Saturday, June 29, 2013

42.5 million spent

This week I was fighting a cold, and didn't feel well enough to play poker. It's no fun playing when you have a headache! I'm happy to say I'm well on the mend, the headache is gone, and I'll be playing right after finishing this post. The last time I played was Sunday night; I don't remember much about the session, other than that it was a losing one.

What am I crowing about in the title of this post? Simply, about the massive amount of play money I've spent playing cash game no limit hold'em. Just for fun, I wrote a utility to break it down by the 4 betting rounds (before the flop, flop, turn, and river), followed by the percentages; here are the numbers:

     13,204,479   10,694,761   10,434,394    8,191,256   42,524,890
        31.051%      25.149%      24.537%      19.262
%

I was expecting the turn and river percentages to be higher, but the big surprise is that the before the flop percentage is the biggest of them all. At some point, I'll break these numbers down further by winning hands vs. losing hands.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 76 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 9 times while in big blind (77%)
 - 7 out of 8 times while in small blind (87%)
 - 24 out of 59 times in other positions (40%)
 - a total of 38 out of 76 (50%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 7 (57%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $-29,474
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,755,445
balance: $7,204,853

Lodden Thinks

by on Thursday 27 December 2012 under Gaming > Other games
This article first appeared in the Jan/Feb 2013 issue of World Gaming magazine.
Lodden Thinks is an amazing game created by degenerate gamblers to pass the time whilst at the poker table. This is just another example of the mindset of some gamblers and the games they play.
Poker players are among the most degenerate of all gamblers, always on the lookout for another opportunity to place a bet. With some poker sessions extending to many hours or even days, many professionals like to keep sharp by entertaining themselves with extracurricular wagers known as "prop betting".

A prop bet, or proposition bet, is an agreed bet made between two people, where one person proposes the matter to be bet upon. The most common prop bet is a coin toss where one person calls heads or tails.
Historically the most common prop bet seen at the poker table has been on the predominant card color, red or black, of the flop (the first three community cards turned over in the center of the table in a hold'em or Omaha poker game). This was an effective way to gamble but in all truthfulness lacked the excitement these gambling machines so craved. The quest for a more exciting prop bet is where this story starts.
In 2008 a group of professional poker players set out to amuse themselves during the World Series of Poker Europe. The brains trust behind Lodden Thinks was the American duo of Antonio Esfandiari and Phil Laak, considered by many as two of the world's craziest punters. Also present was Johnny Lodden, a highly respected Norwegian player who made a huge name for himself playing online poker.
Esfandiari and Laak started to bet on questions of estimation. This is a common thing for gamblers to do – one player will present a "line" for some random matter such as the height of the Eiffel Tower or the cost of a particular item or any other question with a numerical answer, and the other player will take the "over" or "under" on that line.
Esfandiari and Laak became frustrated at the difficulty of finding the answers to certain questions. They then concluded they didn't need to find the answer at all, they could just bet on the opinion of a third person, in their case Johnny Lodden.
Here's how it works:
  • Someone proposes a matter to be bet on. The matter must have a numerical answer. The crazier the matter, the better – you are only limited by your imagination. Try to choose something your "Lodden thinker" will have a strong or strange opinion about. The matter might be the amount of money required for a particular person to do a particular thing, or the number of girls a specific person has slept with, or something random like the number of security cameras in a particular casino.
  • The "Lodden thinker" decides, to the best of his ability, his answer to the question. He then writes it down somewhere (or enters it in his phone), so he can't change his answer after he's heard the bidding and the bets.
  • The players betting then set the line by bidding numbers in turn, higher and higher. When the next player due to bid is not prepared to bid any higher, he automatically takes the "under", and the last bidder takes the "line and over".
  • If there are more than two players involved (remembering the "Lodden thinker" is not a player), the players additional to the line setter and the player who took the "under" decide whether they are betting on the "under" or the "line and over". If there is more than one of these additional players, they must choose in turn.
  • The "Lodden thinker" then reveals his answer and the bets are paid off.
The beauty of playing Lodden Thinks is that you can get a big advantage by understanding how the "Lodden thinker" thinks. Understanding how people think is one of the most important skills at the poker table, so playing Lodden Thinks actually improves your poker game!
If you need some extra mental stimulation during your next tournament, why not give Lodden Thinks a try? You just need yourself, at least one other player and a "Lodden". Your chosen Lodden needs to be impartial, must take his role seriously, and give answers to the best of his ability. Lodden Thinks is also a great game to play amongst a group of friends at a party or whilst enjoying a drink.
This is a fine example of gambling at its purest and it comes as no surprise that it was invented by some of the biggest and "sickest" gamblers of them all.

