Brake reflexes

To be a good driver, you need to have good brake reflexes; that is, in dangerous situations, your foot needs to be pressing down on the brake pedal almost before you've even realized you're in danger. Similarly, to be a good poker player, you need to be able to bring your betting to a screeching halt when the situation warrants it. In last night's session, I flopped a flush on hand 19, bet it big on the flop, smaller on the turn, and not at all on the river. I suddenly had a bad feeling that the one player who was calling me had a better flush, and it turned out I was right. I lost a lot of chips on the hand - $16,200 to be precise - but would have lost a lot more if my brake reflexes hadn't kicked in.

I just realized this is the second time in recent memory I've had a cooler on hand 19. It's coincidence, I know, but interesting. Later in the session, I had a cluster of won pots - 6 in 8 hands. I finally quit when I'd made a profit of half my starting stack amount.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 68 hands and saw flop:
- 8 out of 9 times while in big blind (88%)
- 6 out of 8 times while in small blind (75%)
- 37 out of 51 times in other positions (72%)
- a total of 51 out of 68 (75%)
Pots won at showdown - 7 of 10 (70%)
Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $20,500
balance: $3,686,139

The top three theory

Looking at the bar chart of my stack size over the course of last night's session, three winning hands stand out. On the first one, I gained $19,800; on the second, $10,200; on the third, $9,400. After those three big gains, there's a steep drop-off; my next highest gain is a mere $2,700. Three is a very powerful number, and has inspired me to come up with my latest poker theory; I'm calling this one "the top three theory". It's simple to state, and will be simple to verify (once I get around to it :-). Here it is:

If the top three entries in the sorted list of the absolute values of your hand deltas all come from winning hands, then there's a high probability that the session itself was a winning one.

Here are the top 10 entries in the sorted list from last night's session (note that I've left the negative sign in front of the losses to make it easy to distinguish them from the wins, though the sort was based on the absolute values):

19,800
10,200
9,400
-6,400
-4,400
-4,300
2,700
2,400
-2,400
2,200

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 79 hands and saw flop:
- 12 out of 14 times while in big blind (85%)
- 11 out of 15 times while in small blind (73%)
- 25 out of 50 times in other positions (50%)
- a total of 48 out of 79 (60%)
Pots won at showdown - 6 of 7 (85%)
Pots won without showdown - 7

delta: $20,700
balance: $3,665,639

update: I wrote some code to test this theory, and it held up; in the last 116 sessions I've played, 34 have the top 3 absolute value deltas from winning hands, and all 34 were winning sessions.

Bet 'em where they ain't

The title of this post appropriates some excellent advice by a Hall of Fame baseball player who was nicknamed Wee Willie Keeler. Wee Willie adjured players to "Hit 'em where they ain't". Clearly, if you hit the ball where people ain't, you'll get on base rather than making an out. Similarly, in poker, if you can manage to keep your betting patterns contra the betting patterns of your opponents, you'll have a much better chance of growing your stack. In its simplest form, to "bet 'em where they ain't" means to bet more frequently when your opponents are betting infrequently, and to bet less frequently when your opponents are betting frequently.

Last night, the opponents at the table I joined were betting frequently and heavily; I quickly decided to fold early and often. For at least the first half of the session, I was only paying to see the flop a quarter of the time. That's a very low percentage for me, but it was appropriate, given the level of aggression at the table. I was able to win the majority of hands I went to showdown with, and to cut my losses quickly on the hands I didn't back.

The only real hiccup of the night was a cooler where my queen high flush ran into an ace high uberflush; I lost $48,400 on that hand. Luckily for me, I'd already made a profit of nearly $100,000 up to that point, so it wasn't that big of a deal.

When I got my stack back up over $100,000, I called it a night.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 133 hands and saw flop:
- 9 out of 17 times while in big blind (52%)
- 7 out of 18 times while in small blind (38%)
- 39 out of 98 times in other positions (39%)
- a total of 55 out of 133 (41%)
Pots won at showdown - 10 of 13 (76%)
Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $60,600
balance: $3,644,939

Surviving a cooler

Coolers are hands which you have every expectation to win, but which you improbably lose. If you play long enough, coolers will happen to you, so you need to know how to survive them. Going on tilt is a classic response to a cooler, and obviously not the correct one.

