Friday, May 31, 2013

The Doobie Brothers

I've mentioned the word fatty on this blog before; it's my slang for a full house in poker. Since fatty is also slang for a marijuana cigarette, it follows that any other slang word for a marijuana cigarette could also serve as slang for a full house, once you know the fatty connection. Last night, I had a winning session on the strength of the Doobie Brothers - in other words, multiple full houses. I had three, but only won chips with two of them. On the first Doobie, my full house of queens full of eights lost to four of a kind, queens. On the second Doobie, my full house of jacks full of eights won a pot worth $31,327. On the third Doobie, which was my penultimate hand of the night, my full house of jacks full of tens won a pot worth $26,300. You could say that the second and third Doobies were houses that jacks built :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 53 hands and saw flop:
 - 2 out of 5 times while in big blind (40%)
 - 4 out of 7 times while in small blind (57%)
 - 15 out of 41 times in other positions (36%)
 - a total of 21 out of 53 (39%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 7 (57%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $26,956
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,855,787
balance: $7,305,195


Thursday, May 30, 2013

A dagger on the river

Some river cards come like daggers through your heart. At first you can't believe that you've been pierced, but you realize in the end. Last night, such a dagger came on hand 58. I'd been dealt Kh 6d, the flop came 5d Qs 4c, and the turn was 8s. When the river came the seven of spades, giving me a straight, I thought my luck was finally turning. Sadly, that was not the case. An opponent who'd made his flush on the river won the pot, worth $25,100. Even though I lost only $8,200 on it, that's the hand that really sticks in my mind. The very card that made a straight for me made a flush for my opponent. That just plain hurts!

When I look at the two hands where I lost more chips than I did on the dagger hand, I don't recognize what I might have been thinking. To be honest, on those other hands, I wasn't actually thinking at all; instead, I was hoping and praying. On hand 52, the first time I hit the felt, I was dealt Qc Ah. The board ran out 3d Tc 7d 5c 2c, and my ace high was the worst of the three hands which went to showdown; I lost $23,522 on that hand. On the final hand of the night, the second time I hit the felt, I was dealt 4h 5h. The flop came 2h Jh 7s, and I held out for my flush draw to the bitter end; I lost $22,743 on that hand.

I've looked at the numbers, and they don't paint a pretty picture. I've now achieved the personal worst I was half dreading. I've lost more money in the last 11 cash game no limit hold'em sessions than any other 11 session stretch of such sessions in my poker career - $388,217.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 75 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 12 times while in big blind (83%)
 - 3 out of 12 times while in small blind (25%)
 - 20 out of 51 times in other positions (39%)
 - a total of 33 out of 75 (44%)
 Pots won at showdown - 1 of 9 (11%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-80,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,828,831
balance: $7,278,239

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Min win

In poker, a min raise is when you raise by the minimum amount, which is one big blind. You might think that the minimum amount you can win in a winning session would be the same amount, but you'd be wrong. The minimum amount you can win in a winning session is actually one play dollar, regardless of the size of the blinds. The reason is simple; since you can bet any amount which is at least the big blind amount, you can also lose any amount which is at least the big blind amount. If, for instance, you have $42,000, bet $1,999 on a hand, and lose, you end up with $40,001. If you decide to quit at that moment, you'll have achieved the perfect min win of a single play dollar.

Last night, I had an impressive min win; I won less than a big blind. In fact, I won the least I've ever won in 110 winning sessions of cash game no limit hold'em. I would have played longer, but the table quit on me, and I didn't feel like joining another.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 81 hands and saw flop:
 - 21 out of 23 times while in big blind (91%)
 - 16 out of 22 times while in small blind (72%)
 - 25 out of 36 times in other positions (69%)
 - a total of 62 out of 81 (76%)
 Pots won at showdown - 12 of 26 (46%)
 Pots won without showdown - 19

delta: $192
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,908,831
balance: $7,358,239

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Second worst AKo ever

The slump I'm in isn't giving up easily. Last night, my session ended abruptly when I suffered my second worst AKo ever. AKo is shorthand for ace king offsuit, which is normally a very strong hand. Unfortunately for me, I was up against an opponent who'd been dealt pocket rockets. I started the hand with $40,239, and ended it with nothing. Here are my top 5 worst AKos:

Kd As     -41600 Kd Kh As 9d 7s one pair logs\2011\1231\hands  88
As Kd     -40239 Kd Ks Jc Jd As two pair logs\2013\0527\hands  40
Kd As     -38900 Kd Kc As Qh 8d one pair logs\2012\1126\hands  11
Ks Ac     -38500 Ac As Ks Qc Ts one pair logs\2011\1117\hands   7
Kd As     -33900 As Ah Kd Kc Ts two pair logs\2012\0620\hands  25

Each additional losing session in this slump draws me closer to setting a new personal worst. Right now, my nine session slump clocks in at third worst ever:

   -370862 2011-06-16 2011-08-13 (2)
   -358562 2011-06-11 2011-06-24 (3)
   -308409 2013-05-19 2013-05-27 (2)

Perversely, one part of me wants to set a new personal worst; I need to be careful what I wish for :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 40 hands and saw flop:
 - 2 out of 5 times while in big blind (40%)
 - 1 out of 5 times while in small blind (20%)
 - 14 out of 30 times in other positions (46%)
 - a total of 17 out of 40 (42%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 6 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $-40,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,908,639
balance: $7,358,047

Monday, May 27, 2013

The slump continues

One of the facts of life for a poker player is that you're going to go through slumps. They're unavoidable. Though you don't have a choice about going through them, you do have a choice about what your attitude is going to be. The best thing about slumps is that they're survivable. The more slumps you survive, the better you'll be able to adopt a philosophical attitude toward them, and the better you'll be able to survive future slumps. Last night, I lost my full starting stack of $40,000 again. I've only won two of my last eight sessions. This clocks in at number 5 on my all time list of eight session cash game no limit hold'em slumps:

   -330862 2011-06-16 2011-06-28 (2)
   -319600 2011-06-11 2011-06-23 (3)
   -290862 2011-06-20 2011-08-13 (2)
   -278562 2011-06-13 2011-06-24 (3)
   -268409 2013-05-19 2013-05-26 (2)

Just as I try to refrain from predicting how long my winning streaks will last, I also try to refrain from predicting when I'll break out of a slump. The most explicit answer I can come up with right now to the question of when I'll break out of my current slump is "soon" :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 68 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 11 times while in big blind (90%)
 - 7 out of 10 times while in small blind (70%)
 - 21 out of 47 times in other positions (44%)
 - a total of 38 out of 68 (55%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 8 (25%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $-40,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,948,639
balance: $7,398,047

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Uberflush

Last night, I had a winning session on the strength of an uberflush. On hand 35, an opponent who'd made a queen high straight on the river went all in. Another opponent who'd made a queen high flush on the river called with the rest of his chips. I'd made a king high flush on the river, and called with the rest of my chips. I won a pot worth $45,873. I would never go all in with a straight when the board was showing three cards to a flush, but I'm sure glad one of my opponents did!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 36 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 9 times while in big blind (77%)
 - 5 out of 9 times while in small blind (55%)
 - 9 out of 18 times in other positions (50%)
 - a total of 21 out of 36 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 6 (33%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $5,273
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,988,639
balance: $7,438,047

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Why I'm in a slump

It's no secret that I'm in a pretty major league slump. I've had only one winning session in the last six, instead of my usual four. This slump clocks in at #7 on my all-time list of six session cash game no limit hold'em slumps; here are the top 10 (the first value is the amount of money lost, and the last value is the number of winning sessions):

   -308362 2011-06-16 2011-06-24 (1)
   -299874 2012-01-18 2012-01-26 (0)
   -299800 2011-12-30 2012-01-06 (0)
   -290200 2011-06-11 2011-06-21 (2)
   -265200 2012-01-17 2012-01-24 (1)
   -243900 2011-06-14 2011-06-23 (2)
   -233682 2013-05-19 2013-05-24 (1)
   -222312 2011-12-28 2012-01-04 (1)
   -217800 2011-12-29 2012-01-05 (1)
   -210862 2011-06-20 2011-06-27 (2)


It's also no secret why I'm in this slump. My recent sessions are simply too long. I need to take the profit when I go up by at least $5,000, but I just can't seem to pull the trigger. Tonight, I promise to take the profit early, if I get the chance.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 157 hands and saw flop:
 - 22 out of 25 times while in big blind (88%)
 - 18 out of 25 times while in small blind (72%)
 - 64 out of 107 times in other positions (59%)
 - a total of 104 out of 157 (66%)
 Pots won at showdown - 13 of 26 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 15

delta: $-25,864
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,983,366
balance: $7,432,774

Friday, May 24, 2013

Statistical greed

I've explored the theme of greed in poker in this blog before. Poker greed can take many different forms; one of them is statistical. In general, any form of poker greed is bad, since it can cause you to convince yourself to make poker decisions you wouldn't normally make. What do I mean by statistical greed? When you want to have a winning session so badly, you start to throw caution to the winds. What's so great about a winning session where you only win a small amount? To be honest, nothing much. The difference between a winning session where you win $1,000 and a losing session where you lose $1,000 is essentially nothing, assuming you're playing at a table where the blinds are $100/$200, and the maximum starting stack is $40,000. My problem is, I've been seduced by my own concept of the golden ratio to overvalue winning sessions of any kind, including sessions where I only win a small amount. Last night, I hit the felt on hand 46, and reupped for the max. Seventy hands later, I won my biggest pot of the night, $36,100, with a jack high straight. This took my stack up to $79,043, which meant that if I'd quit right then, I would have ended the night with just a small loss of $957. However, my statistical greed kicked in, and I kept playing. When I was dealt pocket rockets on hand 125, I thought for sure I'd been given the keys to a winning session. Unfortunately for me, an opponent hit a set of fours on a flop of Ks 4s Qd, and went all in. I called, and lost $32,783 on the hand. I quit three hands later, 12 hands too late.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 128 hands and saw flop:
 - 13 out of 17 times while in big blind (76%)
 - 7 out of 16 times while in small blind (43%)
 - 43 out of 95 times in other positions (45%)
 - a total of 63 out of 128 (49%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 14 (35%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-34,640
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,009,230
balance: $7,458,638