Lodden Thinks: An Example

There are five players at a poker table: Andrew, Brian, Charlie, Dave and Ed. They choose to play for HK$1,000 a game. The players choose Ed as the "Lodden thinker".
There is an attractive waitress working in the poker room. Someone proposes the question to bet on is, "How many contacts are in the contact list of her mobile phone?"
Next, Ed must decide his answer, to the best of his ability. Ed writes his answer down and doesn't tell anyone. We'll get back to that number later.
The players decide the bidding order will be alphabetical, that is Andrew followed by Brian, then Charlie and lastly Dave. Each bid must be more than the previous bid, until the next person due to bid chooses to take the "under" instead of bidding. Let's say the bidding goes like this:
Andrew:
50 contacts and over
Brian:
80 and over
Charlie:
97 and over
Dave:
112 and over
Andrew:
113 and over
Brian:
20 and over
Charlie: 121 and over
Dave: 122 and over
Andrew: 123 and over

At this point, Brian refuses to bid, and is automatically assigned the "unders". Charlie then has to choose which side of the line he wants, either "under 123" or "123 and over". Let's say he chooses the unders. Dave then has the same choice, and let's say he also chooses the unders
Now it's time to reveal Ed's answer. Remember it doesn't matter how many contacts the attractive waitress actually has in her phone. All that matters is how many Ed thinks she has. Ed shows everyone the number he has written down, which is 157! The "overs" win.
All the players on the "unders" lose HK$1,000 apiece, so Brian, Charlie and Dave each pay HK$1,000, to be shared amongst the winning players. In this case Andrew was the only player on the "overs", so he scoops the pool and wins HK$3,000
- See more at: http://www.worldgamingmag.com/en/gaming/other-games/item/3566-lodden-thinks#sthash.F8lTgXtf.dpuf        13204479   10694761   10434394    8191256   42524890
          31.051     25.149     24.537     19.262

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Even keel session

Some sessions, practically nothing happens. For whatever reason, you don't have any big gains, but you also don't have any big losses. I call these even keel sessions; I had one last night. A good way to identify these sessions is when the average of the absolute values of your session deltas is less than 5 big blinds. Last night, this average came out to 736, well under the 1,000 mark; in fact, it was the tenth lowest such average of my cash game no limit hold'em career.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 58 hands and saw flop:
 - 8 out of 9 times while in big blind (88%)
 - 6 out of 8 times while in small blind (75%)
 - 27 out of 41 times in other positions (65%)
 - a total of 41 out of 58 (70%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 9 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $3,089
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,784,919
balance: $7,234,327

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Flush money

Sometimes, when my stack gets a big chip infusion, I feel like quitting for the night so I can realize the profit. Much more often, though, I look at the infusion as funding for me to play longer. Last night, on hand 22, I won a pot worth $32,270 with a queen high flush; $22,290 of this was o.p.m. (other people's money). With this flush money, I played another 62 hands, and ended up with roughly the same profit as I would have had if I'd quit after hand 22. Playing longer increases your chances of winning a monster pot, even it if means winning a bit less than if you'd quit earlier. I like to hold out for the monsters :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 84 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 13 times while in big blind (69%)
 - 7 out of 16 times while in small blind (43%)
 - 30 out of 55 times in other positions (54%)
 - a total of 46 out of 84 (54%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 11 (54%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $21,370
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,781,830
balance: $7,231,238

Friday, June 21, 2013

T2o for the win

As you know, I love poker statistics. I'm always writing tools to calculate new ones. Today, I wrote a tool to figure out which hand has given me the best return on investment. I figured pocket aces would be a shoo-in, but it only made it to number seven on the list. Surprisingly, the hand that made it to the top of this list is a complete rag hand - ten deuce offsuit, or T2o for short. I've been dealt this hand 274 times, spent $62,197 on it, and collected $123,902 with it, for a very healthy 99.21% return on investment. My return on investment for pocket rockets is a comparatively anemic 62.68%. I need to write some more tools to discover how T2o could have fared so well. My guess is that the only times I ever spent significant money on this hand were when I was in the big blind, no one raised before the flop (meaning I got to see the flop without having to make a decision about it), and flopped two pair or a full house.

