Keeping records

I had to do some serious luck management on Tuesday night, thanks to the gods of irony I guess. In short, I did have a lot of luck; some of it was bad and some of it was terrible.

I bubbled in a $10 PLO sit and go, missed out on a $134 Omaha pot as favourite, and got beaten three times in a row in heads-up games by a guy who sucked out time after time. I actually finished $22 winners despite all that (pitiful for a five hour marathon but never mind) so I think I can go into all the gory details without seeming too bitter.

The $10 sit and go did play a little differently to the $5 ones, perhaps surprisingly. It wasn’t tough by any means, but it lacked the early multi-way ‘carnage’ pots that usually eliminate three or four $5 players in the very early stages. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as it meant we didn’t have one dude with half the chips on the table after two rounds. I think it might prove slightly harder to place, but easier to notch some wins, if this game was representative of $10. I enjoyed no luck at all and was quite short for ages, but good patience kept me in with a decent chance with four remaining. Then I made a semi blind-steal as they reached an appropriate level, and got called in two places. Flop and turn checked to me, I could (Captain Hindsight just called to say ‘Should!’) have taken a free river with my draw, but I figured I could take it down with an all-in. Got called, didn’t hit, and I go home naked.

The $134 Omaha pot was painful. I was about $70 up at the time, raised strong pocket Aces on the button and flopped A68 with no suits. First guy bet pot ($12), second guy called. I figured both could well be drawing to straights and duplicating their outs, didn’t want to see a tricky turn, so raised to $48 to put them all-in if they called. Which they did.

The river made a straight for the one guy, who had flopped just about the best straight draw imaginable with 579T in his hand. Even so, because four of his outs were held by me or the other guy, I was 56% to win the pot and I make $22 theoretical dollars every time the hand is played like that. Despite his monster draw, he actually wasn’t far from break-even on his call.

Obviously I was gutted. Its hardly a bad beat, since I only win the hand just over half the time - but it hurts to miss out on a pot like that, which makes a huge difference to your results and does wonders for your confidence.

What actually hurt more though, was the three straight losses to the same guy at $10 heads-up no limit Hold ‘Em. He wasn’t a terrible player, as far as I could tell. I couldn’t simply push him around like everyone I’ve played at $5. However, it quickly became clear that he over-played plenty of hands, particularly when he re-re-raised all-in preflop causing me to fold 89 suited, then showed 22. A crazy move in my opinion, even though on this occasion he knocked me off the better hand. So I decided quickly that I was going to trap him, since he could not resist betting into a check, nor calling all flops and almost all turns.

I managed to do this repeatedly over the three matches, yet just as I was preparing to bring down the hammer on the river he would catch his outs, every single time. JJ versus JK and he spikes a king on the river. My top pair versus his bottom pair and he trips up on the river. My two pair versus his one pair and he rivers the two pair.
All of which meant I could never get into a position of strength. He finished me off in fine style too. I don’t remember the first game, but the second finished with me all-in on the flop with QdQh versus his 3d4d flush draw, which hit the river. The last ended when I flopped trip tens and he made a runner-runner straight.

Some will say I was letting him hit these cards, which is true. However, when ‘trapping’ heads-up you know you will trap yourself occasionally – but you don’t expect it to happen in every single large pot you play. I was monster frustrated, but I will keep playing those tables from time to time and see how it goes.

Anyways, I managed my bad luck pretty well in the important respect of not reacting badly to it, not going on tilt. That certainly helped me post a small profit despite all the carnage I have just described. I think the reason I took it well was that I see the overall trend. I have been on an upward curve for three months, and can see the losing sessions as potholes on the road, rather than chasms.

On that note, I felt like I was treading water a little lately. In late March after some withdrawals and a terrible, terrible run, I had precisely $66 in my account. Having done well since then, I was looking to hit a grand and take a warm glow from turning $66 of scared money into four figures. Just lately I had been getting close and slipping back, getting close and slipping back. Hence my feeling of treading water - yet I looked at my notes after this session and was pleasantly surprised to see that I had won over $500 in basically a month.

