Last night's game had so-so results for me, as I ended up + $20 for the night. The players were Justin, John, Eric, Marc, Dale, Trey, Jesse, and me. I got reduced to very low chips early on when, in a pot against Trey, I put all of my chips into the pot with an overpair of tens. I was called by his 62, for bottom pair of sixes and a backdoor straight draw. Sure enough, he backdoored the straight. In fact, Trey caught a miracle two pair against Jesse for all of the chips a few hands later when his second pair of nines with the four kicker improved on the river.
This was made up for somewhat a little later on, when Trey put $25 into the pot preflop as dead money to stimulate action. I was dealing, and Dale told me that if he got two aces and won the pot he'd split it with me. A player raised before him, and Dale shoved his stack in the middle. The opposition folded, and miraculously enough, he showed the AA and I got a free thirteen bucks out of it.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
another day
Haven't been updating the past few days, but that will change soon. Tonight's the Friday Game, which is always promising. I played a little bit last night with some of the Friday crowd and ended up with about twelve bucks in profit. However, never before have I seen the deck being so vicious to one person. Eric took several devastating beats over the course of the evening, getting all-in with huge advantages and getting sucked out on, usually on the river. On one flop, he and his opponent both had top pair of aces. Eric had a queen kicker, while Trey had a four kicker. There was one low card on the flop, all the money went in, and Trey backdoored a straight. In another Eric vs. Trey hand, Eric held pocket kings on a 235 flop and got Trey to again call him all in. Trey held the Q5, and was a serious underdog, but of course the queen fell on fifth street. These are only two examples, but all of them were Eric vs. Trey confrontations, and the deck was running Trey over last night. Hopefully, his luck has temporarily run out, because as long as the money keeps getting in there on slim odds, his opponents (esp. me) will profit in the long term.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
implied odds
I played in a home game last night that consisted of John, Lee, Jesse, Dale, Eric, Josh, and me (as always, see previous blogs for more info on some of these players). It was a pretty sweet deal, and was basically in a way a continuation of the Friday Night game, since so many of the same faces were there. We played until almost 3 in the morning, but it was a pretty good game, and I ended up with almost $40 in profit.
However, what I wanted to discuss here is actually a hand from Friday's game. About four players limped in, and I was on the small blind with the 9T offsuit, and completed the blind. Eric, to my left, checked his option, and the flop came 378, giving me two overs and an up-and-down straight draw. I decided to play the hand aggressively (after all, if you're going to play a hand, play it), and check-raised the flop, leaving only Eric and I contesting the pot when fourth street came off. It was a red ace, meaning no flushes would be possible in the hand. Continuing my aggression from the previous street, I bet out $2, and Eric raised $3 more. I wasn't happy that he was raising, but even if he flat-called, I'd have to figure I was behind in the hand. However, his raise was, in my opinion, so small that I had to continue to draw to my straight, and I called the $3. The river was a jack, giving me the best possible hand, a jack-high straight. I led out for $5, and was raised $5 more by Eric. I called, showing him the nuts, and took the pot down. Eric, frustrated, showed A8 for top two and mucked.
He contends that I shouldn't have called his $3 raise on the turn, since I wasn't getting the necessary odds to draw to only eight outs. Let's leave aside the fact that I don't think he's calculating/remembering the size of the pot correctly, and presume he was correct in that. I still think it was correct for me to draw to my straight. Eric contends that the pot was $10.50 when I had to call the $3, in which case I'd be getting 3.5 : 1 pot odds, where I was a 4.75 :1 underdog to hit my hand. However, Eric is not taking into consideration the implied odds. That is, it becomes correct for me to take slightly unfavorable odds if I know I can make up the difference on the next round if I make my hand. As it turns out, the difference if the pot was $10.50 is only $3.75. As the reader will recall from my example, I made $10 on the river. Actually, In my opinion, the biggest error I made in the hand was not shoving all-in (or at least reraising) on the river.
In order to keep me from drawing to my hand, a bigger raise on the turn would have done it. Also, shoving after my checkraise on the flop would have forced me to fold. All in all, I think I played it okay, though it's still a subject of debate. Of course, I won't be the one to explain implied odds to my opponents...
