So I was like 2k VPP short in the last few days of the month, this is a must to sustain my PS VIP status. So these days, I've been forced to play majority PS tables, which kind of sucks because I'm doing so poorly at PS.
After the lesson with Brian yesterday, it confirmed what I was suspecting. I was folding a lot of spots that I shouldn't be. I can read people's hands pretty well for most part, but when they just go out of line and start making huge river bets, I gave them credit more often than I should. Today, I was just calling everything that did not make sense. Ya, that's definitely where the money was at with 2/4. They show me the nuts sometimes, but bluffs very very often.
I can't be too disappointed with my results tonight, I'm overall down 1BI but I lost 2 stacks with set under set and QQ vs JJ allin pf that got sucked out. The weirdest part was that, I did not win one 200bb pot to compensate. Anyways, it's a good sign when you don't leak way under when you are losing all the huge pots and winning only small ones.
Many times during the session, I had to refocus and remind myself that only the decisions matter, everything else is gibberish. I need to keep improving my game, I'll see the results if I just keep at it sooner or later.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Monday, August 27, 2007
Struggling...
I'm struggling a little right now, but I'm making some adjustments. I think I should be fine once I calibrate those adjustments to my needs. It's just that I put a shit tons of hands in today with very little to show for it. I guess the short term results don't bother me, but when it comes to the point that you feel like your confidence is getting hit, that's when you know you are in a bit of trouble.
But since I started playing 2/4, I've been changing up my game a lot. I've just been thinking a lot about certain things and trying to improve in a long run. The problem is that I'm never sure if I'm making the correct changes, I guess it's just part of the learning process. You are going to have to go through this sooner or later.
I say this many times before, but I definitely think PS is a lot harder to beat than FT. But I'm glad I'm playing in PS to "toughen" me up. Though I hope my PS roll doesn't go busto in the meantime.
But since I started playing 2/4, I've been changing up my game a lot. I've just been thinking a lot about certain things and trying to improve in a long run. The problem is that I'm never sure if I'm making the correct changes, I guess it's just part of the learning process. You are going to have to go through this sooner or later.
I say this many times before, but I definitely think PS is a lot harder to beat than FT. But I'm glad I'm playing in PS to "toughen" me up. Though I hope my PS roll doesn't go busto in the meantime.
PS Strikes Again
I decided to play 90% PS tables today, I played both 1/2 and 2/4. On the 2/4 tables, I got literally destroyed. I mean I coinflipped a few times, did not win one on 2/4 tables and I ran QQ vs AA all in on the turn. I ended up down 6 BIs on 2/4 but in the 1/2 tables, I went up 3 BIs so that "saved" me. I felt that other than a couple hands, I played really well just really got nothing going for me. The funny thing was that 90% of my 2/4 tables were losing tables and 90% of my 1/2 tables were winners.
I guess I'm not really worried about being down. So far in PS 2/4, I'm down overall there. I'm not going to pull out from there any time soon but it's dipping a little low right now. I'll try to see if anybody wants to transfer some money between the sites later.
I guess I'm not really worried about being down. So far in PS 2/4, I'm down overall there. I'm not going to pull out from there any time soon but it's dipping a little low right now. I'll try to see if anybody wants to transfer some money between the sites later.
My First Staking Deal
Okay, I'm officially staking Josh for 20k hands starting tonight. The deal is the following:
-20k hands playing 50nl
-50% staked, 25% profit(if he loses money after 20k, it'll have to compensate for 50% of his losses. But if he wins after 20k hands, he owes me 25% of profits made)
-he cannot check his balance during this 20k hands period
-he will not play more than 6 tables at once
So, pretty much all I ask of him is play his best poker and not worry about short term. I want him to make profitable decisions and not worry about his BR. He's been running pretty poorly these days and a lot of it I feel is because he's been worrying about how poorly he's been running. I just want him to focus on what is important(the decisions) and not the results.
Of course, I'm a nit. I did not take this stake to lose. I took this deal at 99% confidence because 1.) I know his game probably better than anybody else nowadays 2.) Even if I take a loss here, he will gain something from this. And I somehow will surely gain something in the future too. 3.) I feel I have a pretty good understanding of what makes one a winning player and one a losing player, and from what I've seen, I can't imagine him to be losing unless tilt is a factor.
Anyways, we decided he'll keep going until the 11th of next month(~20k hands), let's see what unfolds then. I expect to profit but I'll feel bad a little about it. Because I never play to lose in a long run.
-20k hands playing 50nl
-50% staked, 25% profit(if he loses money after 20k, it'll have to compensate for 50% of his losses. But if he wins after 20k hands, he owes me 25% of profits made)
-he cannot check his balance during this 20k hands period
-he will not play more than 6 tables at once
So, pretty much all I ask of him is play his best poker and not worry about short term. I want him to make profitable decisions and not worry about his BR. He's been running pretty poorly these days and a lot of it I feel is because he's been worrying about how poorly he's been running. I just want him to focus on what is important(the decisions) and not the results.
Of course, I'm a nit. I did not take this stake to lose. I took this deal at 99% confidence because 1.) I know his game probably better than anybody else nowadays 2.) Even if I take a loss here, he will gain something from this. And I somehow will surely gain something in the future too. 3.) I feel I have a pretty good understanding of what makes one a winning player and one a losing player, and from what I've seen, I can't imagine him to be losing unless tilt is a factor.
Anyways, we decided he'll keep going until the 11th of next month(~20k hands), let's see what unfolds then. I expect to profit but I'll feel bad a little about it. Because I never play to lose in a long run.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Couple things I struggle with...
I'm just going blog down the things that's been bugging me.