Thursday, May 23, 2013

If I had a hammer

Having the dealer button is a huge advantage. It's so huge, you should virtually always pay the minimum bet (a big blind) to see the flop, which you'll have the opportunity to do if everyone else either folds or limps in. Sometimes, you can hit some really big hands on the flop with really crappy hole cards. I love it when I get dealt a hammer (deuce seven offsuit) and have the dealer button; I will always pay the minimum in that situation. If I pair both hole cards on the flop, the strength of my hand is even more hidden than it would be with a normal stealth two pair. Practically the only bright spot of last night's session was when this exact stealth scenario came up for me. On hand 141, I was dealt a hammer. The flop came Qh 7s 2h, and a player who acted before me went all in with his last $4,800. I called, and ended up winning a pot worth $10,505 with a full house, sevens full of deuces.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 189 hands and saw flop:
 - 15 out of 24 times while in big blind (62%)
 - 13 out of 26 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 62 out of 139 times in other positions (44%)
 - a total of 90 out of 189 (47%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 22 (27%)
 Pots won without showdown - 13

delta: $-80,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,043,870
balance: $7,493,278

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Fading a flush

Last night, I had a winning session largely on the strength of a big hand where I faded a flush. I was dealt Ac Ad, the flop came 2d Ts Qd, and the turn card was 5s. I went all in on the turn, and got one caller. He'd been dealt 6d Jd, and was banking on making his flush draw. He drew a blank on the river, though, which was 3h. It definitely hurt his chances that I'd been dealt one of his outs. I raked in a pot worth $81,596. Since I was an 82% favorite to win after the turn, my use of the term "fade" here may not be strictly correct, but I like the alliteration it lends to the title of this post.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 35 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 5 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 1 out of 5 times while in small blind (20%)
 - 13 out of 25 times in other positions (52%)
 - a total of 19 out of 35 (54%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 5 (60%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $52,776
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,123,870
balance: $7,573,278

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

I'm not such a git after all

It turned out I was being too harsh on myself for losing nearly a million play dollars on fully matured, high card hands. There are many different ways of losing nearly a million play dollars, and it turned out my way wasn't as bad as I'd thought. A refinement to my fully matured hands tool helped me prove this; I added the capability to ignore hands where no money was spent on the river. I realized that a lot of the money I'd lost on high card hands was likely due to draws which didn't pan out. When you're on a draw, you often won't know until the river whether you've made it, and you often have to pay a considerable amount to see the river. When you don't make your draw, there's no sense spending any money after the river card comes off unless you're stone bluffing. Here are my numbers for fully matured hands where I spent money on the river:

    -61970     251741    -313711   247     -250.89   high card
     34262    1537124   -1502862   892       38.41   one pair
   1249117    2930509   -1681392   996     1254.13   two pair
   1312402    2067816    -755414   372     3527.96   three of a kind
   1869556    2389464    -519908   352     5311.24   straight
   1358099    1712298    -354199   256     5305.07   flush
   1551215    1728457    -177242   225     6894.29   full house
    100786     100786          0    16     6299.12   four of a kind
     73800      73800          0     4    18450.00   straight flush
     53200      53200          0     1    53200.00   royal flush

   7540467   12845195   -5304728  3361     2243.52


The money I've lost on high card hands in this scenario is a much saner figure.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 63 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 12 times while in big blind (83%)
 - 6 out of 10 times while in small blind (60%)
 - 22 out of 41 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 38 out of 63 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 7 of 14 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 9

delta: $-75,192
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,071,094
balance: $7,520,502

Monday, May 20, 2013

A leak in my game

Statistics can reveal some strange things. You many think you know what kind of poker player you are, and that you know exactly how you play; however, statistics can show you weaknesses you never knew you had. Today I wrote a tool to aggregate the information collected by the fully matured hands tool I wrote yesterday. Here's what it spat out:

   -985371     298806   -1284177   947    -1040.52   high card
  -1637083    3534546   -5171629  2897     -565.10   one pair
   2380855    6176729   -3795874  1990     1196.41   two pair
   2293885    3471194   -1177309   534     4295.66   three of a kind
   2335811    3073895    -738084   460     5077.85   straight
   2040368    2639192    -598824   328     6220.63   flush
   2676134    3050901    -374767   309     8660.63   full house
    183246     183246          0    22     8329.36   four of a kind
     73800      73800          0     4    18450.00   straight flush
     55688      55688          0     2    27844.00   royal flush

   9417333   22557997  -13140664  7493     1256.82


From left to right, the columns contain net delta, positive delta, negative delta, number of hands, average delta per hand, and hand type. I'm flabbergasted to discover that I've lost nearly a million play dollars playing high card hands. What a git I am :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 153 hands and saw flop:
 - 24 out of 26 times while in big blind (92%)
 - 16 out of 26 times while in small blind (61%)
 - 63 out of 101 times in other positions (62%)
 - a total of 103 out of 153 (67%)
 Pots won at showdown - 10 of 31 (32%)
 Pots won without showdown - 22

delta: $-70,762
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,146,286
balance: $7,595,694

Sunday, May 19, 2013

3.5 million folded on the river

After thinking about it some more, I realized that my definition of a fully matured hand was flawed. There's only one criterion which needs to be satisfied - namely, that the hand was live when the river card was revealed. That means that there's another possible outcome in addition to the four I mentioned in yesterday's post - namely, that the hand was folded on the river. Since my original definition excluded hands which were folded on the river, I was understating the number of losing hands and the amount lost with losing hands, and therefore overstating the net amount won. Here are the correct numbers, including the hands from last night's session:

      7,439  number of fully matured cash game no limit hold'em hands I've played since turning on auto-save
      3,216  number of winning hands
      4,223  number of losing hands
$22,510,218  amount won with winning hands
$13,039,907  amount lost with losing hands
$ 9,470,311  net amount won


It's vitally important to be able to fold hands on the river. Clearly, you don't want to fold the majority of your fully matured hands, since that would call into question why you let them fully mature in the first place; however, you're going to have to fold a healthy percentage of them.

Just for fun, I wrote some tools to figure out how much play money I've folded on the river since turning on the auto-save feature of the PokerStars software. It comes out to a whopping $3,466,693. The thing is, that was almost certainly play money well lost :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 61 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 8 times while in big blind (75%)
 - 5 out of 8 times while in small blind (62%)
 - 24 out of 45 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 35 out of 61 (57%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 11 (54%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $27,090
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,217,048
balance: $7,666,456

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Fully matured hand stats

Poker playing is like gardening. It's necessary to tend carefully to your hands in order for them to mature. You must nip some hands in the bud in order for others to thrive. Every time you're dealt a new hand, by definition it's incomplete and immature. You have only two cards, and you need five. Not only that, you need the best five you can find in the total of seven you might end up seeing.

The longer I play poker, the more data I collect, and the more tools I create to help me make sense of that data. Today I wrote some tools to collect statistics on fully matured hands. What do I mean by a fully matured hand? It must satisfy the following two criteria:

1. I saw the full complement of 5 community cards (aka the board)
2. I didn't fold

There are 4 possible outcomes for a fully matured hand:

1. I lost at showdown
2. I split the pot at showdown
3. I won the pot at showdown
4. I won the pot without a showdown

Here are the stats I calculated today:

      5,158  number of fully matured cash game no limit hold'em hands I've played since turning on auto-save
      3,209  number of winning hands
      1,949  number of losing hands
$22,445,892  amount won with winning hands
$ 9,559,514  amount lost with losing hands
$12,886,378  net amount won

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 74 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 9 times while in big blind (77%)
 - 4 out of 11 times while in small blind (36%)
 - 26 out of 54 times in other positions (48%)
 - a total of 37 out of 74 (50%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 5 (80%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $5,452
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,189,958
balance: $7,639,366

Friday, May 17, 2013

One bad hand

In poker, all it takes is one bad hand to ruin hours of good play. Last night, I played such a hand. As I called an opponent's all in bet on the flop on hand 116, I knew it was the wrong thing to do. I was being impatient, looking for a short cut to salvage my session. That's never a good idea; it almost guarantees you'll end up in worse shape than if you'd just been patient. I had the good luck to win a big pot 11 hands later, and the good sense to quit the hand after that.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 128 hands and saw flop:
 - 8 out of 13 times while in big blind (61%)
 - 10 out of 17 times while in small blind (58%)
 - 53 out of 98 times in other positions (54%)
 - a total of 71 out of 128 (55%)
 Pots won at showdown - 7 of 20 (35%)
 Pots won without showdown - 9

delta: $-29,728
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,184,506
balance: $7,633,914

Thursday, May 16, 2013

15,000 flops

I recently hit another milestone - I've now seen more than 15,000 flops in cash game no limit hold'em. I haven't tabulated the number of flops I've seen in sit and go no limit hold'em yet, but estimate it's around 5,000. The more flops you see, the better you'll get - eventually :-) The more flops you see, the better you'll be able to sense when it's a good idea to fold. Also, the less fearful you'll be of going all in, when the occasion calls for it. Last night, I went all in twice, and won both times. The first time, I won a pot worth $79,000 with a king high flush. The second time, I won a pot worth $31,152 with a full house, queens full of deuces.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 63 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 10 times while in big blind (90%)
 - 9 out of 13 times while in small blind (69%)
 - 20 out of 40 times in other positions (50%)
 - a total of 38 out of 63 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 13 (61%)
 Pots won without showdown - 9

delta: $17,942
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,214,234
balance: $7,663,642

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Jumbo session

Last night, I had a jumbo session, by any definition. I was dealt 167 hands, and saw 122 flops. Any time you're dealt over 150 hands, that qualifies as a jumbo session. Ditto any time you see over 100 flops. Since I turned on the PokerStars feature which auto-saves the hand histories, I've had 21 sessions where I've seen 100 or more flops. Of those 21, 8 were winning and 13 were losing. Last night's number of flops seen was the third highest of the winning group. One reason I saw so many flops was the fact that there was an extended three handed stretch in there. I really enjoy three handed play, and am looking forward to hitting 8 million play dollars, when I'll return to tournaments; knowing how to play three handed is a must in sit and gos.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 167 hands and saw flop:
 - 34 out of 35 times while in big blind (97%)
 - 21 out of 33 times while in small blind (63%)
 - 67 out of 99 times in other positions (67%)
 - a total of 122 out of 167 (73%)
 Pots won at showdown - 15 of 32 (46%)
 Pots won without showdown - 23

delta: $69,260
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,196,292
balance: $7,645,700

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Stealth's nemesis

I was underwater for much of last night's session; 84% of the time, to be precise. The hand which brought me back above sea level for good was a real cooler for my opponent. He had been dealt a stealth two pair, but was undone by stealth's nemesis. What's that? Simply put, superior stealth. Had I been dealt his hand, I very likely would have played it the same way he did, with the same gut-wrenching result. He was dealt 8h 6c, and I was dealt 2s 2h. The flop came 6s 2c 8s, giving him top two pair, and me a set of deuces. He went all in, I called, and the turn and river cards came Js and Ac. My set won a pot worth $50,220. This hand illustrates just how dangerous a stealth two pair can be to play. I love stealth two pairs, though, and will never stop playing them :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 90 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 13 times while in big blind (38%)
 - 6 out of 12 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 30 out of 65 times in other positions (46%)
 - a total of 41 out of 90 (45%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 13 (46%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $16,373
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,127,032
balance: $7,576,440

Monday, May 13, 2013

A queen and a baby

I very rarely pay to see the flop when one of my hole cards is a two or a three. There are only three situations where this will happen:

1. I was dealt two twos
2. I was dealt two threes
3. I'm sitting in the big blind, and no one raised in the first betting round

Last night, on hand 2, situation 3 arose. I was dealt Qh 3d, and the flop came Qd 8s 3c. After calling a reraise to $3,600 on the flop, and seeing a turn card of 5s, I decided to go all in when an opponent bet $7,200 on the turn. I knew that would chase away any draws, and knew in my heart that I had the best hand. I got one caller, and raked in a pot worth $87,900 with my stealth two pair after the river card of Ah; my opponent only had a pair of queens with a jack kicker. I had no difficulty calling it a night forthwith.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 3 hands and saw flop:
 - 1 out of 1 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 0 out of 1 times while in small blind (0%)
 - 1 out of 1 times in other positions (100%)
 - a total of 2 out of 3 (66%)
 Pots won at showdown - 1 of 1 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $47,800
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,110,659
balance: $7,560,067

UPDATE: I realized after writing this that there is actually a fourth situation where I'll pay to see the flop when one of my hole cards is a two or a three:

4. the other card is at least a queen, and of the same suit

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Feigning weakness

Poker has two elemental and essential tactics - feigning strength and feigning weakness. You could say these are really two sides of the same tactic. Last night, I won my biggest pot of the night by feigning weakness. I was dealt 9s Qs and hit a flush on the turn, when there was only one other player still in the hand. I bet $2,400 into a $14,500 pot, and my opponent called. On the river, I bet $4,600 into a $19,300 pot, and my opponent raised all in. I called, and won a pot worth $50,974. My river bet was very weak - not quite double my turn bet. I was trying to mimic how a player who'd missed his draw but was trying to buy the pot might bet. I'm certain that if I'd gone all in on the river, my opponent would have folded. Shows of weakness can often provoke shows of strength; in this case, my opponent was desperate not to go to showdown since he had nothing. The problem with feigning strength is that it won't scare off actual strength. In cash games, I make it a rule never to bluff all in, as my opponent did in this case. In tournaments, such plays are a required part of your repertoire.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 56 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 8 times while in big blind (62%)
 - 3 out of 7 times while in small blind (42%)
 - 18 out of 41 times in other positions (43%)
 - a total of 26 out of 56 (46%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 8 (62%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $14,555
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,062,859
balance: $7,512,267

Saturday, May 11, 2013

One thousand nights

For me, poker is a nocturnal activity. I can only remember a single time I've ever played online poker before 6 pm, and most of my sessions start after 9 pm. So when I realized that I'd played 1,000 sessions in my online career, this post's title came readily to mind.

