Thursday, September 27, 2007
Out with a fizzle
This is the 3rd year that I've hosted a poker season at my house. I was looking for a poker series to play in that offered a variety of games and buyins around $50. There wasn't really any home game series like this, so I just start hosting the tournaments myself.
The first year, there was about 10 regulars and 10 "floaters". We just started playing tournaments and I sort of retroactively started assigning points to winners and declared a season champ. It was fun and mildly interesting to follow the point leaders through the season.
The second year the field doubled and people started taking things a little more serious. I remember getting emails from people who were correcting me on their finish spots from like 14th place to 13th place.
This 3rd year, the field has just about doubled again and interest from the points leaders just about doubled as well.
The seasons are always set to coincide with football season (what's better than Poker combined with football?) and to conclude well in advance of the WSOP.
This year, I ran into a big snag though. Due to some scheduling conflicts with family commitments I wasn't able to complete the series in June like planned. Then, I just had a family member experience some pretty significant medical issues.
So it was with much regret, that I just cancelled season 3 of the Husker House Poker Skills Series after having hosted 7 of the 9 events.
But the reality of the situation was that the season was dragging on for more than a year and I don't foresee me being able to host for another 4 months or maybe more - maybe ever.
Online Poker
But, all of this also means that I'm not playing any live poker. To be honest, I'm starting to get the willies.
As a substitute, I've been playing online poker more.
The main observation - online poker is an absolutely necessary part of any training to becoming a good poker player. I'm thoroughly convinced of this.
In a 5 hour session at a casino or home game, you can get it maybe 100 - 200 hands in. This compares to the 900 hands I can play in a similar 5 hour session on line (3 tables). This type of training really trains your brain how play tight (there's no need to play Q 10 offsuit from middle position) and how to play aggressively (you start thinking in terms of 'stacks' instead of dollars).
I highly recommend mixing in a good amount of online play.
The first year, there was about 10 regulars and 10 "floaters". We just started playing tournaments and I sort of retroactively started assigning points to winners and declared a season champ. It was fun and mildly interesting to follow the point leaders through the season.
The second year the field doubled and people started taking things a little more serious. I remember getting emails from people who were correcting me on their finish spots from like 14th place to 13th place.
This 3rd year, the field has just about doubled again and interest from the points leaders just about doubled as well.
The seasons are always set to coincide with football season (what's better than Poker combined with football?) and to conclude well in advance of the WSOP.
This year, I ran into a big snag though. Due to some scheduling conflicts with family commitments I wasn't able to complete the series in June like planned. Then, I just had a family member experience some pretty significant medical issues.
So it was with much regret, that I just cancelled season 3 of the Husker House Poker Skills Series after having hosted 7 of the 9 events.
But the reality of the situation was that the season was dragging on for more than a year and I don't foresee me being able to host for another 4 months or maybe more - maybe ever.
Online Poker
But, all of this also means that I'm not playing any live poker. To be honest, I'm starting to get the willies.
As a substitute, I've been playing online poker more.
The main observation - online poker is an absolutely necessary part of any training to becoming a good poker player. I'm thoroughly convinced of this.
In a 5 hour session at a casino or home game, you can get it maybe 100 - 200 hands in. This compares to the 900 hands I can play in a similar 5 hour session on line (3 tables). This type of training really trains your brain how play tight (there's no need to play Q 10 offsuit from middle position) and how to play aggressively (you start thinking in terms of 'stacks' instead of dollars).
I highly recommend mixing in a good amount of online play.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Playing deep - Playing Shallow
So I took my gigantic payroll to the casino on Friday. I decided to play $1/$2 NLHE with $100 max buy-in. I was feeling super confident after winning in my last two sessions - $144 (Greektown) and $10 (home game).
It didn't go so well.
I lost $300....left with my tail between my legs (wait, that sounds weird) - left beaten and demoralized.
At this particular game, the players are pretty bad. I got sort of a bad "draw" though and found myself at a table with only 2 or 3 bad players - and they were the worst kind of bad players - weak/tight - the kind that give their money away slowly. The much prefered bad player is the weak/loose player followed by the loose/aggressive - the kind that gives their money away in big chunks.
Ordinarily, there is a person or 2 with $200 to $400, but pretty much everyone else has between $40 and $100 - making this a pretty "shallow" game. On average, I'd guess that most players have about 40 big blinds. I see so many players tossing in their last $30 holding a hand like pocket 7s when the board comes Ax-Qx-10x because they are "pot committed". Should make for a profitable situation.
I decided to play with $70 stacks and top off anytime I dropped to $50. The new rule at Greektown is that you can top off to $100 anytime you want. I think this is a direct result of competition - Motor City- that has similar rules. So for all of you commies out there don't think competition is good, I bet to differ.
Anyway, playing shallow makes me much more willing to commit my entire stack. It gives me a sort of "financial freedom". Plus, it feels like it gives me some added protection when I make a preflop raise of about $20. I can just continue after the flop for the rest my stack and it kind of ruins other player's implied odds if they pick up a draw or an underpair.
I dunno, seemed like a decent strategy at the time.
Anyway, I played super tight. I folded so many weak but enticing hands (A-6 in early position, K-Q after a raise and call, etc...). I don't think I open limped 5 times. I lost my first stack when I open raised with Ah-Jh for $15 after two limpers, spiked top-top, continued for $30 into a $40 pot, and got check raised for my last $25 from someone who flop a straight holding Q-9 off. So much for my short stack strategy.