So, I really really hate making marginal calls these days. But for some reason, this has been bugging me. I mean I think opposed to before, I'm more profitable without making those calls. The problem now is that I feel if you can make these calls by using good reads, it really gives you that edge and extra winrate.
While I don't want to become a calling station that never believes anybody, it's really difficult to determine if a call is profitable or not. At the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the strongest of hands, I'm probably only calling a big bet with 8 and up. I've been thinking about how to exploit the guys that bluff a little more than average but not quite out of line. Those guys definitely have an edge over me if I fold 90% of my hands when he represents huge strength.
Also these days, I'm checking out the high stakes forums. The regulars are not afraid to build a pot with a draw and get his stack in as a bluff if the situation calls for it. I'm not thinking to make big bluffs, but it makes me reevaluate how I think about the game and how I think about a "BI". I've said this before that the money on the table is a tool to win more money, so if it's profitable to extract 30-40bb from the villian with your 100bb, you should definitely do it. You don't need to be correct that often and usually if you shove your stack in, you get a fold over 80+% of the time.
Anyways, these situations remind me of the things talked about in Mathematics of Poker. It is all about making the correct adjustments toward to a particular villian. The scale I talked about earlier, against some villian, you might need to make calls with a 3 or a 4. Some aggro villian will raise the flop with 1OC, and fire a second barrel. To exploit these villian, you need to stack off real light. It calls for some variance, but in a long run, you should expect profit every time he has to fold the turn raise after committing over 20-30bb. It's extremely difficult to make these adjustments because they are extremely marginal and it relates to the next point I'm about to make.
The toughest thing about poker is the ability to handle the swings. It's also something I'm constantly working on improving. I want to get to the point where I'm up 5 BIs I feel nothing, or down 5 BIs I feel nothing. Logically I understand the math behind expectations and variance, but emotionally, it's very difficult to swallow down. Maybe I'm just a perfectionist, because I know I handle swings much better than average both logically and emotionally. But I really want to achieve that "state of indifference". I have improved in my mental toughness by a lot since I started playing already. But I feel if I can really get to that state, I would be much more productive. Also, it'll be a huge edge against my competitors. More importantly, poker tends to creep into the rest of my life either in good and bad ways. I think if I plan to keep playing, I need to keep working on this.
So, I really really hate making marginal calls these days. But for some reason, this has been bugging me. I mean I think opposed to before, I'm more profitable without making those calls. The problem now is that I feel if you can make these calls by using good reads, it really gives you that edge and extra winrate.
While I don't want to become a calling station that never believes anybody, it's really difficult to determine if a call is profitable or not. At the scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the strongest of hands, I'm probably only calling a big bet with 8 and up. I've been thinking about how to exploit the guys that bluff a little more than average but not quite out of line. Those guys definitely have an edge over me if I fold 90% of my hands when he represents huge strength.
Also these days, I'm checking out the high stakes forums. The regulars are not afraid to build a pot with a draw and get his stack in as a bluff if the situation calls for it. I'm not thinking to make big bluffs, but it makes me reevaluate how I think about the game and how I think about a "BI". I've said this before that the money on the table is a tool to win more money, so if it's profitable to extract 30-40bb from the villian with your 100bb, you should definitely do it. You don't need to be correct that often and usually if you shove your stack in, you get a fold over 80+% of the time.
Anyways, these situations remind me of the things talked about in Mathematics of Poker. It is all about making the correct adjustments toward to a particular villian. The scale I talked about earlier, against some villian, you might need to make calls with a 3 or a 4. Some aggro villian will raise the flop with 1OC, and fire a second barrel. To exploit these villian, you need to stack off real light. It calls for some variance, but in a long run, you should expect profit every time he has to fold the turn raise after committing over 20-30bb. It's extremely difficult to make these adjustments because they are extremely marginal and it relates to the next point I'm about to make.
The toughest thing about poker is the ability to handle the swings. It's also something I'm constantly working on improving. I want to get to the point where I'm up 5 BIs I feel nothing, or down 5 BIs I feel nothing. Logically I understand the math behind expectations and variance, but emotionally, it's very difficult to swallow down. Maybe I'm just a perfectionist, because I know I handle swings much better than average both logically and emotionally. But I really want to achieve that "state of indifference". I have improved in my mental toughness by a lot since I started playing already. But I feel if I can really get to that state, I would be much more productive. Also, it'll be a huge edge against my competitors. More importantly, poker tends to creep into the rest of my life either in good and bad ways. I think if I plan to keep playing, I need to keep working on this.
Friday, August 24, 2007
After slightly over 10k hands...
I'm basically breakeven at 2/4 so far. I'm making some adjustments to the games, I'm pretty sure I'm a winner here, I'm not sure how much though. I'm actually pretty happy these couple days, I've been playing some really solid poker. Results are not there, and I'm not expecting much results. I just need to play a lot of hands and make good profitable decisions. Results should come later, but should be reminded that it's not in my control.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Nice to Score a Winning Session
It's nice to score a winning session, 1 BI up. But it's not that great when you ran set over set and sucked out a 25/75. I definitely need to keep developing my hand reading skills, 2/4 definitely is pushing that limit for me and I feel I'm using it more than ever. Also I'm working on building the next thinking level, "what does villian think I have?". In 2/4, this is really big. You can represent a bluff, or you can represent a made hand to bluff. Sometimes against some regulars, you can think on the 4th level and use that to dodge bullets. The thing is that people try to play deceptive too much and in some ways, when lines start to make no sense. In utter confusion, you'll actually make complete sense of what he's trying to do. Deep stuff, but I try not to over think things.
Played Well, still down
Overall I think I played really well this last session but went down 2BIs. I ran into some unfortunately situations and stacked off. But I'm happy that I'm playing solid. The biggest problem right now is that 2/4 is still a new stake for me, being down can be mentally tough. But for most part, I don't see why I won't be beating this stake. I just need to get away from more marginal situations.