Last night, I made up for the losses of the night before by having two separate runs of luck.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 44 hands and saw flop:
 - 4 out of 5 times while in big blind (80%)
 - 3 out of 6 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 22 out of 33 times in other positions (66%)
 - a total of 29 out of 44 (65%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 6 (83%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $29,023
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,760,460
balance: $7,209,868

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Two oucher

Last night, I hit the felt on a two oucher. That is, a two outer which hurt really bad. I was dealt Ks 5h, and the flop came 6d 5c 5d. I checked, then called a raise to $7,000. The turn was Jd, and an opponent acting before me bet $5,000; I called with my last $4,951. The river was 6h, which gave my opponent, who'd been dealt 9c 6c, a better full house than mine. Only two cards in the deck gave him a winning hand on the river. I was a 95.45% favorite, but lost to the two outer. Ouch!

The good news was that by mistake, I'd joined a table with a $20,000 max starting stack instead of a $40,000 one. I reupped for another $20,000, lost roughly half of that, and called it a night.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 76 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 12 times while in big blind (58%)
 - 8 out of 12 times while in small blind (66%)
 - 27 out of 52 times in other positions (51%)
 - a total of 42 out of 76 (55%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 10 (30%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-28,099
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,731,437
balance: $7,180,845

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

The crooked straight

I didn't hit the felt last night, but certainly deserved to. On hand 74, I hit the nut straight on the river. No flush was possible, but the board was showing a pair, so a full house was possible. There were three of us still in the hand; I was second to act. The player acting before me, who had both me and the third player covered, went all in. I called, and the third player called after me. Luckily for me, the third player, who had the best holding, started the hand with less chips than me. I avoided the felt by winning a side pot worth $12,634; the third player won the main pot, which was worth a whopping $101,733. He'd hit his full house on the river.

Why do I call my holding a crooked straight? Two reasons:

1. the board was showing a pair
2. I was not the last person to act

If two opponents are willing to go all in when the board is showing a pair, chances are one of them has a full house. Since I was not the last person to act, I couldn't know beforehand whether the third player would call, so I had no business calling myself. It's elementary logic, but I missed it in the heat of the moment.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 86 hands and saw flop:
 - 11 out of 15 times while in big blind (73%)
 - 14 out of 17 times while in small blind (82%)
 - 31 out of 54 times in other positions (57%)
 - a total of 56 out of 86 (65%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 21 (38%)
 Pots won without showdown - 13

delta: $-29,184
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,759,536
balance: $7,208,944

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

The golden agoal

For some reason, I've been focusing on the agoal stat recently. Last night, I had my third decent agoal in a row - 8.14. I have enough data now to figure out if a golden agoal value exists - that is, a value which essentially guarantees a winning session. I just ran the numbers, and the verdict is in. Drumroll, please ...

The golden agoal value is 8. In 152 cash game no limit hold'em sessions where the agoal value was at least 8, 151 of them were winning ones. Case closed. Of course, knowing what the golden agoal is and being able to achieve it are two very different things :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 69 hands and saw flop:
 - 8 out of 10 times while in big blind (80%)
 - 3 out of 10 times while in small blind (30%)
 - 23 out of 49 times in other positions (46%)
 - a total of 34 out of 69 (49%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 8 (62%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $11,981
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,788,720
balance: $7,238,128

Monday, June 17, 2013

Sweet sixteen

Last night, I had a sweet agoal of 16. That is, my average win was 16 times larger than my average loss. That's my second highest agoal in over a month; my highest one in that time period was 20. Funnily enough, that came in the session before last. I'm hoping this is a sign that I'm dialed in!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 45 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 6 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 5 out of 6 times while in small blind (83%)
 - 16 out of 33 times in other positions (48%)
 - a total of 27 out of 45 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 7 (42%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $30,194
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,776,739
balance: $7,226,147

