Ups and downs

I've come to the conclusion that I can survive, albeit tightly, on $300 US a week, so that's become my Empire Poker target, from Friday to Friday. It doesn't seem that difficult, right?

I would have passed it last night, but I couldn't resist the $50,000 Guaranteed. There were 184 entries at $150+12 each, for a grand total of $29,808. Yes, that means over $20K in overlay - more than one hundred for each entry! As I say, I couldn't resist.

The tournament is limit hold 'em, a game I clearly have yet to master. The first tiem I tried one there, I made it to 74th out of 175th, but never had any sort of chips. This time, I tried to be a little looser early on, play my very good pockets much harder - and went out 175th, in about forty minutes. My trouble with limit, I think, is that I haven't figured out how to adjust to the looser players. In no- or pot-limit, those players can be forced out of hands they don't belong in, or they don't last very long at all. In limit, there are six players seeing every flop, and three playing right to the river, every time. They pass around pots worth ten or twelve big bets, to whomever managed to find a river or had the best pocket to begin with (while I'm folding better, but not great, hands in the face of this betting) no one gets ahead, and everyone plays on.

If anyone knows of some resources on how to play limit tournaments, feel encouraged to e-mail along the links or book names.

Speaking of which, e-mail addresses are now available to reach Rod and I - look to the left if you'd like to reach us.
Comment posted by Don at 10:39 AM

 
Following Don to the B&M;

This week I followed in the footsteps of the intrepid adventurer Don, and played in my first live event at a Brick & Mortar casino. I had gone to watch him play previously, so I thought I knew what to expect, but I discovered that actually playing was different from my expectations.

Having only played online before, I had visualized live play as being slow to the point of tedium; after all, a fast game online can buzz through ninety to one hundred and twenty hands per hour, whereas in a live game you might expect roughly a third as many hands in the same time. What I had neglected to consider, though, was that most of the extra time in live play occurs during the shuffle and distributing the pot. The actual play of the hand is as quick if not quicker than you'll find online, for the most part. The largest adjustment, however, was the lack of discrete information which is always available to you in online play. Consider for a moment the standard screen at an online poker server - at a glance you can see exactly how many chips each player has, the precise value of the pot and whose turn it is to act upon their hand. Online, you can automatically post your blinds, bet with the click of a mouse, use the pre-action buttons to select your course of action when play comes around to you, etc. None of these options are available in live casino play; what it essentially comes down to is that you are forced to PAY ATTENTION. You must be present in the moment, constantly, lest your actions (or inaction) create an embarrassing scene. I was fortunate to be at a table where there was another (presumably) new player who acted out of turn and repeatedly bet improper increments (this was a limit hold 'em tournament), so I think most of the table's attention was taken up by him, leaving my inexperience somewhat unexposed.

Well, I suppose I've put off the results for long enough. I ended up finishing 33rd of 51 players, washing out of play about 90 minutes in. The format was $10+$2 for entry and 500 chips, with $10 rebuys of 500 chips available in the first hour if you were under 1001 chips. The blinds started at 25 and 25, escalating to 25 and 50 after 15 minutes, which I found to be quite high considering our starting supply of chips. I rebought once, and the tournament average was two rebuys per player (51 entries and 101 rebuys). The top six places paid out, so I was certainly no threat to walk out with cash, but despite my relatively low finish, I feel that I played well. I folded borderline hands without regret, reasoning that I'd take my chances with quality holdings or not at all. I only played four hands outside of the blinds throughout, and lost most of my chips shortly after the rebuy period ended in the following hand, my one lapse for the day:

I was in the big blind with the blinds at 100 and 200, and had 1900 chips in front of me. I had A8os, and one limper and the small blind saw the flop: A-6-3 rainbow. The small blind checked, and I bet out. The limper in middle position folded, and the small blind called. The turn brought another 8 to give me the top two pairs, and mentally I checked out of the hand there, determined to bet and raise at every opportunity. The small blind checked, I bet, and he called. The river card was a brick. The small blind checked, I bet out confidently, and then the "unthinkable" happened: the small blind raised! Of course, you likely saw this coming from a long way off, and I should have too, but I had committed the cardinal sin of getting married to a borderline hand and didn't consider what my opponent could have been staying in with. Dazed, I looked at my remaining chips: enough to call his raise and post another set of blinds. I called (error number two, but I was in autopilot-shock mode now), and he turned over the pocket sixes he'd slow played since the flop, his trips laying in wait for my rash decision. Needless to say, I was blinded out on the next orbit.

