People smarter than me...

Lee Jones and David Sklansky are much smarter than me. I generally trust their advice, but I've found some passages in their work that are worth some thought.

Over the last few days, I've been skimming through Jones' "Winning Low Limit Hold 'Em" and Sklansky's "Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players." I've read both of these books before, and they're always good to review again.

There are a couple of ideas I found interesting upon review.

When you're heads-up with a top pair and weak kicker, Jones suggests raising if the bet comes directly from your right. I agree with that. But if that gets you heads-up on the turn, and your opponent checks, Jones suggests also checking and then calling a bet on the river. Sure, that makes sense if you strongly fear you're outkicked, but it seems like there are so many hands that people will bet out on the flop without having top pair with a better kicker. If you don't bet the turn, then you're missing an opportunity here, in my opinion. I guess it depends on the situation: Betting the turn makes sense if you feel like there's a good chance you're ahead, but not if you're dominated. It has to be a judgment call.

Then I found this line in Sklansky: "The second important concept concerning fourth-street play is that you should be betting good hands on the flop, but frequently check-raising with them on the turn." He gives the example of holding AK on a flop of Axx rainbow from early position. I'll grant that this strategy would work well in this specific situation, but it's hard to pull off a check-raise in this situation with anything less than paired A with top kicker if it's a multiway pot. Additionally, you would need the flop to be otherwise ragged for this to be effective. Sklansky isn't wrong, but this advice seems misleading because it's only useful in specific situations.

---

Meanwhile, play has been decent at the tables. I've been winning small, which is much better than losing. I finished the Sucky Room bonus, and now I've moved on to the Poker Stars bonus. Ultimate Bet also has a reload bonus if you use Neteller.

I played $2/$4 limit on Sucky Room so I could clear that bonus faster, and it was a successful endeavor. The play on Sucky Room is so sucky.

I'm trying to stick with no limit games for a while because it seems like a safer game than limit in that the downswings are shorter and less expensive. I don't know for a fact that no limit has less variance than limit, but that's my perception. If anyone knows of any literature that discusses the contrast between variance at no limit and the variance at limit, I would be interested to read about it.

So no limit games are fine, but I really miss playing limit poker. Limit is just more interesting to me -- it seems like a more intricate game, and you don't have to fold preflop or on the flop as much because the bet sizes are comparatively smaller. And limit is certainly better for rakeback! :)

I'll be back at limit before long, but I've set a monetary goal for no limit before I switch back. I have to fortify the good ol' bankroll first.

---

Link:
Check out my friend Daniel's blog, Poker Cats, during his poker trip to New Orleans.

Sucky Room

I've played at a lot of online poker sites, but Sucky Room (I mean, Poker Room) is the suckiest.

You can't rebuy chips if you lose part of your stack in no limit games.

The blinds on the no limit games are listed as, for example, $1/$1 instead of $0.5/$1.

There's only a little beep to let you know it's your turn, but it doesn't tell you (at least on the downloaded version) which table it's your turn at.

The software is jerky and slow.

You get booted from tables at random sometimes.

But Sucky Room does have a few strong points:

It's sucky, meaning there are a lot of fish.

You can curse all you want because it's too sucky to censor you.

The bonus is OK -- it's 30 percent up to $500 through bonuswhores.com. It's a bit too slow to clear at no limit for my tastes though.

So I'm stuck at Sucky Room, playing these sucky games, and hoping I make some money so that the suck is worthwhile! Daniel swears it is.

Peter's Principle

In an organization, each person rises to the level of his own incompetence.
--Laurence J. Peter

Sound familiar?

In poker, this is a problem. Everyone wants to play at their highest level, and yet when you find that limit, you're bound to lose because you're either over your head or the rake severely cuts into your winnings.

Then it becomes difficult to play at a lower level while keeping your pride.

I've talked before about my disgust with having to step down to no limit or $2/$4 limit after playing $5/$10 6-max and $3/$6 full. It's hard to retreat to a level where your winnings are safer and your peers are fishier.

