Turning a deaf ear

Last night, two disastrous hands did me in. The first one took me down to the felt at the first table I joined; the second one nearly did so at the next table. In both cases, I turned a deaf ear to what the betting patterns of my opponents were trying to tell me. The only excuse I can make is that in both cases, I had strong hands. The thing is, that's only a good excuse for a mediocre player; for someone who aspires to be great, it's no excuse at all. I hereby retract it, since I definitely aspire to greatness!

It's ironic that this reversal came on the very night I wrote a blog post explaining my concept of the yin and yang of the probable and the improbable. If I'd been able to follow my own advice, the massive loss might not have occurred.

delta: $-76,350
balance: $897,570

Statistical anomalies

Poker is largely about probabilities. The better you understand probability, the better you'll be at poker. One of the most important lessons to learn about probability, counter-intuitive though it might be, is that the improbable always happens, eventually. That's one reason I very rarely go all in.

I have a good innate sense of probability. I don't consciously have to think through every link in a chain of probabilistic reasoning in order to reach a conclusion; I can take shortcuts. For example, if I only have an ace high on the river, and there are several other players still in the hand, I know without having to calculate them that the odds that one of the other players has at least a pair are excellent; I would never dream of calling any bet with such a hand.

Last night, I experienced another first. I won six hands in a row! I kept wanting to call it a night, but I couldn't do that until I'd stopped winning :-) I realize that streak was a statistical anomaly, and wasn't due to any great skill on my part. To be really good at poker, you must embrace two contradictory notions simultaneously -- that the more probable hand will probably win, and that the more improbable hand will improbably win!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 26 hands and saw flop:
- 5 out of 6 times while in big blind (83%)
- 6 out of 6 times while in small blind (100%)
- 12 out of 14 times in other positions (85%)
- a total of 23 out of 26 (88%)
Pots won at showdown - 5 of 7 (71%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $27,300
balance: $973,920

Eleven from heaven

I've really been missing playing poker; I haven't played lately due to the fact that I just started a new job. A lot of my time has been taken up with HR paperwork; thankfully, that's now been completed.

The title of this post refers to the fact that my last session, played Friday night, was short and sweet. I remember I only won one pot, but it was a doozy. I don't remember what the hand was, so let me delve once more into the archives...

It was a stealth two pair, but of a rare kind -- I picked up one pair on the flop, and the second one on the turn. Most of the stealth two pairs I play are of the kind where I pick up both pairs on the flop. However the pairs are picked up, however, this is the kind of hand which you must play very cautiously, and largely by gut feel. My gut was telling me my hand was best, and it was right.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 11 hands and saw flop:
- 1 out of 1 times while in big blind (100%)
- 0 out of 1 times while in small blind (0%)
- 5 out of 9 times in other positions (55%)
- a total of 6 out of 11 (54%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 2 (50%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $22,800
balance: $946,620

One Hand to rule them all

Though I've read J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" twice, and immensely enjoyed it both times, for some reason I've never read "The Lord of the Rings". I started the first book of the trilogy once, only got a couple of chapters in, abandoned it, and never tried again. Evidently I got far enough in, however, to have encountered Gandalf's poem about the rings; the first line is seared in my memory:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky

I just used Wikipedia to refresh my memory on the concluding lines:

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the land of Mordor where the shadows lie.

Looking at the bar chart of my stack size over the course of last night's session, what immediately came to mind was the phrase "One Hand to rule them all". I miniporpoised for most of the session until a hand where I won a pot worth just over $46K. That was roughly four times the size of my next biggest pot.

When the One Hand comes along like that, it behooves you to end your session shortly after, and I did.

delta: $23,000
balance: $923,820

The siren call of Omaha

Though this may seem prideful, I know I'm a very good Hold'em player (recent results notwithstanding). I don't feel very challenged by it any more, though. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy playing it quite a lot. However, I want more of a challenge. I realize now that I wimped out on Omaha the first time I tried it; I was trying to judge it by Hold'em standards, instead of by its own. Omaha is a devilishly difficult game, and for that very reason I find myself being drawn back to it. Whether I'm actually being drawn back to Omaha itself, or to my idealized vision of what Omaha should be, I'm not sure yet.

So here's what I propose: when I hit the play million mark again, I'll give Omaha another shot. This time, I'll be prepared to accept a lot more volatility in my results. I won't even think about the golden ratio, or losing streaks, or gambling away my Hold'em winnings. I won't complain about the quality of Omaha player I encounter, either. My aim will simply be to learn and master the intricacies of Omaha.

On Tuesday night, I lost half my stack in the first third of the session, then won it all back and more in the latter two thirds.

delta: $13,771
balance: $900,820

Patience

Last night, I had good patience. I hung around, folding when I should fold, winning hands I should win, and never dropped significantly below the amount of my starting stack. My patience was rewarded when I flopped a set of tens; I extracted maximum value from the hand, winning a pot worth $60,600. Since that doubled up my initial stack, it was easy to call it a night at that point.

The thing about patience is that it's the simplest concept in the world to state, but often quite difficult to put into practice. You can pay all the lip service to patience you want, but that won't make you a more patient player. It's a tautology, I know, but the only way you can be a more patient player is by being a more patient player :-)

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 33 hands and saw flop:
- 4 out of 5 times while in big blind (80%)
- 3 out of 5 times while in small blind (60%)
- 14 out of 23 times in other positions (60%)
- a total of 21 out of 33 (63%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 7 (57%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

I hit two sweet spots in the session:

1. the number of hands is close to 35, my current nomination for best session length

2. the seeing the flop percentage is close to 60%, my current nomination for best seeing the flop percentage

delta: $41,600
balance: $887,049

Four and out -- the fun way

On Saturday night, I had a very short session -- only four hands. On the third hand, I flopped a set of kings, went all in with them, and won a pot worth $103,700. I'll have to check the archives, but I think that's either the biggest pot I've ever won or very close to it. Though I didn't get a chance to put my new fwepping skills to use, I was happy to end my night with such a nice increase to my stack.

delta: $63,700
balance: $845,449