I left shortly thereafter, taking a long walk to reflect upon my play. I was very satisfied except for the one hand where my judgment lapsed. Then it dawned on me that playing well 95% or 99% of the time isn't enough; every single decision you make at the poker table must be a considered judgment, not a reaction based on emotion. Betting that hand on the river was pointless - if he couldn't beat me, he'd fold, and if he had me beat, I'd lose two big bets I could have kept by checking. Don had brought a similar error of mine to my attention when we'd last gotten together to play online at an internet cafe, and I had accepted his advice as valid, but chalked my action up to a mental hiccough. Apparently it wasn't an aberration, but rather a gaping hole in my play; one which had essentially taken me out of the tournament in a single hand. Despite the pain of this realization, I think that was enough to drive home the lesson; ALWAYS think about what you could be up against in a hand, and don't make robotic, unthinking bets. I'll try to listen to my own advice, too.

Comment posted by Rod at 6:36 PM

 
An interesting Saturday at the B&M;

Unlike my first couple of attempts at the Cash Casino tournament, for the first time I felt like I was in my element - playing players who were reasonably tight and smart, to make hands more than a bad beat crapshoot. Unfortunately, that also meant there weren't a lot of rebuys at our table - I think there were players elsewhere in the tournament who individually took as many rebuys as my entire table. This didn't give us a lot of chips to work with as the big blind reached 20% of our initial buy-in, at the point the rebuys closed. I alliviated that problem somewhat by playing well, going without a rebuy, and going into the break with about 3500 chips to my initial 1000. - took my add-on worth 2000 chips, though I wonder still about the strategic value of that. At what point do I have enough chips to give a pass to the add-on?

The pressure at my table lowered somewhat when a couple of big stacks attached to speculative players moved over shortly after the break, and spread the love around. I didn't take any chips from either of them directly, but many extra chips made their way to me when I hit a bicycle straight from the BB on the flop with two rags I would never have played if anyone had actually bet out. I still regret not playing it more slowly (I check-raised on the flop, and wonder now if I should have smooth-called), but that was a small error, and I've never lost a hand when the other player folds.

I ended up being reseated from that table with about 9000 in chips, and added another four or five quickly at my new spot. But then came the hand that was the break point for the tournament for me. Middle position, blinds at 500/1000, I took my big stack out for a spin with an A-10 suited to clubs, and raised it to three, which had become the standard pre-flop raise at this table. The player to my left went overtop, all-in with 5000. 9500 chips on the table, and another 2000 to take my shot at creating a stack that should get me to the final table - I called.

We flipped them over - he showed an unsuited KQ - neither a club. I suspected myself a marginal favourite here - Poker Savvy's Hand analysis says I was a nearly 60-40 favourite. The flop came K-Q-4, the top and the bottom in clubs. I saw the two pair and thought I was screwed, but all that happened was the odds reversed - I became a 40-60 dog. It was enough - two blanks held up my opponent's pairs, no matter what Poker Savvy tells me.

This was a moment when I tilted. My stack, while not very impressive after a set of blinds, was still plenty playable, but I took a flyer on an A2s and got caught by an AJo. I ended up four-flushed on the flop with a gutshot by the turn, but all the outs in the world didn't make that play any less weak and tilty. Out 23rd of 58, but I felt very good about my play, and with no rebuys, it was a cheap crack at a big prize. If I play that well in the first session every week, they won't keep me off the top table forever.
Comment posted by Don at 2:59 PM

 
Ruminations on Hold 'em - what limits should I play?

First, let me apologize to Don for sitting back while he makes all of the creative output to these pages; life often gets in the way of the important things like a) playing poker and b) writing about it. Today I'm going along to cheer Don on at the B&M; tournament which he's been playing in on Saturdays for the last couple of weeks. I've never played live poker, and am a little reluctant to jump in at the level they play at on Saturday, but rumour has it that they have a tournament every day, and at lower buy-ins, so I'll keep you all posted should I enter one of them.

