Sit and go thoughts

Okay, this is a post on sit and goes that I wrote two or three weeks ago. I have progressed since writing this, but want to put things in sequence:

I am becoming really rather fascinated by sit and goes. I do believe they provide a ton of positive expectation, and I find them quite fun (exciting, even).

My results playing the sets of three have not been brilliant so far - indeed, my return on investment is a very disappointing 9% (excluding rake back). However, I kid myself/am convinced (delete as applicable) that I have run pretty bad, going out repeatedly with dominating hands. At present, my sample size is so small that even just turning two horribly unlucky second places into victories would tansform the ROI into a more acceptable 21%.

I had an interesting situation recently, with five players remaining. Three of us went all-in on the flop (me last) creating a pot of over half the chips. My second pair and flush draw were up against top pair and an unimproved AK. I was 43% to win and go into the last three with more than half the chips on the table. On top of that, if the unimproved AK hadn’t rivered a gutshot straight (he played the hand abysmally) then I would still have taken the side pot, and had a playable stack with four left.

The maths, equity, permutations of these kinds of pots fascinate me. Certainly I’d love to be in that situation in every sit and go I ever played, if you’re offering…

- 43% of the time I am in the money with a big chip lead

37% of the time I am in the last four with a workable stack

20% of the time I am out

Or, I could have just folded on that flop and been in the last four with OK chips, every time. No, not every time, just every time the lousy AK hit. Otherwise there are still five left and I have just OK chips. I am quite sure I did the right thing, but comments would be great.

Meanwhile, I intend to step a gear and play sets of four from now on. I have gotten used to three at once pretty easily, and don’t envisage any difficulties adding one more. I guess if I ever money in all four then it might get tricky, but I’m not expecting or budgeting for that!

Invariably I will be out of one (or two) before we get down to five players, and there is usually at least one table with a couple of real slowcoach players, so the decisions don’t come around unbearably quickly. I don’t think I could cope with Pokernerd’s EIGHT games at once, mind you, and not just because I am on a laptop. Actually, some of Nerd’s writing has made a difference to my sit and go game recently - he makes a lot of sense. Also, honestly, reading of his recent ups and downs has helped me retain faith in my approach in the face of that ugly 9% ROI.

If there’s one thing I am examining at the moment, its my bubble play. Usually, I am playing to win from an early stage; trying to amass chips such that from five left I will coast into the money with a good - if not dominant - stack and strong chance of first place. However, I think I am pushing this idea too far if I get down to the bubble with only small to middling chips. I’m going out in fourth too often in those circumstances, shooting for a double through, when I may have to accept that in that scenario limping into third is not such a bad thing.

Efficiency

I had a moment of clarity at the weekend. If I’m living the bachelor life, I thought, why am I still washing my cutlery and dishes??

So I bought some plastic cutlery at the supermarket. I would have got plastic or paper plates too, but they were all too small for a proper meal. I will find some, though. Then the next step is to get some big plastic or Styrofoam cups for my cups of tea.

The time saved by simply throwing these items away, rather than washing and drying the traditional versions, can be better spent check-raising with the nuts.

Booking wins, winning books

Hmm, I have become rather lax with the blog. I wouldn't blame any regular reader for having given up after my recent glut of 'running bad' moans.

Anyways, I have been plugging away with sets of three sit 'n' goes (I really will post my lengthy thoughts on them, soon) and the usual PLO8. I'm still recording a very low ROI in the sit n goes, though I remain convinced that I'm not getting much luck; the number of times I'm going out with Ace-big versus Ace-smaller is quite distressing.

As for PLO8, I've been getting my feet wet at bigger tables. Last night I played an hour with three times more of my money on the table than for the past few months. I'm not reeeally bankrolled to do that, yet, but I'm testing the waters. I haven't yet noticed a marked difference as I've moved up - perhaps a couple more decent players per table, but still plenty of soft spots. Yesterday may have been deceptive, it being a public holiday in the states, but I made a nice score in the hour.

I've read two of the books I got in Canada. The slim Bobby Baldwin book is readable; the life story is interesting while the poker advice is really just filler and of very minimal value.

However, 'The Professor, The Banker, and The Suicide King' is quite superb. However much you think you know about the Andy Beal game, and the pros involved, I am sure this tome will be an eye-opener. I found it absolutely rivetting, and it was one of those books that ended up forcing myself to put down - so that I could enjoy it for three days, rather than one.

This reminds me of my recent musings on the World Series. I realised that I am far more interested in reading about Daniel Negreanu's big cash games with Barry Greenstein, than in these interminable tournaments. I think that high-stakes cash play is generally far more interesting than tourneys, and I'd be more likely to go to the trouble of getting cable TV for poker-viewing purposes if they showed money games. (I might get cable in time for the next NFL season).

This is not to say I'm not following all the results from the WSOP, which I am, but you take my point I hope.