I've reached something of a milestone in $0.50/$1.00 limit hold'em. Eleven months and over 1300 hands in and I've now made slightly over $1 of profit.
It's been a journey. I ran really well in the micro stakes levels, including $0.25/$0.50 which I beat for 7 BB/100. I started out pretty well at $0.50/$1.00, winning 17 BB in the first 50 hands. Then last spring/summer a downswing hit. It was a 50 BB downswing over around 1000 hands and 4 months. The downswing was caused by the usual combination of card dead, bad beats, and some bad play on my part.
Discouraged and not properly bankrolled to continue, I was glad to give up on $0.50/$1.00. I hardly played any poker at all, just freeroll and $1 or lower MTTs for over 2 months. When I returned to playing regularly I focused more on 2 table turbo sit 'n go where I ran well. I also played sub $5 MTTs around break even with a few small cashes. I played $2 NL successfully and made an unsuccessful attempt at $5 NL which I gave up on.
After quitting $5 NL and reading Theory of Poker I felt enthusiastic about playing limit hold'em again. I restarted at my favorite level $0.25/$0.50 and it was as good as ever. I ran well against poor opponents and chipped up nicely. Thanks to sng profits my bankroll was good to play $0.50/$1.00 again.
I've been feeling good since my return to $0.50/$1.00. More relaxed, not pressing as much, folding more. I'm not worried about the stakes, the opponents, or how well I ran at lower levels.
I've been more diligent about table selection, waiting for good tables with position on bad opponents. Since Stars regularly has well over 100,000 people playing at the same time now I've found the $0.50/$1.00 game better than I remember it last summer. It seems easier now to find $0.50/$1.00 tables that play like $0.25/$0.50. Now if I don't see a $0.50/$1.00 game I like I just play $0.25/$0.50 where the games are always good instead.
Of course there's nothing like running well to restore confidence. Since my return to $0.50/$1.00 I've managed to take down my first $20 and $25 LHE pots. I've won over 30 BB in around 350 hands, obviously running very hot.
So I'm not discouraged by 1300 hands of break even over 11 months. The sample size is not very large. Many multi tablers play well over 1300 hands in a single session. Downswings happen. I had a 50 BB downswing back at $0.02/$0.04, but I knew I could beat that level at the time. I just had to work through it and I did. Hopefully the break even period is just something that I had to get out of the way before I could start winning.
Recent events have been very encouraging. I feel now like I belong here and I can be a winner. There are fish around and beatable tables.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Monday, March 03, 2008
First ever straight flush
I've been playing Texas hold'em online for around 3 years now. I recently made a straight flush for the first time. I've had quads many times over the years and this is my first straight flush.
PokerStars 0.50/1.00 Hold'em (10 handed)
Preflop: Hero is CO with Kh, Jh.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, MP3 calls, Hero calls, 1 fold, SB completes, BB checks.
-> I like to limp in late position with suited high cards in multiway pots. With 2 limpers and the button playing tight I limp in.
Flop: (5 SB) Qs, Qh, Th (5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP3 checks, Hero bets, SB calls, BB calls, UTG+1 folds, MP3 folds.
-> On the flop I have good equity with a couple of draws. Although the board is paired I bet to get some money in.
Turn: (4 BB) 9h (3 players)
SB bets, BB calls, Hero raises, SB calls, BB calls.
-> The turn is the magical 9h giving me the straight flush.
River: (10 BB) Ac (3 players)
SB bets, BB calls, Hero raises, SB calls, BB calls.
-> I was hoping someone would hit a full house or the Ace high flush. Still lots of bets go in on the turn and river and I win a nice $16 pot for my really big hand.
Final Pot: 16 BB
Results:
SB mucked [Qd 5d] (three of a kind, queens)
BB mucked [Js 8h] (straight, eight to queen)
Hero shows Kh Jh (straight flush, king high).
Outcome: Hero wins 16 BB.
PokerStars 0.50/1.00 Hold'em (10 handed)
Preflop: Hero is CO with Kh, Jh.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 3 folds, MP3 calls, Hero calls, 1 fold, SB completes, BB checks.
-> I like to limp in late position with suited high cards in multiway pots. With 2 limpers and the button playing tight I limp in.