Hang on! I thought you said that you don’t keep records!

Aha. Yes, I did say that. Thanks for paying attention. So its time to explain that, and explain why I am now starting to keep records again.

Quite simply, when I was keeping proper, detailed records I would get far too hung up on my hourly rate, in a way that adversely affected my game. If it were dipping then I would get into a defensive-poker funk. If it was soaring then I would often get into the over-confident, loose frame of mind that I have mentioned before and which would cost me a ton of chips.

So, I stopped keeping records. Its not as if an online player can deceive themselves over their results anyway, since either you are depositing more money in your account or you’re not! I just felt that I did not need to see a record of the precise movements of my bankroll, did not need to see a big minus session staring me in the face and affecting my confidence until I reached a fresh page.

Overall, I think it worked wonders for me. I got into the right mentality of just trying to pick good games, make my best decisions in them, and not fret about short-term results. I now feel that I have gotten a handle on that mindset, and for a few weeks have been keeping sketchy records on a couple of scrappy pieces of paper. It hasn’t affected my outlook; indeed, I have been over that thousand dollar mark once or twice during sessions lately but have completely avoided the temptation to quit just so that I could record it for posterity. I quit playing when I don’t like the game, when I am bored, when I have something better to do or (most often) because I have to get up for work in like five hours’ time! Not because I want to record a nice figure in a notebook.

Incidentally, one reason for resuming records has been the fact that I have taken to playing various forms of poker. Whilst I am determined not to let the ledger rule my game, it would be foolish not to be at least aware if one game or another proves to be a consistent hole in my earnings.

That's all for now. I am off to muse on an important poker question: Am I predictable? Don't tell me, you knew I was going to say that...

Luck management

Monday night. Pool, beer and poker.

My libido was stirred by a bargirl/waitress in the pool club, who had a lip piercing and eyes that seemed to meet mine rather frequently. I’ve never kissed a girl with a lip or tongue piercing, although there was one with a ring in a more intimate place.

I had a nice session when I got home, a little shy of two hours. Omaha went my way; one of those sits where the flops were good and the turn cards came to order. The kind of session that makes minimising the losses and bad calls on other nights seem all the more worthwhile. I never managed a really huge pot, but several medium ones for a profit of $77.

I also moved up one tiny notch in the heads-up no limit Hold ‘Em freezeouts. Yes, a massive $10 game, which I won in under ten minutes. Frankly, I did get some cards, but my opponent was very poor and once again handed me his small but not desperate stack in the final hand with tiny bottom pair. He made one good play early on, raising me off second pair when the river put a fourth heart on board, then showing his bluff. But the fact that he showed his cards underlined my impression that he was playing not so much to win as to make clever moves. I guess he thought his river reraise on the last hand was another ‘clever move’, but I could not have folded almost any hand in the situation – never mind the top two pair I actually had.

So, there are numpties at the $10 level as well as the $5. This chap didn’t give himself much chance, seeing as he regularly folded his button. I can barely think of a hand I would fold on the button in a heads-up no-limit game, and doing it more than half the time is lunacy.

Moving on, I read a nice comment in Chicago Phil’s blog, albeit a comment he was reporting from elsewhere, describing poker as a game of ‘luck management’.

I think that is spot on. Luck management. Of course the cards run for and against us from hand to hand, from session to session. But we have to manage the risk as best we can, manage the luck so that bad luck wounds but doesn’t kill us and good luck brings maximum reward. React well to bad luck. Put ourselves in situations where we need less luck (good game selection, decent starting hands). It’s a perpetually fascinating challenge.

Finally, I note that sixteen people have read my profile, so now I wish I’d tried to make myself sound less of a dork. Anyway, comments on my posts are more than welcome.

Maybe I'll see you in the loser's circle

Right, I can’t think of any cogent theme or hook to hang this post on, so let’s just go for a ramble.