I like this feeling that I'm being challenged but it motivates me, it keeps me struggling and help me stay strong. Small downswings are good for your health.. :)
I like this feeling that I'm being challenged but it motivates me, it keeps me struggling and help me stay strong. Small downswings are good for your health.. :)
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Good Articles
This link I got from Jman's blog. The articles are very insightful. Check it out.
http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles.html
http://www.tommyangelo.com/articles.html
Grind grind grind
I haven't really been grinding poker for a while. I think I'm going to start again. I was actually pretty happy with my "overall" game today but I stacked off some spots where I knew I was beating nothing, which kind of annoyed me. I gave myself an excuse to call, I need to control that part of me. Even if the results were good, I think those calls were bad. So I played really well with majority of my hands, but played bad when the pot was huge. Overall, it's not too bad. I went down 3BIs, but nothing major.
Once in a while, I seem to go through some stretches where I become a huge calling station and don't fold anything when I know I'm beat. It's pretty funny, I think it's part of listening to your inner voice and not go with your logic. That's a spewy little fellow. I need to remind myself to stick with a plan and follow through.
Once in a while, I seem to go through some stretches where I become a huge calling station and don't fold anything when I know I'm beat. It's pretty funny, I think it's part of listening to your inner voice and not go with your logic. That's a spewy little fellow. I need to remind myself to stick with a plan and follow through.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
2/4 Update
I just finished a session. Ended up down 1BI. It's a pretty bad sign when you feel like you are on a table and you are looking to stack the regulars. I mean I wasn't consciously trying to mess with them, but the problem is that they are always trying to gain an edge over me which I can't allow them to have. I honestly feel if I play with them more, I can exploit each and every one of them. Most of them are just way overaggro, you are going to have to deal with that. I can totally see why some people will not do well in this stake. The stake is more straining than 200nl by far, people are constantly using metagame against you. They are not afraid to throw their stack in there with 2 OCs when they think you are weak. People understand the power of aggression, but I feel some do it in a mechanical fashion.
I really think I can beat this stake. Basically having a big PP is HUGE hand, and by generally playing loose, you can get paid off with those hands very frequently. The thing is that I need to be playing in this stake a bit longer to show these regulars that I will play tricky, so they cannot exploit me profitably. I like this new challenge, and I will succeed.
I really think I can beat this stake. Basically having a big PP is HUGE hand, and by generally playing loose, you can get paid off with those hands very frequently. The thing is that I need to be playing in this stake a bit longer to show these regulars that I will play tricky, so they cannot exploit me profitably. I like this new challenge, and I will succeed.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Awesome "Upgrades"
Okay, this post has nothing to do with poker. I bought a new mouse and a new headset today. My old mouse was not functioning properly. The IE3.0 was double clicking when I want a single click, you can imagine how annoying that is. So I wanted something similar to replace it. There is a new re-release version of IE3 that I thought about getting, but I wanted some changes. And I decided on the "Razer Death Adder", this mouse is awesome. I can't describe how good it is. Just the feel and everything is awesome. It's a gaming mice so the precision is just unmatched. Here's a pic:
and yes, it glows. :) Only downside to this mouse is that it's pretty expensive for a mouse, but if it lasts me a while, it's definitely well worth it. I like it even more than the ie3.0 honestly.
I also bought these headset the "Steel Series 5H". The version 2 has a mic built in. I was looking really hard for one of those big ass headphones but I want a mic to go with it. Well this thing comes with a mic and you can hide the mic inside the headphone, which is exactly what I'm looking for. It's pretty sweet. Though it has these speaker holes on the outside on the headphones that apparently defeats the purpose of a headphone. It's relatively soft, but still kind of weird "feature". I don't know how long this thing will last, but the sound quality on it is great. I definitely recommend it.
Here is how it looks:
The 2 purchase came out to total of ~100 in newegg, so it's not too bad. Both items are sweet. :)
and yes, it glows. :) Only downside to this mouse is that it's pretty expensive for a mouse, but if it lasts me a while, it's definitely well worth it. I like it even more than the ie3.0 honestly.
I also bought these headset the "Steel Series 5H". The version 2 has a mic built in. I was looking really hard for one of those big ass headphones but I want a mic to go with it. Well this thing comes with a mic and you can hide the mic inside the headphone, which is exactly what I'm looking for. It's pretty sweet. Though it has these speaker holes on the outside on the headphones that apparently defeats the purpose of a headphone. It's relatively soft, but still kind of weird "feature". I don't know how long this thing will last, but the sound quality on it is great. I definitely recommend it.
Here is how it looks:
The 2 purchase came out to total of ~100 in newegg, so it's not too bad. Both items are sweet. :)
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Withdrawal
I think I decided temporarily what I'm going to do with cashing out. I'm going to just take 100% of my FT rakeback out as a direct withdrawal. I definitely want to build my BR up to at least 80BIs on 2/4 before thinking of cashing out any of my roll. I think this will help me financially, also will motivate me to play more hands. It's not bad because I still make about 10-20dollars an hour on FT rakeback. In some ways, it's a good way for a stable income. I mean rakeback is always stable, you pretty much earn the same amount based on hands played. Unlike the actual game, you go through up and down swings every other day, rakeback can be a set income. Weird way to think about it, but I'll stick with that for now.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
First 1K day at 2/4
So I finished my first +1k day at 2/4. I mean it's basically just +2.5BIs. But I'm glad my first stab into this stake was good results. I haven't been put to the test yet, I mean if I go on a 10 BI downswing, it's going hurt here. Overall though, I'm pretty sure I can beat this stake. Though I haven't gotten into too many tough situations or the results have been good so far. What I do notice is that people respect raises even more and are more willing to fold. I think this is a good thing because of my new style.
