
Seat 4: folds
Seat 5: calls 1000
neostreet: calls 1000
Seat 9: folds
Seat 1: folds
*** TURN *** [2s 4s Ks] [3h]
Seat 9 leaves the table
Seat 5: checks
neostreet: checks
Seat 3: bets 5200
Seat 5: calls 5200
neostreet: calls 5200
*** RIVER *** [2s 4s Ks 3h] [Qc]
Seat 5: checks
neostreet: checks
Seat 3: bets 8800 and is all-in
Seat 5: folds
neostreet: calls 8800
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 3: shows [5s 7s] (a flush, King high)
neostreet: shows [9h Kc] (a pair of Kings)
Seat 3 collected 38400 from pot

I just didn't believe that Seat 3 had flopped a flush. Funnily enough, three hands later I flopped a flush myself, and beat Seat 3's nine high straight with it; however, that pot was only worth $12,600, of which only $6,700 was o.p.m. (other people's money).

Back to the drawing board.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 69 hands and saw flop:
- 12 out of 12 times while in big blind (100%)
- 10 out of 11 times while in small blind (90%)
- 39 out of 46 times in other positions (84%)
- a total of 61 out of 69 (88%)
Pots won at showdown - 5 of 16 (31%)
Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $-40,000
balance: $862,846

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Rolling in the deep

The subject of this post comes from the title of a song I love, by the British singer Adele. My great musical educator, as I've mentioned before, is the independent station WXRV, also known as The River. I listen to it in the car, and download the songs I really like from iTunes. I listen to them while I play poker. An earlier Adele song, "Chasing Pavements", inspired an earlier blog post. "Rolling In the Deep" isn't as implicitly applicable to poker as "Chasing Pavements"; however, its mysteriousness evokes the mysteriousness of poker marvelously well. When there's a huge pot, the action is on you, and you're not sure if you have the best hand, you are truly "rolling in the deep" as you try to decide what to do. There's no better feeling than having the guts to make the call, then winning that type of monster pot.

Funnily enough, the only mental activities I've found which I enjoy listening to music while engaged in are poker and chess.

Last night, I lucked out early on to get a lift, then had a couple more lifts after that. These enabled me to do another odd crossing! I now have less than $100K to go to hit the play million mark again.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 34 hands and saw flop:
- 5 out of 6 times while in big blind (83%)
- 3 out of 7 times while in small blind (42%)
- 16 out of 21 times in other positions (76%)
- a total of 24 out of 34 (70%)
Pots won at showdown - 5 of 5 (100%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $21,982
balance: $902,846

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Redemption

Last Friday night, my stack underwent a smooth and steady descent at the first table I joined; if the table hadn't up and quit on me, I'm sure I would have hit the felt. As it was, I only had $5,526 left of my starting stack of $40K when everybody left. The thing is, despite the descent, I felt I wasn't actually playing all that badly. Good play is not always rewarded.

At the next table I joined, I was able to redeem myself via a truly monster hand about 25 hands in. It recovered what I'd lost at the first table, plus a nice (albeit small) bonus. Here's how it went down:

Table 'Crimea VI' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: Seat 1 (65935 in chips)
Seat 3: Seat 3 (72600 in chips)
Seat 4: Seat 4 (2468 in chips)
Seat 8: neostreet (46100 in chips)
neostreet: posts small blind 100
Seat 1: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [2h 2s]
Seat 3: calls 200
Seat 4: folds
neostreet: calls 100
Seat 4 leaves the table
Seat 1: checks
*** FLOP *** [As 4h Td]
neostreet: checks
Seat 1: bets 200
Seat 3: folds
neostreet: calls 200
*** TURN *** [As 4h Td] [2c]
neostreet: checks
Seat 1: checks
*** RIVER *** [As 4h Td 2c] [8d]
neostreet: bets 1000
Seat 1: raises 1000 to 2000
neostreet: raises 5000 to 7000
Seat 1: raises 5000 to 12000
neostreet: raises 25000 to 37000
Seat 1: calls 25000
*** SHOW DOWN ***
neostreet: shows [2h 2s] (three of a kind, Deuces)
Seat 1: mucks hand
neostreet collected 75000 from pot

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 70 hands and saw flop:
- 11 out of 15 times while in big blind (73%)
- 12 out of 17 times while in small blind (70%)
- 31 out of 38 times in other positions (81%)
- a total of 54 out of 70 (77%)
Pots won at showdown - 9 of 16 (56%)
Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $9,026
balance: $880,864

Friday, December 17, 2010

One and done

Last night, I had an awesome hand straight out of the gate; I was dealt the king and eight of spades, and flopped a flush. I slow played it for one street, then bet the pot on the turn and got one caller. I wasn't happy to see a fourth spade pop on the river, but knew I could only lose to one card (the ace of spades) and that it was pretty unlikely my caller had been gambling to hit the nut flush. When he bet $5K on the river, I just called; there was no sense raising there, since there was already sufficient money in the pot and why risk that he had the ace? I won a pot worth $48,100; $27,200 of it was other people's money (mostly the caller's). I called it a night without hesitation.

delta: $27,200
balance: $871,838

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Two risers

When you only play poker about once a week, and you're in the habit of waiting to post until the next time you play, it's not too surprising if you don't remember a whole lot about the session you're posting about. Prior to doing some research, all I remembered about last Friday's session was that I had a decent gain; I had to dig into the archives in order to come up with an angle for this entry.

Looking at the bar chart of my stack size over the course of the session, it's easy to see I had two big gains, and every other gain and loss was small. Let's call these big gains "risers". Let me look into the hand histories...

On the first riser, I won a pot worth $21,200 with an ace high flush; $14,200 of that was other people's money.

On the second riser, I won a pot worth $20,500 with three of a kind, jacks; $16,500 of that was other people's money.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 28 hands and saw flop:
- 3 out of 5 times while in big blind (60%)
- 4 out of 4 times while in small blind (100%)
- 13 out of 19 times in other positions (68%)
- a total of 20 out of 28 (71%)
Pots won at showdown - 5 of 10 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $20,000
balance: $844,638

Friday, December 10, 2010

Saddle up and let's go dancing

I've been missing playing poker lately, as you may have surmised. I started a new job last month, and my commute time has increased by almost two hours a day. Not only that, I have to get up earlier in the morning, so it's a double whammy. This week, I decided to just go to bed early every night, so I wouldn't get into sleep debt. I foresee only being able to play poker one or two nights a week now, which is a bummer. Oh well, at least that's better than nothing!

The title of this post comes from a car commercial of some odd years ago; I don't remember which type of car. It was spoken by an actor with a raspy voice and a slight country twang. It could very well be a regional saying which the ad agency appropriated, but I hadn't heard it before. I'm using it to refer to the cowboy attitude I had during the last hand of last Friday night's session. There was a lot of action at the table, and I decided to go all in on a flush draw. It didn't pan out. Here's how it went down:

Table 'Acubens II' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #6 is the button
Seat 2: (20700 in chips)
Seat 3: (42100 in chips)
Seat 4: (86500 in chips)
Seat 5: (101982 in chips)
Seat 6: neostreet (36000 in chips)
Seat 7: (11800 in chips)
Seat 8: (6200 in chips)
Seat 9: (20050 in chips)
Seat 7: posts small blind 100
Seat 8: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [Ks 7s]
Seat 9: calls 200
Seat 2: calls 200
Seat 3: calls 200
Seat 4: raises 1100 to 1300
Seat 5: folds
neostreet: calls 1300
Seat 7: calls 1200
Seat 8: folds
Seat 9: calls 1100
Seat 2: calls 1100
Seat 3: calls 1100
*** FLOP *** [9s 2d Js]
Seat 7: checks
Seat 9: bets 4400
Seat 2: folds
Seat 3: calls 4400
Seat 4: raises 21200 to 25600
neostreet: calls 25600
Seat 7: folds
Seat 9: calls 14350 and is all-in
Seat 3: calls 21200
*** TURN *** [9s 2d Js] [2c]
Seat 3: checks
Seat 4: bets 59600 and is all-in
neostreet: calls 9100 and is all-in
Seat 3: calls 15200 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (44400) returned to Seat 4
*** RIVER *** [9s 2d Js 2c] [Kh]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 3: shows [5s 2h] (three of a kind, Deuces)
Seat 4: shows [Ad Ah] (two pair, Aces and Deuces)
Seat 3 collected 12200 from side pot-2
neostreet: shows [Ks 7s] (two pair, Kings and Deuces)
Seat 3 collected 47850 from side pot-1
Seat 9: shows [Jd 8c] (two pair, Jacks and Deuces)
Seat 3 collected 83000 from main pot

It was pretty foolish of me, but I was playing a hunch.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 18 hands and saw flop:
- 1 out of 3 times while in big blind (33%)
- 1 out of 3 times while in small blind (33%)
- 9 out of 12 times in other positions (75%)
- a total of 11 out of 18 (61%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 2 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $-40,000
balance: $824,638

Friday, December 3, 2010

Kickers

Over time, I've evolved a philosophy of kickers; that is to say, a set of heuristics to apply to the problem of deciding whether or not your kicker is good enough when you've been dealt a non-pair. It's taken me a long time, but I've finally gotten serious about fwepping any non-pair hand where the bottom card is a two or a three, before the flop.

Last night, I went up about $9K very early on, and was on the verge of calling it a night when I was dealt an 8 Q offsuit. The flop came 4 Q 2, the turn was a 9, and the river was a 5. I bet $1K on the turn, and $2K on the river. My pair of queens lost to another pair of queens which had a better kicker -- a jack.

