I can`t think of a prominent poker player who is clearly dumb. But I can think of some smart ones. Action Dan Harrington former competitive chess player. Chris Ferguson PhD in math. Ed Miller worked at Microsoft. The great man David Sklansky is clearly a genius; which is why playing poker is clearly a game of skill.
k I`m lazy and taking the path of least resistance here. But I`ve always dreamed of taking a shot. $22 is over my bankroll so I'd love to have a chance.
I have a new computer plugged in after my old PC died. My Dell inspiron is running pretty well so far. Lots of poker stuff to download and install including HEM (had to install postgres first and separately because of windows 7 install glitch); PokerStars (was able to re-import my old notes, sweet); UltimateBet (now that my Stars reload bonus has expired I should play at UB again); pokerstove (I calculated that 72o vs KK has 12% equity, that hand came up playing live last weekend; 72o has 11% equity against AA, I guess because it's harder to make a wheel).
One issue is my new PC doesn't have MS office. I tried OpenOffice and that's fine for the spreadsheets but my old Access poker MDB won't load. I got a 60 day trial of office so that buys me a bit of time but I need to come up with some scheme. I may just use HEM only for results and put my live results just into a big spreadsheet. So basically get by without Access.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
PokerStars blogger championship
The blogger freeroll is running again this year. I missed it last year. It looks like a week long event this time so I should be able to find time to participate. This is traditionally a very good freeroll with large overlay. The WBCOOP is a free online Poker tournament open to all Bloggers, so register on WBCOOP to play.
Registration code: 877925
Sunday, December 27, 2009
2010 poker goals
Well its about time to think about my poker goals for 2010.
I did ok on my 2009 goals. It was a good poker year. I made my debut at $1/$2 NL at the local casino with modest success. I was up a little bit over a few visits there. I should try to get more live play in for 2010. The goal is to continue to chip up at $1/$2 live at the 2009 hourly winrate or better.
I'd like to try some live tournaments too in 2010. There's a $55 early bird tournament. That would be worth a shot. I may also try to satellite into some of the $200 or $500 monthly buyin tournaments at the casino.
Online 2009 was a pretty good year. I took a shot at $25 NL and have done OK over a small sample size so far. Online goals are to stick at $25 NL and be a winner there. Like live I'd like to get in more play; but that seems to be a goal every year.
I'd like to take a shot at pot limit hold'em. That's available at the $25 level on Stars. I haven't tried a new game in some time so that might be fun.
I have it in my mind I'd like to try out heads up no limit hold'em; like at the $2 NL level. But I'm not sure if I'd be able to go back to full ring after all of the action in HU. So might have to think about that one.
For online tournaments I'm not much of a tournament regular. They take more time than I usually have to play. Still tournaments are fun. I would like to play in the big Stars Sunday $11 1/4 million tourney. By the 2% guideline I can take a shot. It's just about finding some time for it, Sundays are usually pretty packed. Also for MTT is to cash in a $5 MTT for the first time.
I did ok on my 2009 goals. It was a good poker year. I made my debut at $1/$2 NL at the local casino with modest success. I was up a little bit over a few visits there. I should try to get more live play in for 2010. The goal is to continue to chip up at $1/$2 live at the 2009 hourly winrate or better.
I'd like to try some live tournaments too in 2010. There's a $55 early bird tournament. That would be worth a shot. I may also try to satellite into some of the $200 or $500 monthly buyin tournaments at the casino.
Online 2009 was a pretty good year. I took a shot at $25 NL and have done OK over a small sample size so far. Online goals are to stick at $25 NL and be a winner there. Like live I'd like to get in more play; but that seems to be a goal every year.
I'd like to take a shot at pot limit hold'em. That's available at the $25 level on Stars. I haven't tried a new game in some time so that might be fun.
I have it in my mind I'd like to try out heads up no limit hold'em; like at the $2 NL level. But I'm not sure if I'd be able to go back to full ring after all of the action in HU. So might have to think about that one.
For online tournaments I'm not much of a tournament regular. They take more time than I usually have to play. Still tournaments are fun. I would like to play in the big Stars Sunday $11 1/4 million tourney. By the 2% guideline I can take a shot. It's just about finding some time for it, Sundays are usually pretty packed. Also for MTT is to cash in a $5 MTT for the first time.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Collusion on PokerStars story
I was playing at the local casino last week. As sometimes happens some people at the table got to discussing online poker.
The dealer said he wouldn't play online because he likes the interactive aspect of live play. That's fine, I can understand that playing against "avatars" instead of real people might seem unenjoyable for some.