However, what I wanted to discuss here is actually a hand from Friday's game. About four players limped in, and I was on the small blind with the 9T offsuit, and completed the blind. Eric, to my left, checked his option, and the flop came 378, giving me two overs and an up-and-down straight draw. I decided to play the hand aggressively (after all, if you're going to play a hand, play it), and check-raised the flop, leaving only Eric and I contesting the pot when fourth street came off. It was a red ace, meaning no flushes would be possible in the hand. Continuing my aggression from the previous street, I bet out $2, and Eric raised $3 more. I wasn't happy that he was raising, but even if he flat-called, I'd have to figure I was behind in the hand. However, his raise was, in my opinion, so small that I had to continue to draw to my straight, and I called the $3. The river was a jack, giving me the best possible hand, a jack-high straight. I led out for $5, and was raised $5 more by Eric. I called, showing him the nuts, and took the pot down. Eric, frustrated, showed A8 for top two and mucked.
He contends that I shouldn't have called his $3 raise on the turn, since I wasn't getting the necessary odds to draw to only eight outs. Let's leave aside the fact that I don't think he's calculating/remembering the size of the pot correctly, and presume he was correct in that. I still think it was correct for me to draw to my straight. Eric contends that the pot was $10.50 when I had to call the $3, in which case I'd be getting 3.5 : 1 pot odds, where I was a 4.75 :1 underdog to hit my hand. However, Eric is not taking into consideration the implied odds. That is, it becomes correct for me to take slightly unfavorable odds if I know I can make up the difference on the next round if I make my hand. As it turns out, the difference if the pot was $10.50 is only $3.75. As the reader will recall from my example, I made $10 on the river. Actually, In my opinion, the biggest error I made in the hand was not shoving all-in (or at least reraising) on the river.
In order to keep me from drawing to my hand, a bigger raise on the turn would have done it. Also, shoving after my checkraise on the flop would have forced me to fold. All in all, I think I played it okay, though it's still a subject of debate. Of course, I won't be the one to explain implied odds to my opponents...
Saturday, March 22, 2008
A long night at the office
Last night's Friday Night game was a nail-biter for me. Though I was able to eke out a $24 win, it took several buy-ins for me to get right in this game. The players were Eric, Marc, Jesse, Dale, Lee, Trey, John, and myself. I made a couple of questionable plays and ended up stacking off early to Trey in the beginning of the game, which is frustrating because he's a totally crazy player, so it's easy not to give him credit for a hand. That's why they say players make the most money when playing opposite their style. When Trey is in a pot, he's usually playing like a maniac, and is either bluffing or has a marginal hand he should've been rid of earlier. This fact means that when he does pick up some real cards, he's likely to get paid more for them than the rest of us. This is the trap I fell into.
However, after reloading (actually a couple of times), I began to right myself. I was pushed off of a hand by Jesse, but got revenge a little later on when I bluffed him with AK on a flop of J99. Lee and Jesse did fairly well overall last night, with Eric, Trey, and myself, Marc, Eric, and Trey ending up + or - 25ish bucks. John and Dale were the big contributors last night, but in all fairness I have to say that John got cold-decked super hard - not only was he not getting many big hands, but when he did they were getting cracked. I'd really like to see this turn around for him in the next game, but of course not if it's to my detriment.
Overall, though, I'm up a good bit in the game, and have no serious complaints. I've still either won every time I've gone to the Friday game, or sustained a one-figure loss, which is entirely fadeable. If I can keep this trend up, I'll be satisfied. It would be nice to score another $100+ win, of course.
However, after reloading (actually a couple of times), I began to right myself. I was pushed off of a hand by Jesse, but got revenge a little later on when I bluffed him with AK on a flop of J99. Lee and Jesse did fairly well overall last night, with Eric, Trey, and myself, Marc, Eric, and Trey ending up + or - 25ish bucks. John and Dale were the big contributors last night, but in all fairness I have to say that John got cold-decked super hard - not only was he not getting many big hands, but when he did they were getting cracked. I'd really like to see this turn around for him in the next game, but of course not if it's to my detriment.
Overall, though, I'm up a good bit in the game, and have no serious complaints. I've still either won every time I've gone to the Friday game, or sustained a one-figure loss, which is entirely fadeable. If I can keep this trend up, I'll be satisfied. It would be nice to score another $100+ win, of course.
Friday, March 21, 2008
A bit of advice for new players
The bad beat at the bottom of last post reminds me. I've often been playing and seen players justify drawing at slim odds by saying "I only needed one card to make my hand." I want to examine this thinking, because not only is it the wrong way to approach drawing to hands, but saying something like this at the table immediately lets the experienced players at the table know they're up against a novice.