It doesn't feel quite right to me to end a day without playing poker, so I avoid that feeling as much as possible. Since I started keeping track, I've averaged playing 2 nights out of every 3, but if I look at just the last calendar year, I'm averaging more than 8 nights out of every 10.

Of those thousand nights, I lost play money on 327 of them and won on the other 673. On to the next 1,000!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 76 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 11 times while in big blind (81%)
 - 4 out of 10 times while in small blind (40%)
 - 23 out of 55 times in other positions (41%)
 - a total of 36 out of 76 (47%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 15 (53%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $11,441
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,048,304
balance: $7,497,712

Friday, May 10, 2013

Second residence

A full house is a pretty rare occurrence in hold'em. You certainly can't expect to get one every session, every other session, or even every third session. Last night, I got two in a single session. The later one got me back into the black. That's the kind of second residence I like :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 55 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 8 times while in big blind (75%)
 - 3 out of 6 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 28 out of 41 times in other positions (68%)
 - a total of 37 out of 55 (67%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 12 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $10,860
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,036,863
balance: $7,486,271

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Milestone

Last night, I had my sweetest four hand session ever. On hand 2, I won a pot worth $99,485 with a jack high straight. On the next hand, I was dealt rockets, and ended up winning a pot worth $5,175 without a showdown. I opted to take the money and run. I've now won more than 5 million play dollars playing cash game no limit hold'em; it's clearly my best poker flavor. I still plan to reward myself with the excitement of playing tournaments when my overall balance tops 8 million, however.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 4 hands and saw flop:
 - 0 out of 0 times while in big blind (0%)
 - 0 out of 0 times while in small blind (0%)
 - 3 out of 4 times in other positions (75%)
 - a total of 3 out of 4 (75%)
 Pots won at showdown - 1 of 1 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $64,608
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,026,003
balance: $7,475,411

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Stairs to the elevator

As I've said before, when your stack is going down, you want to take the stairs, and when it's going up, you want to take the elevator. I managed to achieve that again last night. My biggest positive hand delta was $49,500, whereas my biggest negative hand delta was $-10,800. My agoal was 8.05, which is close to the golden agoal value of 10. When did I decide what the golden agaol value should be? You guessed it - just now :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 77 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 10 times while in big blind (50%)
 - 6 out of 11 times while in small blind (54%)
 - 27 out of 56 times in other positions (48%)
 - a total of 38 out of 77 (49%)
 Pots won at showdown - 7 of 14 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $48,865
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,961,395
balance: $7,410,803

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Rolled up nines

I love poker slang. It's rich in imagery, color, and atmosphere. I love it so much I try to coin my own. I'd be ecstatic if a single one of my poker neologisms ever made it into the poker lingo mainstream. For that to have a chance of happening, though, the readership of this blog would have to increase dramatically.

What do I mean by rolled up nines? Seven card stud players will know. Technically, the "rolled up" term can only be applied to stud hands, but I'm appropriating it and applying it to hold'em. In seven card stud, rolled up anything means three of a kind in the first three cards dealt to a player, which are the first two down cards and the first up card. Rolled up nines in seven card stud would be two nines dealt face down to a player, followed by a nine dealt as the first up card to that same player. Rolled up anything is a killer hand in stud.

In the context of hold'em, what I mean by rolled up nines is when a player is dealt two face down nines, then a third nine appears face up in the flop. Rolled up anything is also a killer hand in hold'em. The usual hold'em term for this is a set, but I think the "rolled up" term is much more colorful. Unfortunately for me, the rolled up nines which showed up in hand 43 of last night's session belonged to someone else. Even more unfortunately for me, I had a really strong hand - a king high straight which I made on the river. To add insult to injury, my straight was the nut straight - the community cards were Js Jh 9c 8d Tc, and I'd been dealt Qc Ks. This gave me what I call the "high end plus" straight, which beats the plain high end straight. I guessed that my opponent had the high end straight, and that I was going to make a killing. Instead, he had a full house of nines full of jacks, and made the killing himself - a $72,446 pot. Had that one hand gone my way, I would have had a very successful session.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 68 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 10 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 6 out of 10 times while in small blind (60%)
 - 21 out of 48 times in other positions (43%)
 - a total of 37 out of 68 (54%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 10 (40%)
 Pots won without showdown - 7

delta: $-23,865
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,912,530
balance: $7,361,938