I'm pretty excited about this new challenge. It's been 2 months since I moved up, and this move up was anticipated to be really rough. So far, the transition has been really smooth. I think it's mostly that I really learned a lot these past month or two. Most are just fundamental things but nevertheless, it's really important. Well let's hope I can keep this up! Thanks for the encouragement for those who I talked to today.
I'm pretty excited about this new challenge. It's been 2 months since I moved up, and this move up was anticipated to be really rough. So far, the transition has been really smooth. I think it's mostly that I really learned a lot these past month or two. Most are just fundamental things but nevertheless, it's really important. Well let's hope I can keep this up! Thanks for the encouragement for those who I talked to today.
Okay I cheated
I know I said I was going to wait for 50BIs to stab 2/4. But I did it with 40 instead. I guess I have been unmotivated with the game lately. After screwing Ironman, I just had very little incentive to play. I felt the solution was move up, new challenge, make more money. I'm not expecting some great results but I would hope I will though.
Anyways, I did 2 sessions so far today. First session went really dry and down 2BIs. The second session, I made 4. So overall I'm up a little over 2 bis. Don't worry, I'm sure I'll be swinging up and down in this week.
The thing is that I think the games get tougher as you move up but it's not considerably tougher. The regulars will be smarter and better, but the money doesn't come from them majority of the time. As long as you can play them semi-optimally I think you'll be fine. But who knows, I'm sure I'll learn a lot from this experience and I'm just experiencing a small upswing, that's all. It'll be a while until I'm a solid regular in 2/4.
Anyways, I did 2 sessions so far today. First session went really dry and down 2BIs. The second session, I made 4. So overall I'm up a little over 2 bis. Don't worry, I'm sure I'll be swinging up and down in this week.
The thing is that I think the games get tougher as you move up but it's not considerably tougher. The regulars will be smarter and better, but the money doesn't come from them majority of the time. As long as you can play them semi-optimally I think you'll be fine. But who knows, I'm sure I'll learn a lot from this experience and I'm just experiencing a small upswing, that's all. It'll be a while until I'm a solid regular in 2/4.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Screw Ironman
Not going to bust my ass on that stupid shit anymore. I mean it doesn't take much effort but for such little reward, I'm not going to worry about it.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Comments for a fellow CR'er
This is a comemnt I tried to make on his blog but the formating got all messed up. So I'm posting it here in case somebody is working on the same thing, and obviously for that CR'er's benefit.
"Honestly I'm not the best person to explain ranges to anybody. If you haven't read Jman's article on gbucks or Brian Townsend's article on ranges, you definiteyl should do that. But I think have a good grasp lately and it's becoming very powerful and helpful to my game. I'll try to explain it as I understand it.
Let's say in a 6 max scenario where you hold AKo in utg and you make a standard raise. TAG Button cold calls and we see a flop. Let's assume you and villian are both 100bb deep. TAG's pf range is probably Kxs(x>T), low to mid PP, SC, maybe big PP(rarely but sometimes). The flop comes KhTh7s. You make a standard cbet...
Scenario 1a:
Villian cold calls. Now, you are thinking about the villian's range. If he's a loose and passive flop cold caller, I can put him on maybe Kxs, JTs, QTs, flush draw, 2P(somewhat weird), set, OESD, gutshot. All of these. Most of these hands he's probably just going to shut down on the turn.
Scenario 1b:
Villian cold calls here too. Now assume the guy is very tight caller(folds 80% to cbet). Now you can only put his range to Kx, OESD, flush draw, set, 2P. See how ranges changes from villian to villian based on their tendencies?
Scenario 2:
Villian raises 3x. Now, his range is more narrow. His range is probably a set, 2P, and 98, JQ and a flush draw, occasionally you'll see AA,KK or the same hand.
Effectively you are playing villian's range not his "exact" hole cards. Because you can never be sure you can put villian on 1 hand unless it's overly obvious. In Scenario 1a, knowing villian's range is so wide, you should probably just keep value betting(probably somewhat lighter) into him for 2 more streets. If he raises and the turn completes something, you might have to consider folding(again, his range changes as you gain more information). In Scenario 1b, villian's range is a lot more tighter, I'd charge him for draws harder, I'll bet harder because if he has me beat, he'll probably raise. And if he wants to bluff the turn, it'll cost him more to do it. In Scenario 2, this one is very tricky. If I feel this villian is super aggro, I probably just stick my AK in and be happy about it. But if he's more selective about raising, maybe only monster draws and a set, AA, KK, AK, then you are dominated by his raising. By shoving this villian, you are never ahead of his range. Hence you will lose money to this villian by playing like this. A more conservative play is to just cold call his raise and see what the turn brings and how villian bets. If he checks behind, you almost guarantee he has vulnerable hand. And I'd probably value bet the river because his range narrowed. If the river gets ugly, completes some draw. You check to villian, he fires a psb. His range is either the nuts or air, he never has a marginal hand there. You have to consider his range from pf to river to make this decision. On this particular board, I probably make a call more than a fold because there are way too many busted draws out there that would bluff. Another factor is how often a villian bluffs, if he never bluffs, you probably should never call w/ your TPTK. So his range for psb river is always narrowed to the nuts. Range changes as you gain more information, keep that in mind.
I hope this helps you. I recommend dropping down to very few tables and thinking about villian's range on every hand. By doing this more, it comes automatic later and you'll be able to handle a situation better. Good luck!"
"Honestly I'm not the best person to explain ranges to anybody. If you haven't read Jman's article on gbucks or Brian Townsend's article on ranges, you definiteyl should do that. But I think have a good grasp lately and it's becoming very powerful and helpful to my game. I'll try to explain it as I understand it.