For those of you who read the post where I talked about not putting your money in as a huge dog, I'm not attempting to insult anyone's intelligence here - I see this kind of thing at the table all the time.
Okay, so let's back up a little bit. When a player says they only need one more card to make their hand, it means they have either four cards of a suit and are drawing to a flush, or they have four parts of a straight, usually a gutshot. However, in both of these situations, especially with only one or two cards coming, the person who "only needs one more" is usually a huge underdog to win the hand. Not only that, by calling and drawing to these longshot hands, they are giving their money away in the long run. Here's an example -
Say you're playing no-limit hold'em, and the pot is heads-up. It's the turn, and you have four cards to a flush. Let's also assume that there's $100 in the pot, and $100 left in your stack (we're using round numbers to simplify the example). You feel that you have to actually hit the flush in order to win the hand. If your opponent bets $100, you should absolutely always fold.
Good poker players understand that when you have a straight or flush draw, you "only need one more." The relevant question though, is how likely you are to get it. With four parts of a flush on the turn, we've seen six cards (four on board and two in the hole). Thus, there are 46 unknown cards left, and nine of them make our flush. Therefore, we'll win this pot only nine out of forty-six times, on average, or about one out of five times (20%). This makes calling a losing proposition, as we can see below:
If we call the $100, four out of five times we'll lose that $100, but one of five times we'll win $200 (the pot plus our opponent's $100 bet). Mathematically, we can calculate the long term expected value, on average, for calling with the four flush:
[ (4/5) x (-$100) ] + [ (1/5) x (+$200) ] = ?
( - $80 ) + ( + $40 ) = -$40
so, we could expect to lose $40 on average each time we call in this spot.
essentially, calling to draw to the flush there is equivalent to giving away $40.
This whole argument is the reason people say "don't draw to inside straights." Although that maxim is not always correct, the instinct to stay away from longshots is correct. The pot has to be offering you extremely good odds. In the flush example, your opponent's bet would have to be considerably less in order for you to correctly draw to your flush, or you would have to be able to make up the difference in pot odds with future betting if you make your hand.
The biggest reason I'm highlighting all of this, is that the number one mistake from inexperienced players is unnecessary looseness in hand selection and postflop play, and it makes them marks. There is no way to be a good poker player if you don't get your money in there when it's good, and avoid putting it in there when you don't have the best of it. Maximize your mathematical expectation. That's the whole game.
For those of you who read the post where I talked about not putting your money in as a huge dog, I'm not attempting to insult anyone's intelligence here - I see this kind of thing at the table all the time.
Okay, so let's back up a little bit. When a player says they only need one more card to make their hand, it means they have either four cards of a suit and are drawing to a flush, or they have four parts of a straight, usually a gutshot. However, in both of these situations, especially with only one or two cards coming, the person who "only needs one more" is usually a huge underdog to win the hand. Not only that, by calling and drawing to these longshot hands, they are giving their money away in the long run. Here's an example -
Say you're playing no-limit hold'em, and the pot is heads-up. It's the turn, and you have four cards to a flush. Let's also assume that there's $100 in the pot, and $100 left in your stack (we're using round numbers to simplify the example). You feel that you have to actually hit the flush in order to win the hand. If your opponent bets $100, you should absolutely always fold.
Good poker players understand that when you have a straight or flush draw, you "only need one more." The relevant question though, is how likely you are to get it. With four parts of a flush on the turn, we've seen six cards (four on board and two in the hole). Thus, there are 46 unknown cards left, and nine of them make our flush. Therefore, we'll win this pot only nine out of forty-six times, on average, or about one out of five times (20%). This makes calling a losing proposition, as we can see below:
If we call the $100, four out of five times we'll lose that $100, but one of five times we'll win $200 (the pot plus our opponent's $100 bet). Mathematically, we can calculate the long term expected value, on average, for calling with the four flush:
[ (4/5) x (-$100) ] + [ (1/5) x (+$200) ] = ?
( - $80 ) + ( + $40 ) = -$40
so, we could expect to lose $40 on average each time we call in this spot.
essentially, calling to draw to the flush there is equivalent to giving away $40.
This whole argument is the reason people say "don't draw to inside straights." Although that maxim is not always correct, the instinct to stay away from longshots is correct. The pot has to be offering you extremely good odds. In the flush example, your opponent's bet would have to be considerably less in order for you to correctly draw to your flush, or you would have to be able to make up the difference in pot odds with future betting if you make your hand.