I don't feel bad about what happened. My eight really was a decent kicker. Eights are exactly in the middle of a suit; they have six cards below them and six cards above them. My evolving rule about kickers is that they must be an 8 or above when your high card is paint.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 10 hands and saw flop:
- 2 out of 2 times while in big blind (100%)
- 0 out of 2 times while in small blind (0%)
- 3 out of 6 times in other positions (50%)
- a total of 5 out of 10 (50%)
Pots won at showdown - 2 of 3 (66%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $6,100
balance: $864,638

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Folding pocks

Every now and then, you have to expect that I'm going to tell you the secret of poker. And whenever I do, don't be surprised if the secret has changed slightly since the last time I told you :-)

Poker has a protean nature, and is therefore endlessly new, no matter how long you've played. At the same time, the longer you play, the less poker can surprise you. That makes for cognitive dissonance; how can something which loses its power to surprise be endlessly new?

In case it wasn't clear, that was a rhetorical question; I have some theories on how to answer it, but that's a subject for another time.

So here's the secret of poker, according to neostreet, circa December 2010: folding.

Last night, the best hand I was dealt was pocket kings. Unfortunately, the last four community cards were all hearts, so I had to fold my pocks (poker slang for a pocket pair).

Since I was already over the magic 35-40 hand range at that point, I called it a night soon afterwards.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 50 hands and saw flop:
- 7 out of 9 times while in big blind (77%)
- 8 out of 9 times while in small blind (88%)
- 27 out of 32 times in other positions (84%)
- a total of 42 out of 50 (84%)
Pots won at showdown - 2 of 5 (40%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-10,500
balance: $858,538

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Long is wrong

I'm pretty sure I first heard the phrase "long is wrong" on an ESPN poker show; it means that if you take a long time when it's your turn to act, you increase your likelihood of making the wrong decision. I can't confirm or deny the truth of this poker aphorism in its original context, but I can confirm its truth in another context -- namely, session length. The more hands you play, the greater the likelihood that your session will be a losing one.

One of the data points I capture per session is the number of hands, except in the rare cases where the PokerStars software hiccups and resets its counters midway through a session, or in the rarer cases when I forget to save the session stats. I've long maintained a MySQL database containing my starting balance, delta, and ending balance, but I never bothered to include the number of hands. Tonight I added that data for the Texas Hold'em hands I've played since switching back to Hold'em from seven card stud. The results are interesting, but not surprising; the average session length for the 16 losing sessions is a whopping 64.19, whereas the average session length for the 19 winning sessions is a toned and slender 34.68.

I need to learn to call it a night somewhere around the 35-40 hand mark, regardless of how I'm doing.

On Monday night, I played 89 hands; it's almost superfluous to mention that it was a losing session.

delta: $-15,100
balance: $869,038

Monday, November 29, 2010

The seven-per-cent solution

Fans of Sherlock Holmes and of the writer Nicholas Meyer will recognize in the title of this post the title of Meyer's first novel, which starred the famous fictional detective and Sigmund Freud. In Sherlock's case, the solution was a mixture of water and cocaine; in my case, the solution is a modest goal to shoot for when playing Texas Hold'em. With a starting stack of $40K, a gain of 7% brings one's stack up to $42,800. On Friday night, I hit this mark exactly. The reason I quit at that point was that the table had quit on me, and I didn't feel motivated enough to join another one.

My biggest pot of the night was a rather modest $5,600; I had a pair of queens, and no one took me to showdown.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 26 hands and saw flop:
- 3 out of 5 times while in big blind (60%)
- 4 out of 4 times while in small blind (100%)
- 11 out of 17 times in other positions (64%)
- a total of 18 out of 26 (69%)
Pots won at showdown - 0 of 1 (0%)
Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $2,800
balance: $884,138

Friday, November 26, 2010

One year anniversary

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of this blog. In that span of 365 days, I played online poker on 219 of them, which turns out to be exactly 60% of the time. 60% is a good poker number, I've discovered; it's a good goal to see the flop 60% of the time.

I surprised myself by achieving my goal of a million play dollars much sooner than I'd expected. When it became clear to me that I'd be reaching the goal sometime in the summer, I knew I wanted to try my hand at other poker flavors besides Hold'em, and decided I'd switch to Omaha as soon as I made my first play million. The idea of Omaha really captivated me.

As I've chronicled earlier, I didn't give Omaha the chance it deserved. The next flavor I tried was 7 card stud. I liked a lot of the features of 7 card stud, but came to realize it requires a lot more concentration and memory than either Hold'em or Omaha. 7 card stud felt a lot more like work than fun, in the end.

Ironically, it was when I decided to switch back to my best game, Hold'em, that my stack fell back down below a million; it's remained there ever since. Achieving my goal the first time in so relatively effortless a fashion spoiled me; it gave me an inflated sense of my poker skill, and I abandoned (without meaning to) some of the poker best practices I'd built up. I realized I needed to retool, to strip my game back down to the basics before trying to build it up again.

I've been in an extended holding pattern for a while now; every time it looks like I'm about to go on a roll, my stack gets spanked back down again. I'm not discouraged, however; in fact, as I've indicated, I plan on giving Omaha another try when I hit a million again. You notice, I said when, not if :-)

On Wednesday night, I won the first two hands of the session, and decided to end my night when it became clear I wouldn't be able to win the third.

I'm looking forward to my next year of poker and blogging!

delta: $22,400
balance: $881,338

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Two horrendous bets

On Saturday night, I had a poker marathon of sorts -- 77 hands, in roughly two and a quarter hours of play. The reason I played so long is that I got behind early and was trying to get back to even. I lost my full starting stack of $40K at the first two tables I joined; I recouped some at the third table, but not enough. Looking back at the hand histories, I see that I only played really badly at the first table. Two horrendous bets did me in.

horrendous bet #1: on the river, with only a pair of kings, I bet $13K, and lost to a two pair of kings and queens; the river card was a queen

horrendous bet #2: on the turn, with three kings, I raised an $11K bet by $300 to go all in, and lost to a king high flush; the board had three clubs at the turn

delta: $-36,300
balance: $858,938

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Recognizing your good fortune

On Thursday night, I had a slight loss, but it could have been much worse. I lost my full starting stack of $40K at the first table I joined; this was mostly due to not being able to stop myself from chasing flush draws. I reupped at another table, and was slowly heading south when I had the following miraculous hand:

Table 'Alcor V' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: (28432 in chips)
Seat 2: (40000 in chips)
Seat 3: (54700 in chips)
Seat 4: (26600 in chips)
Seat 5: (41100 in chips)
Seat 6: (38100 in chips)
Seat 7: (39300 in chips)
Seat 8: neostreet (42900 in chips)
Seat 9: (41500 in chips)
Seat 7: posts small blind 100
neostreet: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [Qs Ah]
Seat 9: raises 500 to 700
Seat 1: calls 700
Seat 2: folds
Seat 3: calls 700
Seat 4: calls 700
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: calls 700
Seat 7: calls 600
neostreet: raises 500 to 1200
Seat 9: raises 500 to 1700
Seat 1: calls 1000
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: calls 1000
Seat 6: calls 1000
Seat 7: calls 1000
neostreet: raises 500 to 2200
Seat 9: calls 500
Seat 1: calls 500
Seat 4: calls 500
Seat 6: calls 500
Seat 7: calls 500
*** FLOP *** [Ac Kc Jd]
Seat 7: checks
neostreet: bets 7000
Seat 9: folds
Seat 1: calls 7000
Seat 4: calls 7000
Seat 6: calls 7000
Seat 7: folds
*** TURN *** [Ac Kc Jd] [8c]
neostreet: checks
Seat 1: checks
Seat 4: checks
Seat 6: checks
*** RIVER *** [Ac Kc Jd 8c] [7c]
neostreet: checks
Seat 1: checks
Seat 4: checks
Seat 6: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
neostreet: shows [Qs Ah] (a pair of Aces)
Seat 1: mucks hand
Seat 4: mucks hand
Seat 6: mucks hand
neostreet collected 41900 from pot

What are the odds that none of the four players remaining in the hand at showdown have a single club? Very small, indeed. I recognized my good fortune, and called it a night posthaste.

delta: $-4,500
balance: $895,238

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Poker loves me back

I've mentioned many times on this blog that I love poker. Sometimes, poker loves me back! Poker loved me back in the session that first took my stack over the play million threshold, and poker loved me back again last night. In my very first hand, I was dealt a pair of sevens, flopped a set, improved it to a full house on the turn, went all in on the river, beat an inferior full house, and more than doubled my stack. Of course, I immediately called it a night.

delta: $41,700
balance: $899,738

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Refusing to think

Last night, I hit the felt due to my refusal to think at a crucial time. I'd hit a full house on the river, and let my concept of the value of a full house in general completely override any concept of the value of this particular full house in this particular hand. Actually, the refusal to think had actually started one street earlier, on the turn; if I'd been able to think clearly, I would have realized that I was drawing dead at that point, and would have folded before even seeing the river.

