Bits & Pieces
WELCOME: Having been at this whole poker blogging thing for a month and a half-ish, it appears that I'm starting to see a few people visiting on a semi-regular basis. That's nice, and it's all I ask. I'm not looking to be the next star of the poker blogging world. It's just nice to see that I'm not tossing all of these words into empty air. A little feedback would be nice, too. Reading about the old days with Doyle Brunson and Amarillo Slim, I think one of the best things those fellows had going for them, other than their skill at the tables, was the ability to just bounce things off of one another, to figure the game out together. I'm certainly no expert at anything, so when I toss some of my ideas out there, it would be nice to hear from folks who want to tell me whether they think I'm right or just full of it. I'm just trying to learn as much as I can about this game, and hearing from other folks who are doing the same is a good way to do that.
IT'S TOURNEY TIME! It's a busy, busy time in the world of poker. The Poker Stars Caribbean Adventure starts today, and hopefully we'll have some preliminary results tomorrow. Tomorrow brings us the start of the Jack Binion World Poker Open, the first WPT event of the new year, and Friday is the kickoff of the inaugural WSOP Tournament Circuit event at Harrah's Atlantic City. Whew ... I'll be a busy, busy boy these next few days, as I attempt to keep track of the all the winners and post them here.
PLAYERS TO WATCH IN 2005: The new year and all the new action also brings us to a new race for the Cardplayer Player of the Year. Of course, speculating on this matter is sort of akin to picking the teams, winner and point spread of next year's Super Bowl the day after this Super Bowl, but hell, I'm crazy enough to go out on a limb. I fully expect this to be John Juanda's year. I do not see Daniel Negreanu making a repeat performance. In his own blog, he spoke of needing a little adversity (losing the lead to David "The Dragon" Pham with only one event left to play) in order to inspire his amazing victory last month. Now that he's got the Player of the Year Award under his belt, I just can't see him being very inspired to go for the repeat. On the other hand, John Juanda has been perhaps the most consistent winner over the past few years, and I think he is poised to finally make it to the top of the mountain. Nobody is playing better than him right now. But if I were to pick another player as my dark horse, it would be the Godfather of Costa Rican Poker, Humberto Brenes. This is a player I truly enjoy watching, and his game appeared to be peaking at the end of last year.
BIRE UPDATE: Well, last post I let everyone know how I had squandered away all of my hard-fought gains over the weekend. Well, last night I went back to square one of the Bankroll Implosion Recovery Experiment -- the Omaha 8/b penny tables over at Ultimate Bet. Having blowing everything at Hollywood Poker and most of everything at UB, I was down to a grand total of $1.02. I figured that small stack of change was getting lonely, so I might as well piss it away as well. Funny thing happened, though ... I actually made a little. I played a grand total of 10 hands and ended up running that pathetic $1.02 to a slightly less pathetic $10. Sure, it's no princely sum, but I figure anytime you can sit down at a table and leave with 10 times what you came in with, it's a pretty good day. Plus, while it's no fortune, it's surely enough to keep me going at the penny tables for a long while.
FREE MONEY! I ran across one of those posts on RGP about how to get free money at a poker site with no deposit. I've done those things in the past, usually for $10 or $15 at a Prima site, but that's not nearly enough to work with and I usually flush it down the commode. But this one was for a free $75 at Party Poker. Now that's a little bit to work with. Heck, it was this time last year that I ran $40 at Poker Room to well over $2,000. Maybe lightning will strike twice. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, that deposit is also eligible for a $25 bonus from Party, after playing 500 raked hands. Anyway, I've signed up and the money was supposed to be deposited today (I haven't seen it for myself, since our work computers are all Macs). But I plan to try it out tonight and, if everything seems to be kosher, I'll fill my readers (both of them!) in on all the details later this week. I'm sure everybody could use a little free money.
