The Peacemaker

Villain: Made your flush, huh?

Then he bets $20 into an $80 pot.

He was right. I had made my flush with J8 on the river. So why was he betting into me on the river if he had read me correctly?

Either he was bluffing, he was testing me, or he wanted a call.

Hero: I did make my flush. You have a better flush?

Villain: No.

My read was correct when I called. He hadn't made his flush. This calling station had made a boat on the river by holding onto pocket TT the whole way and made a boat on the river with the third 10. He dragged the $300 pot from the $100 buyin no limit pot.

I could have just called. I should have just called. But my read on him was correct. He didn't have a flush.

So now it's time for the NL$100 revenge tour. I'm taking no mercy. This aggression will not stand. These fish need to pay for their transgressions.

Could I make more money playing 3/6 limit? Probably.

But as I told Daniel: I need to make things right.

Value Betting

When I grow up, I want to be able to value bet like the pros.

But I still can't seem to get it down yet, despite repeated readings of "Small Stakes Hold em," other books and the 2+2 forums.

I'm working on it though, and someday, I may well move up from my status as a winning 3/6 player to an expert player.

Value betting is betting with a marginal hand when you think you may get a call from a lesser hand (or something like that).

The easiest place to value bet is the river, when you think you may be beat, but you believe it's more likely you're best. This happens a lot when a flush card, straight card or overcard falls. Bet it out with a plan in mind about what you'll do if you get raised -- whether to call or fold.

On earlier streets, it may not be value betting exactly, but there are many times when Sklansky, Miller and Malmuth recommend raising with many kinds of draws. Their most famous example is raising with middle pair from late position when you also have a backdoor straight or some other longshot-type draw.

I'm working on it, but it's hard to make these raises when it feels like you're just throwing money away most of the time. I guess it's worth it for the times when your draw does come through.

I guess the Cliff Notes version of Sklansky's advice is this: when in later position than the bettor, raise the flop with any hand that is paired and has any draw, or any straight or flush draw if you have a pot equity edge or think you could gain a free card. I think that about sums it up. Anyone disagree with that synopsis?

Put another way, it seems like in late position if it's worth a call, you should almost always raise.

This aggressive play stuff is hard! The balance between making correct aggressive plays and simply throwing away money seems quite precarious because I don't know exactly what I'm doing.

Comments are appreciated.

Hands of the Day:
QJ top pair hand
Punishing Drawers
AK Bluff

Razu!

I'll keep this post short and to the point.

Not enough people take advantage of hands like KJ and KQ from middle to late position.

If there are only limpers in front of you, it's profitable to raise every time. If there's a raiser, of course you can safely let it go most of the time.

I've linked to this before, but it drives the point home: Ed Miller's Hand Quiz.

He says that KJ is known as a trouble hand, but you should raise it if there's no sign you're in trouble (meaning limpers). There's no question in my mind that he's right, at least for limit poker. KJ is a strong hand.

Poker for the People

Here's the cure for the world's ills: poker.

I could start a charity, called Poker for the People, that would teach people in developing countries how to play online poker.

By taking advantage of fishy players in the United States, the world's underclasses could greatly improve their lifestyles, put food on the table for their families or buy a car. They could save money for a better education for their children. They could be able to afford health treatments they wouldn't otherwise be able to pay for.

The beauty of this plan is that these new poker players wouldn't have to win much. A little money goes a long way in the developing world. Back when I was only making about $300 a month on poker, people here in Chile were still shocked because that's more than many people make working long hours at hard jobs.

Even breaking even on the bonuses would create a tremendous windfall.

So here's the plan: I'll set up an institute that will methodically train people in foreign countries to play poker. It will be a rigorous and difficult course, but the best will excel and make money off of Party Poker, just like many of us are doing now!

Where's the flaw?

Well, there's the obvious problem, which is that there are more losing poker players than winning ones. It stands to reason that new poker players in foreign countries would have a difficult learning curve, just like most winning players in the States do. The difference is that these players can't afford to lose.

If only this idea could work, though! Too bad it can't -- the world probably doesn't need any more degenerate gamblers than it already has.

It's a fun idea though.

Link:
Party Poker bonus

Newbie Insight

I ran into this Brit on my way to Mendoza, Argentina last weekend, and when he learned I make money on poker, he was fascinated.

We ate a delicious steak dinner (Argentina may well have the best steaks in the world), drank some excellent Malbec wine and then talked poker on the way back to the hotel.

What impressed me about the Brit, whose name was Jason, was that he seemed to ask all the right questions about the game.

"How do you overcome bad luck? How do you deal with the poor runs of cards? How do you ensure that you don't get frustrated and blow your money? How do you keep a level head when things go wrong?" he asked.