Sunday, June 16, 2013

A philosophical question

Something which happened during last night's session really got me thinking about pot odds. I'm not sure whether my opponent made the right play or not. Here's what happened: on hand 37, I flopped top two pair, bet small, and reraised big when I got raised. The turn looked like a harmless card, so I went all in with my last $5,748. My opponent called, and ended up winning a pot worth $36,196 when he hit his flush draw on the river. Did he make the right play or not? Looking strictly at the situation he was in at the time, he needed to pay $5,748 to win a $36,196 pot, so he was getting pot odds of slightly better than 6 to 1. If he thought his hand had better than a 1 in 6 chance of winning, he should call here. Actually, I should say, the conventional wisdom is that he should call here. I've always had difficulty buying into this particular piece of conventional wisdom. What bothers me about it is that it doesn't take into account how much the player has paid into the pot before the current decision point. In this case, my opponent had already paid $11,200 into the pot. If he doesn't hit his flush draw, he's not losing just the $5,748 he paid to see the river card, he's actually losing $16,948. If he feels he has a 1 in 6 chance of hitting his draw, that means that five of the times, he's going to be losing $16,948. The sixth time, he's going to be winning $36,196. To me, this is clearly a losing situation for him: he's lost 5 x $16,948, or $84,740, and only won $36,196. However, according to the conventional pot odds wisdom, he's made the correct play. I'll have to mull this over some more.

I was actually a 75% favorite to win this hand, but ended up hitting the felt. I reupped for the max, stayed patient, and ended up making a nice profit on the night. My biggest win was on hand 66, when I won a pot worth $105,100 with a full house, aces full of tens.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 67 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 9 times while in big blind (66%)
 - 4 out of 9 times while in small blind (44%)
 - 29 out of 49 times in other positions (59%)
 - a total of 39 out of 67 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 12 (41%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $65,947
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,746,545
balance: $7,195,953

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Breathing room

I figured out one of the reasons why I did so poorly at the $500/$1,000 tables. I'm used to playing at tables where the maximum starting stack is 200 times the size of the big blind; at the $500/$1,000 tables, the maximum starting stack is only 100 times the size of the big blind. It's like starting off in a hole, and not even knowing it. Those extra big blinds make a huge difference; they give you breathing room. Since I aim to see only half the flops when I start with 200 big blinds, I should probably aim to see only a quarter of the flops when I start with only 100 big blinds. I didn't factor this into my thinking. The next time I try to move up to the higher stakes, I need to remember to play a lot tighter.

Last night, I played well except for one hand. I was on a flush draw, and somehow missed the fact that the board showed two pair on the turn. I made my flush on the river, and stupidly called a big river bet by an opponent who'd made his full house the street before. That bad call crippled my stack, and I hit the felt soon after. After reupping, my patience was finally rewarded when I won a pot worth $36,268 on hand 121 and a pot worth $54,284 on hand 122.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 123 hands and saw flop:
 - 11 out of 13 times while in big blind (84%)
 - 8 out of 17 times while in small blind (47%)
 - 50 out of 93 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 69 out of 123 (56%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 15 (33%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-2,377
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,680,598
balance: $7,130,006

Friday, June 14, 2013

Freefall

Last night, I had another disastrous session. I've lost more in the last three sessions than I've ever lost in three straight cash game no limit hold'em sessions before. The title of this post sprang instantly to mind; fittingly, it's also the title I gave the post after I had my previous worst three session stretch.

I'm no dummy. I realize that I'm actually not ready to play the higher stakes poker I've been trying to play. I was naive enough after the first couple of victories to think that the quality of play at the higher stakes tables was lower, but now I know better.

As of tonight, I'm dropping back down to the $40,000 maximum starting stake, 9 player tables that I'm most comfortable with. It's good to get humbled periodically!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 151 hands and saw flop:
 - 25 out of 34 times while in big blind (73%)
 - 19 out of 34 times while in small blind (55%)
 - 51 out of 83 times in other positions (61%)
 - a total of 95 out of 151 (62%)
 Pots won at showdown - 12 of 34 (35%)
 Pots won without showdown - 25

delta: $-230,261
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,682,975
balance: $7,132,383

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Long is wrong

Last night, I stayed too long at the fair. There's an old saying in poker that "long is wrong". The original meaning is that if you take too long to make a poker decision, more often than not you end up making the wrong one. I've found a second application for the adage (and don't kid myself that I'm the first to do so) - namely, that it's wrong to play poker for too long at one sitting. The longer you play, the likelier it is you'll run into bad luck. Of course, this doesn't apply to tournaments; in a tournament, you want to play as long as you can, since that's how you make the money. In a cash game, though, you want to quit when you're sufficiently ahead. Last night, I should have quit when I went up by over $60k. I ended up hitting the felt. Live and learn!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 211 hands and saw flop:
 - 37 out of 43 times while in big blind (86%)
 - 24 out of 45 times while in small blind (53%)
 - 66 out of 123 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 127 out of 211 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 11 of 27 (40%)
 Pots won without showdown - 24

delta: $-100,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,913,236
balance: $7,362,644