"I'm much better than these fish at this level. What am I doing here?" I think.

That's when it's most important to realize a universal truth about poker. Poker is all about money.

I'm reminded of when my friend Irene asked me how I manage to keep winning at online gambling.

"I play against people who are worse than me," I said.

It's not important to prove yourself against tougher competition. Moving up in limits is only worthwhile if it's in pursuit of greater profits. Stepping down in limits is always smart when you need to recover from failed advances into higher stratospheres.

If you don't stop your losses soon enough, the Poker Gods win. They will bust you for playing out of your limit. They will delight in giving your money to players who deserve it more than you. When that happens, you're the fish. When the Poker Gods aren't busy fattening fish for the slaughter, they're busy with the slaughter itself.

I can live with that (for now). I can be happy at $100 buyin no limit games for a while -- after all, I'm making good money again after the first three weeks of May brought a downswing.

But I don't know how long I can stay content at this level after getting a taste of victory in places where the pots are larger and the players are nearly as fishy.

There will be no quiet retirement in the green fields of NL$100 for me. Eventually, I'll return to these more expensive limit games to try again. For now, I need to be patient, continue winning and keep building my bankroll.

Link:
Party Poker bonus

Oh yeah

That's what I'm talking about!

It had been so long since I hit a great rush that I had forgotten what it felt like. And at no limit, it feels so much sweeter to crush your opponents and have those big stacks pushed my way.

Oh, yes. Oh god yes.

The night started out like all my nights at the tables have recently. I sit down, and within a half hour, I've lost three buyins. My very first hand, I lost to overtrips vs. a medium-sized stack.

Then I toiled away for a while, and then everything came together at the same time.

Busting two people at once. Losing the main pot with a set of 8 vs. a straight, but winning the larger side pot vs. a fish who couldn't let his KK go. Taking out AK top pair with KQ two pair. Quads that get action.

Wow, that feels good. This is how it should be.

Now to begin the cycle again: confidence building, winning, taking it for granted and then a slide before climbing back up again. Fortunately, I think I can limit the slides and maximize the wins.

Tonight reminded me of how very different no limit and limit are. No limit is just a simpler game, there's no question in my mind. I believe Miller or Malmuth said so once too. And in a simpler game, the edges are sharper, and the fish are more likely to pay because you can decide what pot odds to offer your opponent by varying bet sizes.

Limit is more based on faith. You have to believe and know you're making the right move at all times, even when that right move fails time and time again.

In no limit, making the right move is more likely to offer instant gratification.

Separately, I want to hear some feedback on my last post. Since then, I've gotten the idea that those universal truths/maxims I listed may be one of my biggest leaks. These rules of thumbs have been drilled into my head over and over again until I don't pay close enough attention to the game at hand and adjust to the individual situation. Perhaps that's the trick.

No Limit Hell

No limit did not welcome me back with open arms.

I feel good about my play, and yet I lost.

Why?

I wish there were something to be gained from this losing. The moral always seems to be the same: gain a greater understanding of variance, and all will be well in the long run.

Well, sorry. I don't understand variance at all.

I was thinking about this last night.

In limit poker, I figure about two-thirds of players are losers and one-third are winners. A losing player, by definition, will continue to lose over the long run. That means that if he plays long enough, he will go bust. The opposite is true for a winning player -- if he plays long enough, he will make a lot of money.

OK, that's obvious. But this is where variance comes in. Variance keeps the fish happy. It's like fish food, feeding them and feeding them and feeding them until they become bloated and die. They make easy prey for other predators, or, more likely, the toilet bowl.

Variance is hard to comprehend because I know I am a winning player. If I'm a winning player, then why have I been losing?

The only explanation I can come up with is that variance is continually higher than I expect. I make tens of thousands of little decisions each day at the tables, and I expect those small marginal edges I have to add up to something. I expect QQ to beat AK about 55 percent of the time. I expect top pair on the flop to hold up most of the time. I will see a showdown with two pair, even vs. a threatening board. I will call down with A high heads-up vs. a non-threatening board and a very loose player who won't fold.

