I told myself I wanted to play in some of the WCOOP events this year. I just played in my second. I had to get in though satellites because my bankroll doesn't support buying in directly. On Friday, I played in the 6 handed $200+15 tournament. I played passive, weak poker. Here is a typical example and probably the worst hand I ever played since I really realized how to play.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489759
Yes, I really played like that.
Then I analyzed my awful play and got my junk together. On Saturday, I won a double shootout for event #5, a $500+30 NL tourney. I played great. Then this hand came up. My broke friend said there was no way I could get away from this. I guess I could have been up against a set, but I never would have guessed I was up against the nuts. I lost nearly all my chips here and then lost them all shortly thereafter when I got outplayed with my short stack.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?1489725
So for now, I'm done. Finishing in 2660th place out of 6000+. Normally, I'm pissed after I bust out of a big tournament, but I think I'm ok here because I don't feel like I was outdrawn or could have done anything about it. I like my call from the BB with 3.5 to 1 pot odds. I was just in a spot where I was going to lose all my chips like set over set. More commentary to come about my style adjustments.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Win rates
Last week, I read sbrugby's blog and he referenced his win rate at about 58% and saying that was a good rate considering the stakes he plays. I need to think in longer term like he does. I get so caught up in individual sessions and not looking at the long term. Recently, I've been playing $5 + 0.25 heads up NL games on FTP. They are a joke. I won two and then lost one. I was furious. Since then, I've won three more. So I'm 5 of 6. That's 83%. But that sample size is too small to come to any conclusions, but I know it's a game I'll win consistently against these opponents.
The numbers are so small though that it feels like a grind. Let's say it takes me 20 minutes to beat each opponent and my win rate drops to 75% which is pretty reasonable. At that rate, I make $6.75 per hour and it would take me almost 15 hours to make $100. Given my real world income, these numbers are insane. I need to play higher stakes with a solid win ratio.
Am I just building my bankroll? Maybe, but that's building it pretty slowly.
The numbers are so small though that it feels like a grind. Let's say it takes me 20 minutes to beat each opponent and my win rate drops to 75% which is pretty reasonable. At that rate, I make $6.75 per hour and it would take me almost 15 hours to make $100. Given my real world income, these numbers are insane. I need to play higher stakes with a solid win ratio.
Am I just building my bankroll? Maybe, but that's building it pretty slowly.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Find a game you can beat and BEAT IT
I wasted some time in a previous post talking about which venue was the best to make money in. The answer is - it varies for each person. I once advised my friend (who has since gone broke) to find a game that he can beat consistently and then beat it. That's how you make money. I played some NL ring games on Party, and they were juicy. The players were all weak and super loose. But on FTP and Stars, I find the ring game players much tighter. In my limited time watching, I'd say they are too tight. That is exploitable, but not as easy to do.
After my limited experience in ring games, I went back to my old friend, the sit and go. The players there are so much weaker. Great example, I see a flop in the BB for free with 32o. Flop comes 45J. I check-call. Turn is a 6. I check raise all in. Of course I could be beat, but highly unlikely. He calls with KJ. The check raise was a huge overbet, but the weak players make that play because they are WEAK players. But these are low limit tables, and I'm light years ahead of these players.
So that's my new theory, find a game I can beat and beat it. I love 6 handed S&Gs. That's what I'll be playing for a while.
After my limited experience in ring games, I went back to my old friend, the sit and go. The players there are so much weaker. Great example, I see a flop in the BB for free with 32o. Flop comes 45J. I check-call. Turn is a 6. I check raise all in. Of course I could be beat, but highly unlikely. He calls with KJ. The check raise was a huge overbet, but the weak players make that play because they are WEAK players. But these are low limit tables, and I'm light years ahead of these players.
So that's my new theory, find a game I can beat and beat it. I love 6 handed S&Gs. That's what I'll be playing for a while.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Poker sucks
So I did some thinking after my last post. My thought was to find the best way to make money over the long run. Given my small FTP bankroll ($50), I decided to start with the smallest limits that FTP had - NL with $0.05 and $0.10. The players weren't as terrible as one would think. If anything, I'd say that players were generally tighter than they should have been. In terms of making money, I'd rather see them be too loose. So I was unimpressed with my money making prospects at these micro limits. Could I make it over the long term? Yes, if I kept focused. But I hate sitting there and waiting for the nuts. Yes, I could be loose aggressive - but the weird part about these players is that they're tight before the flop and loose after the flop, with trouble letting go of second pair and so forth. I'm stereotyping all players at this level after 250 or so hands. I think my analysis is valid - and it'll become more apparent where I'm going with this.