SHAMELESS COMMERCIAL PLUG: OK, I've not mentioned this before, because I figure anybody who does willingly come to visit my site doesn't want to read a bunch of affiliate pitches from me. But over on the right side of the page, you'll see where there's some advertising. Of course, I don't get anything for that advertising unless someone actually clicks on the ad and sends some money to these folks. All I ask is that, if you plan to use one of the poker rooms I list or plan to buy any of the gear that's offered anyway, please consider doing so from this site. I will thank you and my bankroll will certainly thank you. I have tried to be discriminating in the ads I've chosen. I only list poker sites where I play, so I can vouch for them. There's also an affiliate deal from Ultimate Bet over there. Any of you poker bloggers out there who would like to offer UB to your readers, please go ahead and sign up there. It's free and you too can make a little spare change signing people up to play at UB. Toward the bottom of the column, there's also a listing of poker chip auctions on eBay. Of all the chips I've ever bought, they've all come from eBay, because that's where you can get them cheapest. If you're looking for a chip set, that list toward the bottom is a convenient place to look for the auctions ending soonest. Plus, if you place your mouse over the price, the shipping charges will pop up (neat trick there) so you'll know right away exactly how much it will cost you to get your chips before you even go to the page. OK, that's all of my shilling for now. Just be aware of the offers waiting for you over there and if you're looking at trying one of those rooms or getting any of that merchandise, just think about getting it here and I'll love you forever. Thanks.
PISSING OFF RGP, ONE READER AT A TIME: I had fully intended to update the blog yesterday, but I found myself arguing with a good number of folks in the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup. You see, I have this apparently controversial opinion that some games are well nigh unbeatable. Now, I'm not one of those people who makes excuses for my own inabilities by saying that the low-limit online games are unbeatable or, worse, rigged, but I do believe certain types of (usually) low-limit games are, if not unbeatable, then certainly unbeatable from a traditional tight-aggressive playing style. In particular, I'm thinking of full games where there are a couple of maniacs jacking the pot up and several calling stations staying all the way to showdown everytime. In other words, games where you're likely to see six or seven people seeing the flop every single time and maybe as many as four or five showing down.
[Brief pause to allow everyone to ready their flamethrowers.]
OK, so why do I say this? Because your traditional tight-aggressive playing assumes that many of your opponents will make good decisions and lay down longshot hands. A tight-aggressive playing style requires facing no more than one or two other players in a hand in order to be successful. The reason this is a successful strategy in most games is because you don't play except when you have very good starting hands, so you have a reasonable expectation of being ahead in the hand from the deal on. The one or two opponents who stay with you will usually have inferior cards, and their chances of hitting a good flop are lower than yours. But when you have a multitude of players staying in every hand, while their individual chances of hitting a decent flop are still low, their collective odds are much higher, so much so that the tight-aggressive player is almost always underdog against the field. Here's the example I used to explain my thoughts:
Now, that was just an example of what you are facing with the absolute best of it. It was by no means meant to be the entire proof, in and of itself. And, of course, I got this reply a short time later from GrouchySmurf1002:
And, of course, he's absolutely right. GrouchySmurf1002 is a sharp cookie, who apparently is a Poker Room regular like myself, although I cannot ever recall playing against him. And if this were the only hand I were going to play, or if I could be guaranteed AA every single hand, I would be right there, tossing as much money into the pot as possible.