Monday, May 6, 2013

My new Lazarus line

Some time ago, I introduced the concept of the Lazarus line - a percentage of your starting stack size below which you must not let your stack fall. At the time, I judged the Lazarus line to be around 22 percent. That now seems ridiculously high to me. My current thinking is that the Lazarus line is around 8 percent. With a starting stack size of $40,000, that means you've crossed the line when your stack falls below $3,200. When this happens, you must quit playing immediately. As you may know, I'm not very good at following this particular rule of thumb. I just ran some numbers to figure out roughly how much money I would have saved had I been religious about following this rule. Here's what I came up with:

    435: # of sessions of cash game no limit hold'em I've played
 
     47: # of such sessions when I've lost exactly my starting stack size of $40,000 

     60: guesstimated percentage of such sessions which were Lazarus sessions, where a Lazarus session is defined as one in which I hit or crossed the Lazarus line and had chips left to play with after hitting or crossing it

   28.2: guesstimated number of Lazarus sessions (47 * .6)

 $3,200: maximum amount of Lazarus money, where this is defined as the amount of chips left to play with in a Lazarus session after hitting or crossing the Lazarus line

    50: guesstimated average percentage of the maximum amount of Lazarus money in a Lazarus session

$1,600: guesstimated average amount of Lazarus money in a Lazarus session (3200 * .5)

$45,120: guesstimated amount of money I would have saved had I been religious about following the Lazarus line rule of thumb (28.2 * 1600)

It's interesting to note that simply by following my own rule of thumb, I would have spotted myself more than enough to play another session essentially for free. If I'd followed this rule last night, I would have lost $36,977 instead of $40,000.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 53 hands and saw flop:
 - 4 out of 8 times while in big blind (50%)
 - 5 out of 8 times while in small blind (62%)
 - 23 out of 37 times in other positions (62%)
 - a total of 32 out of 53 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 10 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $-40,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,936,395
balance: $7,385,803

Sunday, May 5, 2013

A flawed tactic

Many moons ago, when I was in college, there was a video game I liked to play called "Star Castle". You controlled a space ship which could fire ammunition out the front, similar to the one in "Asteroids", but the object of the game was different. In "Star Castle", your mission was to shoot a target which was surrounded by several concentric layers of protection; each layer was in a circular shape made up of multiple line segments. Each layer rotated in the opposite direction from its neighboring layers. To be able to shoot the target, you first needed to destroy line segments from the spinning walls of protection in order to get a clear path. If you flew your space ship into a wall, neither the wall nor your space ship was destroyed, but the orientation of your space ship was flipped 180 degrees, so that if you flew straight into a wall, you'd bounce off it and be flying straight away from it after the contact. As soon as you had a clear shot at the target, however, it also had a clear shot at you. I got quite good at the easy, early levels of the game, when the target wasn't so diligent about trying to shoot you. I learned a very easy tactic for winning the early levels - simply fly straight at the target all the time, continually shooting, and rely on the fact that the game automatically flipped your ship when you hit a wall to start your assault on the other side. You'd fly in from the left, blasting away, bounce off a wall, then fly back towards the left side of the screen, still firing; the software made your spaceship immediately reappear on the right side of the screen as soon as it disappeared off the left side (and vice versa). So you'd alternate breaking down the defenses on each side of the target, first the left side, then the right. I perfected this tactic, but it was a flawed one; it made your spaceship a sitting duck at the higher levels of the game. It was essentially a kamikaze tactic. A friend of mine perfected his ability to fly and shoot to such a degree that he essentially conquered the game; he could play as long as he wanted. What he was able to do was fly in a continuous diagonal pattern; he'd fly from the middle left side of the screen to the middle bottom of the screen, disappear to reappear at the top middle, fly to the right middle of the screen, then disappear and reappear at the left middle to start a new flight cycle. He would rotate the ship to fire, then rotate it back to the diagonal before hitting the thrusters again. He would only hit the thrusters when his ship was in the diagonal pattern, and only fire when his ship was pointing at the target. To any onlooker, it was clear that he was a virtuoso; no concert pianist could have better control of his playing than my friend had control of his flying and shooting.

