Originally dated January 31, 2008
Current mood: creative
Category: Games
The game went really, really well last night. It ended up being only four-handed, which I didn't like since it forced me to play more hands (see previous blog). This made some of my decisions more borderline, but it still worked out fairly well in the end, because the most that was in play was 110, and I took home 89.15 of it.
One of the biggest pots I took down, toward the middle of the game, was a three-barrel-bluff with the nine-ten of clubs, with which I had seen a pot in the big blind. I picked up a flush draw which didn't get there, but by betting every street I showed a lot of strength and I believed I could get busted draws, and perhaps even top pair with a weak kicker to fold here - and both of those are very likely holdings for the other players when they reluctantly call you to the river like that. Sometimes they will even show up with second pair, or third pair when it's wired. However, it's still pretty hard to call a good-sized river bet there, especially if it constitutes a big part of your stack (and you won't buy more chips). I know I had gone into the game not planning to bluff much, but the pot's size in this spot inticed me.
Though I believe it was mostly by sticking to the plan that I made the money last night, rather than this specific play, I did want to bring up two related points about that pot:
(1) In Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, Sklansky argues that it is worth deviating from optimal strategy in the early rounds if it will cause your opponents to make costly errors later when the stakes rise. This is completely true, as the pots will be played for more and more as the blinds increase. But it's not always just true in tournaments. In some cash games, the play gets looser as the night wears on. This happens because players come to games mentally prepared, with a plan to play good solid poker. But as the night wears on and the keep seeing marginally playable hands and get put in tough spots, their natural tendencies surface. Also, the players in my game rebuy almost as a principle, so more chips are coming into play gradually, and by the end of the night there can be triple what there was at the beginning on the table. This creates looser play and bigger pots. In fact, at .05-.10, we were opening at around .30 or .40, but by the end .50-.65 were the stanard bet.
(2) Players should try to be cognizant of the importance of momentum in a poker game. I think the relevance of momentum increases in inverse proportion to the number of players, and in direct proportion to those players' aggression. It's a little tough to define, but in poker momentum occurs when a player, because of some factor - usually either that he/she is playing very well, is intimidating the other players, is being aggressive, or is just plain getting run over by the deck - is given more repect/credit for his/her bets by the other players, who are attempting to stay out of his/her way for the time being unless they pick up some good cards. In these occaisons, it becomes easier to pick up small to medium-sized pots in position either before or on the flop. And since you're raising frequently, against opponents who might suspect you're betting light, you'll get paid off more on your big hands.
Momentum was a part of the reason I showed the bluff at the end - to let everyone know I was capable of high-risk plays, provided I knew I was in a good spot. Since I'm mostly playing tight and the other players know that anyway, I can't let everyone think I'm in there with only the nuts or I'll never get paid off. What good would showing the best possible hand have been, had I had it, in that spot? It would've proven to my opponents that they had made a good fold, and given them confidence. I wanted to do the opposite.
Currently listening : Apostrophe (’) By Frank Zappa
Release date: 18 April, 1995
Current mood: creative
Category: Games
The game went really, really well last night. It ended up being only four-handed, which I didn't like since it forced me to play more hands (see previous blog). This made some of my decisions more borderline, but it still worked out fairly well in the end, because the most that was in play was 110, and I took home 89.15 of it.
One of the biggest pots I took down, toward the middle of the game, was a three-barrel-bluff with the nine-ten of clubs, with which I had seen a pot in the big blind. I picked up a flush draw which didn't get there, but by betting every street I showed a lot of strength and I believed I could get busted draws, and perhaps even top pair with a weak kicker to fold here - and both of those are very likely holdings for the other players when they reluctantly call you to the river like that. Sometimes they will even show up with second pair, or third pair when it's wired. However, it's still pretty hard to call a good-sized river bet there, especially if it constitutes a big part of your stack (and you won't buy more chips). I know I had gone into the game not planning to bluff much, but the pot's size in this spot inticed me.
Though I believe it was mostly by sticking to the plan that I made the money last night, rather than this specific play, I did want to bring up two related points about that pot:
(1) In Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, Sklansky argues that it is worth deviating from optimal strategy in the early rounds if it will cause your opponents to make costly errors later when the stakes rise. This is completely true, as the pots will be played for more and more as the blinds increase. But it's not always just true in tournaments. In some cash games, the play gets looser as the night wears on. This happens because players come to games mentally prepared, with a plan to play good solid poker. But as the night wears on and the keep seeing marginally playable hands and get put in tough spots, their natural tendencies surface. Also, the players in my game rebuy almost as a principle, so more chips are coming into play gradually, and by the end of the night there can be triple what there was at the beginning on the table. This creates looser play and bigger pots. In fact, at .05-.10, we were opening at around .30 or .40, but by the end .50-.65 were the stanard bet.
(2) Players should try to be cognizant of the importance of momentum in a poker game. I think the relevance of momentum increases in inverse proportion to the number of players, and in direct proportion to those players' aggression. It's a little tough to define, but in poker momentum occurs when a player, because of some factor - usually either that he/she is playing very well, is intimidating the other players, is being aggressive, or is just plain getting run over by the deck - is given more repect/credit for his/her bets by the other players, who are attempting to stay out of his/her way for the time being unless they pick up some good cards. In these occaisons, it becomes easier to pick up small to medium-sized pots in position either before or on the flop. And since you're raising frequently, against opponents who might suspect you're betting light, you'll get paid off more on your big hands.
Momentum was a part of the reason I showed the bluff at the end - to let everyone know I was capable of high-risk plays, provided I knew I was in a good spot. Since I'm mostly playing tight and the other players know that anyway, I can't let everyone think I'm in there with only the nuts or I'll never get paid off. What good would showing the best possible hand have been, had I had it, in that spot? It would've proven to my opponents that they had made a good fold, and given them confidence. I wanted to do the opposite.
Currently listening : Apostrophe (’) By Frank Zappa
Release date: 18 April, 1995
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment