Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The patience gap

One of the surest ways to make money playing poker is by exploiting the patience gap. This is the gap between how patient you are and how much less patient the other players at your table are liable to be. The bigger the gap, the more likely you are to be able to mint money. All you have to do is wait for a premium hand, then bet it heavily. The impatience of your opponents won't allow all of them to fold, and you'll win some really nice pots.

This isn't exactly what happened on the biggest pot I won last night, but almost. I didn't exactly have a premium hand; in fact, all I had was a flopped top pair of kings. Somehow, though, I sensed the impatience of one of my opponents, and ended up going all in with my kings. He called, and turned over pocket tens. I won a pot worth $50,360, putting me solidly in the black. I decided to play a bit longer, but didn't gain any more ground.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 60 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 8 times while in big blind (75%)
 - 4 out of 8 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 21 out of 44 times in other positions (47%)
 - a total of 31 out of 60 (51%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 7 (71%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $10,299
balance: $4,543,066

Monday, July 30, 2012

Sweet sixteen

Last night, I had my sixteenth best session ever, in terms of chips won. When you've played more than 750 sessions, getting into the top sixteen is really sweet. I owed it all to a single hand, where I tripled up. I flopped a stealth two pair, went all in with them, got two callers, and saw the pairs hold up. Of course, I got out of Dodge immediately.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 21 hands and saw flop:
 - 1 out of 3 times while in big blind (33%)
 - 2 out of 4 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 6 out of 14 times in other positions (42%)
 - a total of 9 out of 21 (42%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 3 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $88,659
balance: $4,532,767

Sunday, July 29, 2012

44 pots

Last night, I'm pretty sure I set a personal best. I won 44 pots in a lengthy session. Since I played 165 hands, I won over a quarter of the hands. I never could have won that many if a lot of them hadn't simply been conceded to me without a showdown. I'm not sure why so many were conceded, but I wasn't complaining! I quit just after winning my largest pot of the night, which was worth $39,600; my winning hand was a pair of tens.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 165 hands and saw flop:
 - 18 out of 26 times while in big blind (69%)
 - 19 out of 26 times while in small blind (73%)
 - 74 out of 113 times in other positions (65%)
 - a total of 111 out of 165 (67%)
 Pots won at showdown - 16 of 29 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 28

delta: $27,607
balance: $4,444,108

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Sticking the dismount

It's impossible, now that the 2012 Olympic Games have commenced in London, not to think of poker occasionally with sports metaphors in mind. Last night, I stuck my dismount. When I won three out of four hands to go significantly back into the black, I knew it was time to let go of the apparatus and land solidly on my feet. I'd gone through some ups and downs, and after a long session was probably the only one left of the original cast at the table. It's good to have survivor skills, and also good to know when it's time to go.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 76 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 11 times while in big blind (54%)
 - 5 out of 11 times while in small blind (45%)
 - 39 out of 54 times in other positions (72%)
 - a total of 50 out of 76 (65%)
 Pots won at showdown - 7 of 11 (63%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $16,710
balance: $4,416,501

Friday, July 27, 2012

Melted snowmen

Last night, the table I joined turned out to have some really crazy players at it. Several of them thought nothing of going all in multiple hands in a row, on pure speculation. One of them even announced before a hand began that he was going to go all in, invited others to do likewise, and told what his down cards were after they'd been dealt! Such players typically go on short hot streaks and then flame out. That happened to him. Another player, however, went on a wild ride that hadn't ended before I decided to call it a night. The last I knew, she had a stack of over half a million play dollars.

I'd been patient all night, but the sight of this player building up such a huge stack on such speculative play started to erode my patience. I'd hit the felt the first time on hand 19, when I was still being patient. On hand 71, I threw caution to the winds and went all in preflop on pocket 8s, otherwise known as snowmen. The huge stack flopped trip 9s which became a full house on the turn, to win a pot worth $311,738. I'll have to check, but I'm pretty sure that's the biggest pot I've ever witnessed in my career.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 71 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 10 times while in big blind (30%)
 - 5 out of 11 times while in small blind (45%)
 - 18 out of 50 times in other positions (36%)
 - a total of 26 out of 71 (36%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 7 (28%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-80,000
balance: $4,399,791