Here's the hand, in all its shameful glory:

Table 'Kiess' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: neostreet (22600 in chips)
Seat 3: (38600 in chips)
Seat 5: (56850 in chips)
Seat 6: (52900 in chips)
Seat 7: (66013 in chips)
Seat 8: (87800 in chips)
Seat 9: (26600 in chips)
neostreet: posts small blind 100
Seat 3: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [Qh 7c]
Seat 5: calls 200
Seat 6: folds
Seat 7: calls 200
Seat 8: folds
Seat 9: calls 200
neostreet: calls 100
Seat 3: checks
*** FLOP *** [7d Ks 4s]
neostreet: checks
Seat 3: bets 1000
Seat 5: folds
Seat 7: calls 1000
Seat 9: folds
neostreet: calls 1000
*** TURN *** [7d Ks 4s] [Kc]
neostreet: checks
Seat 3: bets 2200
Seat 7: folds
neostreet: calls 2200
*** RIVER *** [7d Ks 4s Kc] [7h]
neostreet: checks
Seat 3: bets 8200
neostreet: raises 8200 to 16400
Seat 3: raises 18800 to 35200 and is all-in
neostreet: calls 2800 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (16000) returned to Seat 3
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 3: shows [Kh Ts] (a full house, Kings full of Sevens)
neostreet: shows [Qh 7c] (a full house, Sevens full of Kings)
Seat 3 collected 46800 from pot

I knew from the way seat 3 had bet that it was likely he'd hit trip kings on the turn; at that point, I was drawing dead. Unfortunately, I was brain dead as well! Not only did I fail to realize I was drawing dead, I bet the river mistakenly believing that my full house could beat any hand seat 3 had! I fully deserved to hit the felt, and with extreme prejudice at that :-)

One of the reasons I love poker so much is that it's such a humbling game. Sessions like last night's never make me want to quit; they make me realize how dumb I can play sometimes and make me want to play smarter oftener!

delta: $-40,000
balance: $858,038

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Sweet sixteen

Last night's session was short and sweet. My very first hand, I flopped a set of sevens and won a pot worth $8K. The next time I went to showdown, I had a full house; that time I won a pot worth $58K. The last time I went to showdown, I had a king high flush and won a pot worth $34K. In between, I mostly fwepped. If I could keep up this pace, I'd be back at a million play dollars before Thanksgiving!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 16 hands and saw flop:
- 2 out of 2 times while in big blind (100%)
- 0 out of 0 times while in small blind (0%)
- 9 out of 14 times in other positions (64%)
- a total of 11 out of 16 (68%)
Pots won at showdown - 3 of 5 (60%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $40,468
balance: $898,038

Monday, November 15, 2010

Nonsensical play

Last Friday night, I played so nonsensically that I can't now reconstruct what my thought processes must have been. In my most inexplicable hand, I invested $32,800 on a pair of aces. In the hand that took me to the felt, I invested $15,300 on a stealth two pair. In both cases, I was once again willfully deaf to the betting patterns of my opponents.

I realize right now I really need to strip my game down to the bare essentials, and slowly build it back up. The good news is that I still have a very healthy stack; the bad news is, my stack won't stay that way if I keep on playing so idiotically!

I need to be super patient, and play a lot more tightly; I've been playing much too loosely recently. My goal is to get back to a million play dollars by Christmas; we'll see how I do.

delta: $-40,000
balance: $857,570

Friday, November 12, 2010

Turning a deaf ear

Last night, two disastrous hands did me in. The first one took me down to the felt at the first table I joined; the second one nearly did so at the next table. In both cases, I turned a deaf ear to what the betting patterns of my opponents were trying to tell me. The only excuse I can make is that in both cases, I had strong hands. The thing is, that's only a good excuse for a mediocre player; for someone who aspires to be great, it's no excuse at all. I hereby retract it, since I definitely aspire to greatness!

It's ironic that this reversal came on the very night I wrote a blog post explaining my concept of the yin and yang of the probable and the improbable. If I'd been able to follow my own advice, the massive loss might not have occurred.

delta: $-76,350
balance: $897,570

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Statistical anomalies

Poker is largely about probabilities. The better you understand probability, the better you'll be at poker. One of the most important lessons to learn about probability, counter-intuitive though it might be, is that the improbable always happens, eventually. That's one reason I very rarely go all in.

I have a good innate sense of probability. I don't consciously have to think through every link in a chain of probabilistic reasoning in order to reach a conclusion; I can take shortcuts. For example, if I only have an ace high on the river, and there are several other players still in the hand, I know without having to calculate them that the odds that one of the other players has at least a pair are excellent; I would never dream of calling any bet with such a hand.

Last night, I experienced another first. I won six hands in a row! I kept wanting to call it a night, but I couldn't do that until I'd stopped winning :-) I realize that streak was a statistical anomaly, and wasn't due to any great skill on my part. To be really good at poker, you must embrace two contradictory notions simultaneously -- that the more probable hand will probably win, and that the more improbable hand will improbably win!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 26 hands and saw flop:
- 5 out of 6 times while in big blind (83%)
- 6 out of 6 times while in small blind (100%)
- 12 out of 14 times in other positions (85%)
- a total of 23 out of 26 (88%)
Pots won at showdown - 5 of 7 (71%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $27,300
balance: $973,920

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Eleven from heaven

I've really been missing playing poker; I haven't played lately due to the fact that I just started a new job. A lot of my time has been taken up with HR paperwork; thankfully, that's now been completed.

The title of this post refers to the fact that my last session, played Friday night, was short and sweet. I remember I only won one pot, but it was a doozy. I don't remember what the hand was, so let me delve once more into the archives...

It was a stealth two pair, but of a rare kind -- I picked up one pair on the flop, and the second one on the turn. Most of the stealth two pairs I play are of the kind where I pick up both pairs on the flop. However the pairs are picked up, however, this is the kind of hand which you must play very cautiously, and largely by gut feel. My gut was telling me my hand was best, and it was right.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 11 hands and saw flop:
- 1 out of 1 times while in big blind (100%)
- 0 out of 1 times while in small blind (0%)
- 5 out of 9 times in other positions (55%)
- a total of 6 out of 11 (54%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 2 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $22,800
balance: $946,620

Friday, November 5, 2010

One Hand to rule them all

Though I've read J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" twice, and immensely enjoyed it both times, for some reason I've never read "The Lord of the Rings". I started the first book of the trilogy once, only got a couple of chapters in, abandoned it, and never tried again. Evidently I got far enough in, however, to have encountered Gandalf's poem about the rings; the first line is seared in my memory:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky

I just used Wikipedia to refresh my memory on the concluding lines:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

Looking at the bar chart of my stack size over the course of last night's session, what immediately came to mind was the phrase "One Hand to rule them all". I miniporpoised for most of the session until a hand where I won a pot worth just over $46K. That was roughly four times the size of my next biggest pot.

When the One Hand comes along like that, it behooves you to end your session shortly after, and I did.

delta: $23,000
balance: $923,820

Thursday, November 4, 2010

The siren call of Omaha

Though this may seem prideful, I know I'm a very good Hold'em player (recent results notwithstanding). I don't feel very challenged by it any more, though. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing it quite a lot. However, I want more of a challenge. I realize now that I wimped out on Omaha the first time I tried it; I was trying to judge it by Hold'em standards, instead of by its own. Omaha is a devilishly difficult game, and for that very reason I find myself being drawn back to it. Whether I'm actually being drawn back to Omaha itself, or to my idealized vision of what Omaha should be, I'm not sure yet.

So here's what I propose: when I hit the play million mark again, I'll give Omaha another shot. This time, I'll be prepared to accept a lot more volatility in my results. I won't even think about the golden ratio, or losing streaks, or gambling away my Hold'em winnings. I won't complain about the quality of Omaha player I encounter, either. My aim will simply be to learn and master the intricacies of Omaha.

On Tuesday night, I lost half my stack in the first third of the session, then won it all back and more in the latter two thirds.

delta: $13,771
balance: $900,820

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Patience

Last night, I had good patience. I hung around, folding when I should fold, winning hands I should win, and never dropped significantly below the amount of my starting stack. My patience was rewarded when I flopped a set of tens; I extracted maximum value from the hand, winning a pot worth $60,600. Since that doubled up my initial stack, it was easy to call it a night at that point.

The thing about patience is that it's the simplest concept in the world to state, but often quite difficult to put into practice. You can pay all the lip service to patience you want, but that won't make you a more patient player. It's a tautology, I know, but the only way you can be a more patient player is by being a more patient player :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 33 hands and saw flop:
- 4 out of 5 times while in big blind (80%)
- 3 out of 5 times while in small blind (60%)
- 14 out of 23 times in other positions (60%)
- a total of 21 out of 33 (63%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 7 (57%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

I hit two sweet spots in the session:

1. the number of hands is close to 35, my current nomination for best session length

2. the seeing the flop percentage is close to 60%, my current nomination for best seeing the flop percentage

delta: $41,600
balance: $887,049

Monday, November 1, 2010

Four and out -- the fun way

On Saturday night, I had a very short session -- only four hands. On the third hand, I flopped a set of kings, went all in with them, and won a pot worth $103,700. I'll have to check the archives, but I think that's either the biggest pot I've ever won or very close to it. Though I didn't get a chance to put my new fwepping skills to use, I was happy to end my night with such a nice increase to my stack.

delta: $63,700
balance: $845,449

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Fwepping and follow-through

Is the title of this post sufficiently cryptic for you? I'll be very disappointed if it's not. In fact, I flat out dare you to tell me what on God's green earth it means! I'll go even further -- if you can simply tell me what the verb fwep means, I'll eat my shorts, my hat, and any other article of my clothing of your choosing.

The thing is, I'm not going to give you the time to tell me, because I'm going to tell you. I know that's sort of cheating, but there's not much you can do about it! :-)

Fwep is an acronym which stands for "fold with extreme prejudice". I'm trying to ramp up my fwepping skills. To the compleat fwepper, any unsuited, unpaired hand containing a deuce or a trey is immediately fwepped. No poker brain cells are sacrificed in the execution of this action. If you play long enough, as I'm beginning to believe I have, nothing can convince you that anything good can ever come of such a hand.

That's all very well and good, but what's the significance of "follow-through" in the title of this post? I'm glad you asked, I really am. What I'm talking about is the follow-through of a golf swing, and how it applies to poker. Bear with me; you'll be glad you did!

Full disclosure: I'm not a good golfer, never have been, and never will be. However, that doesn't preclude my being an avid golf fan, nor my having a finely-tuned sense of what it takes to play high-level golf, even though I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever attaining such a skill level.

I've penetrated, through ratiocination alone, the greatest secret of a successful golf swing. It seems so incredibly simple, and yet at the same time it's incredibly profound. It makes no sense at all, and yet on another level, it makes perfect sense. And I'm about to share it with you, gratis. All the aspiring golfers of the world should be waiting with bated breath for what I'm about to impart, even though this is a poker blog!