Jason immediately realized that the psychological factors of the game are almost as important as game play itself. It took me quite some time to be able to mentally absorb the bad beats, even long after I knew they were just part of the game. Knowing something and acting on it are two different things.

In answer to his questions, I responded that you need to be prepared for a bad run of cards but realize that it doesn't last. Good players always beat bad players in the long run.

I told him that I'm a winning player, but I have losing days all the time. No one wins all the time, and no one loses all the time -- that's what keeps losing players coming back for more.

I safeguard my bankroll by making sure I play at a level where I'm sure I can handle the losses and still be well-off. If I were to lose too much, I would step down to a lower level to rebuild my bankroll rather than playing at the same (or higher) level until I went bust.

I emphasized the importance of playing against players worse than yourself. It does no good to play at your exact level of skill because that would mean you'd be lucky to do better than break even.

It reminds me of what David Sklansky says in "Small Stakes Hold Em." He talks about how humans are great at pattern recognition, but that it's a terrible skill to have in poker because the patterns aren't there. Every hand is an individual event, and past events have no bearing on future performance, unlike many other aspects of life.

Perhaps the natural inclination to get frustrated when patterns don't work out contributes to people going on tilt. It makes sense that it's easier to get angry when you do everything right but the results are unfavorable. What do you do when you do the right thing for the right reason, but get the wrong result? You just keep on keeping on.

Jason didn't know much about poker, but he knew that it wasn't the game for him because he doesn't have the mental fortitude to deal with the random fall of the cards.

The poker players with natural skills quickly acquire the ability to separate the results from their actions. The rest of us need to learn the hard way, by repeated practice at each limit.

New PT

The only thing to write about is my new PokerTracker database. I've been using the default database since I first starting using this kick-ass program in December, and it was running a bit slow. Now it moves a good bit faster.

Before changing over the database, I went through and put fish on my buddy list so I can track them down. Discussion on the best way to do this can be found in the PokerTracker Guide.

The play itself on Eurobet is just trucking along. I've been pretty even for the last week or so, which means I have nothing to complain about.

I feel like I've been suffering more than my share of bad beats, but then again, I always feel that way!

It makes me wonder which is worse: to get good hands and lose more than your fair share, or to not get any good hands at all? Probably the first option, because second-best hands are the most expensive.

In other trivial poker news:

_I traveled to Mendoza, Argentina over the weekend to renew my tourist visa, which I have to do every three months. I rode on the bus with this Irish guy who was fascinated by the prospect of making money at online poker. I had "Small Stakes Hold em" on me, and he asked to borrow it. I was happy to oblige him and tell him some basics. But I think giving that book to a complete newbie is like handing nukes to a cat.

_Speaking of cats, my friends Daniel, Drew and Shammie leave for Vegas on Thursday. Be sure to check out Daniel's blog for updates from the gambling capital of the world.

_For my brother's birthday a couple of months ago, I transferred $50 into an Ultimate Bet account for him. He played the $5 and $1 tournaments until he was down to $2, but then came all the way back to build up to $150. Then he sold his stake to a friend of his, who blew all the money. Would my brother buy back in? Of course he would! A winning player can't stay away. So now he's slugging it out again at UB.

How to make money

This should be a simple question, but I'm not sure it is: Where do your poker profits come from?

The easiest answer is "other players." Sklansky, Miller et all like to talk about how poker is a game of profiting off of other people, making their loss your gain. That much is obvious.

Most profits come from fish. Good players are naturally harder to play against, and most of anyone's winnings are going to come from bad players.

But how do bad players give away money? Even the worst players know the rules of the game and are familiar with starting hands and when to lay down a hopeless hand.

There are several ways fish give away money. The primary source of winnings is preflop. I understand and respect how postflop play is the difference between a good and mediocre player, but I believe the most common and expensive mistakes are made preflop.

A player who sees the flop on 50 percent of the hands he is dealt is going to lose money. It's inevitable. They lose money when they limp with hands they shouldn't, and then it becomes more expensive when they have to call preflop raises and reraises.

Perhaps more expensive than that is when a shit hand like Kx offsuit hits and the player feels like he has to call the hand down to the river.

Postflop play is also important -- and more difficult -- because many players are not that loose preflop. Against these opponents, value betting marginal hands, bluffing, calling down and laying down at the right times becomes critical.

The point is that you don't make money in poker by knowing the basics. Profits come from taking advantage of betting mistakes as the hand progresses.

Poker is all about betting. If your read is correct that you have the best hand, you will win.

Of course, there are some times when checking and slow-playing are appropriate when you have the best hand.

But most winnings come from people who call your bets when they shouldn't.

Link:
Bill Fillmaff, Chapter 2

On Luck: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Variance

Variance is a bitch.