Recently I've started reading Killer Poker - Strategy and Tactics for Winning Poker Play by John Vorhaus. It is not your usual poker book, in that it won't tell you how to play specific hands or give you odds on drawing to that flush; rather, he focuses on the importance of your own attitude and expectations when playing poker, and how your play will depend upon how you approach playing. There are a multitude of topics which he touches upon, but I'd like to highlight one that really made me stop and think.

We all have limits that we are comfortable playing, whether it be in a ring game, a sit-and-go tournament, or a multi-table tournament. Mr. Vorhaus acknowledges this, and then makes a very useful suggestion: he tells the reader to decide what their "gulp limit" is. He defines the gulp limit as the point at which your play is affected because you are playing with more money than you are comfortable with. I had understood this to some degree before reading the book, as online I've occasionally jumped up beyond my normal limits (and usually been thrown back a short time later, dazed and bloodied), but I hadn't sat down and examined what limits I felt comfortable with and why. Mr. Vorhaus believes that a player must take improving their game seriously, and that part of this is writing down all of their thoughts on poker, from the way they play the game to their strengths and weaknesses. Here's what I wrote about my "gulp limit."

My gulp limit is $2-$4. I can play there, but I don't feel very comfortable. I will not play above that yet, as my bankroll can't take the swings at that level. $.50-$1 seems about right for me now - anything less and I tend to relax (but I must pay attention to this - it's still real $$, and perhaps some focused play at $.25-$.50 would be good reinforcement for my attitude). $1-$2 is playable - I am more careful about ensuring it's a 'good game' than I usually am, as my stake is currently about 150 BB at that level, and a 200 BB cushion is more appropriate to handle downswings.

So far as tournament play goes, My maximum multi-table tournament entry fee online is $20 (+$2). Anything more than that, and I'm playing scared (particularly at no-limit). Even at that level, I feel somewhat uncomfortable, so perhaps $10 (+$1) would be better. Rebuy tournaments change that drastically - I've only played in $3+0 Rebuys, and done quite well, winning two TEC's (Tournament Entry Chips on UB - worth $100+$9 toward entry in an event) in about 15 attempts. Hmmm, here's where better records would be useful; I must track all of my results so I know these stats, and aren't guessing. I don't play very many tournaments, particularly lately, and whatever successes I've had have been fairly limited apart from the TEC tournies. I think I play a tighter game than most people in rebuy and addon events - I've only added on once or twice as well - I figure if I can finish an hour's play at 4000 chips, the difference between that and 5000 chips is minimal, and certainly not worth another $3 from me, as any hand can potentially double up for free.

For single-table tournaments, I've played almost exclusively at the $5+$.50 tables (both 10-seated and 6-seated); I believe I've played at the $10+$1 level twice (with one first place, 10-seated). An idea while I think of it - should I continue to play in the SNG tournaments, it would be worthwhile to track all results to see if I have a propensity for doing better with fewer or more players. For that matter, the same statistic should be applied to regular ring games.

So, I took Mr. Vorhaus seriously and took the time to write down some of my thoughts about my gulp limit, and in so doing sparked some very useful self-examination, which can only be useful to a poker player. I think that if you are willing to put in some work and be very honest with yourself, this book will help you assess your strengths and weaknesses, and help to eliminate the latter.
Comment posted by Rod at 9:43 AM

 
Strong and confident - Saturday should take care of that

I have one more week to build up my backroll before my day job disappears on me. As far as I'm concerned, no job means I have a sizable bankroll and confidence to let it self-generate while I look for other work - there's no way I'll put EI money into poker. Well, Poker Tracker tells me I'm running around 7.5 big bets per 100 hands on the Empire 3/6s, most of which came playing two tables at a time - after just 800-odd hands, so hardly a huge sample, but still.

But I'm afraid I'm already blunting my skill at what I consider to be the real game - freeze-out no-limit hold 'em tournament play. I know that playing in those tournaments, online or at the B&M;, requires me to think deeply about who my opponents are and what they're up to. It makes me evaluate my hands, re-evaluate, calculate outs and odds, and figure out how much I can get out of my opponents when I make those outs. I have to be much more aware of position, of stealing, of stacks and the relative power they grant. In other words, I have to play - really play hard. I have to fully engage myself. The losses are heartbreaking, and the wins are euphoric. In feels to me the way good tournament chess does - challenging and rewarding (and I'm not talking about money).

