Friday, October 25, 2013

My slimmest win

On Tuesday night, I set a new personal best of the dubious variety. I won the smallest percentage of a big blind of any of my winning sessions. Let's call it my slimmest win :-) I was at a $250 / $500 table, and won $427, or 85.4% of a big blind. My previous slimmest win happened on May 28th, when I was at a $100 / $200 table, and won $192. That represented 96% of a big blind. One of the few nice things about slim wins is that they keep your win streak going (if you happen to be in one, that is).

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 72 hands and saw flop:
 - 12 out of 14 times while in big blind (85%)
 - 6 out of 13 times while in small blind (46%)
 - 24 out of 45 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 42 out of 72 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 7 of 17 (41%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $427
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,418,442
balance: $7,775,395

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

We three threes

I don't have a whole lot of statistical data on how superstitious poker players are; in fact, the sample size of my empirical data is just one player (myself :-). However, that doesn't stop me from having an opinion. My strong suspicion is that poker players as a class are no less superstitious than the general population, which is saying a good deal.

How else to explain the fact that pocket threes are one of my favorite hands? I've mentioned sine wave hands before, and pocket threes are a perfect example of a sine wave hand. You're not always going to win with them, and you're not always going to lose with them. In fact, if you're like me, your aggregate career delta with them will be constantly oscillating between a profit and a loss. What's to like about a track record like that?

What's to like is the profit potential in a hand such as pocket threes. You're hoping all of the following come true:

1. you hit a set of threes on the flop
2. there are no straight or flush draws
3. you don't run into a bigger set

The first requirement is the hardest to come by; once it's met, the second requirement is easier to come by, and the third is the easiest of all. What this all adds up to is the possibility of making a real killing. As with any set, the strength of your hand is very well disguised.

So why do I like pocket threes over other pocket pairs? They just give me a good feeling; I can't really explain it. Last night, this good feeling was justified; on hand 144, I won a pot worth $106,188 with a set of threes, $53,469 of which was other people's money.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 145 hands and saw flop:
 - 16 out of 19 times while in big blind (84%)
 - 8 out of 20 times while in small blind (40%)
 - 50 out of 106 times in other positions (47%)
 - a total of 74 out of 145 (51%)
 Pots won at showdown - 11 of 19 (57%)
 Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $29,224
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,418,015
balance: $7,774,968

Monday, October 21, 2013

My preferred betting style

Given my druthers, I prefer to let others do the betting in the first three betting rounds. If someone else makes a big enough bet in those rounds, I just like to call. Of course, that doesn't apply in the final round. The benefit of just calling in the earlier rounds is that none of your opponents will have much of a clue about how strong your hand is. If someone else has been leading the betting, they'll likely continue to lead it in the final round. That's when your strong hands can really pay off. You can double the bet, with a good likelihood of getting called. Since you didn't bet earlier, something doesn't feel quite right about your river raise; there's a good chance (in your opponent's mind) that you're trying to steal the pot.

Last night, on hand 99, I won my biggest pot of the session using just this style. I was dealt pocket jacks, and flopped a set. Here are the betting actions I took:

pre-flop: called a raise to $2,250
flop: checked, then called a $2,500 bet
turn: checked, then called a $6,000 bet
river: checked, then raised a $13,000 bet to $26,000

My full house of jacks full of sevens won a pot worth $81,500, and I was done for the night.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 100 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 12 times while in big blind (83%)
 - 9 out of 14 times while in small blind (64%)
 - 41 out of 74 times in other positions (55%)
 - a total of 60 out of 100 (60%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 15 (53%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $43,313
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,388,791
balance: $7,745,744

Sunday, October 20, 2013

When the stars align

There's only so much you can do as a poker player to influence outcomes. The truly spectacular hands will have very little to do with you, and almost everything to do with a remarkable confluence of external conditions of which you are the happy beneficiary. This was the case for me on Friday night, on hand 78. I was dealt a pair of sevens, and flopped a set. Here are the actions I made on the ensuing betting round:

1. I bet $1,000
2. I reraised to $3,000
3. I reraised to $5,000
4. I reraised to $56,419 to go all in

It's clear there was some skill involved here; if I'd gone all in to start the betting, some of my opponents would have dropped out. As it was, all four put themselves all in during this betting round. What's more, all four ended up hitting the felt. I won the main pot and three side pots for a total haul of $173,164, $121,394 of which was o.p.m. I can't recall ever seeing four players hit the felt on one hand before. Needless to say, it was sweet! However, the reason it happened was not that I have mad poker skills. The reason it happened was that the stars were all in alignment for me; not only did I flop a monster, my opponents all had big hands of their own. I can't take any credit for that, but I can certainly take my good fortune to the bank :-)