How does this relate to poker? Simply in the fact that there are flawed tactics in all games, including the game of poker. Last night, one of my opponents employed such a tactic. Like my "Star Castle" tactic, it had some early success, but was doomed to failure. His tactic was to raise by $3,000 or so preflop whenever he felt that he had a good hand, hoping everyone would fold; in that case, he'd pick up a small pot of anywhere from $700 to $1,800. This worked for him multiple times, until a hand when he was dealt a pair of fives and I was dealt a pair of kings. This time around, he raised by $3,600; I reraised him another $3,600. He went all in, as I'd suspected he might, and I called. My two pair of kings and tens bet his two pair of tens and fives, and I raked in a pot worth $93,402. Funnily enough, both he and I were done for the night at that point :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 62 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 7 times while in big blind (42%)
 - 3 out of 7 times while in small blind (42%)
 - 25 out of 48 times in other positions (52%)
 - a total of 31 out of 62 (50%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 7 (42%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $56,057
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,976,395
balance: $7,425,803

Saturday, May 4, 2013

One Hand to rule them all

At this point, I've sort of lost track of the number of times I've used this title. I think I'm up to four, but couldn't swear to it. Last night, the ruling hand came early on, on hand 14. I was dealt pocket rockets, and hit a fatty on the turn. I won a pot worth $56,300, $28,500 of which was o.p.m. (other people's money). The bar chart of my stack size over the course of the session is a picture postcard for punctuated equilibrium; a flat line for the first quarter of the session, a big spike, and a flat line on the upper plateau for the final three quarters of the session.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 65 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 10 times while in big blind (90%)
 - 9 out of 13 times while in small blind (69%)
 - 25 out of 42 times in other positions (59%)
 - a total of 43 out of 65 (66%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 9 (88%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $21,201
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,920,338
balance: $7,369,746

Friday, May 3, 2013

The most dangerous kind of opponent

Given the amount of poker I play, you'd think that I'd run into the most dangerous kind of opponent fairly frequently. I'm happy to report that this is not the case, although I did run into this kind of opponent again last night. The most dangerous kind of opponent is not a highly skilled player. In fact, he has no skill at all. He simply doesn't care if he wins or loses, and therefore is able to make an endless series of risky bets. Endless until his money runs out, that is. Such a player is ludicrously easy to spot; he bets way too much way too frequently, keeps hitting the felt, and keeps reupping for the max. The main problem one has playing against such a player is resisting the temptation to teach him a lesson. His style of play is truly a sore trial. It's not poker, and it's not fun to play against. I hereby make a promise to myself to leave the table immediately whenever I next encounter this style of play. Last night, I couldn't resist calling all in preflop against Mr. Dangerous when I was dealt a big slick; he'd already hit the felt three times and I felt it would be good for him to hit it a fourth. Two players acting after me also called Mr. Dangerous's huge bet, one of them going all in to do so. Wouldn't you know, Mr. Dangerous lucked out, and won one of the largest pots I've ever seen in my PokerStars career - $230,023. I just ran the numbers and found that he'd only had a 19.85% chance of winning. I'd rather play a highly skilled poker player every time.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 53 hands and saw flop:
 - 4 out of 7 times while in big blind (57%)
 - 2 out of 7 times while in small blind (28%)
 - 17 out of 39 times in other positions (43%)
 - a total of 23 out of 53 (43%)
 Pots won at showdown - 1 of 4 (25%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-40,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,899,137
balance: $7,348,545

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Show me the money

Last night, I only went all in on a single hand, but made it count. It was a "Show me the money!" kind of hand. I was dealt a pair of sixes, and hit a set on the flop. I bet $4,000 into a pot of $9,000 and got two callers. On the turn, I bet $9,000 and both players called again, one going all in for his last $8,400 to do so. On the river, I went all in with my remaining $17,991, which was a bit of grandstanding, seeing as the only player still in the hand with chips to bet had just $5,399 left. He called. My set held up and I raked in a pot worth $57,578. That was hand 23, and I felt like playing longer, so I did - to the tune of 104 more hands.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 127 hands and saw flop:
 - 12 out of 19 times while in big blind (63%)
 - 15 out of 21 times while in small blind (71%)
 - 40 out of 87 times in other positions (45%)
 - a total of 67 out of 127 (52%)
 Pots won at showdown - 10 of 15 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $24,399
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,939,137
balance: $7,388,545

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

The third floor

All poker sessions begin on the first floor. That is, when you sit down and start playing, you're essentially walking through the front door of a house. You might have to make some trips to the basement, but your hope is to ascend to an upper floor. Most hands result in noise; you win or lose a small amount, and end up essentially where you started. The hands that provide signal, which are infrequent, are the ones where you win or lose a significant amount. When you win your first significant hand, you're on the second floor. When you win your second significant hand, you're on the third floor. After playing cash game poker for more than 4 years, I've come to realize that it's a really good idea to quit playing when you've reached the third floor. That's what I did last night. I had a nice flourish of four straight won pots at the end, but it was the first of them which put me on the third floor; the others were just garnish.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 46 hands and saw flop:
 - 4 out of 6 times while in big blind (66%)
 - 4 out of 5 times while in small blind (80%)
 - 21 out of 35 times in other positions (60%)
 - a total of 29 out of 46 (63%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 10 (60%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $57,391
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,914,738
balance: $7,364,146