Or is it?

Isn't the principle of aggressive play that you're increasing your risk for a chance at a larger reward? Isn't that what you want -- to win the most over time in exchange for some swings when you try to push a small edge?

The point of value betting is that there's a likelihood of getting called by a lesser hand against your marginal hand. Over time, those small percentage points add up to profits.

The problem is that suckouts happen. Sometimes those small advantages are easily overcome. And for some reason, it seems like these facials tend to come all at once, turning a mediocre session into a disaster.

Variance seems like a terrible cross for the good poker player to bear. It feels like an unfair consequence of a fundamentally fair game.

A more mature approach would be to embrace variance. Variance is what gives fish hope. If fish never won, they wouldn't play the game. They wouldn't keep coming back for more even after they've lost more than they won. We want to feed the fish for the slaughter.

Gutshots, backdoor draws, unlikely two pairs on the river, hitting Ax heads-up on the end vs. top pair ... these are the kinds of beats that fish thrive on.

The important thing to remember is that your top pair, top kicker will hold up more over the long run than their longshot draw. A fundamental concept of poker is that better hands are less probable than more likely hands -- a single pair is more common and will hold up much more often than not against a flush draw.

The contradiction of poker psychology is to learn to love luck and variance when it isn't with you. In fact, most of the time, fish benefit from luck more than a good player ever will. Luck is a byproduct of opportunity; when fish play more hands than they should, they also create more opportunities to make a longshot draw.

Fortunately, fish pay a steep price on these opportunities. Winning players come out on top because they know and respect the odds. Good players only invest money in a pot if the reward is greater than the risk -- that is to say, if the situation has a positive expected value (EV).

Against fish, there are only two ways a good player can lose over the long run: by going on tilt or playing above their bankroll. Otherwise, time will cure all ills and fatten all wallets.

Link:
An article about being a prop

Golden Age

There is no doubt that this is the Golden Age of poker, and there's no end in sight.

The Party Poker network is approaching 100,000 users at peak hours. The fish are biting. There are dozens of TV poker broadcasts a week (so I hear -- they don't quite come in on Chilean cable). Home games seem prevalent and Vegas is booming.

Most importantly, the games are easy. I truly believe that anyone who puts in the effort to learn the game can make some good money.

I don't know when this boom started. It was before Chris Moneymaker, before the World Poker Tour. It may have begun more three or four years ago with the advent of hole cams on the British "Late Night Poker."

But there's no end in sight. The good times are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.

I can only hope that they will continue for years to come.

As long as the number of online players stays steady or increases, the percentage of those players who are fish will stay relatively the same.

Link:
Streaks Spreadsheet

I think I'll get by

I've gotten into a pretty effective poker routine (or maybe I've just been lucky):

After a long day of reading, hanging out, eating at good Chilean restaurants and drinking, I finally log on to play poker at about 1 or 2 a.m. It's been profitable for me to find tables that are shorthanded because it's easier to exploit fishes' mistakes there.

I start out with a couple of 3/6 tables shorthanded, start up some music from Yahoo! Radio, crank up Pokertracker and Gametime+, and then open a couple more tables.

The funny thing is that these three- or four-handed, late-night 3/6 games are even fishier than I would have thought. So when I lost a few pots against ridiculous gutshots and third pair draws that turn into trips, I started getting a little angry.

It was almost funny that I was getting frustrated. I haven't gotten pissed off at a table in a while -- in part because I've been winning, but also because I've adjusted to the reality of variance and beats.

I would not say I was tilting, because that would imply I was letting emotions affect my game negatively. Instead, I became more focused.

I was still mildly annoyed about 30 minutes later before I looked up and realized I had won a few hundred dollars. Heh.

Link:
Report spammers

The Dude Abides

WALTER: They're nihilists, Donny, nothing to be afraid of.
DIETER: Vee don't care. Vee still vant zat money or vee fuck you up.
--The Big Lebowski

At the poker table, I am like the nihilists. I believe in nothing, and I want the money.

It's hard to believe in nothing though. Superstitions always creep in.

I've written about how to appease the Poker Gods before, but there are other myths I tell myself as well.

Like when I'm on a good run, I think I should play more to maximize my profit. Of course, that only makes sense if I'm running well because of superior play and not dumb luck.

Or when I was on my way to winning a small tournament at the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas, I was sure to take my watch off any time I washed my hands, and then I made sure my hands were dry before putting it back on.

That was the only way to assure victory.

Does that make sense? None whatsoever.

But I don't think my transgressions are nearly as bad as many of the professionals I read about.

They have faith in things like intuition, which may exist, but more often than not it's a perception of tells.

People such as Doyle Brunson say they always play the next hand after a winning hand. Playing junk cards just because I had won the previous hand never worked for me.