It's simply this: the ball won't go where you want without a proper follow-through. I'll bet you're feeling incredibly cheated by this facile dictum, but allow me to try to explain my wonderment. What I want to try to impart to you is the incredible mystery of the flight of the ball being influenced by the path of the clubhead AFTER THE IMPACT OF THE CLUBHEAD WITH THE BALL HAS ALREADY OCCURRED! Think of it for a second! That clubhead should be able to do whatever it wants after impact! It should be able to do an Irish jig, Brownian motion, or whatever crazy dance it wants after impact, right? Because, since it's no longer touching the ball, it shouldn't really matter what it does, right? Wrong! It matters! Oh, does it matter! There's literally nothing that matters more.

It's hard for the poor brain to comprehend, but the success of the golf shot depends on the totality of the swing, not simply the rather negligible moment of impact. If you finish well, it will have turned out that your impact was a good one; if you don't finish well, it will have turned out that your impact was all shot to hell. This seems to stand causality on its head; how can a later event influence an earlier one? That just isn't cricket, to use a British term. But oh my friends and oh my neighbors, it IS cricket.

Now I seem to hear you asking: how the hell is this blowhard going to apply his whacked-out theories about successful golf swings (and why should we even be listening, by the way, since he's already admitted he's a for-shit golfer?) to the sphere of poker? Patience, grasshoppers, patience!

I strongly believe that the success or failure of a poker hand largely depends on your committing wholeheartedly to its success or failure from the earliest possible moment. That means that you should either fold immediately, or hang in there till the very end. Of course, that's not really practicable for every success hand. However, it is practicable for every single failure hand! Fold your failure hands with extreme prejudice before the flop! And count yourself lucky!

Last night, I didn't quite achieve my pre-session goal of only seeing the flop half of the time, but I came close.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 56 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 9 times while in big blind (88%)
- 7 out of 9 times while in small blind (77%)
- 20 out of 38 times in other positions (52%)
- a total of 35 out of 56 (62%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 7 (57%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

My discipline was rewarded; I like this fwepping thing!

delta: $12,600
balance: $781,749

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Too many flops

Last night, my stack experienced a wild ride in the first part of the session, then settled down into a long, smooth, and painful descent to the felt. Here are the stats:

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 77 hands and saw flop:
- 12 out of 13 times while in big blind (92%)
- 13 out of 14 times while in small blind (92%)
- 40 out of 50 times in other positions (80%)
- a total of 65 out of 77 (84%)
Pots won at showdown - 8 of 20 (40%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

Here's my train of thought on reviewing these stats:

1. my showdown percentage is too low
2. that's because I went to showdown too many times
3. that's because I saw too many flops

It just doesn't make sense to pay to see the flop with a flat out poor hand, or even with a marginal one. I realize that somewhere along the way I've lost my discipline. When I first started playing the higher stakes play tables again (in March of this year), I was really scared of the amounts, and didn't have a problem folding early and often. Since I had enough success to make it to my goal of a million play dollars (even though I haven't been able to stay at that level) I've become both jaded and complacent. Funnily enough, I realize I need to play with more fear!

My goal for tonight's session is to see the flop on at most half of the hands I'm dealt.

delta: $-40,000
balance: $769,149

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

An old failing

On Monday night, I succumbed to an old failing once again; on the most expensive lost hand of the night, I fell in love with a stealth two pair and was blind to the straight possibility on the board. My opponent had actually flopped the straight, and proceeded to extract maximum value from me.

This has happened way too many times. I still haven't been able to correct this blindness. Probably the only thing that saved me from the felt was the fact that the table quit on me, and I was wise enough not to join another one.

I'm perilously close to another even crossing, more's the pity.

delta: $-31,160
balance: $809,149

Monday, October 25, 2010

Drawing practice

I last played on PokerStars on Thursday night; I stayed on an even keel and came out slightly in the black. There's nothing very exciting to report about the session, so I'll focus this post on something else.

I've always had at least a slight interest in poker, and it's never suffered a decline. It had a big uptick when I first watched Texas Hold'em on ESPN around three years ago, and from that time I can say I've been seriously hooked. Four years ago, before the uptick, I ported an open source video poker game which had been developed for Linux to Windows. One drawback it had was that it required mouse input to play. Over this last weekend, I enhanced it to take keyboard input in addition, and have used it to get some good "drawing practice" in. What I mean by that is practice at getting better at evaluating a poker hand at a glance, making it second nature to pick which cards to hold.

Five card draw and Hold'em would seem to have little in common, but one thing they do share is the poker fundamental requirement of being able to recognize the drawing potential of a hand. Of course, all poker variants share that. The less mental energy you have to expend on the fundamentals, the more you have left over for the finer points of strategy! I'll be interested to see if the drawing practice helps my play.

delta: $2,000
balance:$840,309

Thursday, October 21, 2010

A pair of 200s

Friends and neighbors, this is my 200th post to this blog. Surely a time to take stock and reflect. I remember bragging in my 50th post that my gut feeling was that I was already a more successful blogger (in terms of number of posts) than over half the bloggers on the planet. I now realize that assertion was just so much boyish bluster. Why, you ask? I'll be glad to tell you. Actually, I just did! Think about it for a moment :-)

It's not such a big secret that people love to hear themselves talk, and I'm no different. Samuel Pepys sure knew what he was about. Writing a blog is definitely addictive. Seen properly in this light, there's little reason to brag about having a large number of posts to your name, and even less reason to believe that less than 50% of bloggers ever get to 50 posts.

But what about the other 200 I promised in the title of this post? I'm glad you asked! I hit 200 winning sessions (since I started record-keeping) very recently, on Tuesday night. This will be the last time my number of posts and my number of winning sessions are the same number, so I decided to celebrate them in unison. The only reason it was possible for them to be the same in the first place is that I started recording my sessions well before I started this blog.

Last night, I hit the felt again. Am I discouraged? No. Am I ready to go at it again? You bet!

delta: $-37,996
balance: $838,309

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

My new favorite hand

Lately, I've been getting dealt a pair of threes a lot, and winning with them. It's my new favorite hand! At least two times recently, my strong gut feeling that I'd be seeing another three on the flop has turned out to be true. Here's how this hand has fared for me the last two sessions:

Monday night's session, first instance:

my hand: 3s 3c
flop: 3d 4s 8s
turn: 4d
river: Ks
result: my full house of threes full of fours wins a pot worth $21,400

Monday night's session, second instance:

my hand: 3h 3d
flop: 2c 7c 3s
turn: Qc
result: I collect $2,400 after the turn since everyone else folds

Monday night's session, third instance:

my hand: 3d 3h
result: I fold before the flop when someone raises to $1,200

Monday night's session, fourth instance:

my hand: 3h 3c
flop: Kh 3d 8s
turn: 8c
river: 5s
result: my full house of threes full of eights wins a pot worth $38,670

Last night's session, first and only instance:

my hand: 3h 3c
flop: 3d 8h Qd
turn: As
river: 8c
result: my full house of threes full of eights wins a pot worth $19,800

As you may have inferred, I reneged on my pledge to stop saving hand histories.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 16 hands and saw flop:
- 2 out of 3 times while in big blind (66%)
- 2 out of 3 times while in small blind (66%)
- 10 out of 10 times in other positions (100%)
- a total of 14 out of 16 (87%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 5 (80%)
Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $19,533
balance: $876,305

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Looking, thinking, and listening

The title of tonight's post was the original title I'd decided on for last night's post before I sat down to write it. When I did sit down, however, the theme which bubbled up to the surface was the difference between short-term greed and long-term greed. I know it's not a good idea to clutter up a post with too many ideas, so I saved the original idea for tonight.

In the session before last night's, I lost the $110K I'd built up because I failed in three poker fundamentals -- looking, thinking, and listening. I've listed them in what I consider to be the correct order of their importance. If you're looking and thinking, very often you can get away with not listening. If you're looking and listening, you can sometimes get away with not thinking. However, no matter how much you're thinking and listening, you can rarely get away with not looking.

Here are my definitions of these three fundamentals:

Looking means determining what hands your opponents possibly have that beat yours.

Thinking means using logic to determine what hands your opponents probably have.

Listening means taking note of the betting patterns of your opponents.

By failing to look properly, I lost a hand where I had a set but my opponent had a straight.

By failing to think properly, I lost a hand where I had a full house but my opponent had a better one.

By failing to listen properly, I lost a hand where I had a flush but my opponent had a better one (the dreaded uberflush). I went all in, and hit the felt.

Thankfully, last night I suffered from none of these lapses.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 61 hands and saw flop:
- 11 out of 13 times while in big blind (84%)
- 12 out of 13 times while in small blind (92%)
- 29 out of 35 times in other positions (82%)
- a total of 52 out of 61 (85%)
Pots won at showdown - 6 of 16 (37%)
Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $21,585
balance: $856,772

Monday, October 18, 2010

Long-term greed

Last Thursday night, I did exceptionally well at the beginning of the session; I hit a high of over $110K in less than twenty hands. Unfortunately, I succumbed to short-term greed instead of long-term; I kept playing, and eventually lost not only all my winnings but also my whole original starting stack of $40K.

What I mean by long-term greed is the desire to see your stack grow ever larger over time, regardless of what it does in the short-term. That's the good kind of greed! What I mean by short-term greed is the desire to see your stack grow now, right now, whatever the cost. That's the bad kind of greed.

I've played long enough to know that short-term greed is always a temptation. I've also played long enough to know that the only way to grow your stack is to see it shrink occasionally. You can't let the downswings get you down; they're a part of poker life.

I'm really looking forward to playing tonight!

delta: $-40,000
balance: $835,187

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Unifin

The graph of last night's stack over time is one gigantic shark fin; I'm calling it a unifin. It represented almost perfect futility, closely resembling the graph of a hypothetical session where $800 is lost per hand for 50 straight hands.