The cherry on top is that I'm now back into the blue.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 85 hands and saw flop:
 - 11 out of 11 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 6 out of 11 times while in small blind (54%)
 - 43 out of 63 times in other positions (68%)
 - a total of 60 out of 85 (70%)
 Pots won at showdown - 11 of 22 (50%)
 Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $129,469
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,345,478
balance: $7,702,431

Friday, October 18, 2013

The art of the call in

With a blog post title like this one, you might think I've mastered the art of the call in, and am about to impart its arcane secrets to you. Not so. I'm merely asserting that there's an art to it; I haven't mastered it yet. First things first. What's a call in? That's my slang for calling a bet when you don't have enough chips to cover it, which means you're putting yourself all in. You need to have a better hand to call in than you do to go all in. See my "Call ins considered harmful" post from June 7 of this year to find out why.

Last night, I made two call ins. In terms of results, they pretty much cancelled each other out. On the first one, my two pair of jacks and nines lost to a jack high flush, and I lost $34,049 to hit the felt. On the second one, my nine high flush won me $35,432 in o.p.m. (other people's money).

I think it takes more skill to call in than to go all in, which is why I prefer calling in. I honestly can't remember the last time I went all in.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 122 hands and saw flop:
 - 11 out of 15 times while in big blind (73%)
 - 9 out of 16 times while in small blind (56%)
 - 44 out of 91 times in other positions (48%)
 - a total of 64 out of 122 (52%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 15 (40%)
 Pots won without showdown - 7

delta: $-46,093
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,216,009
balance: $7,572,962

Thursday, October 17, 2013

1000 posts ago

I've written over 1,000 posts to this blog. I didn't try to commemorate the 1,000th post, mainly because I couldn't quite figure out which one it was :-) Blogger shows me different numbers depending on where I'm looking. Suffice it to say, though, that whatever the exact number of posts is, it's a shitload. 1,000 posts ago, I was homing in on my 50th post. At the time, I thought 50 posts was a big deal. Now I know that 50 posts is a blip, a rounding error. Get back to me when you've written 10,000 posts, I tell myself.

Here's the thing. I love poker. I can't foresee a time when I won't love poker. I love everything about it, including writing about it. Writing about poker is a labor of love, which means it's not really a labor at all. I enjoy writing about poker just as much as I enjoy playing it. The only way I could love poker more than I do right now is if somehow I could make a living either playing it or writing about it. Here's to the next 1,000 posts!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 46 hands and saw flop:
 - 6 out of 6 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 1 out of 5 times while in small blind (20%)
 - 23 out of 35 times in other positions (65%)
 - a total of 30 out of 46 (65%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 9 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $52,616
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,262,102
balance: $7,619,055

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

The sweet 1 6

As I've said before, a poker player can make a good living in the land of the ones. That is, winning one of every nine hands at a table with nine seats, for a winning rate of .111111. Winning at a higher rate is even better. Last night, I nearly achieved the sweet 1 6; that is, I won nearly one of every six hands. Interestingly, the sweet 1 6 translates to a winning rate of .166666.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 43 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 6 times while in big blind (50%)
 - 3 out of 6 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 15 out of 31 times in other positions (48%)
 - a total of 21 out of 43 (48%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 4 (75%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $25,595
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,209,486
balance: $7,566,439

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

LCHUD

Today I modified one of my poker utilities in order to be able to calculate my LCHUD. What the frack is that, you may well ask. It's yet another neo neo. LCHUD stands for Lifetime Cash game Heads Up Delta. Up until this moment, I've played 38,559 hands of cash game no limit hold'em. Of those hands, only 654 were heads up. When I ran the utility to total the hand deltas of those heads up hands, I discovered that my LCHUD is positive, although just barely; it's currently $748. Looking at the bar chart of my LCHUD over the course of my career, I see that it approximates a sine wave. I'm happy with that, as I don't think it's reasonable to expect much better. I'll be interested to see what my LTHUD (Lifetime Tournament Heads Up Delta) is, and whether its bar chart also approximates a sine wave; however, that's an exercise for another day.