Then I played some $0.25 / $0.50 limit. I think I could beat this game over time as well. The players are not as weak as the old times when I used to play limit on Party. The donkeys there were ubiquitous. All those donkeys must have gone broke. I found the play similar to NL. Tight play, probably too tight. I could probably beat this game over the long term, too - but it was soooo boring.
Then I went back to my bread and butter - a S&G. I played a 90 player $5 + $0.50. I finished 13th for a small cash, but the point is that it's so much more fun than ring games. I think the 6 minute levels on the FTP S&Gs are bullshit. People can make money on S&Gs. Supposedly that's how Jennicide started. And Zeejustin almost exclusively played high level S&Gs. On Stars, I used to have a pretty good record on 6 handed one table $13+1 S&Gs.
Later, I'll discuss my theories on handling weak players. Perhaps there is some flaw with how I think I should be handling those players. Hopefully, by blogging it out - I'll see what (if anything) is a problem in my approach.
Then I played some $0.25 / $0.50 limit. I think I could beat this game over time as well. The players are not as weak as the old times when I used to play limit on Party. The donkeys there were ubiquitous. All those donkeys must have gone broke. I found the play similar to NL. Tight play, probably too tight. I could probably beat this game over the long term, too - but it was soooo boring.
Then I went back to my bread and butter - a S&G. I played a 90 player $5 + $0.50. I finished 13th for a small cash, but the point is that it's so much more fun than ring games. I think the 6 minute levels on the FTP S&Gs are bullshit. People can make money on S&Gs. Supposedly that's how Jennicide started. And Zeejustin almost exclusively played high level S&Gs. On Stars, I used to have a pretty good record on 6 handed one table $13+1 S&Gs.
Later, I'll discuss my theories on handling weak players. Perhaps there is some flaw with how I think I should be handling those players. Hopefully, by blogging it out - I'll see what (if anything) is a problem in my approach.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
S&Gs vs ring games
My wife says I can play more poker if I can turn a good profit and bring it in to the house - basically become a semi-pro where I earn some income from poker. It's not easy having a full time job and playing poker in your off hours.
So now the question is - what is the best way to make money. Ring games (limit and/or no-limit) vs sit and gos?
I know for a fact I don't enjoy playing limit poker. I feel like it's donkeys abound and there is less room for creative play and so many decisions are driven by pot odds. For example, I'm getting 9 to 1 on this call on the river. I think there's at least a 10% chance I have the best hand, so I have to call. Perhaps, I can find better play at higher limit games, but my experiences at $2/4 (and yes, I'm talking about 2 dollars and 4 dollars) on Stars are finding super tight players. So what's the solution there? Play loose aggressive. Then I get punished when I try to push people out by the few who inevitably get a hand. Anyway, I hate limit.
So then we have no-limit ring games. Here, there are generally much looser players. There are also many bad players here. You can sit around and wait for the near nuts. My downside here is that the chips have real world value and I have trouble separating the chips from that real world value. In a tournament setting, it's just so much easier to disconnect yourself from the money you're playing with because of course you're not playing with real money. I just have more trouble taking a beat for $50 or whatever because I really feel it. But I do feel like I can beat these games regularly. I actually only ever did NL games on Party, but for some reason, I don't think the Stars games are so different. I also hear that the FTP games are juicy as well.
And then there are sit and gos - which to this point have been my game of choice. I like the fact that they have a defined end point. I like the fact that I can limit my losses by playing in S&Gs that have comfortable buy-ins for me. The players are generally weak (though as in my previous posts, I'm having some trouble consistently beating weak players). But the nature of rising blinds leads to more gambling. And that leads to tough beats. I feel like that in the later rounds there are more all-ins before the flop, and I find myself in 55/45 situations or something similar. You have to gamble, but for someone as unlucky as I feel I am - that's not appealing.
So those are my thoughts. Perhaps I'll try some of the NL ring games on FTP. I only have $50 or so in there, but that should be plenty to start with as long as I follow Chris Ferguson's rules on bankroll management, which I think are excellent. Too bad, my friend who recently went broke is so terrible at bankroll management:
So now the question is - what is the best way to make money. Ring games (limit and/or no-limit) vs sit and gos?
I know for a fact I don't enjoy playing limit poker. I feel like it's donkeys abound and there is less room for creative play and so many decisions are driven by pot odds. For example, I'm getting 9 to 1 on this call on the river. I think there's at least a 10% chance I have the best hand, so I have to call. Perhaps, I can find better play at higher limit games, but my experiences at $2/4 (and yes, I'm talking about 2 dollars and 4 dollars) on Stars are finding super tight players. So what's the solution there? Play loose aggressive. Then I get punished when I try to push people out by the few who inevitably get a hand. Anyway, I hate limit.
So then we have no-limit ring games. Here, there are generally much looser players. There are also many bad players here. You can sit around and wait for the near nuts. My downside here is that the chips have real world value and I have trouble separating the chips from that real world value. In a tournament setting, it's just so much easier to disconnect yourself from the money you're playing with because of course you're not playing with real money. I just have more trouble taking a beat for $50 or whatever because I really feel it. But I do feel like I can beat these games regularly. I actually only ever did NL games on Party, but for some reason, I don't think the Stars games are so different. I also hear that the FTP games are juicy as well.
And then there are sit and gos - which to this point have been my game of choice. I like the fact that they have a defined end point. I like the fact that I can limit my losses by playing in S&Gs that have comfortable buy-ins for me. The players are generally weak (though as in my previous posts, I'm having some trouble consistently beating weak players). But the nature of rising blinds leads to more gambling. And that leads to tough beats. I feel like that in the later rounds there are more all-ins before the flop, and I find myself in 55/45 situations or something similar. You have to gamble, but for someone as unlucky as I feel I am - that's not appealing.
So those are my thoughts. Perhaps I'll try some of the NL ring games on FTP. I only have $50 or so in there, but that should be plenty to start with as long as I follow Chris Ferguson's rules on bankroll management, which I think are excellent. Too bad, my friend who recently went broke is so terrible at bankroll management:
- He never buys into a cash game or a Sit & Go with more than 5 percent of his total bankroll (there is an exception for the lowest limits: he is allowed to buy into any game with a buy-in of $2.50 or less).
- He doesn’t buy into a multi-table tournament for more than 2 percent of his total bankroll, but he’s allowed to buy into any multi-table tournament that costs $1.
- If at any time during a No-Limit or Pot-Limit cash-game session the money on the table represents more than 10 percent of his total bankroll, he must leave the game when the blinds reach him.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
need less whining and better playing
The nice thing about putting my thoughts into written form is that it forces me to think more seriously about my previous session and because I'm thinking more about my previous session, I think about my play more outside of the table and outside of the blog. I'm still better than the players I'm playing against. At any of the stakes I play in, that's a fact. I can't blame bad players for me losing - I have no one to blame but myself. This isn't a game about individual results in a single S&G but results over the long term. Luck will even out. But outplaying the players is what I need to work on. I want to play more solidly. That's what I need to do. And I'm going to do it.
handling donkeys - defining player abilities
I've wasted several hours and about a hundred dollars trying to qualify for the million dollar guaranteed on stars today. I'm trying to analyze why. When I'm playing in lower stakes, you end up playing with these donkeys who are calling raises out of position with weak hands and staying in hands too long. As I'm writing this, perhaps I'm not categorizing them correctly. Could they be super aggressive players? Players who come over the top of me see through my aggressive steal attempts. Then they bet into me.
It's hard - I try to play tight and even still I don't get respect. I play aggressive and people come over the top of me or call me from the blinds, I miss the flop (no matter if I hold AK or 86 or JT) and outplay me after the flop. My general idea is that a lot of these players are weak and just guessing instead of skilled players trying to outplay me.
So what is the conclusion? Catch cards? I can't do that. My general philosophy is play loose early, accumulate chips, while the weaker players are there - but then tighten up some when the better players are in but become more aggressive since the better players CAN fold a hand. Maybe I'm just running bad. I hate poker.
It's hard - I try to play tight and even still I don't get respect. I play aggressive and people come over the top of me or call me from the blinds, I miss the flop (no matter if I hold AK or 86 or JT) and outplay me after the flop. My general idea is that a lot of these players are weak and just guessing instead of skilled players trying to outplay me.
So what is the conclusion? Catch cards? I can't do that. My general philosophy is play loose early, accumulate chips, while the weaker players are there - but then tighten up some when the better players are in but become more aggressive since the better players CAN fold a hand. Maybe I'm just running bad. I hate poker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)