But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that during a normal session of play, you're probably not going to see a hand like AA, KK, QQ or JJ more than a handful of times. The rest of the time you will be getting far worse hands, with far worse odds of winning. Most of them, a tight-aggressive player will fold without hesitation. Then there will be a few hands he'll enter thinking he has the best of it preflop, but will have to surrender before showdown because the board and the action are not working his way. And then there will be some he will take all the way to showdown, something like AK with an A on the flop, thinking he might have the best of it, but which will get beat because ridiculous opponents who stayed with 57o and made two pair or a straight. And, according to the example I used above, the player with the 97s actually is getting even money to call, whatever the bet is. But a tight-aggressive player will see those cards, see a couple of raises and fold them without a second though. In the end, there will be a lot of surrendered blinds and a lot of lost pots. And if the two or three times he has a dominating hand like AA or KK don't hold up, which it's pretty much even money they won't, then the
For all of these reasons, I think the type of game I've described has negative expectation for the tight-aggressive player. I may very well be wrong, but I base this belief on the thought process I've just outlined, as well as my own experiences. But please note, I did not say these games are unbeatable, just unbeatable from a traditional tight-aggressive playing style. There may very well be a way to play these games and come out a consistent winner, but whatever it is, I haven't found it. In fact, if anybody reading this has suggestions, I would be happy to hear them. I have played many types of tables with many types of players, and I've found ways to beat just about all of them. But whenever I've tried playing these games, I've found nothing but frustration and a declining bankroll. The only thing I can think of that might give me a better shot is to adopt a somewhat more loose-passive style preflop, in order to see more flops cheaply in hopes of getting lucky.
With all that said, however, that opinion has proved to be highly unpopular in the RGP community. I get told that I'm a loser, that I'm an idiot, that I should stop playing poker. Whatever. All I know is what I've seen and what I've read, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. There are some, a small minority, but some other RGP regulars who feel the same way. In The Psychology of Poker, Schoonmaker writes that overall loose-passive games are more a matter of luck than skill, precisely because of the larger field. Even Doyle Brunson has said in interviews that he finds it easier playing pros than a bunch of novices. So, even if I'm wrong, I feel like I'm in some pretty good company.
IT'S TOURNEY TIME! It's a busy, busy time in the world of poker. The Poker Stars Caribbean Adventure starts today, and hopefully we'll have some preliminary results tomorrow. Tomorrow brings us the start of the Jack Binion World Poker Open, the first WPT event of the new year, and Friday is the kickoff of the inaugural WSOP Tournament Circuit event at Harrah's Atlantic City. Whew ... I'll be a busy, busy boy these next few days, as I attempt to keep track of the all the winners and post them here.
PLAYERS TO WATCH IN 2005: The new year and all the new action also brings us to a new race for the Cardplayer Player of the Year. Of course, speculating on this matter is sort of akin to picking the teams, winner and point spread of next year's Super Bowl the day after this Super Bowl, but hell, I'm crazy enough to go out on a limb. I fully expect this to be John Juanda's year. I do not see Daniel Negreanu making a repeat performance. In his own blog, he spoke of needing a little adversity (losing the lead to David "The Dragon" Pham with only one event left to play) in order to inspire his amazing victory last month. Now that he's got the Player of the Year Award under his belt, I just can't see him being very inspired to go for the repeat. On the other hand, John Juanda has been perhaps the most consistent winner over the past few years, and I think he is poised to finally make it to the top of the mountain. Nobody is playing better than him right now. But if I were to pick another player as my dark horse, it would be the Godfather of Costa Rican Poker, Humberto Brenes. This is a player I truly enjoy watching, and his game appeared to be peaking at the end of last year.
BIRE UPDATE: Well, last post I let everyone know how I had squandered away all of my hard-fought gains over the weekend. Well, last night I went back to square one of the Bankroll Implosion Recovery Experiment -- the Omaha 8/b penny tables over at Ultimate Bet. Having blowing everything at Hollywood Poker and most of everything at UB, I was down to a grand total of $1.02. I figured that small stack of change was getting lonely, so I might as well piss it away as well. Funny thing happened, though ... I actually made a little. I played a grand total of 10 hands and ended up running that pathetic $1.02 to a slightly less pathetic $10. Sure, it's no princely sum, but I figure anytime you can sit down at a table and leave with 10 times what you came in with, it's a pretty good day. Plus, while it's no fortune, it's surely enough to keep me going at the penny tables for a long while.
