Last night, I revisited a strategy I first tried out about a year ago;I learned it from a wonderful poker book called "Harrington on Hold 'em, Expert Strategy for No Limit Tournaments, Vol. 1" by Dan Harrington. The idea is that you make bets based on the amount of money currently in the pot, rather than based on the amounts of your previous bets, or the amounts of opponents' bets. Harrington didn't state it this bluntly, but it's one of the takeaways I got from his book. I call this strategy pot-based betting. Why was I revisiting it? An excellent reason - I'd just purchased and started reading "Harrington on Hold 'em Expert Strategy for No Limit Tournaments, Vol. II: The Endgame". This volume promises to be as valuable and enlightening as the first one.
One great side effect of pot-based betting I rediscovered last night is that it enables you to be really dispassionate about the amounts of money you're risking. It's very scientific; you bet whatever fraction of the pot (including 0%) the current situation calls for. Over the past year, I haven't been using pot-based betting consciously, but I think I must have partially internalized it, or I wouldn't have done nearly so well. My goal is to use it more consciously, and conscientiously.
During current Hold'em session you were dealt 47 hands and saw flop:
- 5 out of 6 times while in big blind (83%)
- 4 out of 6 times while in small blind (66%)
- 25 out of 35 times in other positions (71%)
- a total of 34 out of 47 (72%)
Pots won at showdown - 6 of 9 (66%)
Pots won without showdown - 4
delta: $26,874
balance: $4,164,754
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 'fallacy of sunk costs' is one of the most seductive and pernicious miscalculations that a risk taker can make. 'Pot-based betting' seems like a fine strategy for insulating oneself from its hazards.
ReplyDelete