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Action tables

Tables which have a lot of big stacks at them are almost by definition action tables. The only way the big stacks could have gotten to the size they are was by giving and getting a lot of action. I try never to join a table which has a single stack which is double the size of everyone else's, but I'll sometimes join a table where there are multiple big stacks, all of about the same size. That's what I did last night. It goes without saying that you have to play extra cautiously in this situation. The big stacks can put you all in at a moment's notice, so you don't want to enter a pot unless you have an excellent chance of winning it. Even then, you could suffer a bad beat and hit the felt. The big stacks can play more loosely than you can, so they're more liable to catch a lucky card. I got unlucky on hand 16. I was dealt cowboys and went all in with them after the flop came 5d 5c 9c. Another 9 hit on the turn, and my two pair of kings and nines lost to a full house of nines full of fives. I ran the numbers later and it turns out I was an 81% favorite after the flop, even though I was up against two opponents. I reupped for the max, and hit the felt again on hand 38. I reupped for the max again, and my fortunes turned around. On hand 48, I won a huge pot worth $106,394 with three of a kind, eights. I kept playing until I got back into the black, and called it a night. Tonight, I'll look for a table with a bit less action :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 78 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 9 times while in big blind (33%)
 - 5 out of 11 times while in small blind (45%)
 - 20 out of 58 times in other positions (34%)
 - a total of 28 out of 78 (35%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 8 (62%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $858
balance: $4,479,791

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Keeping it under 60

Last night, I kept it under 60. That is, I saw the flop less than 60% of the time. As I've come to learn, that's a great way to lay the foundation for a successful session. How did I come to learn this? Observation. One of the most beautiful things about poker is that it rewards observation. If you have the ability to see things and remember them, you have a big leg up on your competition.

You can't have a seeing the flop percentage below 60 without being patient. Many players aren't that patient. They'll play marginal hands they shouldn't, and when those hands catch a piece of the flop, they're setting themselves up for a world of hurt. I know this, because I've done it myself. You might flop top pair, but have a shit kicker. If you'd had the patience to fold that hand before the flop, you wouldn't have to decide what to do about that shit kicker.

I'm religious about folding any hand containing an unpaired 2 or 3. I'm almost as religious about folding any hand with an unpaired 4 or 5; I'll generally only keep it if the other card is a king or an ace. With higher unpaired cards, it depends on how I feel, whether they're connectors, and how long it's been since I played a hand. If I have a pair, I'll very rarely fold it. If I have suited connectors, I'll very rarely fold them. If I can stay in the hand for a reasonable price, I don't often fold suited non-connectors. This is probably making my play sound too mechanical; it's actually not. These are the guidelines I go by, but I stray outside the lines when I want. There's definitely a lot of feel involved! For instance, last night I went to showdown with a pair, when I'd just sworn that I wouldn't do that. I won a pot worth $9,741 with a pair of aces. Why did I do that? I had a feeling my aces were good.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 43 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 7 times while in big blind (71%)
 - 2 out of 6 times while in small blind (33%)
 - 18 out of 30 times in other positions (60%)
 - a total of 25 out of 43 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 6 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $47,904
balance: $4,478,933

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Full table mistakes

Last night, I played pretty well, with the exception of two or three hands. Of course, as we all know, you only have to play badly on a single hand to end your night seriously in the red. Looking back over the hands, I know what I did wrong - I failed to account for the fact that I was at a full table. In my week of sit and gos, I got used to playing against a maximum of 5 opponents. At last night's table, frequently I was playing against 8. All of your hand requirements need to go up significantly when you're playing at a full table. You need a better hand to open with, a better hand to call with, a better hand to raise with, and a better hand to go to showdown with. You should rarely if ever go to showdown at a full table with only a pair, yet that's what I did at least twice. Not surprisingly, my head was handed to me on a platter both times. Tonight I'll make sure not to take a measly pair to showdown.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 65 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 8 times while in big blind (62%)
 - 3 out of 7 times while in small blind (42%)
 - 29 out of 50 times in other positions (58%)
 - a total of 37 out of 65 (56%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 10 (60%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $-33,699
balance: $4,431,029

Monday, July 23, 2012

A return to sanity

Last night, I returned to cash games, and sanity. Playing those sit and go tournaments was a wild, insane ride. I'm glad I tried them, and I'm also glad I got them out of my system. They're definitely addictive. In the first place, it's a heady feeling to make the money. In the second place, it's an adrenaline rush just playing for all that money, even if you don't end up winning. Finally, the sheer size of the prizes tends to warp your judgment. You think to yourself, "Man, I'm losing some serious cash here. I think I'll enter an even higher buy-in tournament; that way, I can recoup all my losses in one fell swoop!" The trouble is, if you don't win the first higher buy-in tournament you enter, you're way deeper in the hole than you would have been had you stuck to the lower buy-in ones.