FREE MONEY! I ran across one of those posts on RGP about how to get free money at a poker site with no deposit. I've done those things in the past, usually for $10 or $15 at a Prima site, but that's not nearly enough to work with and I usually flush it down the commode. But this one was for a free $75 at Party Poker. Now that's a little bit to work with. Heck, it was this time last year that I ran $40 at Poker Room to well over $2,000. Maybe lightning will strike twice. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, that deposit is also eligible for a $25 bonus from Party, after playing 500 raked hands. Anyway, I've signed up and the money was supposed to be deposited today (I haven't seen it for myself, since our work computers are all Macs). But I plan to try it out tonight and, if everything seems to be kosher, I'll fill my readers (both of them!) in on all the details later this week. I'm sure everybody could use a little free money.
SHAMELESS COMMERCIAL PLUG: OK, I've not mentioned this before, because I figure anybody who does willingly come to visit my site doesn't want to read a bunch of affiliate pitches from me. But over on the right side of the page, you'll see where there's some advertising. Of course, I don't get anything for that advertising unless someone actually clicks on the ad and sends some money to these folks. All I ask is that, if you plan to use one of the poker rooms I list or plan to buy any of the gear that's offered anyway, please consider doing so from this site. I will thank you and my bankroll will certainly thank you. I have tried to be discriminating in the ads I've chosen. I only list poker sites where I play, so I can vouch for them. There's also an affiliate deal from Ultimate Bet over there. Any of you poker bloggers out there who would like to offer UB to your readers, please go ahead and sign up there. It's free and you too can make a little spare change signing people up to play at UB. Toward the bottom of the column, there's also a listing of poker chip auctions on eBay. Of all the chips I've ever bought, they've all come from eBay, because that's where you can get them cheapest. If you're looking for a chip set, that list toward the bottom is a convenient place to look for the auctions ending soonest. Plus, if you place your mouse over the price, the shipping charges will pop up (neat trick there) so you'll know right away exactly how much it will cost you to get your chips before you even go to the page. OK, that's all of my shilling for now. Just be aware of the offers waiting for you over there and if you're looking at trying one of those rooms or getting any of that merchandise, just think about getting it here and I'll love you forever. Thanks.
PISSING OFF RGP, ONE READER AT A TIME: I had fully intended to update the blog yesterday, but I found myself arguing with a good number of folks in the rec.gambling.poker newsgroup. You see, I have this apparently controversial opinion that some games are well nigh unbeatable. Now, I'm not one of those people who makes excuses for my own inabilities by saying that the low-limit online games are unbeatable or, worse, rigged, but I do believe certain types of (usually) low-limit games are, if not unbeatable, then certainly unbeatable from a traditional tight-aggressive playing style. In particular, I'm thinking of full games where there are a couple of maniacs jacking the pot up and several calling stations staying all the way to showdown everytime. In other words, games where you're likely to see six or seven people seeing the flop every single time and maybe as many as four or five showing down.
[Brief pause to allow everyone to ready their flamethrowers.]
OK, so why do I say this? Because your traditional tight-aggressive playing assumes that many of your opponents will make good decisions and lay down longshot hands. A tight-aggressive playing style requires facing no more than one or two other players in a hand in order to be successful. The reason this is a successful strategy in most games is because you don't play except when you have very good starting hands, so you have a reasonable expectation of being ahead in the hand from the deal on. The one or two opponents who stay with you will usually have inferior cards, and their chances of hitting a good flop are lower than yours. But when you have a multitude of players staying in every hand, while their individual chances of hitting a decent flop are still low, their collective odds are much higher, so much so that the tight-aggressive player is almost always underdog against the field. Here's the example I used to explain my thoughts:
Going to Cardplayer's website, I fired up the odds calculator. They only allow you to enter a maximum of five players, and that's probably more realistic. I enter AdAs for one player, then AhKc, Js10d, Jc2c and 9s7s for his four opponents. So what are the odds of of AA winning in that one particular scenario? 52 percent. I next make the AK suited (hearts) and AA's chances dropped to 46 percent.