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Broken crowns

Last night, I had a marathon session. I set personal records for number of hands played (300) and number of pots won (75). Unfortunately, it was a losing session; that was largely due to the fact that I lost a lot of chips two of the three times I was dealt cowboys (pocket kings). The first time, I lost $54,429 to hit the felt when my two pair of kings and aces ran into four of a kind, aces. To add insult to injury, my hand was the worst of the three which went to showdown; the second best hand was a full house of fives full of aces. The second time, I won $8,802 after hitting a set of kings on the turn. The third time, I lost $27,000 when I had to bow out on the turn; the board was showing an open ended straight draw and an opponent acting before me bet $33,000. As often happens in poker, the night would have been a success but for a very small number of hands - a mere two in this case.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 300 hands and saw flop:
 - 56 out of 70 times while in big blind (80%)
 - 49 out of 67 times while in small blind (73%)
 - 85 out of 163 times in other positions (52%)
 - a total of 190 out of 300 (63%)
 Pots won at showdown - 26 of 58 (44%)
 Pots won without showdown - 49

delta: $-86,582
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,013,236
balance: $7,462,644

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The high stakes paradox

I've never played with a bigger starting stack than I'm playing with now. When I started recording my sessions, my bankroll wasn't big enough to cover the $100,000 I'm putting up these days. The really odd thing is, the more money I put up, the easier it is to win. I ran into some really tough opponents back in the days when I was only putting up $2,000. When I eventually moved up to tables with a maximum starting stack of $40,000, I noticed immediately that the quality of my opponents decreased. I noticed the same thing when I switched from pot limit to no limit. So far, I'm noticing the same thing since I moved up to tables with a maximum starting stack of $100,000. This is a gambler's dream scenario - less risk for more reward! I predict I'll be moving up to even higher stakes some day, but for now I feel I'm in a sweet spot.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 29 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 5 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 3 out of 5 times while in small blind (60%)
 - 9 out of 19 times in other positions (47%)
 - a total of 17 out of 29 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 6 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $44,324
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,099,818
balance: $7,549,226

Monday, June 10, 2013

6-max and chillax

I'm an old poker dog, but I can still learn new poker tricks. Last night, I played a poker variation I'd never tried before - cash game no limit hold'em at a 6-max table. I liked it a lot. Of course, I've actually played a lot of 6-max before, but it was all in sit and gos, not cash games. What's nice about 6-max is that statistically, you're not likely to run into as many super risk-takers. That makes it more of a skill game, where post-flop ability really counts. As I've said before, I'm definitely a better player post-flop than I am pre-flop.

I went all-in one time, and ended up winning a pot worth $135,218 with three of a kind, tens. At a $500/$1,000 table, that's a nice pot, but not a monster.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 70 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 13 times while in big blind (76%)
 - 5 out of 14 times while in small blind (35%)
 - 24 out of 43 times in other positions (55%)
 - a total of 39 out of 70 (55%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 6 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 10

delta: $19,298
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,055,494
balance: $7,504,902

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Chips ahoy

I'll be the first to admit that I'm a creature of habit. When I find something I like, I stick with it. I generally don't like to change things up. One of the downsides of this is that I can miss out on some really interesting things. Last night, by accident, I discovered a whole new world of possibilities on PokerStars that I hadn't been aware of. I was using my normal table selection routine: in the PokerStars lobby, I make sure that the tables are sorted in ascending order by the number of players currently at the table, then I scroll down to the sixes, and scroll beyond the 6-max tables (which are marked by a small icon with a 6 in the middle). Once in the 9-max tables area, I use the down arrow to go through them, looking for a table with sufficient money to attract my interest. Once I find a table I like, I take a seat to the left of the biggest bankroll I can find. I always select the max starting amount, which is a radio button choice. Last night when I did this, I was shocked to discover that I was starting with $100,000 in chips instead of the usual $40,000. The reason was simple - instead of a $100/$200 table, I'd actually selected a $500/$1,000 table. For some reason the $500/$1,000 tables were showing up where the $100/$200 tables used to show up. I'd never seen any $500/$1,000 tables in the lobby before. I was psyched at the higher maximum starting stack size, and thought to myself, "Chips ahoy!" :-)