I was about to say ‘bring a hat and coat’, until I realised how much that would sound like Roy West in ‘Cardplayer’ magazine. Y’know, every column begins with the author inviting you in for some meal or other, and ends with him asking you to kill the light on the way out. I used to find it quirky, endearing and different - but I assumed that sooner or later he would ice this little pecadillo and do something else.

No chance. Here we are all these years and columns later and he still does it, and now it really pisses me off. Almost - but not quite - as much as Tom Bloody McEvoy and his ‘if you keep playing your Aces strong, perhaps we’ll meet in the winner’s circle soon’ crap. This little phrase ending each and every column without exception, fortnight after fortnight, year after year, makes me want to puke. Put it alongside the sickly grinning face at the top of the page and you just think ‘What a SAP!’

Well, I do anyway.

So far I seem to have been quite harsh on poker writers in this blog, but not as harsh as Matt of thepokerchronicles.com who has his own, quite amusing take on McEvoy.

I was away most of the weekend, but one way or another (God bless my laptop, and deliver me the funds to pay for it one day) I managed to play around seven or eight hours. I can’t be precise because I don’t keep records. I really will write about that soon, especially since I am going to resume records any time now.

It was the usual (for the moment) mixed bag of games. I played some $1/$2 five and seven card stud, some heads-up No Limit Hold ‘Em tournaments, some Pot Limit Omaha sit and go’s, and of course some’ bread and butter’ in the form of Pot Limit Omaha cash.

STUD: I cannot totally make up my mind about stud, as in ‘Do I like it or not?’ I know, I know, I described it as my new favourite game about a day ago! I think the problem is simply that I play with a lot of people who don’t know how to ever put a hand down, and so I am learning about the veritably vertigo-inducing variance vagaries of (low) limit poker all over again.

Not that I’ve even been losing. I seem to repeatedly go a bunch of bets down straight away, until catching something for a decent pot or two to finish moderately in profit. I guess its simply a case of getting paid off when I hit, whilst paying off less myself. (Ha, and they call Howard Lederer the professor!?) It does appear that my nascent stud game is a profitable one, at the $1/$2 level.

NLHE HEADS-UP: I played three of these on Saturday night, with a total playing time of fourteen minutes. Is that a record? I beat the first guy on the very first hand, making a pair on the flop and hitting a straight on the river. He re-raised all-in with King-high despite the Ace on board. I’m like, whatever! Next one took six minutes and was pretty easy. The third opponent was a bit better and I lost in six minutes, although I kinda threw my stack at the end because I needed to ‘talk’ to someone online.

I am considering playing a real mammoth session of these things, rather than playing the odd one in between other games. Partly because I wonder if heads-up might be a good hand/opponent-reading tuition exercise. Then again, how can you read some of these people, at the minimal stakes I play? The other reason is to see if I can make any sort of hourly rate at it. I’m guessing that would be tough, and I am probably being thrown far too much by getting through three games in fourteen minutes. I’m thinking, like, ‘twelve games an hour, sweet!’ But that isn’t gonna happen, is it?

Frankly, if I am going to play many of these heads-up tournaments then I really ought to move up to higher stakes. I have (blush) been playing $5 games lately, which is silly for several reasons. First, the poker room’s ‘take’ on those games is a higher percentage than at all other levels. Secondly, it is just too small for my bankroll, even though my bankroll is small. I play cash games where I can win or lose $100 quite easily, will happily put $20 or $30 or $50 into an Omaha pot, and yet I’m playing heads-up against weak players for five bucks? And sit and goes, where I know I have a positive expectation, for five bucks?

It is no wonder I consider myself basically a ring game player, when I play tournaments that make no material impact on my bankroll. Even more illogical, I am playing occasional multi’s with three figure fields, where the chance of not cashing for an extended period is obviously greater, for $10 or $15 buy-ins, yet won’t play a ten-runner game (usually with at least three or four clueless opponents) for that amount.