The cash game I played last night was definitely not as exciting as a tournament, but I knew it had a much higher skill component, and it was still enjoyable to play.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 69 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 12 times while in big blind (83%)
 - 8 out of 11 times while in small blind (72%)
 - 22 out of 46 times in other positions (47%)
 - a total of 40 out of 69 (57%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 12 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 7

delta: $10,192
balance: $4,464,728

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Sat and gone

The key thing to notice about this post's title is the tense. "Sat and gone" is the past tense of "sit and go". I've decided to quit playing sit and go tournaments for the foreseeable future. You could say the decision was made for me. Last night, I lost over a million play dollars playing sit and go tournaments. I just couldn't stay away from the monster buy in tournaments. The good news is that I "only" lost a little over half a million playing sit and go tournaments; of the million plus I lost last night, roughly half was money I'd won in prior tournaments.

I have the same problem with sit and go tournaments that I have with Omaha - there's just too damn much luck involved. I want a steady, consistent return of play dollars for the investment of my time playing poker, and the only thing that always works for me is cash game no limit hold'em. That's the game I'm returning to, effective immediately. Sit and gos were fun while they lasted, but a part of me knew from the very beginning they couldn't last long.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        52     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        13     6        0
 80000      1000           6        16     4        0
 80000      1000           6        31     4        0
 80000      1000           6         7     6        0
150000      1250           6        23     4        0
 80000      1000           6        94     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        90     3        0
150000      1250           6        47     2   315000
200000      1500           6        51     4        0
200000      1500           6         2     4        0
200000      1500           6         8     6        0
200000      1500           6        22     4        0

delta: $-1,024,500
balance: $4,454,536

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Embracing risk

It's still early in my tournament poker career, but already I'm developing a philosophy about the best style of play to maximize one's chances for success in tournaments. It's simple to state - instead of avoiding risk, you must embrace it. What do I mean by that? Do I mean that you should throw caution to the winds, and play like a madman? No. What I mean is that it's imperative that you play to win, instead of playing not to lose. You can't be guided by fear.

Last night, I had a marathon poker session. I entered ten tournaments, and made the money in four of them. I only won one, but it was a monster win, since it had a monster buy in. I'm going to play those monster buy in tournaments very sparingly.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        84     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        19     4        0
 80000      1000           6        48     4        0
 80000      1000           6         9     6        0
 80000      1000           6        68     2   168000
 80000      1000           6         4     5        0
 80000      1000           6         8     5        0
 80000      1000           6        70     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        31     5        0
200000      1500           6        74     1   780000

delta: $353,500
balance: $5,479,036

Friday, July 20, 2012

A severe challenge

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether it's possible to make a profit playing these $80,000 tournaments. My conclusion is that it's a severe challenge, but is possible. In order to do it, every 6 tournaments, you have to do one of the following three things:

1. win one of them, and come in second in two others
2. win two of them
3. come in second in three of them

If you manage to do the first thing, you wind up with a profit of $162,000 for the six tournaments. If you manage to do the second thing, you wind up with a profit of $138,000. If you manage to do the third thing, you wind up with a profit of $18,000. Imagine how hard that third result is to achieve, and look how poor its reward is.

To further illustrate how tough this challenge is, consider your reward for winning one tournament and coming in second in another - surely a great result. You end up losing $6,000. Not coincidentally, that's the sum of the entry fees.

What makes the challenge so much harder is that luck plays a much larger role in tournaments than in cash games. The increasing blinds force you into actions you would never take in a cash game, and force your opponents likewise to take risks they wouldn't otherwise take. That leads to more action, which in turn increases the likelihood of bad beats occurring.

My conclusion is that these tournaments are a fool's paradise, but the strange part is that I really enjoy them! They're definitely the most challenging form of poker I've ever played. Since I've built up a significant bankroll, I'm going to allow myself to lose up to a million play dollars playing these tournaments. If and when I slide all the way back down to 4 million (and it's highly likely that I will) I'll go back to the cash games. Until then, I'm going to be highly entertained!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        22     6        0
 80000      1000           6        78     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        52     4        0
 80000      1000           6        56     3        0

delta: $-156,000
balance: $5,125,536

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Bubble trouble

In a poker tournament, being on the bubble means that you're one elimination away from making the money (i.e., receiving winnings). In the sit and go tournaments I've been playing, there are seats for six players, but only two players make the money. Therefore, when the field has been reduced to three players, all of you are on the bubble. People's playing styles can change radically when they're on the bubble. Some people play too cautiously, hoping against hope they'll make the money. Others play too aggressively, and hit the felt when they get called and their cards come up short.

Last night, I was on the bubble in both tournaments I entered, and ending up placing third in both. Combined with my final tournament of the night before, I've bubbled three straight tournaments and come in third all three times. That's bubble trouble! Sometimes, there's not much you can do to avoid placing third. For example, if you're severely short-stacked when three-handed play begins, you'll need a bunch of luck to make the money. That's the situation I was facing in last night's second tournament. In last night's first tournament, however, I had the chip lead when three-handed play began. The mistake I made was that I didn't adjust my playing style at all; an aggressive style had brought me that far, and I continued to be aggressive. On hand 31, I was dealt a queen jack offsuit, and one of my opponents went all in preflop. I thought about it for a bit, and called. The opponent had a suited king ten, and ended up winning with a full house, tens full of aces. I lost $1,135 on the hand. On the very next hand, I was dealt a queen ten offsuit, saw a flop of 8h 4c 7h, and for some reason went all in with my queen high when the same opponent from the hand before bet $100 on the flop. I guess I was a little bit on tilt. A seven hit on the turn, and that's what did me in, even though a ten hit on the river.  My two pair of  tens and sevens lost to three of a kind, sevens, and I was out of the money once more.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        32     3        0
 50000       800           6        48     3        0

delta:  $-131,800
balance: $5,281,536

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Monster swings

I'm starting to get acclimated to gambling in $80,000 chunks. That's nosebleed territory for me. If I do this long enough, I'll become a "nosebleed regular". I first read that phrase in an article on high stakes poker on the website of Card Player magazine, and it struck my fancy. The thing about playing in high buy-in sit and go tournaments is that your balance is guaranteed to go through some monster swings. On Monday night, I had my biggest winning delta ever. Last night, I had my biggest losing delta ever. Each one was over twice the size of the previous biggest. I'd fully intended to quit if I lost two tournaments last night, but had a hankering to play a third, and did. Though I lost all three, I had an improving trend line. Tonight I'll definitely quit if I lose two in a row.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        22     6        0
 80000      1000           6        34     4        0
 80000      1000           6        36     3        0

delta: $-243,000
balance: $5,413,336

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

In the sweetness

Last night, I was in the sweetness. When you're in the sweetness, you don't quit; you keep playing until you lose. I entered four $80,000 buy in no limit hold'em tournaments. Here's how I did:

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        51     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        57     1   312000
 80000      1000           6        33     1   312000
 80000      1000           6        29     4        0

Tonight, I'm going to play at least two $80,000 buy ins. If I get back into the sweetness, I'll play more.

delta: $468,000
balance: $5,656,336

Monday, July 16, 2012

Money in a hurry

Yesterday, for the first time ever, I decided to play in some sit and go tournaments. It's pretty amazing that I played online poker for over 3 1/2 years without ever trying sit and gos. I guess this was partially due to the success I was having at the cash game tables. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

I entered 4 tournaments, and won 2 of them. I had the second highest single day delta of my poker career on the strength of my win in the last tournament. Here are the tournament details:

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

  2000       110           6        31     6        0
   300        20           6        68     1     1170
 50000       800           9        37     6        0
 80000      1000           6        80     1   312000

The first two were limit deuce; the third was limit hold'em. The last was no limit hold'em. I'm going to try another $80,000 buy in no limit hold'em tournament tonight. I've caught the bug for making money in a hurry!

delta: $178,940
balance: $5,188,336

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Pokernoia

The title of this post, a new coinage of mine, refers to a state of mind poker players sometimes fall into. I've been a victim of it myself. Pokernoia is the irrational belief that others at the table are in league with each other, in collusion against you. Last night, an opponent accused me of colluding with another opponent, just after he'd lost a huge pot to me. I had a #1, and instead of going all in with it, I contented myself with raising the minimum amount each time the action came back to me. The opponent I was accused of colluding with was doing the same thing. The pokernoiac was caught in between us. I ended up going all in, and won a pot worth $5,401. It really ticked me off to be accused of cheating; I told the accuser I was innocent, and that I didn't appreciate being accused. I don't think I got through to him, though. The problem with delusions like that is that nothing the accused says can convince the accuser of his innocence; in fact, protestations of innocence in these cases are often taken as confirmations of guilt. A better course of action would have been to remain silent; I'll try to remember that the next time this ugly situation comes up.

number of hands: 25
delta: $3,404
balance: $5,009,396

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Starting a table

Last night, I did something I'd never done before - I started a table. There were already two full no limit deuce tables going when I logged in to PokerStars, so I sat down at an empty table. As it turned out, the table I'd chosen was a pot limit one, not a no limit one, but I didn't notice right way. I only noticed the first time I tried to make a good-sized bet and found out that my bet size was capped :-) I didn't need to wait long for people to start joining my table, so I might do the same thing tonight.