I believe these are universal truths. If I follow these maxims, the money will come to me. It always seemed that because of the large number of decisions involved over a single poker session, those small edges I can exploit will add up. After all, if you flip a coin 10 times, it can come up tails seven or eight of those times. But if you flip the coin 10,000 times, you'll come extremely close to a 50 percent distribution between heads and tails.

Possible explanations for losing streaks:

1) Variance is higher than the odds.

2) Although I may make tens of thousands of decisions per session, there are only a few decisions that are better decisions than my opponents would make.

3) Everything I know about poker is wrong.

4) I'm clueless.

If anyone has any thoughts, please leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail. Also, I'd love to read a discussion dealing with variance from this perspective, either in a book or on a Web site.

Time to Swallow My Pride

Stupid reality setting in. Yar!

I'm not going to get into the whole typical whiny diatribe about limit poker and variance. It's true that May has sucked, but it's been a slow suck that hasn't been too painful.

What would be really painful would be having to get a job before I planned because my bankroll ran out too soon.

So I'm going to suck it up and step down in limits significantly. I'm going to play boring no limit games for hours and hours because the money is easier there. I'm going to play no limit despite a losing streak there because I know it has and probably always will be my most consistent winner.

I'm going to play no limit because I need the money.

Just watch:

Check. Fold. Fold. Check. All in!

Link:
Party Poker bonus

Quick hits

My Internet access has been sporadic because the modem is quickly failing, so that's my excuse for not blogging.

Some items:

_I love listening to poker radio broadcasts while I'm playing. I've listened to Card Club on Lord Admiral Radio just about since it started. I listened to an episode of Poker Diagram last night, which was fun. These guys are British and crazy.
Here are some other links, shamelessly stolen from the Card Club Web site:
http://www.brendoman.com/matt
http://www.pokerpodcast.co.uk
Really, you're playing poker, and you probably want something to listen to. It's better than getting distracted by Web surfing.

_I've gone through something of a slump through the first two weeks of May. It's annoying, and hopefully it will be over soon. I've ended my experiment at playing at $5/$10 6-max, although I actually did OK there and broke near-even. I just decided that I couldn't afford the risk because I'm going to need this bankroll to live off of when I move back to the states. I considered playing some NL$100 for a while, but I've had bad luck there recently and I find I'm lacking patience for NL. So back to $3/$6 for me.

_On a whim, I played a $100+$9 sit-and-go last night. I doubled up early with AA vs. a preflop all-in with 99. I mostly folded around until the blinds got significant. Then when we were down to five players, I decided I needed to steal some blinds to ensure a spot in the money. I raised all in on the button with AK and got called by the big stack in the small blind, who had 55. The big blind was also all in with something like J8. The 55 holds up, and I go home on the bubble. I don't feel bad about it.

_Girls in Argentina are so hot. Every ... single ... one. Wow.

Going bust

My bankroll is as good as it's ever been, but the money is going to run out.

I'm using my bankroll to support myself here in Chile, and I'll continue to spend it when I get back to the States at the end of June or early July.

This bankroll will then be dedicated to keeping me away from work for as long as possible. I'll live with my parents, crash on people's couches and travel to Baltimore, Washington, Tunica?, Vegas, Tampa, New Orleans?, New York?, Austin?, Michigan? and Canada. Damn. I bet some of those question marks don't work out.

I'll play poker in home games, in basement games, in bed and outside at the pool at my brother's apartment.

Who knows how long it will last? The States are more expensive than Chile, and I don't know how long I can stretch out this money while I'm trying to be frugal and live it up at the same time.

So it will slowly shrink until it approaches $0. When it gets close, I'll have to start looking for a job.

Dammit.

Eyes Wide Shut

If you can't quite see the computer screen, is that a good signal that you should stop playing?

I couldn't pull myself away, despite being half-asleep and a little bit drunk. The games were too good. It's the toothpick principle: the game was so good, I needed toothpicks to prop my eyes open.