Flop: (5 SB) Qs, Qh, Th (5 players)
SB checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP3 checks, Hero bets, SB calls, BB calls, UTG+1 folds, MP3 folds.
-> On the flop I have good equity with a couple of draws. Although the board is paired I bet to get some money in.
Turn: (4 BB) 9h (3 players)
SB bets, BB calls, Hero raises, SB calls, BB calls.
-> The turn is the magical 9h giving me the straight flush.
River: (10 BB) Ac (3 players)
SB bets, BB calls, Hero raises, SB calls, BB calls.
-> I was hoping someone would hit a full house or the Ace high flush. Still lots of bets go in on the turn and river and I win a nice $16 pot for my really big hand.
Final Pot: 16 BB
Results:
SB mucked [Qd 5d] (three of a kind, queens)
BB mucked [Js 8h] (straight, eight to queen)
Hero shows Kh Jh (straight flush, king high).
Outcome: Hero wins 16 BB.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Gambling and poker talk
I was watching the TV news with my parents and a piece about this lucky young lotto 6/49 winner came on. He scored $4.5 million off a $2 ticket.
I got talking to my dad about what we each would do if we won a large amount. We agreed that it was smart to just set the money aside and live comfortably off the income stream by investing the money conservatively and never have to work again.
He asked if I play lottery and I confirmed that I don't. He plays a few dollars each week. Of course I don't play lottery because it has a negative expectation.
He asked if I gamble at all. I was a bit hesitant to answer. I gamble when I feel I have an edge like in some online poker games. I don't like talking about poker to people who don't play for real money. It's too much of a disconnect, and the stakes I play are too low to really consider meaningful real money. Basically I don't have anyone to talk about poker with in person but that's OK.
My dad warned me against playing poker for real money. Too late there, I'm not quitting. His reservations about it were that you could go broke playing and you can't get ahead. It's kind of funny because he's against gambling at poker but he plays lotto tickets and slots at the local casino.
His concerns about poker are worthy of addressing.
You can go broke playing
This isn't really true. With modern table stakes poker is a limited liability investment. Your potential loss when you sit down at a game is capped by the amount you choose to put in play. You cannot lose more than that and you cannot be forced to pay more than you initially put in to stay in a hand.
Internet poker is the same, you cannot be in debt online. The only money you can put into play online is funds which you have put into your bankroll. The sites don't have any uncontrolled access to your outside funds.
So with proper bankroll management and observing the Kelly criterion you won't lose your house playing. Of course an individual can choose put money in play that he can't afford to lose. But that's a flaw in personal discipline and bankroll management, not in poker itself.
In a raked game everyone goes broke eventually
My dad described a scenario where players of equal ability play in a raked cash game. He was correct that given enough time the rake would slow leak enough money out of the game that eventually all of the players would end up busted to the rake.
The poker my dad played was against his buddies in an occasional home game in the 1960s and 70s. These were casual players and the only time they played for real money was on their poker night against each other. There was a cap, around $100 I think, on how much any one player could lose on one night.
The poker and beer night game my dad played against his buddies was indeed an EV zero game. Nobody had a meaningful edge on anyone else. This was before the local casino was built and before Internet poker so basically it was the only game they could play. In a raked EV 0 game everyone eventually busts to the rake unless they deposit new money to keep the game going.
The difference today is that with the Internet modern poker players have the ability to seek out EV positive games. We can go from site to site, game to game including hold'em, stud, draw, horse, razz, Omaha, etc. There are cash games, sng, and mtt. We can play fixed limit, pot limit or no limit. Real money stakes range from pennies up to thousands of dollars.
The modern poker tiger has an incredibly large jungle of territory he can freely roam to find games that are beatable above the rake. So the 'EV zero' dilemma is a non issue because an Internet player can just get up and leave an unprofitable game and find a game with enough positive EV to beat the rake.
I got talking to my dad about what we each would do if we won a large amount. We agreed that it was smart to just set the money aside and live comfortably off the income stream by investing the money conservatively and never have to work again.
He asked if I play lottery and I confirmed that I don't. He plays a few dollars each week. Of course I don't play lottery because it has a negative expectation.
He asked if I gamble at all. I was a bit hesitant to answer. I gamble when I feel I have an edge like in some online poker games. I don't like talking about poker to people who don't play for real money. It's too much of a disconnect, and the stakes I play are too low to really consider meaningful real money. Basically I don't have anyone to talk about poker with in person but that's OK.