The feature of the session which struck me was that I was really enjoying the cap on the betting; I realized I've been missing it. Pot limit was my first love, after all. My guess is that poker players who play well after the flop, as I do, prefer pot limit since it makes it much harder for donkeys to do well. They can't just shove in all their chips preflop (or before the first draw, when the game is deuce). They're literally forced to make decisions after the flop, which is a wonderful thing; they're sitting ducks for the players who know how to play after the flop. I'll seriously consider going back to pot limit when I get tired of deuce and return to hold'em.

I forgot to save the hands stats last night; the only one I know for sure is that I played 31 hands.

delta: $1,205
balance: 5,005,992

Friday, July 13, 2012

Rough eights don't rate

One of the key skills in deuce is distinguishing between rough and smooth hands, and basing your poker decisions on how rough or smooth your hand is. A rough hand is one where the gaps are among the lower (and hence more valuable) cards; a smooth hand is one where the gaps are among the upper (and hence less valuable) cards. The smoother your hand is, the lower the total of all your cards added together; the rougher your hand is, the higher the total.

It's not a good idea to back rough eights too strongly; not only will they be beaten by any seven, but they'll also be beaten by smoother eights. Last night, this happened to me on hand 34. My rough 8,7,6,4,2 lost to a smoother 8,7,5,3,2; I lost $220 on the hand. I hereby dub any 8,7,6 hand "deuce fool's gold", and will try to play them more sparingly in the future.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 97 hands
 Pots won if drawing - 18 of 43 (41%)
 Pots won at showdown - 9 of 19 (47%)
 Pots won without showdown - 12

delta: $168
balance: $5,004,787

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Donkey calls

Last night, I played well except for two donkey calls. In deuce, my definition of a donkey call is when you call a huge bet with only three cards to a premium low. Often, you're calling because you strongly believe the bettor is a donkey; however, more likely than not in these situations, the donkey turns out to be you.

donkey call #1: on hand 40, I was dealt 2d 9h 6s Jh 5s; an opponent went all in for $2,015 and I called. I drew twice, and stood pat on the third draw. My 9 7 low lost to an 8 6 low.

donkey call #2: on hand 42, I was dealt Kh 4c 6d Ac As; after the first draw, the same opponent went all in. I'd improved to 4c 6d 4h Tc 7c and called; another player called behind me. The player who'd gone all in won with an 8 7. The other player who called lost with a 9 5; I lost with a Q 9.

I'd already hit the felt once before the donkey calls; the second one caused me to hit the felt a second time. I tightened up considerably after that, played 70 more hands, and won back some of my losses.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 112 hands
 Pots won if drawing - 32 of 71 (45%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 23 (34%)
 Pots won without showdown - 26

delta: $-1,709
balance: $5,004,619

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Deuces full of sevens

Everyone knows how hard it is to get a full house in 5 card draw. Imagine how much harder it is to get a full house in deuce! For one thing, you're going to be drawing at least 3 cards, guaranteed. For another, the 2 cards you kept are guaranteed not to be a pair. Therefore, of the 3 cards you draw, two of them must match each other and one of the cards you kept, and the other draw card must match the other kept card. Highly unlikely. Nonetheless, that's what happened to me on hand 32 last night. I was dealt 2h As 7c Td 9c, and kept the 2h 7c. On my first draw, I got 7s 2s 2c, for a full house of deuces full of sevens. Needless to say, I folded posthaste!

I had a really good night, more than doubling up. Of course, when the maximum initial stake is only $2,000, that doesn't take you very far :-)

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 70 hands
 Pots won if drawing - 16 of 45 (35%)
 Pots won at showdown - 11 of 19 (57%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $3,016
balance: $5,006,328

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Interleaved 2 of 5

I came up with the title of this post when I reviewed my winning hands from last night's session. I won five hands, 2 of which were very special, since they were #1s. Since the #1s were not back to back, you could say they were interleaved in the 5 winning hands. "Interleaved 2 of 5" actually refers to a certain type of bar code; this phrase has stuck in my mind ever since I came across it in my first programming job nearly 30 years ago.