To be honest, I probably should have stopped much earlier in the evening. Even against utter fish, it's hard to play anywhere near your best game in that condition.

Fortunately, I didn't need anywhere near my best game to make back some of the money I had lost earlier in the day. When I was done, I was happily surprised to find that I was close to even on the day.

I've been experimenting with the $5/$10 limit shorthanded tables on Eurobet. It's an adventure! These tables are generally much looser than full ring tables at any limit that I've seen. The level of play also seems to be quite manageable.

Shorthanded play has its natural consequences: more variance and a higher number of hands per time played. Not that I mind; shorthanded games turn me into an action junky. I pay closer attention because something is always happening. I've been limiting myself to two or three tables at a time because everything happens much faster than in full ring games. We'll see how long that lasts.

These games have been a good experience so far. I'm up a few hundred, and I think I can survive at this level. It's a lot easier for me to pull out aggressive moves in shorthanded games than I could in 3/6 full ring. Clearly, my mistake is not using these moves in the full ring games. But in 6-max, I feel like aggressive play is even more important, so that makes it much easier for me to convince myself to raise with second pair and a backdoor draw, for example.

Speaking of survival, I'm becoming convinced that that's all that's important. As long as I'm a winning player at a limit, I'll feel good about myself because I'm making money and staying alive.

Of course it would be awesome if I could pull down the 2.5 BB/100 that some people can claim, but I've never come close to that over a long-term period at any limit I've ever played. I'll be satisfied with myself if I can just beat the game. That's a reward in and of itself. I'm going to try not to worry about my winrate and concentrate more on continued learning and playing my best game. After all, winrate is the result, not the cause.

In conjunction with this trial-basis move to 5/10, I've decided to forego the Tuesday reload bonus at Empire poker that I mentioned yesterday. I read a post on 2+2 from a guy who said he made about $100/1000 hands anyway, so it wouldn't even be worthwhile to slum it for the sake of a bonus at a site that could potentially close his account without cause. I'm inclined to agree.

Link:
PokerDiagram podcast

The problem with losing streaks

Is that they suck.

But beyond that, they can try your confidence and induce tilt. And maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe on some level, tilt is appropriate, if it means that you're questioning yourself and making necessary improvements to your game. Of course tilt will cost you money in the short term, and nobody tilts on purpose, but I would rather gain something from my downswings that just ride them out with uncaring determination that you're doing nothing wrong.

Unless you are in fact doing nothing wrong and playing perfect poker. In that case, carry on.

Of course, I'm talking about running bad because that's where I've been recently. I like to think that the beats get easier to take over time. Maybe.

It doesn't take long for me to start finding things wrong with my play. My thoughts: "I should have value bet that river. I should have called down. I shouldn't have bluffed there. I should have folded when I had the chance on the flop. I should have raised instead of called."

Or, eventually, more sophisticated thoughts: "Mother f&*@)*( son of a *$%)! damn bad beating loose calling seeing the river @$$hole fish! You'll give me that money right back just as soon as I beat it out of you!" Or, in espanol, "Concha tu madre, jueon culeado!" (To native speakers: sorry about the spelling.)

So, after all this babbling, we get to the point.

Things I have learned in the last week:
_It's OK to limp with QJs or other suited broadway, even under the gun
_Short-handed play can be a gold mine!
_It's really hard to tell if you're running bad or playing poorly. There were some good ideas in this thread from the 2+2 Forums, but I had a hard time finding any distinct patterns in my recent play, probably because of small sample sizes. My running hypothesis is that win percentages with premium hands give some indication of whether you're running good or bad, but there's no way to measure how much action you're getting on those premium hands. If flopped quads only win you the blinds, you aren't really reaping much benefit.
_I need to work on my suckout skills. The fish seem to be able to do it better than me. I wonder why?
_Despite a lot of experience multitabling, I have to admit that I sometimes lose focus and make marginal plays because I missed out on previous action or just simply aren't concentrating enough. Reminds me of this post from The Cards Speak: On Self Affirmation.

