Looking back, looking ahead
Sorry for the long absence, but things have been a little more hectic than usual lately, which is saying something.
I knew I'd be away during the holidays, not because of the holidays but because of work during the holidays. We have a fellow at work who hails from Spain and he left to visit home for three weeks. I was the only one left to cover for him, since I've been covering for another person in that department who left 7 or 8 months ago and hasn't been replaced. So, instead of doing my usual two jobs at work, I was taking on a third and knew it would difficult, if not impossible, for me to dedicate any time to my blog.
Then, about halfway through that three weeks, a coworker's mother died and she was out a week. Once again, I was the one who had to cover for her, so now I was up to four jobs. That's when you start getting some perspective about things. I started thinking, "Damn, I can't wait until I'm working two jobs again, so I can get some rest."
But, fate stepped in and saw that since I was performing an overabundance of jobs, my wife should lose hers. That wasn't a pleasant experience. Nor is it very conducive to the old poker bankroll, when you suddenly lose 40 percent of your family income and health insurance.
(How's that for a segue? It was rough, but I finally brought it back around to poker.)
During this time, I have managed to catch a few minutes here and there at the online tables, but I would have been better off if I hadn't. Maybe it was the stress and exhaustion, but I have not played well at all for a month or more. I've seemingly developed some strange type of poker cancer that is just eating away at my bankroll.
And it's been that way for some time. My goal for 2005 had been to have poker winnings five times higher than I had in 2004. Instead, they were 10 times less. I guess things could have been worse, since I actually posted a small profit instead of a loss for the year as a whole, but it was a razor-thin margin. Really, one or two bad nights would have put me into the loss category.
Part of my problem, I think, is that I've been overdoing it, and for quite awhile. There are just too many times that I've been playing when I really don't feel like it, thinking that I've got to play more to get better. The result of playing when I'm bored or tired has been that I haven't played well, or I've been overly tiltable and have played even worse. And what is the use of playing more if you're only going to play poorly?
It's frustrating, especially since I feel like I'm a much better player than ever, when I'm playing up to my full potential. I feel I have a solid understanding of the game and would not be intimidated playing against anybody. My reads have become much more accurate than I ever thought they could be, and I've picked up moves that I never would have imagined existed a short time ago. So what the hell is holding me back?
The answer, I've come to conclude, is that I need to work on myself, rather than my game. I need greater emotional control at the table. What is the use of learning the game, if you're just going to go on tilt and throw all of your knowledge away? I also need to learn better when NOT to play. Again, what is the use of learning the game, if you're going to play when you are physically or mentally unable to put it to use?
So, for 2006, I've decided I need to work on gaining better mental and emotional control. Learning to weather the storms better. Learning when to stop playing or when to not play. I'm confident that I know how to beat my opponents. I just need to be able to beat myself. How I can quantify that so that I can measure it and tell if I'm improving or not, I don't know.
But enough soul-searching. As always, there's a lot going on in the world of poker, and it's all so much better than my own table angst. I was finally able to catch the first episode of High Stakes Poker last night, and I was extremely impressed. Based solely on the first episode, it is by far the best poker programming I have seen on television.
If you haven't seen it, it comes on the Game Show Network, which has been prone to airing the worst poker swill imaginable in the past. But High Stakes Poker is different from everything else on TV, because instead of a tournament, it's a cash game. It features some of the best players playing some of the best poker I've seen. I was amazed by one hand in particular, when Daniel Negreanu picked up pocket kings against an A7 by Amir Nasseri and pocket 10s by Jerry Buss, the two supposed "amateurs" on the show. When the flop came 7 high, giving Nasseri top pair, top kicker and Buss and overpair, they both folded to a big bet by Negreanu. I know I've gone broke many times being in either Nasseri's or Buss' shoes and thought they made brillant reads, especially to be "amateurs." And watching Ted Forrest stay calm, even happy, after losing $100,000 in a single hand gave me a role model to pattern myself, in light of the improvements I feel I need to make.
If you haven't had a chance to see High Stakes Poker, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It comes on Mondays at 9 p.m., which explains why I'm a week behind in seeing it, since that is the same time as 24 and nothing, not even good poker, must get in the way of Jack Bauer saving the world.
And this is a little old, but I think the decision by Harrah's to add a $50,000 buy-in HORSE event to this year's WSOP is great news. Whoever ends up winning that event would certainly be deserving of being called a world champion. Still, I thought some of the reaction to the news was amusing. I know there has been criticism of the WSOP for quite some time for keeping the main event $10,000 while inflation has reduced that number to an amount much more affordable than it used to be, and for Harrah's stressing Texas hold'em much more than other games. Some have even called for the main event to be a HORSE (hold'em, Omaha, razz, seven-card stud) event because it would be a more reliable way to judge card playing talent. So what happened when Harrah's made the announcement? Bitching, apparently from a different crowd, who thought it was too much and would detract from the $10,000 hold'em main event. Go figure. Personally, I think it's a good thing.
Anyway, that's enough for today. Hopefully, I will be able to return to this humble blog on a more regular basis, now that it seems life is getting much more manageable. See you soon.