Alas, I couldn't find a higher stakes deuce game, so I had to continue with the baby stakes. I'm enjoying deuce anyway.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 51 hands
 Pots won if drawing - 5 of 23 (21%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 8 (62%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $1,230
balance: $5,003,312

Monday, July 9, 2012

A battle of ants

Last night, I played no limit deuce. It was a refreshing change from no limit hold'em, but I had two problems. Thankfully, both are correctable. The first problem was that it had been so long since I'd played I'd forgotten one of the basic rules! Embarrassing, but true. To add to the embarrassment, there's less of an excuse to forget this rule than any other in deuce, since the very name of the game is a reminder of it. I somehow forgot that deuces are the lowest card in deuce and aces are high. On hand 2, I stood pat with an ace high thinking I had an 8 6 low, and hit the felt. Of course, that was the only time I made that mistake. I had a nice comeback after that.

The second problem was that the blinds were so small ($5/$10) that I felt like I was in a battle of ants. I'm constitutionally averse to playing for such small stakes. The fact that it was a no limit game made very little difference the majority of the time; most of the pots were minuscule compared to the ones I'm used to. I was playing for rounding errors! That part wasn't fun. Tonight, I'm going to join a limit table with much larger blinds, and see how it goes. My lifetime average delta per no limit hold'em session is over $13,000; I don't want to play any flavor where I don't have a realistic chance of approaching that average.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 147 hands
 Pots won if drawing - 28 of 94 (29%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 23 (34%)
 Pots won without showdown - 24

delta: $-473
balance: $5,002,082

Sunday, July 8, 2012

The golden tgotl

After doing a bunch more thinking about the golden profit percentage, I've decided to jettison the concept. I realize that the best profit indicator is actually an indicator I'd already come up with but hadn't thought of in the context of profit. It's tgotl - total gain over total loss. Instead of looking for a golden profit percentage, I should have been looking for a golden tgotl.

One of the nice things about tgotl is that it's an indicator which can be applied on a micro level, to the hand deltas of a single session, and also on a macro level, to the session deltas of a poker career. My tgotl for last night's session was 1.825. Including last night's session, my career tgotl is 1.666. My career tgotl for no limit hold'em is 1.997. In the spirit of Browning's "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?", I've decided to pick a number for the golden tgotl which is within my reach but not my grasp: 2. It's an easy number to remember, and it dovetails nicely with the golden ratio. To achieve the golden ratio, you must win twice as many sessions as you lose; to achieve the golden tgotl, you must win twice as much money as you lose.

I'm happy to announce that last night I crossed the 5 million play dollar boundary. To celebrate, I'm going to play deuce for a while, starting tonight.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 122 hands and saw flop:
 - 16 out of 21 times while in big blind (76%)
 - 14 out of 20 times while in small blind (70%)
 - 48 out of 81 times in other positions (59%)
 - a total of 78 out of 122 (63%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 13 (46%)
 Pots won without showdown - 17

delta:  $66,791
balance: $5,002,555

Saturday, July 7, 2012

My first Doyle Brunson

Last night, I had my first Doyle Brunson. That is, for the first time in my recorded poker history, I was dealt a 10 2 offsuit which matured to a full house of tens full of twos to win a monster pot. The full house didn't hit until the river, in true Doyle Brunson style. I was first to act. Like the sly devil I am, I simply checked. When an opponent who had a straight bet into me, I raised and got into a raising war. I kept raising until I was all in. Inexplicably, a third opponent came along for the ride. I won a pot worth $92,591, essentially a triple up, and was done for the night.

5 million, here I come!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 28 hands and saw flop:
 - 2 out of 4 times while in big blind (50%)
 - 1 out of 4 times while in small blind (25%)
 - 11 out of 20 times in other positions (55%)
 - a total of 14 out of 28 (50%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 3 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $52,491
balance: $4,935,764


Friday, July 6, 2012

A tale of two 404s

Last night, I had a good session, even though for all practical purposes I hit the felt. On the 129th hand, my three of a kind, threes lost a pot worth $104,300 to a three of a kind, tens. It was a set over set situation. I lost $52,000 on the hand, leaving me with just $808. I don't feel bad about not folding; I just feel a little bad about staying too long at the fair!

When I saw the balance of 808, it looked somehow familiar. Then I realized that it could be split up into two 404s. Anyone who's done enough web surfing is familiar with the HTTP 404 error, which means "Page not found". I decided to figure out what these two 404s meant in my case :-) Here's what I came up with:

- first 404: "Profit taking decision not found". Clearly I should have quit the session earlier on.

- second 404: "Fear-based fold not found". I'm proud I didn't fold my set.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 130 hands and saw flop:
 - 22 out of 27 times while in big blind (81%)
 - 21 out of 27 times while in small blind (77%)
 - 58 out of 76 times in other positions (76%)
 - a total of 101 out of 130 (77%)
 Pots won at showdown - 12 of 27 (44%)
 Pots won without showdown - 16

delta: $-39,192
balance: $4,883,273

Golden profit percentage innumeracy corrections

After doing more thinking about the golden profit percentage, I realized I'd made some real bloomers in the post where I introduced this concept. At first I was going to try correcting the mistakes there, but soon realized I needed to devote a new post to the corrections, since they're fairly lengthy.