---

Did I mention shorthanded play? If you care about improving your overall game and your shorthanded game in particular, read these articles by Jason Pohl. If you don't, you're only hurting yourself.

---

There's been a lot of chatter on the 2+2 Internet Gambling Forum about Empire Poker closing a lot of peoples' accounts. Supposedly, they selectively closed accounts of players who were costing the company money by only taking advantage of bonuses.

While all this is going on, Empire Poker has decided to offer a Tuesday-only 50 percent reload bonus up to $100 with the bonus code Tuesday100. I'm confident Empire Poker would not confiscate my money if I played there only for the bonus, but they could well close my account. I think the risk is small, and I'll probably take advantage of this bonus.

Update: An alleged Empire Poker representative explains the account closures

Going Pro

It was in March of 2004 when Daniel and I first started debating "going pro."

At the time, going pro meant stepping up from the home game routine and trying to make some real money on the Internet. My first try, I went bust faster than Keanu Reeves falling to the ground when he tries to jump those buildings in "The Matrix."

But it didn't take long to start making a little money, and then a little more.

Now, once again, I've gone pro. Nothing has changed, except for that for the first time, I'm living off my poker winnings.

When I moved to Chile more than seven months ago, I had nearly $5,000 saved up to last me for the foreseeable future. You can live off $500 a month here, but I've spent a little bit more than that.

I've been building up my bankroll preparing for this day -- the day that my bankroll's growth may shrink even if I'm winning because I'm having to use it to pay for drinks of Pisco sour, empanadas de champignon and Lucky Strike lights.

Hopefully, I'll be able to make some money over these next two months before I move back to the States at the end of June. Then I plan on living off my poker winnings for a few months before I make a regrettable return to the real world (or get lucky, keep winning, and move up in limits enough to sustain myself. That's unlikely though).

Until then, I'll be a short-term poker professional, making my bread at the tables and paying my own way. I'll be living off a daily dose of fish while throwing myself at the mercy of the Poker Gods.

Wish me luck!

Hand of the Day:
Bad river laydown?

Like Bart Simpson at a blackboard

I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.

I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.
I will not try to bluff calling stations.

Limit vs. No Limit

Never before have the differences between limit and no limit seemed so clear as they do now.

Now if I only knew how to exploit them better ...

I finally feel like I'm getting comfortable at limit, which took forever. So what do I do? Take a tour of the $100 buyin no limit games at Party Poker.

Wow. Most of these players are bad.

The whole feel of the game is different to me. You have to fold more, and calling down to the river is generally bad strategy unless you have a pretty damn good hand.

While the moments of winning big hands are more exciting than in limit, they come like a flash of lightning. One minute you have $100, the next you either have $200 or $0 if you go all in and get a caller.

That said, the time in between these big hands seems to pass very slowly. No limit can be quite boring when you're not getting any cards.

Limit is in many ways more fun because you get involved with more hands, it's more profitable to reach a showdown, and there seems to be a right and wrong answer for each of the multiple decisions in each hand.

No limit goes more like this when you have a good hand:

Check the flop. Call the bet. Check the turn. Re-raise all in. I bet my opponent didn't see that trap coming. But that's the way you do it.

The bottom line though is that they both can be good games. There's plenty of money out there for all of us.

---

Take advantage of the PokerNow bonus. They'll give you a bonus of 30 percent on your next deposit up to $200. So deposit more than $667 to get the maximum.

---

Hand of the Day: How badly did I play this?

I commented in this thread that I thought betting out the flop with T7o top pair wasn't a good move. I'm sorry, but T7o is just too damn weak to bet out into a multiway pot from the big blind. You're going to get callers, and one of them is more than likely to already have or soon will have a better hand. Keep the pot small, go for a check-raise or wait for the turn with a shitty top pair hand like this. You're not protecting anything by betting it out, and I can't see how the bet is for much value either.

---

Other interesting hands/posts:

Did I play this draw correctly?
I don't wanna raise...QJs UTG
How much would GOD make playing poker?