The biggest reason I'm highlighting all of this, is that the number one mistake from inexperienced players is unnecessary looseness in hand selection and postflop play, and it makes them marks. There is no way to be a good poker player if you don't get your money in there when it's good, and avoid putting it in there when you don't have the best of it. Maximize your mathematical expectation. That's the whole game.
broadway beats bullets
Last night, the game wasn't all that much to write home about. I didn't lose anything, and indeed thought I played pretty well at the beginning of the night, but it was only four-handed, and we were all initially in there on $10 stakes. Also, it was a bit uncomfortable, as one of the players in the game was dealing with personal issues at the time and basically arrived on tilt.
Normally, of course, I wouldn't care about this at the table, and I don't think my opponents would either, but knowing the guy I legitimately felt bad for him and told him I didn't think this was the best time for him to be playing since his head wasn't in the game.
Still, I finished up twelve bucks and had an allright time getting it, so I'll be confident going into tonight's Friday Night Game that I can win some more serious cash.
I'd put in some details about the various hands that played out, but nothing really climactic happened last night, and I'll save it for another game.
Also, someone finally commented on the blog (thanks Julie)! I knew it would happen eventually.
Featured Bad Beat:
Me: AT of spades
Marc: 22
Flop: A34
Turn: J
River: 5
Normally, of course, I wouldn't care about this at the table, and I don't think my opponents would either, but knowing the guy I legitimately felt bad for him and told him I didn't think this was the best time for him to be playing since his head wasn't in the game.
Still, I finished up twelve bucks and had an allright time getting it, so I'll be confident going into tonight's Friday Night Game that I can win some more serious cash.
I'd put in some details about the various hands that played out, but nothing really climactic happened last night, and I'll save it for another game.
Also, someone finally commented on the blog (thanks Julie)! I knew it would happen eventually.
Featured Bad Beat:
Me: AT of spades
Marc: 22
Flop: A34
Turn: J
River: 5
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
a st. patrick's day win
Yesterday's Monday Night Game was another great one for me. A surprising amount of players got some brutal beats in the tournament, and fortunately I was able to spike a nine on the flop for a set of trips against Marc's pocket kings and double my chips early, avoiding the pressure of the blinds for a while.
Marc, who is usually the perpetrator of bad beats rather than the recipient, was cold-decked several times during the tournament. Not only were his kings cracked by my nines, but later in the tournament he doubled Chris up, giving up the chip lead he held all evening and putting Chris behind a monster stack. This occurred when again Marc held the kings! This time, his opponent held KJ of clubs and made a flush (Marc was over 85% to win the hand preflop). Perhaps even more harsh was the hand that eliminated Marc in third place, when he held the AA and got all-in with top set on the flop, only to see his opponent call him with a ten-high flush draw, and rather than hit the flush, Chris backdoored a straight against him.
The final hand occurred between Chris and I:
ME:
CHRIS:
BOARD
Monday, March 17, 2008
A dual victory
Last night, Lee and I went to a local card club and played in both a $20 sit n' go and a $1-2 mixed cash game. The SNG was a lot of fun, but had a quick (in my opinion) blind structure, at 20 minutes per level. The starting stacks were 10K with blinds of 100-200, and unlimited rebuys during the first three levels for anyone below 2K in chips willing to pay $10. Also, there was an optional add-on at the end of level three.
There were ten players in the tournament, and of course I started off playing tight, sound poker until I had an idea of how my opponents were playing. However, the blinds got up there pretty quickly, and eventually I made a move, coming over the top of an open-raise for all of my chips with pocket tens. I was called, and lost the ensuing coinflip, ending up pretty short on chips by the time the rebuy period ended. For this reason, as well as the fact that seven other players were adding on, I decided to take the add-on option and spend $15 for 15K more in tournament chips. Although these chips were slightly more expensive than the starting chips, I was looking at a stack of only 6-7K with blinds at 400-800. Even with the add-on, I was still technically in Harrington's "yellow zone." Blinds kept escalating, and eventually it got down to five or six-handed play.
I was opening my play up at this point, since there was 1.5K or so out there before anyone had acted. This enabled me to pick up the blinds quite a few times, and when I was called by the (slightly larger than my own) short stack, they held QJ against my A7s, and when I caught my ace on the turn I picked up a nice pot. After stacking off an opponent whose TT vs. my AK lost to a brutal river ace, we were very soon three-handed. A player asked to make a deal for a three-way chop of the prize pool, and everyone obliged, being nearly even in chips with blinds of 4K-8K.