Last night, I played reasonably well, but a cooler left me in the red. On hand 55, I flopped a queen high straight, but lost the huge main pot of $150,000 when an opponent made a full house on the river. As you might expect, winning the side pot of $13,628 didn't excite me very much. I was a 67% favorite after the flop, but it wasn't meant to be. What was very unusual about last night's session was that fully 83 of the 169 hands I played were heads up. My CHUD (Cash game Heads Up Delta) for last night's session was positive - a whopping $142 :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 169 hands and saw flop:
 - 55 out of 58 times while in big blind (94%)
 - 41 out of 57 times while in small blind (71%)
 - 25 out of 54 times in other positions (46%)
 - a total of 121 out of 169 (71%)
 Pots won at showdown - 18 of 32 (56%)
 Pots won without showdown - 40

delta: $-42,820
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,183,891
balance: $7,540,844

Monday, October 14, 2013

Heads up heaven

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I miss heads up play. I miss it badly. When you play tournaments, and have a reasonable amount of success, you get to play heads up a lot. When you play cash games, you almost never get to play heads up. There's no way to knock people out, since they can just reup at their discretion. Even if they don't reup, sooner or later they leave the table, leaving their seat open for someone else. It's basically a fluke if you ever find yourself playing heads up in a cash game.

Last night, I got to play heads up for a good number of hands in the final third of the session. My opponent was going all in way too often, and I knew I had a great chance to chip up against him if I picked my spots properly. On hand 55, he went all in when I'd been dealt a pair of nines. I called, and won a pot worth $24,164 with a full house, nines full of fours. On hand 66, he went all in when I'd been dealt ace eight offsuit. I called, and won a pot worth $43,018 with two pair, aces and fours. He only played two more hands against me before leaving the table.

There's definitely a different rhythm to heads up play. It's totally a feel thing. When you're on, you feel invincible. Not a bad feeling :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 74 hands and saw flop:
 - 10 out of 18 times while in big blind (55%)
 - 9 out of 17 times while in small blind (52%)
 - 20 out of 39 times in other positions (51%)
 - a total of 39 out of 74 (52%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 7 (57%)
 Pots won without showdown - 17

delta: $37,279
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,226,711
balance: $7,583,664

Sunday, October 13, 2013

6max cash a tough nut to crack

I like to think my poker skills favor me to win in many different poker scenarios. There's one scenario, however, which my results prove I haven't mastered. It's 6max cash. That's when you're playing a cash game at a table with only 6 seats. In 1,055 cash game sessions I've played, only 22 of them have been 6max; all the rest have been at 9 player tables. In those 22 6max cash sessions, I've lost a total of $478,995, the bulk of that at the $500/$1000 stakes level. That's an eye-popping number, given my success in other poker flavors.

Last night, I was forced to play at a 6max table, since there were no 9max tables available at my new favorite stakes level ($250/$500). Perhaps not coincidentally, I had a losing session, ending my five session winning streak. I have to admit that 6max cash is a tough nut to crack. I prefer 9max, since it's easier to win. I'm not sure why, but have a couple of theories. One theory is that the 6max tables attract a higher caliber of player. Of course, that theory still begs the question of why. Another theory is that there are only so many poker fish to go around, and there's statistically less chance of meeting them at a 6max table since poker fish tend to gravitate to the 9max tables. Of course, that theory also still begs the question of why.

Of course, just by bringing fish into the discussion, I've opened up another kettle of fish (pun intended). Would I rather play against fish, or against sharks? The answer, I have to admit, is that I'd much rather play against fish. I can hear your objections. "How can that be satisfying?", you ask. "Wouldn't you rather challenge yourself by playing against the best?" I hear you enquire. "How will you ever improve if all you do is play against mediocre players?", you wonder. Those are all valid objections. The only answer I have is that it's much more relaxing to play against fish, and poker should be a relaxing avocation :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 118 hands and saw flop:
 - 20 out of 24 times while in big blind (83%)
 - 14 out of 24 times while in small blind (58%)
 - 46 out of 70 times in other positions (65%)
 - a total of 80 out of 118 (67%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 12 (41%)
 Pots won without showdown - 18

delta: $-29,254
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,189,432
balance: $7,546,385

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Kick-started

Last night, my session was kick-started on hand 43, when I won a pot worth $75,764 with three of a kind, fives. I beat another three of kind, fives, since I had a better kicker. My opponent put me all in on the river, and I looked him up. I knew he might have a fatty, but had a feeling he didn't. My poker radar isn't always in perfect working order, but it certainly was last night.