That kind of night is just going to happen sometimes; there's no avoiding it. If I'd been smart, I would have cut my losses before I hit the felt.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 53 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 8 times while in big blind (100%)
- 7 out of 7 times while in small blind (100%)
- 27 out of 38 times in other positions (71%)
- a total of 42 out of 53 (79%)
Pots won at showdown - 2 of 7 (28%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-40,000
balance: $875,187

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Percentage at flop

I don't use a poker odds calculator while playing, but occasionally I like to use one the next day to see what the odds had been in certain situations. As I may have mentioned, I've written a calculator of my own so I can customize it as I see fit. As it turns out, the calculator on the PokerStars site doesn't provide a way to calculate the heads up odds at the flop when the opponent's hand is unknown, so that's one of the customizations I've done. I call these odds the percentage at flop odds. The more traditional case of the heads up odds at the flop when the opponent's hand is known I call the heads up flop odds.

Last night, I lost a bunch of chips on the following hand (opponent screen names have been removed):

Seat 1: (11200 in chips)
Seat 2: (32600 in chips)
Seat 4: (52800 in chips)
Seat 5: (5800 in chips)
Seat 6: (42600 in chips)
Seat 7: neostreet (21000 in chips)
Seat 8: (40100 in chips)
Seat 4: posts small blind 100
Seat 5: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [Ac Qd]
Seat 6: calls 200
neostreet: calls 200
Seat 8: calls 200
Seat 1: calls 200
Seat 2: calls 200
Seat 4: calls 100
Seat 5: checks
*** FLOP *** [4c As Ad]
Seat 4: checks
Seat 5: checks
Seat 6: checks
neostreet: checks
Seat 8: checks
Seat 1: bets 200
Seat 2: raises 1000 to 1200
Seat 4: folds
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: folds
neostreet: raises 1000 to 2200
Seat 8: folds
Seat 1: calls 2000
Seat 2: calls 1000
*** TURN *** [4c As Ad] [2c]
neostreet: bets 5000
Seat 1: raises 3800 to 8800 and is all-in
Seat 2: folds
neostreet: calls 3800
*** RIVER *** [4c As Ad 2c] [3d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
neostreet: shows [Ac Qd] (three of a kind, Aces)
Seat 1: shows [Ah 5s] (a straight, Ace to Five)
Seat 1 collected 25600 from pot

My calculator tells me my percentage at flop odds of winning were 94.54%, but my heads up flop odds were only 69.29%. It's lucky for me Seat 1 only had $11K in chips at the start of the hand, or it's likely I would have hit the felt. I had some good luck after this hand, winning a pot worth $30K with a king high flush, and a pot worth $17K with a pair of kings.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 32 hands and saw flop:
- 4 out of 5 times while in big blind (80%)
- 3 out of 5 times while in small blind (60%)
- 15 out of 22 times in other positions (68%)
- a total of 22 out of 32 (68%)
Pots won at showdown - 3 of 6 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $2,800
balance: $915,187

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Session length

Last Friday, I played a long session -- 101 hands. One thing I've noticed about long sessions is that they don't pay; in almost every case, I would have done better to quit earlier. It's hard to quit, though, when you're having fun and haven't played that many hands.

I think there must be some ideal session length, and I know it's way less than a hundred hands. My guess is that it's about thirty five hands. In thirty five hands, you shouldn't be in any danger of hitting the felt, and there's a good chance you'll be dealt some quality hands which you can use to increase the size of your stack.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 101 hands and saw flop:
- 18 out of 20 times while in big blind (90%)
- 22 out of 23 times while in small blind (95%)
- 53 out of 58 times in other positions (91%)
- a total of 93 out of 101 (92%)
Pots won at showdown - 11 of 24 (45%)
Pots won without showdown - 12

delta: $10,400
balance: $912,387

Friday, October 8, 2010

Odd crossing

On Wednesday night, my balance moved back to the plus side of $900,000. Here are the current counts of my crossings of the multiples of $100,000 boundaries:

$100,000 5
$200,000 3
$300,000 7
$400,000 5
$500,000 5
$600,000 15
$700,000 7
$800,000 5
$900,000 7
$1,000,000 2

Every time you cross over to the high side of a boundary, your crossing count becomes an odd number; every time you drop back down to the low side of a boundary, your crossing count becomes an even number. So in the best of all possible worlds, you only want to see odd crossing counts (or odd crossings, for short). An interesting fact is that in the ordered list of your crossing counts, once you hit a positive number, all the numbers to the right of it (if there are any) must be positive as well.

I suffered another lost pot due to an uberflush in Wednesday night's session, but recovered nicely.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 62 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 10 times while in big blind (80%)
- 6 out of 8 times while in small blind (75%)
- 37 out of 44 times in other positions (84%)
- a total of 51 out of 62 (82%)
Pots won at showdown - 13 of 17 (76%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $11,500
balance: $901,987

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Lucky 13

Last night, I only played 13 hands. You know there are really only two scenarios which could have led to such a low number:

1. the last hand was strong, I fell in love with it, went all in, lost to a stronger hand, and had the self-control not to reup at another table

2. I won a disproportionate number of the 13 pots, realized a nice profit, and had the self-control to stop playing and take the profit

I'm happy to say that last night it was the second scenario.

I've been thinking about the golden ratio a lot, and have decided to kiss it goodbye. It served me very well on the road to my first play million (which I aim to re-achieve and then surpass), but it's silly to obsess over a statistic; too much desire to hit the ratio could too easily lead to poor poker decisions.

I've also been thinking a lot about how poker requires constantly learning new things, and re-learning old things one has gotten rusty on. This evergreen characteristic of poker is one of the reasons I love it, and why I'm never bored by it!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 13 hands and saw flop:
- 1 out of 2 times while in big blind (50%)
- 1 out of 2 times while in small blind (50%)
- 7 out of 9 times in other positions (77%)
- a total of 9 out of 13 (69%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 2 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $11,500
balance: $890,487

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Cluttered thinking

Last night, I played a massive number of hands -- 154. After most of them, I took the time and trouble to save the hand history. This made for cluttered thinking; I was devoting part of my time and attention to a purely clerical task, stealing CPU cycles from my poker decision-making. Admittedly, this is the way I've been operating for about a year, so I can't blame my recent poor results solely on this practice; nevertheless, I feel like I need to get back to basics, and remove all extraneous distractions. For the foreseeable future, I'll forgo saving the hand histories.

I went up about $11K early in the session, then trended downward the rest of the night. I've noticed that whenever I get up a significant amount, I start feeling a little antsy; I feel more comfortable playing when I'm breaking even on the night or am even slightly down. I think it's good practice to play when you're not feeling comfortable, so you can deal with the feeling to minimize its recurrence in the future.

One hand which really hurt came a little over a third of the way through the session; I was dealt two hearts and made a jack high flush (the jack was one of my hole cards). I lost to a queen high flush. I call this situation losing to an uberflush; it's happened to me at least twice so far in my poker career. One has to expect uberflushes to occur now and then, but they sure do sting!

delta: $-16,400
balance: $878,987

Monday, October 4, 2010

Blind spot

I seem to be stuck in a one step forward, one step back holding pattern. The longer this extends, the further away I get from the golden ratio. If it extends long enough, I'll never be able to get back to the golden ratio again. Obviously, I'm hoping that won't happen!

On Saturday night, the bulk of my losses all came on one hand. That hand helped show me a really big blind spot in my play-- namely, the inability to imagine my opponents having big pocket pairs. Here's how it went down:

Table 'Adrastea VI' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #4 is the button
Seat 2: (12000 in chips)
Seat 3: (37500 in chips)
Seat 4: (16100 in chips)
Seat 5: (62000 in chips)
Seat 6: (9500 in chips)
Seat 7: neostreet (39600 in chips)
Seat 8: (46300 in chips)
Seat 9: (40302 in chips)
Seat 5: posts small blind 100
Seat 6: posts big blind 200
Seat 2: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [Ah Kc]
neostreet: raises 200 to 400
Seat 8: calls 400
Seat 9: calls 400
Seat 2: calls 200
Seat 3: calls 400
Seat 4: calls 400
Seat 5: calls 300
Seat 6: calls 200
*** FLOP *** [Jh Ad Qc]
Seat 5: checks
Seat 6: checks
neostreet: bets 800
Seat 8: raises 1200 to 2000
Seat 9: calls 2000
Seat 2: calls 2000
Seat 3: calls 2000
Seat 4: folds
Seat 4 leaves the table
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: folds
neostreet: calls 1200
*** TURN *** [Jh Ad Qc] [8h]
neostreet: checks
Seat 8: bets 13200
Seat 9: calls 13200
Seat 2: calls 9600 and is all-in
Seat 3: folds
neostreet: calls 13200
*** RIVER *** [Jh Ad Qc 8h] [Ac]
neostreet: bets 24000 and is all-in
Seat 8: calls 24000
Seat 9: calls 24000
*** SHOW DOWN ***
neostreet: shows [Ah Kc] (three of a kind, Aces)
Seat 8: shows [Qd Qs] (a full house, Queens full of Aces)
Seat 9: mucks hand
Seat 8 collected 82800 from side pot
Seat 2: mucks hand
Seat 8 collected 51600 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 134400 Main pot 51600. Side pot 82800. | Rake 0
Board [Jh Ad Qc 8h Ac]
Seat 2: Seat 2 mucked [Qh Th]
Seat 3: Seat 3 folded on the Turn
Seat 4: Seat 4 (button) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: Seat 5 (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 6: Seat 6 (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 7: neostreet showed [Ah Kc] and lost with three of a kind, Aces
Seat 8: Seat 8 showed [Qd Qs] and won (134400) with a full house, Queens full of Aces
Seat 9: Seat 9 mucked [Ks 8c]

I'm not sure I would have played the hand differently if I had been able to imagine the pocket queens, but that fact that I wasn't even able to imagine them is a bad sign; I really need to work on this blind spot.

delta: $-56,500
balance: $895,387

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Reversal of fortune

Last night I experienced a complete reversal of fortune. I went from my third worst session ever to my fourth best session ever. Just as I don't attribute the losing session entirely to bad play on my part, I don't attribute the winning session entirely to good play on my part. In fact, I freely admit that the winning session was largely due to luck. I was dealt some good hands, made them pay, and folded all the bad hands. Easy, right?