First, let's define five terms:

1. session ratio: this is the number of your winning sessions divided by the number of your losing sessions

2. golden ratio: this is when your session ratio is greater than or equal to 2

3. tgotl: this stands for total gain over total loss; it's the sum of all the money you've won in winning sessions divided by the sum of all the money you've lost in losing sessions

4. profit percentage: this is the percentage of all the money you've wagered which you've made back in profit

5. golden profit percentage: this is when your profit percentage is greater than or equal to some magic number; I don't yet know what this magic number is

There were three glaring examples of innumeracy on my part:

1. there's no numerical relationship between the golden ratio and the golden profit percentage

2. there's no numerical relationship between tgotl and the golden profit percentage

3. even given the faulty assumption that such relationships existed, the golden profit percentage I came up with was wrong

Let me address each of these examples of innumeracy in turn:

1. it's certainly possible to hit the golden ratio but be losing money hand over fist. If you only win a tiny amount every time you win, but lose a very large amount every time you lose, over time you'll steadily be losing money, and not realizing any profit. If there's no profit, by definition your profit percentage is 0. If your profit percentage is 0, it's certainly not golden.

2. you can have the same tgotl in vastly different circumstances. tgotl only cares about the ratio of your gains to your losses; it doesn't take into account the amount you've wagered. However, the amount you've wagered is of paramount importance in the calculation of your profit percentage. Thus there can be no numerical relationship between tgotl and profit percentage; thus there can be no numerical relationship between tgotl and the golden profit percentage.

3. when I came up with a golden profit percentage of 100, that was way too high. I was not taking the money wagered in losing sessions into consideration. Also, I was assuming that the money wagered in winning sessions was the starting stack amount. Finally, I was assuming that the profit earned in winning sessions was the starting stack amount. So many faulty assumptions! And yet, even assuming all these assumptions were correct, I still came up with the wrong number! Here's the mental formula which led to the percentage of 100:

profit / amount_wagered * 100 = (2 * starting_stack_amount) / (2 * starting_stack_amount) * 100 =
1 * 100 = 100

Here's the "correct" formula:

profit / amount_wagered * 100 = (2 * starting_stack_amount) / (3 * starting_stack_amount) * 100 =
(2 / 3) * 100 = 66.66

I got the denominator wrong, as you can see. Here's an explanation of the formula:

Since I'm in golden ratio territory, we only need three representative sessions to calculate my profit percentage. One session is a loss, and the other two are wins. The amount wagered for each of the three sessions is the starting stack amount. Therefore the total amount wagered is three times the starting stack amount. The losing session has no profit. The two winning sessions each have a profit equal to the starting stack amount. Therefore the total profit for the three sessions is two times the starting stack amount.

What I now need to do now is calculate my actual profit percentage, and then pick a magic number out of a hat for the golden profit percentage. Funnily enough, 66.66 seems like a pretty good choice! Once I've done the calculation, I'll report back (in a future post).

Thursday, July 5, 2012

River love

Last night, on the penultimate hand, Lady Luck showed me some river love. I'd been dealt a queen jack offsuit, and the flop came Qs Td 3d, giving me top pair with a good kicker. An opponent bet $3,400, and got two callers, including me. The turn was the seven of spades, and the same opponent bet $4,600. The previous caller and I both called again. I had a suspicion I was behind, but also a hunch that I'd catch up. The river was the jack of hearts. The betting leader bet $6,200 this time, and I called. My two pair of queens and jacks beat his two pair of queens and threes to win a pot worth $37,100. Pot odds wise, I probably should have folded on the turn, but sometimes you have to play your hunches :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 20 hands and saw flop:
 - 2 out of 3 times while in big blind (66%)
 - 3 out of 3 times while in small blind (100%)
 - 7 out of 14 times in other positions (50%)
 - a total of 12 out of 20 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 4 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $20,185
balance: $4,922,465

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

The golden profit percentage

I've discussed the golden ratio many times. It's when the value of your winning ratio, the number of your winning sessions divided by the number of your losing sessions, is greater than or equal to 2. If the average number of chips you lose in your losing sessions is equal to the average number of chips you win in your winning sessions, then when you're in golden ratio territory, your profit percentage is 100 or better. What do I mean by profit percentage? Simply stated, the percentage of the amount you wager which you win back in profit. For example, if for every dollar you wager you win back two dollars, then your profit is one dollar, and your profit percentage is 100. If there's a golden winning ratio, then there must also be a golden profit percentage; I recently set out to discover what it is.