Then some others felt that online was insecure because it was too easy to cheat. The example they gave was that you don't know if the people you are playing against are all just from the same college dorm room.
They discussed IP address checks and how these can be ineffective as it is not hard for people in close proximity to have distinct IPs from different ISP [with NAT the converse is also true where large numbers of people at different computers may appear to be connecting from the same NAT IP address]. Thus they felt it would be too difficult to detect collusion and it could be gotten away with.
I was just listening and probably wisely didn't say anything. Although they seemed to miss that there are more sophisticated ways to detect collusion. Big sites like Stars have proprietary advanced software to detect cheats. Stuff coming right out of graduate schools in math, statistics, economics.
Also of course there are the human detectives. The watchful eyes and ears at the tables. The players who will report suspicious activity to alert security to keep the games clean. On 2+2 its no secret that Stars security relies heavily on watchful players to report suspicious activity. Players will "rat out" cheaters since it is themselves who are being cheated.
So back to the casino. One fellow went on to tell a story about two people he knew who attempted to collude at small stakes on PokerStars. He said it worked for a little while but then they were caught by Stars security. The accounts were closed and their funds confiscated. The amount wasn't large, around $300 he said.
Now it gets interesting. To the table talkers, this seemed to confirm that it is possible to get away with collusion on PokerStars! Uh no, that's not really true. What it actually proves is that would be cheaters [even at the lowest stakes] will be caught and their funds will be taken away.
It seemed strange to me the fact that the cheaters were caught somehow then proves that you can get away with cheating. Oh well if they don't want to play online that's their choice of course. And yes this story confirms there are people attempting to cheat and collude at online poker at all stakes [and in live poker too]. But the big sites realize that security is in a sense their only product and if the players don't feel comfortable, that the game is clean, then they just won't play and the site will go under.
The dealer said he wouldn't play online because he likes the interactive aspect of live play. That's fine, I can understand that playing against "avatars" instead of real people might seem unenjoyable for some.
Then some others felt that online was insecure because it was too easy to cheat. The example they gave was that you don't know if the people you are playing against are all just from the same college dorm room.
They discussed IP address checks and how these can be ineffective as it is not hard for people in close proximity to have distinct IPs from different ISP [with NAT the converse is also true where large numbers of people at different computers may appear to be connecting from the same NAT IP address]. Thus they felt it would be too difficult to detect collusion and it could be gotten away with.
I was just listening and probably wisely didn't say anything. Although they seemed to miss that there are more sophisticated ways to detect collusion. Big sites like Stars have proprietary advanced software to detect cheats. Stuff coming right out of graduate schools in math, statistics, economics.
Also of course there are the human detectives. The watchful eyes and ears at the tables. The players who will report suspicious activity to alert security to keep the games clean. On 2+2 its no secret that Stars security relies heavily on watchful players to report suspicious activity. Players will "rat out" cheaters since it is themselves who are being cheated.
So back to the casino. One fellow went on to tell a story about two people he knew who attempted to collude at small stakes on PokerStars. He said it worked for a little while but then they were caught by Stars security. The accounts were closed and their funds confiscated. The amount wasn't large, around $300 he said.
Now it gets interesting. To the table talkers, this seemed to confirm that it is possible to get away with collusion on PokerStars! Uh no, that's not really true. What it actually proves is that would be cheaters [even at the lowest stakes] will be caught and their funds will be taken away.
It seemed strange to me the fact that the cheaters were caught somehow then proves that you can get away with cheating. Oh well if they don't want to play online that's their choice of course. And yes this story confirms there are people attempting to cheat and collude at online poker at all stakes [and in live poker too]. But the big sites realize that security is in a sense their only product and if the players don't feel comfortable, that the game is clean, then they just won't play and the site will go under.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
$10 for 10 on UltimateBet
I got an interesting e-mail from UltimateBet last week. They offered me a free $10 for making any deposit. Or I could have 111% deposit bonus.
I took the free $10. I don't clear bonuses very fast an I still have a Stars reload bonus to work on. I just made a minimum $10 deposit and they added the $10 right away, no strings attached. That's pretty good, about the easiest 100% profit you'll ever see. Thanks UB.
I'm not really sure what to do with UB going forward. Maybe still play low buyin tournaments which are fun at times. I noticed they don't advertise on WWE Smackdown any more on Rogers Sportsnet and no WWE freerolls lately so I don't have that bit of brand loyalty any more. My bankroll there is now a bit over $100 for the first time thanks to a recent tournament score and this new $20 injection. Plus I can cash out $10 of rakeback I earned if I want to. Still I'm not sure about a longer term plan for there.