Let's say in a 6 max scenario where you hold AKo in utg and you make a standard raise. TAG Button cold calls and we see a flop. Let's assume you and villian are both 100bb deep. TAG's pf range is probably Kxs(x>T), low to mid PP, SC, maybe big PP(rarely but sometimes). The flop comes KhTh7s. You make a standard cbet...
Scenario 1a:
Villian cold calls. Now, you are thinking about the villian's range. If he's a loose and passive flop cold caller, I can put him on maybe Kxs, JTs, QTs, flush draw, 2P(somewhat weird), set, OESD, gutshot. All of these. Most of these hands he's probably just going to shut down on the turn.
Scenario 1b:
Villian cold calls here too. Now assume the guy is very tight caller(folds 80% to cbet). Now you can only put his range to Kx, OESD, flush draw, set, 2P. See how ranges changes from villian to villian based on their tendencies?
Scenario 2:
Villian raises 3x. Now, his range is more narrow. His range is probably a set, 2P, and 98, JQ and a flush draw, occasionally you'll see AA,KK or the same hand.
Effectively you are playing villian's range not his "exact" hole cards. Because you can never be sure you can put villian on 1 hand unless it's overly obvious. In Scenario 1a, knowing villian's range is so wide, you should probably just keep value betting(probably somewhat lighter) into him for 2 more streets. If he raises and the turn completes something, you might have to consider folding(again, his range changes as you gain more information). In Scenario 1b, villian's range is a lot more tighter, I'd charge him for draws harder, I'll bet harder because if he has me beat, he'll probably raise. And if he wants to bluff the turn, it'll cost him more to do it. In Scenario 2, this one is very tricky. If I feel this villian is super aggro, I probably just stick my AK in and be happy about it. But if he's more selective about raising, maybe only monster draws and a set, AA, KK, AK, then you are dominated by his raising. By shoving this villian, you are never ahead of his range. Hence you will lose money to this villian by playing like this. A more conservative play is to just cold call his raise and see what the turn brings and how villian bets. If he checks behind, you almost guarantee he has vulnerable hand. And I'd probably value bet the river because his range narrowed. If the river gets ugly, completes some draw. You check to villian, he fires a psb. His range is either the nuts or air, he never has a marginal hand there. You have to consider his range from pf to river to make this decision. On this particular board, I probably make a call more than a fold because there are way too many busted draws out there that would bluff. Another factor is how often a villian bluffs, if he never bluffs, you probably should never call w/ your TPTK. So his range for psb river is always narrowed to the nuts. Range changes as you gain more information, keep that in mind.
I hope this helps you. I recommend dropping down to very few tables and thinking about villian's range on every hand. By doing this more, it comes automatic later and you'll be able to handle a situation better. Good luck!"
Poker is Swingy
Okay, forget that this is Friday. But I ran a 2k hand session earlier, I ended up down like almost 4BIs. I came back for another 500 hands, I shot up 6BIs. There were a lot of bad players though and I was getting hit by the deck.
Anyways, I've been really changing up my game a little. More and more, I'm thinking of the backdoor possibilities of my hands. It's something I did not care about before, but I feel it's really important as you play more aggressive. You don't want to go raising turn with air when you want to take the pot down. You want to at least have some outs no matter what. Also I've been doing a ton of thin value bets, it's amazing how often donks will call. I guess I'm just making use of my better hand reading skills and kind of playing unconventional. Something I'm definitely working on asking myself this: "what am I representing here?", or "what does the villian think I have?" Against regulars these things are golden, even against donks, I find knowing this can be very helpful when to value bet and when you only will get called by better.
I mentioned to this to a few people. I feel I'm really getting into the whole poker mindset these days. What I mean is, I see my AK vs KK pf, I'm like shit, I lost money no matter what the result is. I had the nut straight against a set, all in on the turn, the river pairs the board, I go "oh well, I make a lot of money in a long run there". Those things don't bother me at all, because the short term results is not what makes you money. The difference between a winning player and losing player is really down to whether you can see the short or long term. I know how well a session is running just by how often I go in as a favorite and how often I'm drawing dead or as a huge underdog. Those numbers go through my head as villian turns his hand face up, I could care less about the results.
Putting this into perspective for today's session. I think I played decent even being down 4BIs. I did make some horrible plays that I shouldn't have, I spewed a little here and there. But overall I was happy how well I played overall, money went in good or ~50/50. And on the second session where I went up 6 BIs, there were almost no coinflips. I was making money as a huge favorite on every pot, which is crazy. People were calling my river bets with really horrible hands, so those plays were no doubtedly hugely profitable. If they keep paying me off with worse there, it'll be almost more profitable than getting paid with every set. When people pay you off stupidly, no odds goes against that and the money goes straight to pure profits(no owing Sklansky bucks!).
Anyways, I think this is a breakthrough and I'm happy about it. Though I still have a problem with keep playing when I'm running really really well. My emotions just goes crazy and it distracts my play. I really want to work on that.
Anyways, I've been really changing up my game a little. More and more, I'm thinking of the backdoor possibilities of my hands. It's something I did not care about before, but I feel it's really important as you play more aggressive. You don't want to go raising turn with air when you want to take the pot down. You want to at least have some outs no matter what. Also I've been doing a ton of thin value bets, it's amazing how often donks will call. I guess I'm just making use of my better hand reading skills and kind of playing unconventional. Something I'm definitely working on asking myself this: "what am I representing here?", or "what does the villian think I have?" Against regulars these things are golden, even against donks, I find knowing this can be very helpful when to value bet and when you only will get called by better.