I knew I'd be away during the holidays, not because of the holidays but because of work during the holidays. We have a fellow at work who hails from Spain and he left to visit home for three weeks. I was the only one left to cover for him, since I've been covering for another person in that department who left 7 or 8 months ago and hasn't been replaced. So, instead of doing my usual two jobs at work, I was taking on a third and knew it would difficult, if not impossible, for me to dedicate any time to my blog.
Then, about halfway through that three weeks, a coworker's mother died and she was out a week. Once again, I was the one who had to cover for her, so now I was up to four jobs. That's when you start getting some perspective about things. I started thinking, "Damn, I can't wait until I'm working two jobs again, so I can get some rest."
But, fate stepped in and saw that since I was performing an overabundance of jobs, my wife should lose hers. That wasn't a pleasant experience. Nor is it very conducive to the old poker bankroll, when you suddenly lose 40 percent of your family income and health insurance.
(How's that for a segue? It was rough, but I finally brought it back around to poker.)
During this time, I have managed to catch a few minutes here and there at the online tables, but I would have been better off if I hadn't. Maybe it was the stress and exhaustion, but I have not played well at all for a month or more. I've seemingly developed some strange type of poker cancer that is just eating away at my bankroll.
And it's been that way for some time. My goal for 2005 had been to have poker winnings five times higher than I had in 2004. Instead, they were 10 times less. I guess things could have been worse, since I actually posted a small profit instead of a loss for the year as a whole, but it was a razor-thin margin. Really, one or two bad nights would have put me into the loss category.
Part of my problem, I think, is that I've been overdoing it, and for quite awhile. There are just too many times that I've been playing when I really don't feel like it, thinking that I've got to play more to get better. The result of playing when I'm bored or tired has been that I haven't played well, or I've been overly tiltable and have played even worse. And what is the use of playing more if you're only going to play poorly?
It's frustrating, especially since I feel like I'm a much better player than ever, when I'm playing up to my full potential. I feel I have a solid understanding of the game and would not be intimidated playing against anybody. My reads have become much more accurate than I ever thought they could be, and I've picked up moves that I never would have imagined existed a short time ago. So what the hell is holding me back?
The answer, I've come to conclude, is that I need to work on myself, rather than my game. I need greater emotional control at the table. What is the use of learning the game, if you're just going to go on tilt and throw all of your knowledge away? I also need to learn better when NOT to play. Again, what is the use of learning the game, if you're going to play when you are physically or mentally unable to put it to use?
So, for 2006, I've decided I need to work on gaining better mental and emotional control. Learning to weather the storms better. Learning when to stop playing or when to not play. I'm confident that I know how to beat my opponents. I just need to be able to beat myself. How I can quantify that so that I can measure it and tell if I'm improving or not, I don't know.
But enough soul-searching. As always, there's a lot going on in the world of poker, and it's all so much better than my own table angst. I was finally able to catch the first episode of High Stakes Poker last night, and I was extremely impressed. Based solely on the first episode, it is by far the best poker programming I have seen on television.
If you haven't seen it, it comes on the Game Show Network, which has been prone to airing the worst poker swill imaginable in the past. But High Stakes Poker is different from everything else on TV, because instead of a tournament, it's a cash game. It features some of the best players playing some of the best poker I've seen. I was amazed by one hand in particular, when Daniel Negreanu picked up pocket kings against an A7 by Amir Nasseri and pocket 10s by Jerry Buss, the two supposed "amateurs" on the show. When the flop came 7 high, giving Nasseri top pair, top kicker and Buss and overpair, they both folded to a big bet by Negreanu. I know I've gone broke many times being in either Nasseri's or Buss' shoes and thought they made brillant reads, especially to be "amateurs." And watching Ted Forrest stay calm, even happy, after losing $100,000 in a single hand gave me a role model to pattern myself, in light of the improvements I feel I need to make.
If you haven't had a chance to see High Stakes Poker, I wholeheartedly recommend it. It comes on Mondays at 9 p.m., which explains why I'm a week behind in seeing it, since that is the same time as 24 and nothing, not even good poker, must get in the way of Jack Bauer saving the world.
And this is a little old, but I think the decision by Harrah's to add a $50,000 buy-in HORSE event to this year's WSOP is great news. Whoever ends up winning that event would certainly be deserving of being called a world champion. Still, I thought some of the reaction to the news was amusing. I know there has been criticism of the WSOP for quite some time for keeping the main event $10,000 while inflation has reduced that number to an amount much more affordable than it used to be, and for Harrah's stressing Texas hold'em much more than other games. Some have even called for the main event to be a HORSE (hold'em, Omaha, razz, seven-card stud) event because it would be a more reliable way to judge card playing talent. So what happened when Harrah's made the announcement? Bitching, apparently from a different crowd, who thought it was too much and would detract from the $10,000 hold'em main event. Go figure. Personally, I think it's a good thing.
Anyway, that's enough for today. Hopefully, I will be able to return to this humble blog on a more regular basis, now that it seems life is getting much more manageable. See you soon.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home