The worst possible cooler I can think of is when one player has a straight flush, and loses to another player who has a better straight flush. Thankfully, that's never happened to me. The cooler that happened to me last night, on hand 19, was mild in comparison; my full house of nines full of deuces lost to a full house of kings full of deuces. My hole cards were a pair of nines, and the winner's hole cards were a pair of kings, so both hands were stealthful. My odds of winning after the turn were 42 to 2, but my opponent hit his two outer when a king popped on the river. Luckily for me, I'd started the hand with more chips than him, so I wasn't taken to the felt; after losing $26,500 on the hand, I still had a relatively healthy $15,600 in chips. I knew it would take a long slog to get back into the black, but also knew that if I were patient enough and caught some cards, I'd be able to do it.

The hand that did it for me was a set of sevens; I won a pot worth $22,320 with them, $11,660 of which was other people's money.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 154 hands and saw flop:
- 27 out of 35 times while in big blind (77%)
- 21 out of 31 times while in small blind (67%)
- 59 out of 88 times in other positions (67%)
- a total of 107 out of 154 (69%)
Pots won at showdown - 14 of 22 (63%)
Pots won without showdown - 17

delta: $9,326
balance: $3,584,339

An old flame returns

Longtime readers of this blog know there's a certain hand I have a love / hate relationship with. Not to keep new readers in suspense, it's the stealth two pair. This is when your hole cards don't match each other, but both of them match a card in the flop. Stealth two pairs have the potential to become full houses, but they also have the potential to be beaten by a large variety of hands - better two pairs, three of a kinds, straights, and flushes, to name the most common. Since the stealth two seems to lose as often as it wins, it's a dangerous hand to back, but often I can't help myself. It's the gambler in me!

Last night, on hand 18, I flopped a stealth two and went all in with it, after a player with less chips than me had already gone all in. I got one caller. My hand didn't improve to a full house, but it still held up; I won a pot worth $88,584, $62,084 of which was other people's money. This was the only pot I won all night, but it was the only one I needed to win.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 19 hands and saw flop:
- 1 out of 3 times while in big blind (33%)
- 2 out of 3 times while in small blind (66%)
- 8 out of 13 times in other positions (61%)
- a total of 11 out of 19 (57%)
Pots won at showdown - 1 of 1 (100%)
Pots won without showdown - 0

delta: $53,784
balance: $3,575,013

Raindrops on a windshield

In my poker career, I've examined many bar charts of how my stack size changes over the course of a session. When I'm playing well, the descents are all more gradual than the ascents. When the descents are really gradual, they resemble the tracks gravity forces raindrops to make on a windshield. The ascents resemble what would happen to those same raindrops if they encountered sudden gusts of wind from below. What you want to achieve in poker is to minimize what your play contributes to the descents of your stack, and to maximize what your play contributes to the ascents.

Last night, I didn't win a single monster pot. I did, however, win a nice number of decent size pots. I called it a night when I realized I'd probably seen the best of my luck.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 23 hands and saw flop:
- 3 out of 4 times while in big blind (75%)
- 3 out of 4 times while in small blind (75%)
- 11 out of 15 times in other positions (73%)
- a total of 17 out of 23 (73%)
Pots won at showdown - 3 of 3 (100%)
Pots won without showdown - 3

delta: $18,500
balance: $3,521,229

My quadfathers

The title of this post was inspired by something my father's mother used to say. If something struck her as unusual or surprising, she'd say "My godfathers!". It's certainly both unusual and surprising to get four of a kind in poker, so an apt expression for such an occurrence might be "My quadfathers!".

Last night, I followed the winning session blueprint I described in yesterday's post. I showed a lot of patience, finally got a very strong hand, went all in with it, and came out on top. My four of a kind, tens won a pot worth $55,700, and I was done for the night.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 103 hands and saw flop:
- 9 out of 12 times while in big blind (75%)
- 3 out of 13 times while in small blind (23%)
- 36 out of 78 times in other positions (46%)
- a total of 48 out of 103 (46%)
Pots won at showdown - 4 of 12 (33%)
Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $15,600
balance: $3,502,729