Just for funnzies, can you guess which hand was second-best, at least in terms of odds of winning? It was the 9s7s, with 19 percent.
OK, you still have the best of it, but you only have a 1:2 chance of winning the pot. Not really comforting to know that when you are playing against a table where you're virtually guaranteed to face four thick-headed opponents no matter what, you're still only about a coin-flip favorite AGAINST THE FIELD with the best possible starting hand. I certainly wouldn't bet my house if I knew that I'd be facing large number of opponents.
That is why I'm saying that these games are much tougher to beat. If the BEST you can hope for at a table full of maniacs and calling stations is a coin-flip favorite, you will need a lot of them in order to come out a significant winner. But you're not going to get a whole lot of them. In fact, you're going to be folding a significant number of hands, and a lot of times you're going to be the poor sap holding AK in the above scenario, with less than a 7 percent chance of winning
Now, that was just an example of what you are facing with the absolute best of it. It was by no means meant to be the entire proof, in and of itself. And, of course, I got this reply a short time later from GrouchySmurf1002:
Seriously?
You don't want to coin flip where you put 1 bet in the pot, and other people put 3 bets in?
Seriously?
You think this is HARDER to beat?
Seriously?
You'll have more losing sessions and some emotionally draining downswings, sure. But you're gonna come out a much bigger winner long term. That's what matters.
And, of course, he's absolutely right. GrouchySmurf1002 is a sharp cookie, who apparently is a Poker Room regular like myself, although I cannot ever recall playing against him. And if this were the only hand I were going to play, or if I could be guaranteed AA every single hand, I would be right there, tossing as much money into the pot as possible.
But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is that during a normal session of play, you're probably not going to see a hand like AA, KK, QQ or JJ more than a handful of times. The rest of the time you will be getting far worse hands, with far worse odds of winning. Most of them, a tight-aggressive player will fold without hesitation. Then there will be a few hands he'll enter thinking he has the best of it preflop, but will have to surrender before showdown because the board and the action are not working his way. And then there will be some he will take all the way to showdown, something like AK with an A on the flop, thinking he might have the best of it, but which will get beat because ridiculous opponents who stayed with 57o and made two pair or a straight. And, according to the example I used above, the player with the 97s actually is getting even money to call, whatever the bet is. But a tight-aggressive player will see those cards, see a couple of raises and fold them without a second though. In the end, there will be a lot of surrendered blinds and a lot of lost pots. And if the two or three times he has a dominating hand like AA or KK don't hold up, which it's pretty much even money they won't, then the
For all of these reasons, I think the type of game I've described has negative expectation for the tight-aggressive player. I may very well be wrong, but I base this belief on the thought process I've just outlined, as well as my own experiences. But please note, I did not say these games are unbeatable, just unbeatable from a traditional tight-aggressive playing style. There may very well be a way to play these games and come out a consistent winner, but whatever it is, I haven't found it. In fact, if anybody reading this has suggestions, I would be happy to hear them. I have played many types of tables with many types of players, and I've found ways to beat just about all of them. But whenever I've tried playing these games, I've found nothing but frustration and a declining bankroll. The only thing I can think of that might give me a better shot is to adopt a somewhat more loose-passive style preflop, in order to see more flops cheaply in hopes of getting lucky.
With all that said, however, that opinion has proved to be highly unpopular in the RGP community. I get told that I'm a loser, that I'm an idiot, that I should stop playing poker. Whatever. All I know is what I've seen and what I've read, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. There are some, a small minority, but some other RGP regulars who feel the same way. In The Psychology of Poker, Schoonmaker writes that overall loose-passive games are more a matter of luck than skill, precisely because of the larger field. Even Doyle Brunson has said in interviews that he finds it easier playing pros than a bunch of novices. So, even if I'm wrong, I feel like I'm in some pretty good company.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home