I mentioned to this to a few people. I feel I'm really getting into the whole poker mindset these days. What I mean is, I see my AK vs KK pf, I'm like shit, I lost money no matter what the result is. I had the nut straight against a set, all in on the turn, the river pairs the board, I go "oh well, I make a lot of money in a long run there". Those things don't bother me at all, because the short term results is not what makes you money. The difference between a winning player and losing player is really down to whether you can see the short or long term. I know how well a session is running just by how often I go in as a favorite and how often I'm drawing dead or as a huge underdog. Those numbers go through my head as villian turns his hand face up, I could care less about the results.
Putting this into perspective for today's session. I think I played decent even being down 4BIs. I did make some horrible plays that I shouldn't have, I spewed a little here and there. But overall I was happy how well I played overall, money went in good or ~50/50. And on the second session where I went up 6 BIs, there were almost no coinflips. I was making money as a huge favorite on every pot, which is crazy. People were calling my river bets with really horrible hands, so those plays were no doubtedly hugely profitable. If they keep paying me off with worse there, it'll be almost more profitable than getting paid with every set. When people pay you off stupidly, no odds goes against that and the money goes straight to pure profits(no owing Sklansky bucks!).
Anyways, I think this is a breakthrough and I'm happy about it. Though I still have a problem with keep playing when I'm running really really well. My emotions just goes crazy and it distracts my play. I really want to work on that.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Thoughts of Winrates/Aggression
This past 3 weeks, I've been thinking about the game a lot and I questioned a lot of different issues. The questions I was asking were "what makes a winning player?, how do you sustain a desirable winrate? what makes one player better than another?" You get the point.
Something that Brian keeps saying comes to mind. I believe he said something like poker is all about grinding it out to win that 5bb/100 in a long term. He said this during the times when our hand goes all in as a huge favorite and get sucked out. In a long run, that play as we all know will be +ev. But short term, it sucks hardcore. Not until recently, his words has become a whole different meaning to me.
So what makes one a 5ptbb/100 winner? Actually in theory, it's very easy. If you steal the blinds 1.5x per orbit, you already make like almost 2ptbb/100 in a 6 max game. Some of us already knew this, but that almost sounds way too easy. Of course it's not that easy. It'll be crazy if the table lets you consistently steal their blinds 1.5x per orbit.
But this does remind us one thing about being a winning player. It's all about the little things that matters the most. Even though every time you try to set mine, you should remember that set mining comes at a price. If it costs you 4xbb to try to hit your set, you'll be paying 7.5x4bb = 30bb in a long run every time you hit. That means by calling 4xbb each time, if you don't make over 30bb DIRECTLY(not in a mutual pot) from the villian's stack, you are losing money by set mining. So every time you hit, and c/r his cbet(~7bb) but he folds, you are losing money. Recall all the times that happened to you, now in theory you are probably owing money by set mining considering how often that happens. But of course there are many times where you stack the guy with an OP, that should pay for some of your set mining costs. But what I'm getting at is.. yes, set mining is indeed profitable BUT it's only marginally profitable(less than 1ptbb/100, if interested, you may look at your PT stats and add all your set mining hands' ptbb/100). The misconception of set mining is that the few times you stack someone, you gain a nice boost in your short term results. Hence it always feels like set mining = super profitable, but I think veteran poker players should realize it's yet another small winner.
The toughest part about all of this is that poker is indeed all about long run profitability. It's all about winning small in a long run. As I move up in stakes, I feel it's harder and harder to win with those small edges. In micro stakes, if someone 3bets, you can almost always profitably set mine because most players' 3bet range is so tight, hence set mining is extremely profitable to set mine. But in 200nl, people are 3betting light and just sometimes too solid for you to call profitably in a long run, you probably lose money in a long run in that spot. Anyways, I'm not here to talk about set mining profitably in higher stakes, but actually how to think as a poker player.
Brian Townsend in his first video stressed hard on "taking responsibility for your results". This is so true, he stressed on the LONG TERM results. A mistake you make right now will not matter much in a year from now, but all that will added up. That same mistake will only cost you a faction of your winrate in a long run. But you should correct this mistake because it will largely affect your long term winrate if you keep making that same mistake. If you are thinking long term, in terms of buy ins, "buy ins" are just merely another faction of your winrate in some sense. Actually each BI you put on the table, it's just a "tool" for you to win more money. If bluffing your whole BI will net you profits in a long run, you should definitely do it. Remember, don't be consumed by short term results(bluff getting picked off, making a bad mistake, cooler, bad beat, etc..).
I've said this before and I quoted Brystar from CR. That the cards itself break even in a long run. And aggression is what makes you profits. So what does this all mean? Everyone, no matter what skill level, will experience the same types of hands in a long term. I will make a set X amount of times over Y amount of hands, this will be true for everyone over a huge sample size. Of course a better player will not pay off a set as easily, if one player pays it off, the other doesn't. Obviously the one who doesn't is going to be richer in a long run. But what happens in a scenario where both players are just as good as each other, they either both pay it off or both don't pay it off? So if we look at this situation as just one of a large sample of all different types of hands, then it's neutral ev in a long run, nobody wins because both players would make no money from each other. (this is a theoretical)
I want to drive this point home even more. Let's say in a regular 6 max game. You will play 10k hands(still relatively small sample but big enough to work with) on that table. If everyone on the table plays their hand face up and nobody will make any mistake, then in theory, nobody should win or lose on that table. But let's say in a similar scenario, but one guy has his hands faced down. But he knows what everyone else have, now he decides to bluff 5% of the time when he does not have the best hand. If nobody looks him up during the times he bluffed, this player should expect 5% of profits in a long run while everyone will be slightly losing.