My dad warned me against playing poker for real money. Too late there, I'm not quitting. His reservations about it were that you could go broke playing and you can't get ahead. It's kind of funny because he's against gambling at poker but he plays lotto tickets and slots at the local casino.
His concerns about poker are worthy of addressing.
You can go broke playing
This isn't really true. With modern table stakes poker is a limited liability investment. Your potential loss when you sit down at a game is capped by the amount you choose to put in play. You cannot lose more than that and you cannot be forced to pay more than you initially put in to stay in a hand.
Internet poker is the same, you cannot be in debt online. The only money you can put into play online is funds which you have put into your bankroll. The sites don't have any uncontrolled access to your outside funds.
So with proper bankroll management and observing the Kelly criterion you won't lose your house playing. Of course an individual can choose put money in play that he can't afford to lose. But that's a flaw in personal discipline and bankroll management, not in poker itself.
In a raked game everyone goes broke eventually
My dad described a scenario where players of equal ability play in a raked cash game. He was correct that given enough time the rake would slow leak enough money out of the game that eventually all of the players would end up busted to the rake.
The poker my dad played was against his buddies in an occasional home game in the 1960s and 70s. These were casual players and the only time they played for real money was on their poker night against each other. There was a cap, around $100 I think, on how much any one player could lose on one night.
The poker and beer night game my dad played against his buddies was indeed an EV zero game. Nobody had a meaningful edge on anyone else. This was before the local casino was built and before Internet poker so basically it was the only game they could play. In a raked EV 0 game everyone eventually busts to the rake unless they deposit new money to keep the game going.
The difference today is that with the Internet modern poker players have the ability to seek out EV positive games. We can go from site to site, game to game including hold'em, stud, draw, horse, razz, Omaha, etc. There are cash games, sng, and mtt. We can play fixed limit, pot limit or no limit. Real money stakes range from pennies up to thousands of dollars.
The modern poker tiger has an incredibly large jungle of territory he can freely roam to find games that are beatable above the rake. So the 'EV zero' dilemma is a non issue because an Internet player can just get up and leave an unprofitable game and find a game with enough positive EV to beat the rake.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Giving up on $5 NL
My attempt at the no limit hold'em cash game has come to an unsuccessful end for now. I am unable to beat $5 NL. At this point over 3300 hands in I'm down over 5 buyins for a rate of -7.8 BB/100.
I'm kind of at a loss to explain it. There are certainly many bad players and it seems beatable but I can't beat it. It's probably a combination of running bad and playing bad. Whatever it is, I'm cutting my losses and quitting it.
I think I need a Harrington intervention for my NL cash game. When I started out in real money tournaments I didn't really have a clue and I was unsuccessful. After reading the Harrington tournament books I started winning at tournaments. Harrington has a cash game series of books coming out this year so I probably should read them carefully before returning to NL cash.
So that leaves me playing the 2 table $6.50 turbo sit n' go, where I've been running well. Also I've been playing sub $5 MTTs at around break even with some cashes. I did seem to get better tournament results while I was playing NL cash. So maybe it did help a bit there.
Sometimes a cash game is good for when I don't feel like playing in a tournament or for short sessions where there isn't quite enough time for a tourney. Plus a good cash game can be profitable and that's always good.
I just finished reading Theory of Poker and for some reason that makes me want to go back to limit hold'em. So I'm looking forward to returning to limit. Although I'm bankrolled for $0.50/$1 LHE, I'll start out at $0.25/$0.50 on my return after finishing ToP. I lost playing $0.50/$1 after running well at $0.25/$0.50 full ring so I'll start out at a level I've been successful at in the past. The tables still look pretty good there and if I can run a fraction as well as I did there in the past it will be good.
I may return to NL cash at some point in the future. It won't be $5 NL though. I'm bankrolled to play higher so if I return it will be $10 NL or higher.
I'm kind of at a loss to explain it. There are certainly many bad players and it seems beatable but I can't beat it. It's probably a combination of running bad and playing bad. Whatever it is, I'm cutting my losses and quitting it.