My final hand of the night, I won $4,800 with a pair of fives. I just knew I had to call it a night right there. I didn't want to make Lady Luck's facial muscles cramp up from all that smiling!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 49 hands and saw flop:
- 3 out of 7 times while in big blind (42%)
- 4 out of 7 times while in small blind (57%)
- 23 out of 35 times in other positions (65%)
- a total of 30 out of 49 (61%)
Pots won at showdown - 8 of 9 (88%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $81,200
balance: $951,887

Friday, October 1, 2010

Backwards down the number line

The title of this post comes from a Phish song I like a lot. It describes what happened to my stack last night. I admit it, I went on tilt. It's been a while since the last time, but I don't kid myself that this time will be the last. Three things conspired to annoy me and put me on tilt:

1. at the first table I joined, one of the players was playing incredibly slowly, getting a time warning virtually every time the action was on him. I finally left in disgust.

2. shortly after I joined the second table, I discovered that the PokerStars software had hiccupped and removed the first 8 or so hands I'd played from the hand statistics. This has happened once or twice before, and it always ticks me off. I like stats, but need them to be accurate.

3. I'd been card dead most of the night, so when I flopped a pair of queens, I called all the bets down to showdown. I lost to pocket kings to hit the felt.

I should have called it a night right there, but was angry and joined another table. I quickly lost another $40K, for a grand total of just over $93K on the night. This wasn't my worst single session ever, but it does have the honor of being my third worst.

delta: -$93,050
balance: $870,687

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Showdown perfection

I've been fine-tuning my thinking lately about showdown percentage. I now think it's much more important to have a high showdown percentage than it is to have a high percentage of seeing the flop. I used to think they were both equally important, but cold hard facts have forced me to revise that assessment. There are plenty of times I've hit the felt with a high percentage of seeing the flop, but I can't think of many times I've hit the felt with a showdown percentage of 90% or better.

Last night, I achieved showdown perfection - 1 for 1. It just shows you don't need to win a lot of pots to come out in the black, as long as you're not spending much on the other pots. Ironically, one of the best ways not to spend too much on the other pots is not to pay to see the flop on them! So one viable strategy for winning is to have a very low percentage of seeing the flop. I'm sure my thinking will change over time, but that's what it is right now.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 25 hands and saw flop:
- 4 out of 4 times while in big blind (100%)
- 2 out of 4 times while in small blind (50%)
- 7 out of 17 times in other positions (41%)
- a total of 13 out of 25 (52%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 1 (100%)
Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $32,700
balance: $963,737

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Trainwreck hand

Last night, I played nearly well enough to come out in the black. My downfall was a single hand of the 86 I played; it sure was a trainwreck, though. It crippled me, and I hit the felt not long after. Instead of reupping at a different table, I did something I've never done before -- I added chips from my stash and reupped in the same seat at the same table. After reupping, I won back over half the chips I'd lost, so the session wasn't a total loss. If I'd only had the sense not to bet so heavily on the trainwreck hand, I would have had a nice gain. Live and learn!

Here's how the trainwreck hand went down (I've removed the screen names of my opponents):

Table 'Ahrensa IX' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #8 is the button
Seat 2: (44244 in chips)
Seat 4: (78150 in chips)
Seat 7: (54200 in chips)
Seat 8: neostreet (39300 in chips)
Seat 2: posts small blind 100
Seat 4: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [7s Ac]
Seat 7: raises 500 to 700
neostreet: calls 700
Seat 2: raises 2300 to 3000
Seat 4: folds
Seat 7: calls 2300
neostreet: calls 2300
*** FLOP *** [Qs Ad 2h]
Seat 2: bets 9200
Seat 7: calls 9200
neostreet: calls 9200
*** TURN *** [Qs Ad 2h] [9c]
Seat 2: bets 5000
Seat 7: raises 5000 to 10000
neostreet: calls 10000
Seat 2: raises 5000 to 15000
Seat 7: calls 5000
neostreet: calls 5000
*** RIVER *** [Qs Ad 2h 9c] [2c]
Seat 2: bets 17044 and is all-in
Seat 7: folds
neostreet: folds
Uncalled bet (17044) returned to Seat 2
Seat 2 collected 81800 from pot
Seat 2: doesn't show hand

I figured seat 2 had a two pair of aces and queens, a two pair of aces and nines, trip 2s, or a full house of 2s full of queens or aces, all of which had me beat.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 86 hands and saw flop:
- 9 out of 13 times while in big blind (69%)
- 10 out of 16 times while in small blind (62%)
- 40 out of 57 times in other positions (70%)
- a total of 59 out of 86 (68%)
Pots won at showdown - 9 of 13 (69%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

Even though I've extended my maximum losing streak to 5 sessions now, I'm still not discouraged; I've been through these downswings enough before to know they don't last forever.

delta: $-15,800
balance: $931,037

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

First fourpeat

Last night, I set the record for most losing sessions in a row so far in my poker career -- four. I guess it had to happen sometime! Not surprisingly, I'm below the golden ratio once again. This'll make me sound like a broken record, but once again I was pretty happy with my play. How can that be, you ask? Well, just as it's possible to play poorly and come out ahead, due to some timely luck, it's also possible to play well and come up a little short, due to some untimely luck.

I decided to call it a night after losing a trip sixes hand where I got outkicked.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 69 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 9 times while in big blind (88%)
- 8 out of 9 times while in small blind (88%)
- 40 out of 51 times in other positions (78%)
- a total of 56 out of 69 (81%)
Pots won at showdown - 7 of 10 (70%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $-11,054
balance: $946,837

Monday, September 27, 2010

The seductiveness of loose play

Last night, I played fine for the first 27 hands, then played way too loosely on the final hand. On the flop, I inexplicalled a huge bet of 16,200 with only a king high. When the turn gave me top pair (tens) with a great kicker, I thought I was in great shape, so I called again, which put me all in (an additional 2,500 chips). Not only did I not have the best hand, I didn't even have the second best hand. An opponent with a straight won a side pot worth 85,082, and another opponent with a flush won the main pot of 40,200.

The thing is, my inexplicall actually did have some reasoning behind it (though not a lot). I'd noticed that the table was playing really loosely, so I thought it was safer to bet big without the absolute nuts than it normally is. Loose play is very seductive; you see players win huge pots with marginal hands, and you tell yourself "I'm getting myself some of that easy money, too".

On the whole though, I'm actually pleased with my play. If I had to choose between playing too loose or too tight, I'd pick too loose.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 28 hands and saw flop:
- 3 out of 5 times while in big blind (60%)
- 3 out of 5 times while in small blind (60%)
- 12 out of 18 times in other positions (66%)
- a total of 18 out of 28 (64%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 3 (33%)
Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $-40,000
balance: $957,891

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Impatience never pays

Last night, I went back to my favorite flavor of poker, pot limit Hold'em. Unfortunately, I joined a table which had one extremely aggressive player; he kept betting indiscriminately, losing his whole starting stack, and immediately replenishing it for the maximum amount. It's wearying to play against such players, since there's no way to tell when they might actually have a hand. They play with such reckless abandon, they're guaranteed to lose in the long run, but in the meantime, they play havoc with your game. The mistake I made was not that I played recklessly when the reckless player was at the table; it was that when he finally left the table, I suddenly became impatient to win, knowing that it was now much more possible. Impatience at the poker table never pays. I paid way too much chasing a flush, and in general was paying too much and not folding enough. I quit before I hit the felt.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 74 hands and saw flop:
- 9 out of 11 times while in big blind (81%)
- 12 out of 13 times while in small blind (92%)
- 36 out of 50 times in other positions (72%)
- a total of 57 out of 74 (77%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 16 (25%)
Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-21,800
balance: $997,891

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Homesick

I have to admit it; I'm homesick for Hold'em. Hold'em is my first poker love, and quite possibly the variant that I have the most natural talent for. It was quite easy to realize that Omaha was not the game for me. Strangely enough, I had high hopes for Omaha before I ever played a hand, simply from reading about it. I didn't have any preconceived notions about 7 card stud, but quickly formed strong positive impressions of it from playing it. However, I realize I don't have a good feel for how to play it consistently well yet. It's going to take a lot of work to get really good at it. Hold'em never felt like work; it was always a pleasure. I want to preserve the joy in playing poker. I'm not going to just throw in the towel on stud, but I'm going to play Hold'em off and on whenever poker starts feeling too much like work. So tonight, it's back to Hold'em, and back to some fun!

Last night I hit the felt at two consecutive fixed limit 7 card stud tables; I gave myself a starting stack of $8,000 at the first one and $20,000 at the second.

During current Stud session you were dealt 85 hands and:
- saw fourth street 82 times (96%)
- saw fifth street 73 times (85%)
- saw sixth street 52 times (61%)
- reached showdown 21 times (24%)
Pots won at showdown - 9 of 21 (42%)
Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $-28,000
balance: $1,019,691

Friday, September 24, 2010

Fellow play millionaires

One big difference between pot limit poker and fixed limit poker is that pot limit has a maximum buy-in, but fixed limit does not (at least at the fixed limit 7 card stud tables I've been playing on PokerStars). The fixed limit player chooses his own buy-in amount, though a default amount is suggested by the software. The reason for this is that with the fixed limit structure, there's no way for a player to go all in, except in the case where the number of chips left in his stack is less than or equal to the maximum legal bet; therefore, no player can use a massive stack to scare other players off a hand. I've noticed that some players will choose a massive buy-in amount in a possible attempt to intimidate other players, or maybe just as a form of bragging. Already, I've seen two players buy in for a million play dollars or more. This is something I'll never do, but it's interesting to realize there are other play millionaires out there.