I'm not trying to stress the effects of bluffing, but aggression in general. People making mistakes is definitely +ev, and no poker game has all their cards faced up, it would be uninteresting. But you will run into tough games where you can't win because you are just "playing your cards"(theoretical neutral ev). If someone decides to bluff you when you have the best hand and succeeded, you just lost money in a long run to that villian.
I'm sure we have all encounter times when we have a decent draw and we go down in check/call mode to try to hit it. Is that +ev in a long run? Remember villian would have to incorrectly call you when you hit for you to be profitable(unless pot odds allows you to draw). So in an imperfect world, nobody pays you off. Now you are a losing yet again because you paid a lot to draw and the few times when you hit, you didn't get paid. But let's change the scenario and instead of calling, we apply aggression on the villian. We raise his bet. Now, villian isn't happy he got raised here because if he doesn't have a monster(majority of the time he won't) he feels insecured about his hand. He now has to question what hand you have, and he's on the defensive. If villian incorrectly folds his best hand, guess what? you just made money in a long run as cards break even, you won with the worst hand. The actual math is more complicated than that, but I'm mostly talking theories.
In this game, very very rarely is anyone going to have huge hands. Very few hands can withstand a lot of pressure, that's why aggression is very powerful. Today, I ran into a situation where I had JJ on a AK8 flop. I was oop, and I cbet into it, villian calls. Turn came a T. This villian likes to float and I knew I most likely had the best hand but I'm not sure on such a scary board. I checked to him, he bets out half the pot. I was like, I hate calling oop here, there is a chance my hand isn't good but actually I think my hand is good a large % of the time. So I decided to c/r his bet. I really like that play because it applies pressure to him, even if he has a weak ace, he is starting to question if his hand is no good. But my assumption is that even on this board, my hand is probably best against this frequent floater. If he calls, it's an easy laydown for me on the river, I know for a fact I'm beat. But keep in mind that I have 6 outs to probably improve to the best hand. By applying the pressure, villian probably folds Kx, maybe some weak ace, definitely air. While if you decide to call him down 2 streets, you could possibly be milked with a marginally better hand.
I do not advocate raising randomly but the point is that aggression is usually +ev and honestly I would even say if you aren't sure what to do, it's better to apply aggression than to call. It might be a really abstract concept, but even if you made a mistake, it's normally not a huge mistake in a long run. There is an article about this in 2+2 that might interest someone.
So back to the concept of winrates, I know I talked about hating "calling" in my blog. Well this is completely related. While sometimes calling is the best play, but honestly so many times, I think folding or raising is the best in the same situation. We see maniacs stack up to like 200, 300bb all the times. Why is that? Because aggression in general is +ev! People generally do not have huge hands 99% of the time, by constantly applying pressure, rarely will he run into a monster hand. When someone decides to call this maniac down marginally, well maybe that maniac has a slightly better hand! But people who are reading this are definitely not maniacs, if you can use the similar concept of applying aggression, it will be definitely be profitable in a long run. Properly timed aggression is the key to improving your winrates in addition to exploiting villian's mistakes.
Another point is that aggression makes you much harder to play against. If you are a loose raiser, you are going to get a lot more loose calls. It opens up your overall game when people know you are capable of a lot of things. I've stressed before that every time you apply aggression, it only makes it tougher for villian to play correctly against you. I used to worry about the aggro regulars, but since I have increased my aggression and show them what I am capable of, they are no longer a huge threat to me. I actually think over a long run, I should be winning against most of the guys I sit with.
So keep in mind why poker is profitable and make only profitable plays. Realize that the little things matter the most. Poker isn't about winning BIs, it's about making profitable decisions. These decisions should definitely incorporate a lot of aggression. This is very vital to understand as a successful player.
Something that Brian keeps saying comes to mind. I believe he said something like poker is all about grinding it out to win that 5bb/100 in a long term. He said this during the times when our hand goes all in as a huge favorite and get sucked out. In a long run, that play as we all know will be +ev. But short term, it sucks hardcore. Not until recently, his words has become a whole different meaning to me.
So what makes one a 5ptbb/100 winner? Actually in theory, it's very easy. If you steal the blinds 1.5x per orbit, you already make like almost 2ptbb/100 in a 6 max game. Some of us already knew this, but that almost sounds way too easy. Of course it's not that easy. It'll be crazy if the table lets you consistently steal their blinds 1.5x per orbit.
But this does remind us one thing about being a winning player. It's all about the little things that matters the most. Even though every time you try to set mine, you should remember that set mining comes at a price. If it costs you 4xbb to try to hit your set, you'll be paying 7.5x4bb = 30bb in a long run every time you hit. That means by calling 4xbb each time, if you don't make over 30bb DIRECTLY(not in a mutual pot) from the villian's stack, you are losing money by set mining. So every time you hit, and c/r his cbet(~7bb) but he folds, you are losing money. Recall all the times that happened to you, now in theory you are probably owing money by set mining considering how often that happens. But of course there are many times where you stack the guy with an OP, that should pay for some of your set mining costs. But what I'm getting at is.. yes, set mining is indeed profitable BUT it's only marginally profitable(less than 1ptbb/100, if interested, you may look at your PT stats and add all your set mining hands' ptbb/100). The misconception of set mining is that the few times you stack someone, you gain a nice boost in your short term results. Hence it always feels like set mining = super profitable, but I think veteran poker players should realize it's yet another small winner.
The toughest part about all of this is that poker is indeed all about long run profitability. It's all about winning small in a long run. As I move up in stakes, I feel it's harder and harder to win with those small edges. In micro stakes, if someone 3bets, you can almost always profitably set mine because most players' 3bet range is so tight, hence set mining is extremely profitable to set mine. But in 200nl, people are 3betting light and just sometimes too solid for you to call profitably in a long run, you probably lose money in a long run in that spot. Anyways, I'm not here to talk about set mining profitably in higher stakes, but actually how to think as a poker player.