I have a theory why I'm doing better (so far) at these higher stakes tables. Since I'm used to lower stakes, I'm a bit intimidated by the higher stakes; the result is that I'm playing a lot more cautiously than my opponents are, and it's paying off. Typically, the hands I play are stronger, so I end up winning a higher percentage of the showdowns. As long as I can continue to stay intimidated, I'll do fine :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 93 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 11 times while in big blind (81%)
 - 11 out of 13 times while in small blind (84%)
 - 37 out of 69 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 57 out of 93 (61%)
 Pots won at showdown - 8 of 11 (72%)
 Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $51,370
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,218,686
balance: $7,575,639

Friday, October 11, 2013

Four months in the wilderness

Last night, for the first time in four months, I returned my balance to the 7.5 million play dollar plateau. It was four months in the wilderness. As you may know, I like my balance to keep growing, with no end in sight. I don't like it when there are two many sessions in between the ones where I set a new all-time high. I'm still $142,187 away from getting into the blue again. When I do, I will surely have set a new record for sessions in the wilderness. My longest sojourn is currently 138 sessions, between May 20th, 2009 and March 17th, 2010; however, my current one, which started on May 19th, is at 136 sessions and counting. It's good to have these lengthy journeys every so often; they definitely keep me humble!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 60 hands and saw flop:
 - 5 out of 8 times while in big blind (62%)
 - 4 out of 8 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 22 out of 44 times in other positions (50%)
 - a total of 31 out of 60 (51%)
 Pots won at showdown - 4 of 6 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $47,578
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,167,316
balance: $7,524,269

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Two pair here, two pair there

Last night, I made a killing with two pairs. This can only happen when your opponents are playing pretty loosely. On hand 27, my two pair of aces and kings beat a busted flush pair of aces to win a pot worth $23,000. On hand 95, my two pair of aces and tens beat a two pair of kings and tens to win a pot worth $66,764. On hand 105, my two pair of kings and eights beat a pair of kings with an ace kicker to win a pot worth $51,250. I have to say, so far I'm loving these $250/$500 tables!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 121 hands and saw flop:
 - 18 out of 19 times while in big blind (94%)
 - 13 out of 20 times while in small blind (65%)
 - 39 out of 82 times in other positions (47%)
 - a total of 70 out of 121 (57%)
 Pots won at showdown - 6 of 15 (40%)
 Pots won without showdown - 6

delta: $58,711
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,119,738
balance: $7,476,691

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Do repeak yourself

In software engineering, which is my daytime job, there's a principle known as DRY. It stands for "Don't Repeat Yourself". The basic idea is that you don't want to duplicate code anywhere, if you can help it. If code is duplicated, instances of the duplicated code can easily get out of synch with each other. Duplicated code takes up more space, both in memory and on disk, and is much harder to maintain.

In poker, I've come up with an adage which uses the same acronym. What it stands for is quite different, however - "Do repeak yourself". What do I mean by this? Patience, grasshopper :-)

It's a given that your stack will have peaks and valleys over the course of a session. Not only that, it's also a given that your stack will fall more often than it rises, unless you're in the unusual situation of being heads up. What this all adds up to is that the peaks really matter. When you achieve a new peak, you need to decide whether to quit the session right then or play on. There's a lot to be said for both choices.

I never like to quit on an early peak. The main reason is that I play poker partially for entertainment, and quitting early deprives me of it. However, if I ever bring my stack back to an earlier peak, I'm much more likely to quit. That's what happened last night. At the end of hand 31, my stack hit a new peak of $64,761. From there, it started a steady descent. When hand 73 brought it back up to $63,653, I knew I had "repeaked", and that it was time to quit.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 74 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 9 times while in big blind (77%)
 - 3 out of 11 times while in small blind (27%)
 - 27 out of 54 times in other positions (50%)
 - a total of 37 out of 74 (50%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 9 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $13,653
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,061,027
balance: $7,417,980

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Pulling up stakes

The title of this post is a pun. Last night, I couldn't find any $100/$200 9 player tables at all. First, as I reported some time ago, PokerStars got rid of the $100/$200 9 player tables having an initial stake maximum of $40,000. I was essentially forced to play the $100/$200 9 player tables having an initial stake maximum of $20,000. Now, even these tables appear to be gone. I decided to try a $250/$500 9 player table, since there were plenty of those with open seats. The initial stake maximum at these tables is a healthy $50,000. So I pulled up stakes in two ways:

1. I abandoned what had been my home territory
2. I moved to a territory where the stakes are actually higher (in other words, the stakes themselves were pulled up)

My session was both short and sweet. I'm hoping this new territory will continue to be profitable.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 12 hands and saw flop:
 - 0 out of 1 times while in big blind (0%)
 - 1 out of 1 times while in small blind (100%)
 - 6 out of 10 times in other positions (60%)
 - a total of 7 out of 12 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 3 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $53,739
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,047,374
balance: $7,404,327