Last night, I was on fire early on, then cooled off a bit toward the end. The hand I was proudest of was when I was dealt three kings but folded on the river; as it turned out, both hands which went to showdown had me beat.

During current Stud session you were dealt 114 hands and:
- saw fourth street 111 times (97%)
- saw fifth street 100 times (87%)
- saw sixth street 85 times (74%)
- reached showdown 38 times (33%)
Pots won at showdown - 23 of 38 (60%)
Pots won without showdown - 13

delta: $13,813
balance: $1,047,691

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Fast play

Last night I decided to join a fast table; that's a table which has shorter time limits on the action. Another difference from the slower tables, at least at the fast stud tables, is that there's no option to manually post your ante; it's auto-posted for you. I've often wondered why the PokerStars software gives you the option of manually posting your blinds or antes; I can think of no legitimate reason, and all too often this option ends up slowing down the play unnecessarily.

I have to say I love the faster pace; I'm an instant convert! This means I'll have to give up my habit of saving hand histories immediately after the hands end; there just won't be time for that. I don't know how many hands PokerStars saves in their logs before they get aged out; I guess I'll find out. I may just decide not to bother saving hand histories for a while.

My stack experienced a lot of volatility, but I trended up.

During current Stud session you were dealt 57 hands and:
- saw fourth street 53 times (92%)
- saw fifth street 48 times (84%)
- saw sixth street 37 times (64%)
- reached showdown 16 times (28%)
Pots won at showdown - 8 of 16 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $12,580
balance: $1,033,878

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

17 spot

Last night, although I didn't have another ofer, it was shark fins trending down all the way. I decided to play at a $200/$400 table, and gave myself a starting stack of $20,000. A little over halfway into the session, I had a streak of 17 straight losses. It's kind of hard to recover from that! I had a Lazarus moment when I had to go all in before the final streets were dealt and lucked out with a flush, but hit the felt shortly after that.

I'm not discouraged, but will try to play a little bit tighter tonight.

During current Stud session you were dealt 81 hands and:
- saw fourth street 79 times (97%)
- saw fifth street 72 times (88%)
- saw sixth street 50 times (61%)
- reached showdown 26 times (32%)
Pots won at showdown - 9 of 26 (34%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-20,000
balance: $1,021,298

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

First stud loss

My streak of winning stud sessions halted last night; I was beginning to think I'd never lose! To add insult to injury, I had an ofer.

During current Stud session you were dealt 44 hands and:
- saw fourth street 44 times (100%)
- saw fifth street 39 times (88%)
- saw sixth street 26 times (59%)
- reached showdown 9 times (20%)
Pots won at showdown - 0 of 9 (0%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

I was really only in danger of winning a hand one time; my three kings got trounced by three aces. I think it's time to graduate to the higher stake stud tables.

delta: $-2,000
balance: $1,041,298

Monday, September 20, 2010

Constant and continuous assessment

To play poker well, you must play in a state of constant and continuous assessment. You can never rest on your laurels; you can never let your guard down. Since things are constantly changing, you can't rely too much on old information. The way I'm describing poker here doesn't make it sound like much fun to play, but it actually is. When you're playing well, you achieve a deep state of concentration which is much like meditation.

Last Wednesday night, I achieved this state.

During current Stud session you were dealt 21 hands and:
- saw fourth street 20 times (95%)
- saw fifth street 17 times (80%)
- saw sixth street 9 times (42%)
- reached showdown 6 times (28%)
Pots won at showdown - 6 of 6 (100%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $2,799
balance: $1,043,298

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

.38 special

The title of this post refers to my winning percentage from last Friday night's session.

During current Stud session you were dealt 26 hands and:
- saw fourth street 26 times (100%)
- saw fifth street 23 times (88%)
- saw sixth street 20 times (76%)
- reached showdown 11 times (42%)
Pots won at showdown - 7 of 11 (63%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

10 / 26 = .384615

I haven't had time to play lately, since I've been updating my 23 year old resume. I finished it last night. PokerStars, here I come!

delta: $721
balance: $1,040,499

Friday, September 10, 2010

Doppelsession

Last night's session was almost a carbon copy of the one before it, giving rise to another neostreet neologism (or neo neo for short :-) -- doppelsession. My winning hands were a two pair, two three of a kinds, and a full house.

During current Stud session you were dealt 26 hands and:
- saw fourth street 26 times (100%)
- saw fifth street 21 times (80%)
- saw sixth street 17 times (65%)
- reached showdown 8 times (30%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 8 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $760
balance: $1,039,778

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Hitting for the cycle

Baseball fans will understand what the title of this post refers to. For those of you who don't know, "hitting for the cycle" is when a player hits a single, a double, a triple, and a home run in the same game (though not necessarily in that order). The poker equivalent of hitting for the cycle (according to me :-) is when a player makes a three of a kind, a straight, a flush, and a full house in the same session (though not necessarily in that order). Last night I narrowly missed hitting for the cycle; I made a two pair, a three of a kind, a flush, and a full house.

During current Stud session you were dealt 21 hands and:
- saw fourth street 20 times (95%)
- saw fifth street 17 times (80%)
- saw sixth street 14 times (66%)
- reached showdown 8 times (38%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 8 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $524
balance: $1,039,018

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Treading water

Last night, I treaded water the whole session. I didn't stray far from my starting stack of $2K. It was shark fins straight across. I knew I could end the session on a slight uptick, so I did :-)

During current Stud session you were dealt 95 hands and:
- saw fourth street 95 times (100%)
- saw fifth street 85 times (89%)
- saw sixth street 74 times (77%)
- reached showdown 36 times (37%)
Pots won at showdown - 17 of 36 (47%)
Pots won without showdown - 7

delta: $150
balance: $1,038,494

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Waiting for a wave

I've said what I'm about to say before. I've even said "I've said what I'm about to say before" before. The thing is, when you find a good metaphor, you stick with it! Waiting for a good hand in poker is like waiting for a good wave in surfing. You have to be patient, but you also have to recognize when it's coming and get up on your board as it arrives. My last hand of Saturday night's session, I was dealt Jc 6c 2c, then 9c. I bet like the flush was going to hit, and it did, on the very next street. Luckily for me, two or three of my opponents had strong enough hands to keep on betting until showdown. I ended up winning a pot worth $1,466.

delta: $720
balance: $1,038,344

Saturday, September 4, 2010

More shark fins

Last night, the shape of the bar chart of my stack over time was shark fins trending up again, just the way I like them! They're my first shark fins in 7 card stud. The other two session shapes were basically porpoising.

Another characteristic I really like about 7 card stud which neither Hold'em nor Omaha share is the ability to bluff purely based on the strength of your up cards. It's a bluff with more bite than bluffs in community card games; with a community card game bluff, you can easily be shooting yourself in the foot, since the board could actually be helping one of your opponents.

My last hand of the night, I won a pot worth $986 when a flush and straight draw turned into trip fives on the last two streets.

delta: $501
balance: $1,037,624

Friday, September 3, 2010

Calmer waters

Playing fixed limit poker is extremely relaxing; instead of the choppy seas you can experience playing pot limit, fixed limit has much calmer waters. You don't win as much when you win, but by the same token, you don't lose as much when you lose. You can be entertained for hours on end, and never risk going on tilt. I can't imagine ever going on tilt playing fixed limit; you'd have to be a tiltaholic!

There's something more satisfying about making strong hands in Stud than there is in making them in Hold'em. The reason is simple -- the cards making up the hand are all your own, shared with no one else. You and you alone nurtured them and watched them grow.

On the last hand of last night's session, I grew a full house of eights full of queens; I won a pot worth $611. Chump change by high roller standards, but not bad for a $10/$20 table.

I predict I'll be able to beat my record of 10 winning sessions in a row by November 25th, which will be the one year anniversary of this blog.

delta: $121
balance: $1,037,123

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Love at first sight

Last night, I tried 7 card stud on PokerStars for the first time; it was love at first sight! I immediately saw three things about it which give it a very high skill potential:

1. there are no positional advantages, to speak of, since there's no rotating dealer button; in Hold'em, position routinely enables weak hands to beat stronger ones

2. there are fixed betting limits (at least at the table I joined), so opponents can't be as aggressive as they can in pot limit or no limit

3. you get much more information to work with, in the form of up cards, than you do in Hold'em or Omaha

This game looks like it's right up my alley; time will tell. I'll cut my teeth on the $10/$20 tables for a while, then graduate to the $200/$400 tables when I'm ready.

delta: $310
balance: $1,037,002

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Farewell, Omaha

As I've mentioned before, poker is all about pattern recognition. The patterns don't have to be limited to the actual play itself; meta-patterns can be recognized which overlay the patterns of play. After only six sessions of Omaha, three winning and three losing, I've already recognized a meta-pattern which has convinced me that Omaha is not the game for me.

It's scarily easy to lose your whole starting stack in Omaha; I'll go into the reasons why in a minute. In 267 sessions of Hold'em, the maximum losing streak I had was 3 sessions. In only 6 sessions of Omaha, I'm already ready to break that record. That's not a pretty picture.

Here's why it's so easy to lose your whole starting stack in Omaha: since Omaha hands are most often made on the turn or the river, you have to hold on until then if you want to have a chance of winning. Since you have to hold on to win, you have to at least call every bet, putting your stack at the mercy of the betting patterns of your opponents. For whatever reason, a fair percentage of the people who play the $5/$10 play money tables on PokerStars play very aggressively. Due to this aggressive behavior, the potential skill factor is thrown out the window, and pots are won largely on the basis of luck.

This same theory applies to other poker variants, but it's especially true of Omaha. I was really relishing the idea of trying to hone my skills in Omaha, only to find that it's not really a skill game after all, at least as played on PokerStars.