I think I need a Harrington intervention for my NL cash game. When I started out in real money tournaments I didn't really have a clue and I was unsuccessful. After reading the Harrington tournament books I started winning at tournaments. Harrington has a cash game series of books coming out this year so I probably should read them carefully before returning to NL cash.
So that leaves me playing the 2 table $6.50 turbo sit n' go, where I've been running well. Also I've been playing sub $5 MTTs at around break even with some cashes. I did seem to get better tournament results while I was playing NL cash. So maybe it did help a bit there.
Sometimes a cash game is good for when I don't feel like playing in a tournament or for short sessions where there isn't quite enough time for a tourney. Plus a good cash game can be profitable and that's always good.
I just finished reading Theory of Poker and for some reason that makes me want to go back to limit hold'em. So I'm looking forward to returning to limit. Although I'm bankrolled for $0.50/$1 LHE, I'll start out at $0.25/$0.50 on my return after finishing ToP. I lost playing $0.50/$1 after running well at $0.25/$0.50 full ring so I'll start out at a level I've been successful at in the past. The tables still look pretty good there and if I can run a fraction as well as I did there in the past it will be good.
I may return to NL cash at some point in the future. It won't be $5 NL though. I'm bankrolled to play higher so if I return it will be $10 NL or higher.
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Theory of Poker
I just finished reading The Theory of Poker. It was a good book. I recommend it. Sklansky warns in the forward it is not an easy read, and it wasn't. It was a challenge getting through it but worthwhile. I feel I should read it again but that will have to wait. I need to read something lighter and non poker first for a little break.
Some of the stuff in there was difficult to grasp like raising with the second best hand. Also the heads up on the river chapter was challenging to wade through. The stuff on game theory and bluffing was very interesting and well presented. He also has an interesting concept of semi bluffing where it isn't always just a draw to semi bluff with.
The book discusses lots of forms of poker, not just hold'em. That was valuable because you learn the underlying concepts that also apply to hold'em. Thinking about bluffing in draw or stud makes you understand about bluffing itself more so than how to play a specific hold'em situation and that is valuable.
I've now read three poker books. I've read Harrington on Hold'em I and II in addition to Theory of Poker. There are some more poker books I'd like to read. I should try to read Psychology of Poker next some time this year. At some point in the future if I can move up to higher stakes I'd like to read Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players and Tournament Poker for Advanced Players.
After reading The Theory of Poker now I feel like going and playing limit.
Some of the stuff in there was difficult to grasp like raising with the second best hand. Also the heads up on the river chapter was challenging to wade through. The stuff on game theory and bluffing was very interesting and well presented. He also has an interesting concept of semi bluffing where it isn't always just a draw to semi bluff with.
The book discusses lots of forms of poker, not just hold'em. That was valuable because you learn the underlying concepts that also apply to hold'em. Thinking about bluffing in draw or stud makes you understand about bluffing itself more so than how to play a specific hold'em situation and that is valuable.
I've now read three poker books. I've read Harrington on Hold'em I and II in addition to Theory of Poker. There are some more poker books I'd like to read. I should try to read Psychology of Poker next some time this year. At some point in the future if I can move up to higher stakes I'd like to read Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players and Tournament Poker for Advanced Players.
After reading The Theory of Poker now I feel like going and playing limit.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Big stack
I had a good run in a $1 tournament and reached something of a milestone.
I had a stack over $100,000 for the first time. It was a big tournament, over 3000 people. I eventually finished 29th. On the last hand I flopped 2 pair and got all in against top pair + oesd. Unfortunately he hit his straight on the turn and I was knocked out.
I was glad to finish in the top 1% though. I don't think I'll play many more $1 MTTs. The payout was kind of disappointing for the amount of time and finishing so high. I'll be playing "higher" buyin tournaments going forward.
My next goal will be to have a million chip stack. I'll post it when I get there for the first time.
I had a stack over $100,000 for the first time. It was a big tournament, over 3000 people. I eventually finished 29th. On the last hand I flopped 2 pair and got all in against top pair + oesd. Unfortunately he hit his straight on the turn and I was knocked out.
I was glad to finish in the top 1% though. I don't think I'll play many more $1 MTTs. The payout was kind of disappointing for the amount of time and finishing so high. I'll be playing "higher" buyin tournaments going forward.
My next goal will be to have a million chip stack. I'll post it when I get there for the first time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)