Monday, October 7, 2013

Double cruelty

You know it's not your night when the poker gods serve you up a double helping of cruelty in a very short span of time. Last Friday night, on hand 69, I hit a flush on the river, but lost a pot worth $5,921 to an uberflush. Just two hands later, I flopped top two pair, but lost a pot worth $4,775 to a full house made on the river. I'd been a 95% favorite to win after the turn. If I'd had any sense, I would have quit right then, and saved myself $6,598.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 128 hands and saw flop:
 - 16 out of 18 times while in big blind (88%)
 - 10 out of 16 times while in small blind (62%)
 - 55 out of 94 times in other positions (58%)
 - a total of 81 out of 128 (63%)
 Pots won at showdown - 9 of 21 (42%)
 Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $-20,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $4,993,635
balance: $7,350,588

Friday, October 4, 2013

Fast 100

Last night, I played over 100 hands in an hour and 15 minutes. I don't actually remember any of the hands. In a way, that's good; the most memorable hands are generally the ones where you lost a lot of money. For instance, I still remember the hand from Wednesday night's session when I got crippled just before hitting the felt the first time. I'd hit trip sevens on the turn, but an opponent hit a straight on the river. He went all in with it, and I just couldn't lay down my trips. Nothing that dramatic happened last night, thankfully.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 105 hands and saw flop:
 - 19 out of 21 times while in big blind (90%)
 - 11 out of 20 times while in small blind (55%)
 - 31 out of 64 times in other positions (48%)
 - a total of 61 out of 105 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 11 (45%)
 Pots won without showdown - 14

delta: $-7,768
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,013,635
balance: $7,370,588

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Asymptotic perfection

Sometimes, if you fail artistically enough, it doesn't feel so bad. That was the case last night. I only won 4 of 80 hands, so it was near perfect futility. What made it artistic, however, was the shape of the bar chart of my stack size over the course of the session. After a precipitous plunge, when I hit the felt for the first time, the slope of the descent got shallower and shallower, until it took fully 15 hands to use up my last $2,279.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 80 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 10 times while in big blind (70%)
 - 7 out of 10 times while in small blind (70%)
 - 33 out of 60 times in other positions (55%)
 - a total of 47 out of 80 (58%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 9 (22%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $-40,000
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,021,403
balance: $7,378,356

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The land of the aught nines

I've mentioned the land of the ones several times before in this blog. That's where you are when you win one out of every nine hands, which is your expected result at a nine player table, everything else being equal. Of course, everything else is never equal, but that's a story for another day. I've never mentioned the land of the aught nines before, so now I will. The land of the anythings is how I describe an endlessly repeating decimal number. The land of the ones is .111111... The land of the twos is .222222... So you won't be surprised to discover that the land of the aught nines is .090909... That's where you are when you win one out of every eleven hands. That's all I managed to do last night, but that's all I needed to do, since I still came out with a nice profit.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 22 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 3 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 2 out of 3 times while in small blind (66%)
 - 9 out of 16 times in other positions (56%)
 - a total of 14 out of 22 (63%)
 Pots won at showdown - 2 of 3 (66%)
 Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $13,501
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,061,403
balance: $7,418,356

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

You were never shovelier

A "shovely" hand is a lovely hand which is good enough to shove with, in my poker lingo. Shoving is slang for going all in. I can't remember the last time I shoved. Note that calling an opponent's bet with the rest of your chips doesn't qualify as shoving; I'm sure I've done that much more recently. In tournament play, shoves happen much more frequently than they do in cash games, due to the escalating blinds. Last night, on the penultimate hand of the session, an opponent shoved after the flop. I'd been dealt pocket rockets and had hit trips on the flop, so of course I called. The opponent turned over 9 8 offsuit for a lowly pair of nines, and I won a pot worth $41,100. I don't understand how anyone could shove this light in a cash game; all he'd flopped was second pair. Nevertheless, that didn't stop me from accepting the gift. I liked it so much, it inspired me to come up with an additional meaning for "shovely". When we're talking about a hand an opponent has gone all in with, the worse a hand it is, the shovelier it is in my eyes. To that 9 8 offsuit, I say, "You were never shovelier" :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 36 hands and saw flop:
 - 3 out of 5 times while in big blind (60%)
 - 2 out of 5 times while in small blind (40%)
 - 11 out of 26 times in other positions (42%)
 - a total of 16 out of 36 (44%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 5 (100%)
 Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $24,732
cash game no limit hold'em balance: $5,047,902
balance: $7,404,855