Brian Townsend in his first video stressed hard on "taking responsibility for your results". This is so true, he stressed on the LONG TERM results. A mistake you make right now will not matter much in a year from now, but all that will added up. That same mistake will only cost you a faction of your winrate in a long run. But you should correct this mistake because it will largely affect your long term winrate if you keep making that same mistake. If you are thinking long term, in terms of buy ins, "buy ins" are just merely another faction of your winrate in some sense. Actually each BI you put on the table, it's just a "tool" for you to win more money. If bluffing your whole BI will net you profits in a long run, you should definitely do it. Remember, don't be consumed by short term results(bluff getting picked off, making a bad mistake, cooler, bad beat, etc..).
I've said this before and I quoted Brystar from CR. That the cards itself break even in a long run. And aggression is what makes you profits. So what does this all mean? Everyone, no matter what skill level, will experience the same types of hands in a long term. I will make a set X amount of times over Y amount of hands, this will be true for everyone over a huge sample size. Of course a better player will not pay off a set as easily, if one player pays it off, the other doesn't. Obviously the one who doesn't is going to be richer in a long run. But what happens in a scenario where both players are just as good as each other, they either both pay it off or both don't pay it off? So if we look at this situation as just one of a large sample of all different types of hands, then it's neutral ev in a long run, nobody wins because both players would make no money from each other. (this is a theoretical)
I want to drive this point home even more. Let's say in a regular 6 max game. You will play 10k hands(still relatively small sample but big enough to work with) on that table. If everyone on the table plays their hand face up and nobody will make any mistake, then in theory, nobody should win or lose on that table. But let's say in a similar scenario, but one guy has his hands faced down. But he knows what everyone else have, now he decides to bluff 5% of the time when he does not have the best hand. If nobody looks him up during the times he bluffed, this player should expect 5% of profits in a long run while everyone will be slightly losing.
I'm not trying to stress the effects of bluffing, but aggression in general. People making mistakes is definitely +ev, and no poker game has all their cards faced up, it would be uninteresting. But you will run into tough games where you can't win because you are just "playing your cards"(theoretical neutral ev). If someone decides to bluff you when you have the best hand and succeeded, you just lost money in a long run to that villian.
I'm sure we have all encounter times when we have a decent draw and we go down in check/call mode to try to hit it. Is that +ev in a long run? Remember villian would have to incorrectly call you when you hit for you to be profitable(unless pot odds allows you to draw). So in an imperfect world, nobody pays you off. Now you are a losing yet again because you paid a lot to draw and the few times when you hit, you didn't get paid. But let's change the scenario and instead of calling, we apply aggression on the villian. We raise his bet. Now, villian isn't happy he got raised here because if he doesn't have a monster(majority of the time he won't) he feels insecured about his hand. He now has to question what hand you have, and he's on the defensive. If villian incorrectly folds his best hand, guess what? you just made money in a long run as cards break even, you won with the worst hand. The actual math is more complicated than that, but I'm mostly talking theories.
In this game, very very rarely is anyone going to have huge hands. Very few hands can withstand a lot of pressure, that's why aggression is very powerful. Today, I ran into a situation where I had JJ on a AK8 flop. I was oop, and I cbet into it, villian calls. Turn came a T. This villian likes to float and I knew I most likely had the best hand but I'm not sure on such a scary board. I checked to him, he bets out half the pot. I was like, I hate calling oop here, there is a chance my hand isn't good but actually I think my hand is good a large % of the time. So I decided to c/r his bet. I really like that play because it applies pressure to him, even if he has a weak ace, he is starting to question if his hand is no good. But my assumption is that even on this board, my hand is probably best against this frequent floater. If he calls, it's an easy laydown for me on the river, I know for a fact I'm beat. But keep in mind that I have 6 outs to probably improve to the best hand. By applying the pressure, villian probably folds Kx, maybe some weak ace, definitely air. While if you decide to call him down 2 streets, you could possibly be milked with a marginally better hand.
I do not advocate raising randomly but the point is that aggression is usually +ev and honestly I would even say if you aren't sure what to do, it's better to apply aggression than to call. It might be a really abstract concept, but even if you made a mistake, it's normally not a huge mistake in a long run. There is an article about this in 2+2 that might interest someone.
So back to the concept of winrates, I know I talked about hating "calling" in my blog. Well this is completely related. While sometimes calling is the best play, but honestly so many times, I think folding or raising is the best in the same situation. We see maniacs stack up to like 200, 300bb all the times. Why is that? Because aggression in general is +ev! People generally do not have huge hands 99% of the time, by constantly applying pressure, rarely will he run into a monster hand. When someone decides to call this maniac down marginally, well maybe that maniac has a slightly better hand! But people who are reading this are definitely not maniacs, if you can use the similar concept of applying aggression, it will be definitely be profitable in a long run. Properly timed aggression is the key to improving your winrates in addition to exploiting villian's mistakes.
Another point is that aggression makes you much harder to play against. If you are a loose raiser, you are going to get a lot more loose calls. It opens up your overall game when people know you are capable of a lot of things. I've stressed before that every time you apply aggression, it only makes it tougher for villian to play correctly against you. I used to worry about the aggro regulars, but since I have increased my aggression and show them what I am capable of, they are no longer a huge threat to me. I actually think over a long run, I should be winning against most of the guys I sit with.
So keep in mind why poker is profitable and make only profitable plays. Realize that the little things matter the most. Poker isn't about winning BIs, it's about making profitable decisions. These decisions should definitely incorporate a lot of aggression. This is very vital to understand as a successful player.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)