As it turned out, the higher maximum starting stack size table appeared to attract players with less talent than those I'm used to playing at the $100/$200 tables. Of course, with a sample size of just one table, that's not statistically significant, but it is a good omen! I made sure to keep my flops seen percentage well below 50. The amount of chips I won last night came in sixth on my all time cash game no limit hold'em list. It sure seemed like easy money! Encouraged by this discovery of a higher stakes table, I did some more investigation in the PokerStars lobby and found a whole range of higher stakes tables, including both 6-max and 9-max variants. Tonight, I'll stick with the $500/$1,000 stakes, but in the 6-max instead of 9-max variant. That means I'll have to change my table search method to scroll down to the fives instead of the sixes. Sometimes change is good!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 38 hands and saw flop:
 - 4 out of 5 times while in big blind (80%)
 - 1 out of 5 times while in small blind (20%)
 - 10 out of 28 times in other positions (35%)
 - a total of 15 out of 38 (39%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 6 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 1

delta: $114,943
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,036,196
balance: $7,485,604

Saturday, June 8, 2013

One Hand to rule them all

Lately, I've fallen into a comfortable rhythm playing online poker. Instead of being bored out of my tree waiting for opponents to act, I've been reading a web comic. The PokerStars software is smart enough to thrust its window to the top when it's time for me to act, so my hands don't get auto-folded. I find I do quite well when presented with each poker decision in this interrupt-driven fashion. I realize that I play less flops when I'm basically doing something else, and that's a good thing, since I tend to play too many flops otherwise :-) The one hand which ruled them all came at the end of the session. I hit the nut flush on the turn, bet $14,000 on the river, and the one opponent who was still in the hand called me. I won a pot worth $31,100, and quit the next hand.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 59 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 9 times while in big blind (66%)
 - 3 out of 8 times while in small blind (37%)
 - 22 out of 42 times in other positions (52%)
 - a total of 31 out of 59 (52%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 9 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $30,179
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,921,253
balance: $7,370,661

Friday, June 7, 2013

Call ins considered harmful

The play I made the session before last, which gave me my 18th best cash game no limit hold'em hand, was quite a risky one. I called a big bet from a player who had me covered, and had to go all in to do it. I hereby dub this play a "call in", short for calling all in. You need a stronger hand to call in than to go all in before anyone else has entered the pot. I learned why from one of Dan Harrington's poker books; here's the relevant passage:

The Gap Concept was first defined by David Sklansky in his excellent book, Tournament Poker For Advanced Players. If you're thinking of entering a pot that has already been opened, you need a stronger hand to call than you would need to open the pot yourself from that position.

Dan Harrington;Bill Robertie. Harrington on Hold 'em Expert Strategy for No Limit Tournaments, Vol. 1: Strategic Play (p. 188). Kindle Edition. 


Unfortunately, I don't have the Gap Concept completely ingrained in my thinking. Last night, I made two disastrous call ins. The first time, I was on an open-ended straight draw, and lost $11,054. The second time, I'd flopped a flush, but lost $35,399 when an opponent made a fatty on the turn. He raised to $30,000 on the river, and I called with my remaining $6,999. Part of me knew at the time of making each of these call ins that it was the wrong thing to do, but a bigger part of me was ignoring that knowledge. After my second reup, I was able to recover some of my losses.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 133 hands and saw flop:
 - 11 out of 18 times while in big blind (61%)
 - 9 out of 19 times while in small blind (47%)
 - 50 out of 96 times in other positions (52%)
 - a total of 70 out of 133 (52%)
 Pots won at showdown - 13 of 19 (68%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $-53,663
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,891,074
balance: $7,340,482

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Eighteen again

When you've played over 27,000 hands of cash game no limit hold'em, it's a big deal when you have a hand which cracks the top twenty. Last night, I had such a hand. I was dealt Ac 5c, called a preflop raise to $2,000, and saw a flop of 9c 4d 3c. I got caught up in a raising war with two other players, and ended up calling all in. I caught the king of clubs on the turn to make my flush, and it held up; I won a side pot worth $36,400 and a main pot worth $68,100. Of the $104,500 total, $65,900 was o.p.m. (other people's money). That ranks the hand #18 on my career list of cash game no limit hold'em hands. It's great to be eighteen again :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 6 hands and saw flop:
 - 0 out of 1 times while in big blind (0%)
 - 1 out of 1 times while in small blind (100%)
 - 1 out of 4 times in other positions (25%)
 - a total of 2 out of 6 (33%)
 Pots won at showdown - 1 of 1 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $64,500
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,944,737
balance: $7,394,145