PLO SIT AND GO: I took two more thirds, making four cashes in a row. I have repeatedly been going into the final three spots in the same situation – two of us with small stacks, versus one huge-stacked chap who managed to quadruple up early in some stupid multiple all-in hand. I always take a shot at doubling up in this situation, as I want some chance of winning the thing, rather than hanging on grimly trying to sneak second spot. Still, the main thing here is that I must play higher. The play in these PLO single table tournaments is so bad, usually much worse than in equivalent Hold ‘Em games, that I should be moving up a notch or two to take greater advantage.

PLO CASH: A real fallow period, several shortish sessions of tiny wins or losses. Until Sunday lunchtime, waiting to go and catch my train home, when I dropped 73 bucks in an hour and a half. I’m not beating myself up too much, since it was one of those sits where nothing quite went my way.

I got a ‘Holy Grail’ flop of top set (AAA) with nut flush draw, versus the Swede I have played a few pots with lately. He’s not one of these frightening, whiz-kid Swedes, but rather a poor player. However, I didn’t improve and folded with ease when he made a very big river bet. He obligingly showed the runner-runner straight that he had hit. I got away with losing very little on the hand, but it rather set the tone for the session!

On Sunday night, back home, I did a bit of two-tabling at PLO. I have not done that for a long time. It has never really worked out for me in the past, but both tables seemed like quite favourable line-ups full of people on whom I have reasonable reads.

I only managed to turn a $10 profit though. I made two glaring mistakes: I raised with 678J or possibly 789J, and saw a QJJ flop. I got check-raised on the flop, and went all-in. Mistake since I was either drawing dead or facing a guy with a Jack and better kickers. I failed to get lucky, not that I deserved it. My $27 all-in re-raise should have stayed in my stack for a better situation. Vivid proof that money not lost is the same as money won.

I also threw away about $13 trying to bluff the river against six – yes, six! – opponents. OK, five had checked, but the last fella raised big and showed me quads after I folded. I don’t think he played the hand very well, but I was certainly tossing money into the wind with that needless bluff.

It is irritating that I keep making certain mistakes repeatedly, and not learning from them. Pot Limit Omaha, especially against weak opponents, offers up so many very, very good situations that it is simply not necessary to tank chips into the pot when there is a chance you are drawing dead or slim. Yet I still do it from time to time.

That bad stuff all happened on one table. On the other I won steadily, and an interesting thing occurred shortly before I quit. I made a throwaway chat remark about the succession of paired flops we were seeing, at which another player decided to say ‘Shame you’re doing your dough on the other table’. He proceeded to suggest I was over a hundred down on the other table, when in fact I was down about $30 at that point. He repeatedly laughed at my assertion that I was up over the two tables overall. He bugged me a little, although nowhere near enough to affect my game in any way whatsoever, and I couldn’t help remarking upon his own small stack.

All very odd, although it wasn’t entirely 'apropos of nothing' since I had a blazing row with this player a few months ago. I was in the middle of a terrible spell at the time, and playing late (and a little drunk) one Friday night I took another succession of beats and, frankly, I moaned quite a bit in the chatbox. This chap had a right go at me for complaining about my luck.

But what made this new confrontation odd was that I apologised to the guy a day or so after our previous argument and thought it was all straightened out. I observed the table after I left this time, and saw him tell another player that I was getting on his nerves, a comment that still baffles me. I do chat a little bit, on occasions, and I think I may have commented at this table – in the mildest way imaginable – on a couple of flukey hands that people had beat me with. So perhaps that was what riled him.

(Yes, don’t moan about somebody’s poor play, I know the drill. Sometimes I just can’t help myself, because I am competitive and hate losing so much. I don’t want to be a bad loser, but I also don’t want to be too good a loser either if you catch my drift. I do have my share of testosterone, I love banging heads a bit from time to time, and when I play football I often end up in the odd confrontation).

Anyways, I am torn between having no beef with the guy at all – partly because he is no threat as a player – and wanting to punish him. Not with any foolish over-aggression, but by making a point of studying his play intently so that I know his game inside out. Er, not that I don’t always study my opponents intently at all times, you understand…