But I also know that in those games, I lose more than I win. And I can't afford that now.

I've talked a little bit about playing for a living, and I'm becoming more certain that I have the skill for it, so long as there's a Party-level aquarium around to fish from (and there's some question about that). HDouble considers the question a little in his current post.

Part of the pleasure I get from doing my job well is that the programs I produce end up making someone's life slightly better. If we ever got funding for the big project I'm working on, my research might actually improve patient care. But until the funding goes through, the code I write will only assist people in their administrative tasks, and could probably be written by someone else. For me, satisfaction in a job comes from the ability to use my unique talents to produce something that could not easily be produced by someone else. Since I'm not really doing that right now, I'm not satisfied. While collecting bets from other players is intellectualy stimulating and satsfying, I don't know if I could handle the idea that there is no hope for me to "make the world a better place." Snicker all you want, deep down I really do want to help people, even if the political obstacles in the way are tough to overcome.

That one point (among several he mentions) is what it comes to for me - that's the break point. I prefer taking the money out of Empire to begging in the street while I'm between jobs, but I think ability or no, I don't have the desire to make my living with a game - any game.

On the other hand, if poker can afford me the freedom to pick and choose my next job, then I'll never have to pump gas again, never stink like fast food or break my back digging holes. If I have to do work that's mind-numbingly dull, it might as well be in the comfort of my own home.

So long as I stick to the tic-tac-toe, and keep the tournament play to a minimum.
Comment posted by Don at 3:39 PM

 
Another night, another few bucks

Not a huge night for me. I seemed to be having a real problem seeking out fish, though I did enjoy playing with my new toy, Poker Tracker. Enough so that I kept on playing long after I had given up on having any sort of seriously profitable night - okay, that can't be such good decision-making on my part.

One thing I've noticed - there isn't much interesting hand analysis to be done on anything I'm involved in, so long as I'm tic-tac-toeing my way around the tables. Guess the fun stuff will wait for another Saturday report.
Comment posted by Don at 11:19 AM

 
Big night

I finally took the advice of the vast majority of bloggers and signed up on Empire. Same tables that are reached from Party Poker, but it looked to me like the better tournament bonuses.

Speaking of bonuses, I felt a little ripped off on my deposit code - since I had already admitted a referral, I only got 20% instead of the promised 25. Still, I made $80-odd in a couple of hours playing tic-tac-toe on a few different 2/4 tables (one at a time - let's not get too over my head all at once), and got more than halfway through enough raked hands to get my signing bonus, so it was a profitable night all around. I think I might just keep my tournament play to the big Saturdays at the B&M; for a while.

Hope everyone likes the template. I lifted it wholesale from the design I created for my first blog (left-wing Canadian politics - see you there! Heh), but Rod and I will work on making it more "poker-y" over the next few weeks and months.
Comment posted by Don at 12:57 AM

 
Excellent advice

Chicago Phil offers up this jewel, which are words to live by: "Don't tap on the f'n glass":

[Phil describes a particular bad beat, and continues]... the loser (call him Eric), who is now on the rail, sits there and BERATES the winner (call him Tad), saying stuff like "People like Tad are what is wrong with poker, making calls like that and winning." Which, not incidentally, is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the truth. Players like that are what is RIGHT with poker, and why I occasionally consider playing this little game for a living. What is WRONG with poker is idiots like Eric scaring the fish away by telling them how bad they are.

(When searching for the whole thing, you'll have to scroll back to March 3rd - entries on Phil's blog don't seem to have fixed links)

For myself, I really avoid berating players, but it's more from concern that I might be wrong - that they're advertising, that they're playing a deeper game than I am. My bankroll certainly doesn't conjure up a lot of envy, even though I think I'm playing well. Find me a player that doesn't think they're playing well, and losing only to bad cards and bad luck. I know I have more to learn.

Props to HDouble at The Cards Speak for pointing me that direction, as well as for linking this blog. I'm shocked that we already have an audience - Guinness and Poker has also linked here. Welcome to all.
Comment posted by Don at 4:26 PM