The land of the ones

Years ago (truth be told, decades ago), when I was in college, I occasionally played Risk with my friends. I'd never played it before college, and haven't played it since, but had fun playing it then. In case you don't know, it's a board game where the object is to conquer the world, played with dice and pieces representing army troops. The world is divided into countries, and you try to control as many countries as you can. Each country can only have armies of one of the players occupying it. To conquer a country, you have to use troops of yours from neighboring countries which you already control, and face them off against the occupying army. The battle is decided by dice rolls; if you roll a higher number than your opponent, you get to remove some of his troops from the board; if he rolls a higher number than you, he gets to remove some of your troops from the board. You conquer a country when you've removed the last of the enemy troops from it; at that point, you move troops of your own onto it from the neighboring country you attacked it from. You now control it. What often happens when a player starts conquering countries is that he'll extend himself too much, moving the bulk of his troops into the conquered country, leaving only a token force behind for defense in the country he attacked from. The smallest number of troops you're allowed to leave is one. What this strategy often creates is what one of my college friends dubbed "the land of the ones". This is when a player for the most part has only one troop in each of the countries he owns. If this player doesn't succeed in conquering the world, he's left himself open to devastating attacks from the other players; they can march through his countries like a knife through warm butter.

I like the phrase "the land of the ones". I like it so much that I'm going to use it in a new context, with a new meaning. In hold'em, at least as it is played on the PokerStars site, the maximum number of players at a table is nine. That means that, all things being equal, you should expect to win 1 out of 9 hands, or 11.11111111... percent of the time. Hence, the land of the ones. The trouble with the land of the ones is that this is a very low percentage, and it's easy to get used to the better odds when there are less than nine players at the table and then not sufficiently account for the worsened odds when the table fills up again.

As I've mentioned a couple of times before, I invariably join a table which has exactly 6 players; I become the seventh. Therefore, my poker radio is tuned to the frequency of winning 1 out of 7 times, on the average, or 14.28 percent of the time. If two more players join the table after me, I keep playing as if I still have 1 in 7 odds, and therein lies the trouble.

As you might expect from this long preamble, for most of last night's lengthy session, the table had the full complement of nine players. I played pretty well, but eventually hit the felt on the 94th hand. I then reupped for the max, but continued my descent. When I managed to bring my stack back up to $20K after falling all the way to $9K, I figured I'd seen the best of my luck and called it a night.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 135 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 17 times while in big blind (47%)
- 9 out of 19 times while in small blind (47%)
- 50 out of 99 times in other positions (50%)
- a total of 67 out of 135 (49%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 12 (33%)
Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-60,000
balance: $2,003,460

Home sweet home

Last night, I made a triumphant return to hold'em. I immediately felt at home, and didn't detect any rust in my game. It certainly didn't hurt that I got dealt some awesome hands! In one hold'em session, I made more play money than I had in thirty deuce sessions. I should really just stick to the game I know and love the best. Three million play dollars, here I come!

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 60 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 14 times while in big blind (57%)
- 9 out of 12 times while in small blind (75%)
- 22 out of 34 times in other positions (64%)
- a total of 39 out of 60 (65%)
Pots won at showdown - 7 of 15 (46%)
Pots won without showdown - 9

delta: $40,487
balance: $2,063,460

A moratorium on deuce

Last night, I lost my fourth deuce session in a row to fall back to the golden ratio in deuce (20 winning sessions, 10 losing sessions). I'm going to take a moratorium on deuce for a while; I'm tired of losing. I really miss hold'em, so that's what I'm going to go back to playing. Deuce was a fun experiment, but I find the luck ratio in the game is just too high for my taste. This is essentially a repeat of my experience with Omaha, with the exception that I'm sure I won't go back to Omaha, but may give deuce another try sometime.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 45 hands
Pots won if drawing - 3 of 23 (13%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 7 (14%)
Pots won without showdown - 2

delta: $-8,000
balance: $2,022,973

Frisky early's evil twin

Last night, I was frisky early again, and it cost me. The problem was that I was frisky early in two different ways, and one of them is an evil twin. It's okay to be frisky early in a session; however, it's very bad to be frisky early in a betting round. Why? The reason's simple - because you don't know how many people acting behind you might get frisky too. While there are many hands which you wouldn't feel bad about going heads up with, there aren't too many you'd feel good about going up against two or more opponents with. The odds of you winning drop dramatically with every additional opponent. This leads to my very latest deuce rule: never call a big bet or raise when you're not the last person to act unless you have a super strong hand (i.e., a #1, #2, or #3).

