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