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Six to the good

Last night I had another short-and-sweet session. I won six hands in a way I've never won six hands before - all of them are at the top of the list of deltas sorted by absolute value. In other words, I won more chips in each of them than I lost on any hand where I lost chips. That's what I call six to the good!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 15 hands and saw flop:
 - 2 out of 5 times while in big blind (40%)
 - 3 out of 3 times while in small blind (100%)
 - 6 out of 7 times in other positions (85%)
 - a total of 11 out of 15 (73%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 4 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $10,046
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,880,237
balance: $7,329,645

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Three calabash pipes

The bar chart of my stack size over the course of last night's session resembles three calabash pipes of different sizes placed end to end, stems to the left and bowls to the right. The stems of the middle and right hand pipes start where the bowls of the pipes to their left stop. The first pipe is the biggest, the second is the smallest, and the last is middle-sized. I didn't win a pot until hand 36, which proves that I was playing with a lot of patience. Toward the end of the session, people left the table in a hurry, until there were only three of us left. I quit after a nice little run of three pots in a row.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 60 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 8 times while in big blind (75%)
 - 8 out of 10 times while in small blind (80%)
 - 25 out of 42 times in other positions (59%)
 - a total of 39 out of 60 (65%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 9 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $10,133
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,870,191
balance: $7,319,599

Monday, June 3, 2013

The best of the luck

Poker is a game of pattern recognition. There are only so many patterns. The more you play poker, the more you see the same patterns repeating again and again. Luck flows in and out like the tide. You want to try to quit just when a big wave has rolled all the way in. One of the most important patterns to recognize is this very pattern of a big wave of luck rolling in. Another way to describe it is realizing when you've had the best of the luck. Last night, I failed to recognize the pattern. It wasn't too costly a mistake, though; I caught on before the wave had fully subsided.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 85 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 11 times while in big blind (63%)
 - 9 out of 12 times while in small blind (75%)
 - 28 out of 62 times in other positions (45%)
 - a total of 44 out of 85 (51%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 11 (54%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-5,655
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,860,058
balance: $7,309,466

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Short stuff

Last night, I had my shortest session in almost 3 weeks - a mere 23 hands. Not surprisingly, it was a winning one. That got me curious about how I've fared in my career in sessions of 25 hands or less. As it turns out, extremely well. In 70 cash game no limit hold'em sessions of this length, fully 66 of them were winning ones. It's tempting to jump to a conclusion, and correlate short sessions with success. If such a correlation were truly valid, then one could guarantee success by only playing short sessions! Of course, it's not nearly as simple as that. The sessions were short because they were successful, not the other way around. Despite acknowledging the lack of correlation between short sessions and success, I still think it would be a good idea for me to go on another poker diet. I'm going to aim to cut sessions off at the 25 hand mark for the foreseeable future.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 23 hands and saw flop:
 - 1 out of 4 times while in big blind (25%)
 - 2 out of 4 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 11 out of 15 times in other positions (73%)
 - a total of 14 out of 23 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 4 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $10,359
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,865,713
balance: $7,315,121

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Great eights late

It's hard to win a pot of any kind with only a pair. It's even harder to win a decent-sized pot with only a pair. It's hardest of all to win a decent-sized pot with only a middle-of-the-road pair. If you manage to do this, you owe at least half of your achievement to luck. Last night, I had great eights late. On hand 83, I was dealt 8h Jh, and the board ran out Ts 4c 3h 8s 9c. I ended up winning a pot worth $19,200 with my lowly pair of eights. Of that, $13,000 was o.p.m. (other people's money). I just checked the archives, and that was my second largest delta ever with that hand.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 85 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 11 times while in big blind (81%)
 - 6 out of 11 times while in small blind (54%)
 - 29 out of 63 times in other positions (46%)
 - a total of 44 out of 85 (51%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 8 (75%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $-433
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,855,354
balance: $7,304,762