Others talk about competitive spirit and motivation, but I think what they really mean is that they're focused and lucky.

The danger of these beliefs is that they can get the best of a player who lets them affect his play.

But superstitions are not without their merits. Believing in something often gives a player a psychological advantage, most often in the form of confidence.

That would be a comfort.

I'm doomed to the hard road of cold facts and odds.

Link:
Empire bonus starts Wednesday

Anniversary

It was a little more than a year ago when I was on the graveyard shift at my old job in Atlanta.

I had been thinking about "going pro" and taking the dive into online poker, and this was the perfect night for it. Everything was quiet, I was alone in the office, and I was ready to test the waters.

So I cranked up Party Poker, deposited $50, and played the lowest-level no limit game I could find, the $25 buyin.

After only a few minutes, my $50 was gone. I don't know what happened to it. I imagine I must have called some all-ins without knowing any better. In fact, I'm sure I knew nearly nothing.

I bought in for another $50, and lost that almost as fast as the first $50.

That let me know I wasn't ready, even for one of the easiest games on the Internet.

One month later, I challenged Party Poker anew, and this time I only lost $18. The next day, I won $13. Then I won again, and again, and I was hooked.

I moved on to other sites and kept winning in general. When I helped cover the Group of Eight Summit on Sea Island off Georgia's coast, I was sure to log in from my hotel room. When I was watching a baseball game, I'd put some money on the table and play.

At the end of June, I went to Vegas for the first time. I stayed in the Horseshoe, won a big pot at the NL table, lost a tournament at the Orleans, and came in first place at a small buyin 57-player tourney at the Nugget. I'll recount that tourney another time, but suffice it to say that I felt I had established myself.

Soon afterward, Daniel and I started hitting up the home game scene in Atlanta, which proved to be quite profitable.

We also went on something of a disasterous trip to Biloxi, Mississippi, but at least it was educational. I also scored a home game tournament win to help boost my confidence.

Almost all of this play was no limit hold em. What did I know about other forms of poker? I had only been experienced what they play on TV.

When I first went to Vegas, Daniel and I joked about how much we hated limit poker, and we couldn't figure out why there were so few no limit tables in comparison.

I moved to Santiago, Chile at the end of September, and soon decided that limit poker is not only essential, but that there's a tremendous profit potential there.

So I got more serious, read the 2+2 forums more, read more books and dove into the limit pool.

I found limit to be much more difficult than no limit because I couldn't bomb the pot with large bets when you wanted to represent a strong hand. I couldn't adjust the odds I was offering my opponents, and it was cheaper for people to try to stay in and suck out on me.

Fortunately, that's about when I discovered bonus whoring. It wasn't long before I had accounts at all the Party Poker skins, Absolute Poker, Ultimate Bet, Full Tilt, Paradise Poker and Poker Stars. Anywhere there was a bonus, that's where I would play.

That's also around the time when I started using PokerTracker, which is invaluable.

Despite the ups and downs of limit, I remained convinced that I should stick with limit because I would eventually break through, establish a consistent win rate, and be able to move up.

I tried making $3/6 my regular game for the first time in December. I enjoyed it, but I had a more difficult time there.

My worst losing streak came in the middle of January, when I started losing and went on tilt. I resorted to higher-stakes no limit games to try to make compensate for my limit failures, but only dug myself in a deeper hole. I played in some tournaments, hoping for a big score, but I lost all of them, even the 10-player sit-n-goes.

I was demoralized and thinking of quitting. Daniel had to listen to me bitch over instant messenger all the time about how bad I was doing. And I couldn't continue like this for long, knowing that I was living off my savings account while staying here in Chile.

So I did what any respectable grinder would do: I dug in my heals and played lower-level games that I could easily beat until I had won back my losses. I put in many hours at the $25 buyin no limit games because I knew I would win. At that point, I had little choice.

I thought it would take months, but it only took a few weeks to recover the money I had lost.

I haven't looked back as my roll has continued to grow since then. I made $2/4 limit my regular game until I could establish a good winrate, and I decided to wait until my bankroll exceeded $4,000 before returning to $3/6 for another go. I know that bankroll size may seem excessive for that limit, but I needed the financial and mental security of that level for my self-confidence and also because I will likely have to dip into my poker accounts in a couple of months to live off of.

Today, my bankroll is approaching $5,000. I play $3/6 confidently. I get rakeback, which is like another monthly bonus.

The most important lessons I've learned are about patience, the difference between bad luck and being outplayed, tilt recognition and game selection.

I often think of an article in which Clonie Gowan said she was a fish for two years before finding her poker legs. I'm long past that.

Link:
Odd new game invented by Sklansky