I haven't quite decided what to do next. I love poker, and will obviously continue to play some flavor. It just won't be Omaha!

delta: $-4,000
balance: $1,036,692

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The lure of aggression

Last night, though I was playing well at the start of the session, I fell into a trap I've fallen into before -- namely, getting caught up in the playing style of the aggressors at the table. At one point I went up about $900, but played too loosely after that lift, and lost most of it immediately (and all of it eventually). When you play too aggressively in Omaha, it's akin to buying a lottery ticket; in other words, not a good idea!

Another difference I've noticed between Omaha and Hold'em is that you almost never see a pot won without a showdown in Omaha, though that scenario is quite common in Hold'em. As far as I know, I haven't seen that happen yet in my five sessions of Omaha.

Note to self: play more cautiously tonight.

delta: $-1,590
balance: $1,040,692

Monday, August 30, 2010

Double o-fer

On Saturday night, I experienced what I believe to be my first ever double o-fer -- I hit the felt at two consecutive tables without the consolation of winning even a single pot. I have the feeling that o-fers are much more common in Omaha than in Hold'em. If that's indeed the case, then I need to make sure not to get too down when the o-fers occur. Since I never allowed myself to get too down during the pursuit of my initial goal, I don't think I'll need to do much of an adjustment now.

delta: $-4,000
balance: $1,042,282

Saturday, August 28, 2010

The catbird seat

After three sessions of Omaha, I think the way to maximize your winnings is to bet heavily when you're in the catbird seat. Of course, this good advice is close to useless, since it requires you to know when you're in the catbird seat. To know that, you must already have attained a high level of expertise in the game. Stripped to the essentials, my advice becomes, "to be good at Omaha, get good at Omaha"!

My last hand of the night, even an Omaha neophyte like me was able to realize I was in the catbird seat. I was dealt 8s Ac Ks Ad, and the flop came Jc 6s As. Not only did I have a strong hand in my set of aces, I was drawing to the much stronger hand of a nut flush. I ended up going all in; the flush hit on the river, and I raked in a pot worth $5,790. That was a great outcome, especially as I'd hit the felt at the first table I joined.

By the way, I discovered I don't need to do any programming in order to be able to preserve my Omaha hand histories -- from the PokerStars FAQ, I learned that there are play money Omaha tables on the .com site; they're available below the real money Omaha games in the Omaha tab, instead of having their own separate play money tab like the play money Hold'em games on the site.

delta: $1,710
balance: $1,046,282

Friday, August 27, 2010

Hold'em is from Mars, Omaha is from Venus

Already, after only two sessions of Omaha, I can see that it's an immensely more subtle game than Hold'em, and therefore potentially immensely more satisfying. I feel like I've been playing a kid's game for the better part of two years, and now I've discovered a different game which requires exponentially more maturity and expertise. I wonder how anyone who masters Omaha could ever go back to Hold'em. I'll have to try to find out. If I ever mastered Omaha, I don't think I'd be able to go back to Hold'em; it would be like trying to enjoy Tic Tac Toe after you've mastered chess.

Last night, I was a folding machine at the first table I joined, until I finally got impatient and hit the felt on a hand which I stubbornly wouldn't give up on. I'd noticed that the level of aggression at the table was very high, and thought I could turn it to my advantage; the problem was, I didn't (and still don't) have a good feel for Omaha probabilities. At the next table I joined, everyone was playing relatively tight compared to the first table, which was fine with me; I was able to recover my losses and get back into the black again. My last hand of the night, I won a pot worth $4,940 with three of a kind, nines.

delta: $2,713
balance: $1,044,572

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Auspicious start

Last night, I had an auspicious start playing PLO (pot limit Omaha) for the first time. Since I'm a newbie to Omaha, I joined a $5/$10 table instead of a $100/$200 table. I'd read some good introductory information on Omaha beforehand, so I was well prepared to fold early and often.

Unfortunately, for some reason PokerStars doesn't make play money Omaha tables available on their .com site, so I had to use their .net site instead; a big drawback of using the .net site is that it doesn't make hand histories available, the way the .com site does. Therefore, for the time being I won't be able to study the hands I've played. My first step will be to send a friendly email to PokerStars, asking why the only play money tables on their .com site are Hold'em tables, and requesting that they make play money Omaha tables available as well. If that doesn't get results, I'll definitely consider writing a program to save the hand histories myself; that's one of the advantages of being a computer programmer!

I forgot to save the stats from the session, but I think I played around 50 - 60 hands and won 3 or 4 of them. I actually played at two tables since everyone eventually deserted the first table I joined. My final hand, I won a pot worth $5,870 with a full house, queens full of kings.

Seeing that I had more than quadrupled my initial stack of $2,000, I decided to augment my poker database to be able to see where that session stood in terms of percent gain on initial stack size; it came in fourth of 268 sessions, with a percent gain of 311.75. Not bad for my first crack at a new game!

delta: $6,235
balance: $1,041,859

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The end of the beginning

Friends and neighbors (as Stephen King likes to say), I did it. Last night, I achieved what I set out to do roughly a year and a half ago; I surpassed the million dollar mark in play money. On my final two hands, lady luck took my head in both of her hands, drew me towards her, and kissed me full on the lips. What a way to achieve the goal!

penultimate hand:

my hole cards: 9c 7c
flop: 5c 8c 6c
turn: 5h
river: Tc

I'll have to figure out what the odds are of flopping a straight flush; surely infinitesimal. Then I'll have to figure out what the odds are of improving your flopped straight flush on the river! Infinitesimally infinitesimal. I only won a pot of $3,400 with this hand, more's the pity.

final hand:

my hole cards: Kh Ts
flop: Kd Kc Tc
turn: Js
river: Qs

I won a pot of $82,600 with this hand. The odds of flopping a full house are better than those of flopping a royal flush, but they're still extremely small. The odds of flopping a royal flush on one hand and flopping a full house on the very next hand are so remote that I honestly believe this was a direct sign from the poker gods to me of their approval.

To make the sweetness of the session complete, the win brought me back to the golden ratio again -- twice as many winning sessions (178) as losing ones (89).

As I mentioned some posts ago, I've had a plan for a new poker goal which I was only waiting for the achievement of my original goal to reveal. Here it is: I want to win my next play million by playing pot limit Omaha, a poker flavor I've never tried. I love Hold'em, but want to pad my poker resume. On to pastures new!

delta: $42,400
balance: $1,035,624

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The secret to poker success

Reviewing the bar chart of the state of my stack over the course of last night's session, I see that it reveals the secret to poker success! Of course, I'm being facetious. Like all such secrets, it's incredibly simple to state and for all intents and purposes contains no practical advice whatsoever. It's merely this -- to be successful at poker, you must lose only a small amount whenever you lose a hand, and you must win a considerably larger amount whenever you win a hand. Last night, I probably lost an average of $1,000 on the hands I lost, and won an average of nearly $10,000 on the hands I won. Opponents kept leaving the table until I was the only one left; I decided to call it a night at that point, being up a healthy amount.

delta: $28,900
balance: $993,224

Monday, August 23, 2010

Poker whimsy

Almost from the moment I first heard it, I've had a disliking and distrust of the term "bad beat". I find many things about it objectionable, and just plain wrong. The chief among them, and the most egregious, is its implicit condemnation of luck. That's biting the hand that feeds you, plain and simple. Without luck, wonderful, glorious luck, no one would ever fill an inside straight, complete a flush, or hit for a full house. You can't assume that the luck which helps you is your due, or that the luck which hurts you is unfair. You can't pick and choose when luck will appear, or whether it will be good or bad for you. Luck just is.

When I experience what others might call a "bad beat", I call it "poker whimsy" instead. Last night, I hit the felt at the first table I joined due to poker whimsy; on my last hand at that table, I went all in when I hit a straight on the turn, only to lose to a flush, which had also hit on the turn. I recovered nicely and recorded a healthy gain at the next table I joined.

delta: $33,542
balance: $964,324

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Shark fins

The bar chart of my changing stack size from Wednesday night's session reminds me of shark fins -- sharp rises, followed by a slow, convex descents. Luckily for me, the fins were trending upwards! My radar on whether it was worth it to go to showdown was quite accurate. As a general rule, it's much more often not worth it to go to showdown than it's worth it! I reached a new all-time high again, and am now tantalizingly close to reaching my goal.

delta: $52,052
balance: $930,782

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Mesa

For fun, I like to try to come up with names which describe the shape of the bar chart formed by plotting regular snapshots of my stack size over the course of a session. Looking at Saturday's bar chart, the word which immediately sprang to mind was "mesa"; my stack jumps from $40K to $60K about a third of the way through the session, stays in the $58K - $68K range for almost half of the session, then drops back down to $40K in the last fifth of the session. The shape of the bar chart looks like a classic horizon line in a Western.

Luckily for me, some overly aggressive players joined my table, and I was able to rocket my stack upwards on my last hand; I won a pot worth $86,235 with a pair of kings.

delta: $46,035
balance: $878,730

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Two big body blows

On Wednesday night, I suffered two big body blows to my stack in quick succession, and couldn't recover; the second one dropped me into poker death spiral territory, and I didn't have the strength of character to end the session before hitting the felt. I actually don't remember the hands, so I'll have to delve into the archives...

body blow 1: I was dealt 9c Ac. The flop came Ad 6h 3s, the turn was the 4s, and the river was the 3d. Three of us saw the river. I bet $5000; one of my opponents called, and the other raised it up to $21,200. I folded, and lost $11,400 total on the hand.

body blow 2: I was dealt 2d 3d. The flop came 3s 5h 4d, the turn was the Jd, and the river was the Kc. Four of us saw the river. The initial bettor in that round bet $11,000. I folded, and lost $7,400 total on the hand.

I played fairly well all night except for those two hands; unfortunately, that's more than enough of what it takes to lose. Back to the drawing board!

delta: $-40,000
balance: $832,695