I took the free $10. I don't clear bonuses very fast an I still have a Stars reload bonus to work on. I just made a minimum $10 deposit and they added the $10 right away, no strings attached. That's pretty good, about the easiest 100% profit you'll ever see. Thanks UB.
I'm not really sure what to do with UB going forward. Maybe still play low buyin tournaments which are fun at times. I noticed they don't advertise on WWE Smackdown any more on Rogers Sportsnet and no WWE freerolls lately so I don't have that bit of brand loyalty any more. My bankroll there is now a bit over $100 for the first time thanks to a recent tournament score and this new $20 injection. Plus I can cash out $10 of rakeback I earned if I want to. Still I'm not sure about a longer term plan for there.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
taking a shot at $25 NL
I've decided to move up to $25 NL. After I reloaded recently on PokerStars I have enough bankroll now.
I reached my goal at $10 NL to win 5 buyins. It took just under 5000 hands for a winrate of a little over 5 BB/100. Not bad I would say. The sample size isn't particularly large. Still based on my experience there I'm confident I was beating it.
It was actually a bit better than $5 NL which I beat at 3.7 BB/100. Unlike $2 and $5 NL it was less swingy without the big 6 and 8 buyin downswings and crazy heaters. So that was nice, profit with less variance.
I'll start out playing single table for around 500 hands and see how it goes. I'll give it a 3 buyin shot. Hopefully I'll be able to play well and be able stick there and win some. I've always wanted to be able to say I play $25 NL so now I can. This is exciting and a little bit scary. If I can't stick at $25 NL I don't think I'll be going back to $10 NL. I'd rather look for a new game.
Hopefully there will be some good tables at $25 NL. There are just an ocean of $25 NL tables on Stars. And there are some huge multi tablers there playing 24 tables. Still by the law of large numbers with that many tables there must be at least some soft tables. So hopefully I'll be able to find some beatable games among them.
This was the last interesting hand I played at $10 NL. A good sendoff.
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (3 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com
SB ($10)
BB ($3.95)
Hero (Button) ($11.70)
Preflop: Hero is Button with As, Ac
Hero bets $0.30, 1 fold, BB raises to $3.95 (All-In), Hero calls $3.65
Flop: ($7.95) 3h, Ah, Kc (2 players, 1 all-in)
Turn: ($7.95) 4h (2 players, 1 all-in)
River: ($7.95) 4s (2 players, 1 all-in)
Total pot: $7.95 | Rake: $0.35
Results:
Hero had As, Ac (full house, Aces over fours).
BB had 9c, 8s (one pair, fours).
Outcome: Hero won $7.60
I reached my goal at $10 NL to win 5 buyins. It took just under 5000 hands for a winrate of a little over 5 BB/100. Not bad I would say. The sample size isn't particularly large. Still based on my experience there I'm confident I was beating it.
It was actually a bit better than $5 NL which I beat at 3.7 BB/100. Unlike $2 and $5 NL it was less swingy without the big 6 and 8 buyin downswings and crazy heaters. So that was nice, profit with less variance.
I'll start out playing single table for around 500 hands and see how it goes. I'll give it a 3 buyin shot. Hopefully I'll be able to play well and be able stick there and win some. I've always wanted to be able to say I play $25 NL so now I can. This is exciting and a little bit scary. If I can't stick at $25 NL I don't think I'll be going back to $10 NL. I'd rather look for a new game.
Hopefully there will be some good tables at $25 NL. There are just an ocean of $25 NL tables on Stars. And there are some huge multi tablers there playing 24 tables. Still by the law of large numbers with that many tables there must be at least some soft tables. So hopefully I'll be able to find some beatable games among them.
This was the last interesting hand I played at $10 NL. A good sendoff.
PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (3 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com
SB ($10)
BB ($3.95)
Hero (Button) ($11.70)
Preflop: Hero is Button with As, Ac
Hero bets $0.30, 1 fold, BB raises to $3.95 (All-In), Hero calls $3.65
Flop: ($7.95) 3h, Ah, Kc (2 players, 1 all-in)
Turn: ($7.95) 4h (2 players, 1 all-in)
River: ($7.95) 4s (2 players, 1 all-in)
Total pot: $7.95 | Rake: $0.35
Results:
Hero had As, Ac (full house, Aces over fours).
BB had 9c, 8s (one pair, fours).
Outcome: Hero won $7.60
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)