I lost a few more stacks. Then, toward the end of the session, I bled a stack down to about $50 and found a hand (Ac-7c) after a really loose, gambler dude raised $12 from middle position, had one caller - who had about $36 left behind. I thought an all-in reraise to $50 had some pretty good equity. Here's my thinking.
I might win $27 in dead money if it goes fold-fold. I really thought I was about a coin flip against the range held by gambler dude if he calls. Plus, I really didn't think short stack dude would smooth call pre-flop with a pair higher than 7s - this makes me at worst a coin flip or slight dog against him if he calls.
After I lost the hand, I was looking forward to doing some math on the "correctness" of this decision.
Let me know if you think I got it right. I think the play had a positive EV ($19).
I thought there was about a 75% chance gambler dude would fold. I though there was about a 75% chance short stack dude would fold. If gambler dude called, I thought I'd win about 50% of the time given the wide range of hands he played. If short stack dude called, I thought I'd win about 50% of the time (if he had a stronger hand, I think he would have pushed pre-flop). If both called, I thought I win about 33% of the time.
It didn't go so well.
I lost $300....left with my tail between my legs (wait, that sounds weird) - left beaten and demoralized.
At this particular game, the players are pretty bad. I got sort of a bad "draw" though and found myself at a table with only 2 or 3 bad players - and they were the worst kind of bad players - weak/tight - the kind that give their money away slowly. The much prefered bad player is the weak/loose player followed by the loose/aggressive - the kind that gives their money away in big chunks.
Ordinarily, there is a person or 2 with $200 to $400, but pretty much everyone else has between $40 and $100 - making this a pretty "shallow" game. On average, I'd guess that most players have about 40 big blinds. I see so many players tossing in their last $30 holding a hand like pocket 7s when the board comes Ax-Qx-10x because they are "pot committed". Should make for a profitable situation.
I decided to play with $70 stacks and top off anytime I dropped to $50. The new rule at Greektown is that you can top off to $100 anytime you want. I think this is a direct result of competition - Motor City- that has similar rules. So for all of you commies out there don't think competition is good, I bet to differ.
Anyway, playing shallow makes me much more willing to commit my entire stack. It gives me a sort of "financial freedom". Plus, it feels like it gives me some added protection when I make a preflop raise of about $20. I can just continue after the flop for the rest my stack and it kind of ruins other player's implied odds if they pick up a draw or an underpair.
I dunno, seemed like a decent strategy at the time.
Anyway, I played super tight. I folded so many weak but enticing hands (A-6 in early position, K-Q after a raise and call, etc...). I don't think I open limped 5 times. I lost my first stack when I open raised with Ah-Jh for $15 after two limpers, spiked top-top, continued for $30 into a $40 pot, and got check raised for my last $25 from someone who flop a straight holding Q-9 off. So much for my short stack strategy.
I lost a few more stacks. Then, toward the end of the session, I bled a stack down to about $50 and found a hand (Ac-7c) after a really loose, gambler dude raised $12 from middle position, had one caller - who had about $36 left behind. I thought an all-in reraise to $50 had some pretty good equity. Here's my thinking.
I might win $27 in dead money if it goes fold-fold. I really thought I was about a coin flip against the range held by gambler dude if he calls. Plus, I really didn't think short stack dude would smooth call pre-flop with a pair higher than 7s - this makes me at worst a coin flip or slight dog against him if he calls.
After I lost the hand, I was looking forward to doing some math on the "correctness" of this decision.
Let me know if you think I got it right. I think the play had a positive EV ($19).
I thought there was about a 75% chance gambler dude would fold. I though there was about a 75% chance short stack dude would fold. If gambler dude called, I thought I'd win about 50% of the time given the wide range of hands he played. If short stack dude called, I thought I'd win about 50% of the time (if he had a stronger hand, I think he would have pushed pre-flop). If both called, I thought I win about 33% of the time.
Oh, how did the hand turn out?....gambler dude had 6-6. Short stack dude had K-Qo. My win assumptions above were correct. I was a small favorite (34%), but alas, a king hit the turn and I hit the exit.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Hottest New Poker Term
Have you heard the hottest new poker term?
The term is "Appalachian State"
verb; used with object
1. to defeat an arrogant opponent
adjective;
1. stunning success, hard to believe victory, unexpected positive results
Here's how and when to use it.
When playing in a tournament, you are short-stacked and hoping to get lucky when you push with a mediocre hand. The big stack at your table goes into the tank and considers calling you.
To discourage his call, you say, "is this is the hand I 'Appalachian State' ya with?"
I'd recommend that if you are going to use this new poker term, try it on someone from Michigan.
The term is "Appalachian State"
verb; used with object
1. to defeat an arrogant opponent
adjective;
1. stunning success, hard to believe victory, unexpected positive results
Here's how and when to use it.
When playing in a tournament, you are short-stacked and hoping to get lucky when you push with a mediocre hand. The big stack at your table goes into the tank and considers calling you.
To discourage his call, you say, "is this is the hand I 'Appalachian State' ya with?"
I'd recommend that if you are going to use this new poker term, try it on someone from Michigan.