Crunching the numbers, I've discovered that on average I lose more chips in my losing sessions than I win in my winning sessions. That's not too surprising. The vast majority of the time, I'll lose at least $40,000 in my losing sessions. Occasionally I'll lose $80,000, and on some really bad nights, I'll lose $120,000 or close to it. The average amount I win in a winning session is under $40,000. Therefore, I can't realize the ideal profit percentage of 100. However, I am realizing some profit percentage, and since I'm hitting the golden ratio, I think it's fair to say that whatever profit percentage I'm realizing is also golden.

So what does the golden profit percentage turn out to be? For me, it's 60. That means for every dollar I wager, I can expect to earn back 60 cents in profit. Not too shabby!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 117 hands and saw flop:
 - 18 out of 20 times while in big blind (90%)
 - 15 out of 22 times while in small blind (68%)
 - 50 out of 75 times in other positions (66%)
 - a total of 83 out of 117 (70%)
 Pots won at showdown - 18 of 31 (58%)
 Pots won without showdown - 7

delta: $44,225
balance: $4,902,280

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Staying true to my read

Last night, I hit the felt twice. Despite that fact, I don't think I played that badly. The largest amount I lost on any one hand was on hand 14, when I hit the felt the first time. I was dealt an ace three offsuit, and the flop came Qs Qc As. I was heads up with the big stack at the table, who bet $2,000. This player had been winning a lot of pots without a showdown, and my read was that he was trying to steal this one. His bet was representing that he had a queen, but it just didn't seem very likely to me that he had one. I called. The turn was the three of clubs. The big stack bet $9,200. This bet was consistent with either of two scenarios:

1. he had a queen, and was betting for value
2. he had air, and was continuing to represent a queen

Since each scenario fit his betting pattern, I stayed with my read and called. The river was the five of hearts. The big stack went all in, and I called. He turned over queen four suited, and just like that, I'd lost $30,228.

The thing is, I'm actually proud of the way I played this hand. I stayed true to my read, even though it was wrong. I firmly believe that this type of play will pay off for me in the long run, provided my reads are right slightly over half of the time.

Right now, I'm reading Doyle Brunson's "Super Systems 2" and enjoying it immensely.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 101 hands and saw flop:
 - 12 out of 14 times while in big blind (85%)
 - 14 out of 18 times while in small blind (77%)
 - 43 out of 69 times in other positions (62%)
 - a total of 69 out of 101 (68%)
 Pots won at showdown - 9 of 20 (45%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $-80,000
balance: $4,858,055

Monday, July 2, 2012

Another personal best

Last night, I set another personal best. I lowered my fastest $400,000 record from 9 sessions to 6. Five million play dollars is coming up fast. When I hit it, I'm going to celebrate by playing deuce for a while. Even though there are no high stakes deuce tables on PokerStars, I really like the game. It's a good idea to play other poker flavors every now and then, in the same way that it's a good idea to rotate crops every now and then if you're a farmer :-)

My biggest win of the night came on hand 6; my pair of aces won a pot worth $79,300, $54,100 of which was other people's money.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 21 hands and saw flop:
 - 2 out of 3 times while in big blind (66%)
 - 1 out of 3 times while in small blind (33%)
 - 10 out of 15 times in other positions (66%)
 - a total of 13 out of 21 (61%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 3 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $60,142
balance: $4,938,055

Sunday, July 1, 2012

A turn for the best

Last night, I has the most successful session of my poker career. On hand 32, I won my biggest pot ever. I won a side pot worth $79,600 and a main pot worth $151,900, for a combined total of $231,500. You'd think I'd have to have had at least a set or trips to win a pot this big, but actually all I had (and all I needed to have in this particular case) was top two pair. I'd flopped top pair, hit top two pair on the turn, and went all in. I got not just one but two callers. One of them was drawing dead, and the other one only had three outs (none of which materialized). You could say that the turn card was not just a turn for the better, it was a turn for the best :-)

You might think I quit the very next hand, but I actually played twelve more hands. I felt that there were more chips out there for me and wanted to take ownership of them. This presentiment turned out to be accurate; on hand 43, I won a pot worth $34,300 with three of a kind, sevens.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 44 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 6 times while in big blind (50%)
 - 4 out of 7 times while in small blind (57%)
 - 11 out of 31 times in other positions (35%)
 - a total of 18 out of 44 (40%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 5 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $209,400
balance: $4,877,913