I hit the felt on my very first hand of the session, acting frisky early in both the good and the bad sense. Actually, I doubly misplayed this hand; not only were there people to act after me, but someone who acted before me had already called the big bet of the player who opened the betting. Not only was I guaranteed to be going up against two opponents, there was a chance I'd be going up against more than two. As it turned out, four of us went to showdown; clearly, horrendous odds. I hope I've learned my lesson!

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 45 hands
Pots won if drawing - 12 of 33 (36%)
Pots won at showdown - 9 of 21 (42%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $-2,085
balance: $2,030,973

Deuce fool's gold

Last night, I played great except for one hand. On that hand, I fell victim to deuce fool's gold. I was dealt 7 5 2 Q T, and a player with more than twice my chips raised to just over $2K before the first draw. I couldn't stop myself from calling; my eyes had gotten "as big as saucers" when I saw that I had three cards to a #1. My opponent stood pat on every draw; he'd been dealt a 9 low. The best I could come up with was a pair of sevens. Felt city. I lost $4,620 on the hand.

My new rule is that I won't call big raises before the first draw unless I have four cards to a 7 low (or better). On a positive note, I managed to obey my recent all-in percentage rule; I went all in on just 3 of 83 hands, for 3.6%, well below my cutoff of 7%.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 83 hands
Pots won if drawing - 20 of 58 (34%)
Pots won at showdown - 10 of 19 (52%)
Pots won without showdown - 11

delta: $-2,224
balance: $2,033,058

Two deadly hands

On Saturday night, I played 89 hands. I lost massive amounts of chips on two of them. If those two hands had somehow never occurred, I would have lost a mere $170 on the night. Since they did occur, however, I lost a hefty $8,000. Looking back over the hand histories of those two deadly hands, I see that I got frisky on the first one, but played the second one soundly.

What I did wrong on the first deadly hand was to make a big bet after the third draw, when I'd stood pat. I had an 8 6 5 4 3, which is certainly a reasonable hand, but not a hand to bet heavily on. I lost to a 7 low. If I'd had the sense to check, and the 7 low had bet heavily, I might have had the additional sense to lay down the hand. As it actually played out, however, my big bet essentially had me pot-committed when the 7 low raised to put me all in.

On the second deadly hand, I was subjected to some cruel and unusual treatment (that's a favorite phrase of my father's, by the way). My 7 6 5 3 2 low lost to a 7 6 4 3 2. To rub salt in the wound, the winning hand was made on a 3 discard draw. The odds of that happening are minuscule.

It feels like I've entered the poker doldrums, when one's winning percentage tends towards what I call the lead ratio - one winning session per losing session. Don't get me wrong, though; I'm not discouraged. I know I'll break out of the doldrums sometime.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 89 hands
Pots won if drawing - 14 of 63 (22%)
Pots won at showdown - 10 of 19 (52%)
Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $-8,000
balance: $2,035,282

All-in percentage

Last night, I had a nice rebound from the disaster of the session before it. I didn't hit the felt once, and almost quadrupled my starting stack amount. The contrast between the two sessions inspired me to come up with a new (at least to me) poker statistic - all-in percentage. In the disaster session, I went all in on 20 of the 117 hands, for a whopping 17%. In last night's session, I only went all in on 2 of the 31 hands, which is a mere 6.5%.

My latest deuce rule of thumb - keep your all-in percentage at or below 7%.

During current 2-7 Triple Draw session you were dealt 31 hands
Pots won if drawing - 7 of 31 (22%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 12 (33%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $7,285
balance: $2,043,282