After the game, a $1-2 mixed side game opened up, with one round of no-limit hold'em followed by one round of pot-limit omaha. I waited two rounds after the game began to see how the players were playing before buying in, as well as to give myself a mental breather after the end of the tournament. I bought in, and played less than three or four rounds of the button when my ride took back-to-back icy beats in Omaha and went bust. After a fortunate hand for me in which I turned the nut straight with a flush draw to the queen, I stood up from the game $15 winner plus the money from the tournament, and went home feeling I had done particularly well.
There were ten players in the tournament, and of course I started off playing tight, sound poker until I had an idea of how my opponents were playing. However, the blinds got up there pretty quickly, and eventually I made a move, coming over the top of an open-raise for all of my chips with pocket tens. I was called, and lost the ensuing coinflip, ending up pretty short on chips by the time the rebuy period ended. For this reason, as well as the fact that seven other players were adding on, I decided to take the add-on option and spend $15 for 15K more in tournament chips. Although these chips were slightly more expensive than the starting chips, I was looking at a stack of only 6-7K with blinds at 400-800. Even with the add-on, I was still technically in Harrington's "yellow zone." Blinds kept escalating, and eventually it got down to five or six-handed play.
I was opening my play up at this point, since there was 1.5K or so out there before anyone had acted. This enabled me to pick up the blinds quite a few times, and when I was called by the (slightly larger than my own) short stack, they held QJ against my A7s, and when I caught my ace on the turn I picked up a nice pot. After stacking off an opponent whose TT vs. my AK lost to a brutal river ace, we were very soon three-handed. A player asked to make a deal for a three-way chop of the prize pool, and everyone obliged, being nearly even in chips with blinds of 4K-8K.
After the game, a $1-2 mixed side game opened up, with one round of no-limit hold'em followed by one round of pot-limit omaha. I waited two rounds after the game began to see how the players were playing before buying in, as well as to give myself a mental breather after the end of the tournament. I bought in, and played less than three or four rounds of the button when my ride took back-to-back icy beats in Omaha and went bust. After a fortunate hand for me in which I turned the nut straight with a flush draw to the queen, I stood up from the game $15 winner plus the money from the tournament, and went home feeling I had done particularly well.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Please don't put all your money in as a 41 to 3 underdog if you want to win at poker
Well, despite the title of this post, my last game was a winning session. However, it almost wasn't. I was playing all right, and I got into a pot where I was on the button against Marc. I called in position before the flop with the KQ suited. The flop came KJT, with no suits, and as Marc bet out, I knew I had a superior hand. He bet out about $2 , and I raised him up to $6 or $7, which he eventually called. At this point, the pot was getting on up there, about $20. I decided that Marc was calling light and I decided that if a king or a blank arrived on the turn, I was really going to apply the pressure. Lo and behold, a black six arrived on the turn. Marc checked to me, and I went all-in for about $28. He called, but didn't turn over his hand when I showed my KQ, which let me know he was still drawing. When the queen came on the river, I knew he had hit broadway. He declared "straight" and scooped the pot, showing Ace-four! His only outs were the queens, one of which I held.
Poker does interesting things to your mind. If I went up to someone on the street and said "I'll bet you $28 even money that you can cut the deck and it won't be a queen" they'd be insane to take you up on that. In poker, people do that kind of stuff, and sometimes they cut to the queen. However, as long as they keep cutting the deck, you'll get your $28 back eventually. Actually, the "cut-to-the-queen" proposition has one advantage over the draw to broadway, in that all four queens would still be in the deck. Of course, there would also be no pot from future streets to win in addition to the $28.
And, as a matter of fact, I was able to reload for $40 and stage a solid comeback, winning back my initial $40 and a $40 profit by the end of the night.
Poker does interesting things to your mind. If I went up to someone on the street and said "I'll bet you $28 even money that you can cut the deck and it won't be a queen" they'd be insane to take you up on that. In poker, people do that kind of stuff, and sometimes they cut to the queen. However, as long as they keep cutting the deck, you'll get your $28 back eventually. Actually, the "cut-to-the-queen" proposition has one advantage over the draw to broadway, in that all four queens would still be in the deck. Of course, there would also be no pot from future streets to win in addition to the $28.
And, as a matter of fact, I was able to reload for $40 and stage a solid comeback, winning back my initial $40 and a $40 profit by the end of the night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
