Friday, August 31, 2012

Little fire

The title of this post applies to the final tournament I entered last night, and also to me personally. My name, which is a Welsh one, translates to "little fire". Last night, in the final tournament, my stack dwindled down at one point to a very little fire which should have been easily put out by my three opponents. All they needed to do was briefly cooperate to stamp out my little fire, then go back to being competitors. However, they failed to do so. Here were the starting balances at hand 27:

Seat 1: 1980
Seat 3: 2365
Seat 5: 1385
Seat 6:  270 (neostreet)


There's no way I should have survived, yet I did. Not only that, I thrived; I ended up coming in first. I just checked the hand histories, and it turns out I went all in 11 times in 80 hands. I had a lot of luck, but demonstrated skill also. I actually prefer this type of victory, since it's so incredibly challenging.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6       102     2   105000
 50000       800           6        40     4        0
 50000       800           6        77     2   105000
 50000       800           6        80     1   195000


delta: $201,800
tournament balance: $1,192,090
balance: $6,322,821


Thursday, August 30, 2012

Heads up mojo

Last night, I got my heads up mojo back. Heads up has a lot in common with the rock, paper, scissors game. There are a lot of head games (pardon the pun) going on. You're trying to zig when your opponent thinks your zagging, and vice-versa. There's definitely an art to it. You're trying to detect tiny patterns in your opponent's play, while at the same time giving your opponent nothing to detect in your own. No other phase of poker requires you to make so many difficult decisions. You're basically on a high wire with no net underneath you. Consequently, there's no richer reward in poker than winning a heads up battle. I live for such confrontations!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        19     6        0
 50000       800           6        47     5        0
 50000       800           6        24     4        0
 50000       800           6        97     1   195000
 50000       800           6        25     3        0
 50000       800           6        26     1   195000


delta: $85,200
tournament balance: $990,290
balance: $6,121,021

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

A philosophical question

I've played enough sit and go tournaments now that I've seen a fair number of unusual things. I've had a four of a kind at least three times in sit and gos, which I'm sure is well above the expected frequency given the number of hands I've played. I've been rescued by long shot river cards to split pots when I should have hit the felt, and have also been done in by long shot river cards when I was the clear favorite. Actually, those last two circumstances aren't really that unusual, especially in tournaments. Another variety of quasi-unusual tournament event has brought up a philosophical question. At least three times, I've observed hands where two players hit the felt at showdown; I was on the losing end of this scenario in the second tournament I played last night. The PokerStars software informed me that I'd finished the tournament in 5th place, and the other player who'd hit the felt had finished in 6th. The practical question of what criterion the software used to decide who got which place is what led to my philosophical question. I can think of at least 3 different criteria for deciding:

1. the losing player who had more money at the start of the final hand than the other losing player did gets the higher tournament placement

2. the losing player who had position on the other losing player gets the higher tournament placement

3. the losing player who would have won the hand if he'd been heads up against the other losing player gets the higher tournament placement

I don't think there's any clearly correct answer, which is what turns this into a philosophical question. Personally, I lean towards #3.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        56     3        0
 50000       800           6         6     5        0
 50000       800           6         8     6        0
 50000       800           6        80     2   105000
 50000       800           6        32     4        0
 50000       800           6        39     3        0

delta: $-199,800
tournament balance: $905,090
balance: $6,035,821

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Money streak

Last night, I made the money in the first two tournaments I entered. Combined with the four tournaments I entered before that, I made the money in six tournaments in a row. That's a personal best. Here's how much money I've won (or lost) at each buy in level to date:

buy_in    count    delta

 50000       52  1318400
150000       11   766250
   300        1      850
  2000        1    -2110
 80000       52  -348000
200000        7  -630500

I didn't manage a single first place finish last night, but still came out in the black.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        79     2   105000
 50000       800           6        32     2   105000
 50000       800           6        25     5        0
 50000       800           6        40     4        0
 50000       800           6        64     2   105000

delta: $61,000
tournament balance: $1,104,890
balance:  $6,235,621

Monday, August 27, 2012

First tournament million

Last night, I reached another milestone - I've now hit the million dollar mark in tournament winnings. It might seem a little strange that I reached it only after making my fastest million ever, also in tournament winnings, but there's a simple explanation. When measuring fastest million, only two numbers matter - the balance at the beginning of the streak and the balance at the end. When measuring overall winnings, every delta contributes to the total. At the start of my fastest million, I was deep in the red in tournament winnings, to the tune of $-679,160. Six sessions later, I'd won $1,265,650, qualifying that streak for my fastest million; however, that only got my tournament winnings up to $586,490 - well shy of the one million mark.

With last night's result, I've actually lowered my fastest million record to 5 sessions. It's conceivable I could lower the record to one session, if I moved up to the $200,000 buy in tournaments and had a good night. However, I don't want to mess with a good thing; I'm killing these $50,000 buy ins and will keep doing so as long as I can.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        59     2   105000
 50000       800           6        61     1   195000

delta: $198,400
tournament balance: $1,043,890
balance: $6,174,621

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Fastest million

When I started writing this blog, my goal was to earn a million play dollars playing online poker. I didn't know for sure if I would make it, but wanted to chronicle the attempt. Once I achieved the goal, I didn't want to stop playing; I wanted to continue to challenge myself by setting new goals. Funnily enough, I never set out to achieve one of my most impressive achievements. To wit, my fastest play million. The first time I hit the one million mark, it took me just over two years and 402 sessions to do it. The fastest million I ever made playing cash games took a month and a half and 35 sessions. Speedy, yes, but slow compared to my fastest million, which I made recently playing sit and go tournaments - just under a week and 6 sessions. It's abundantly clear that if your skill level is high enough, tournaments are the way to go.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        28     4        0
 50000       800           6        29     4        0
 50000       800           6        79     1   195000
 50000       800           6        46     4        0
 50000       800           6        73     1   195000
 50000       800           6        83     1   195000

delta: $280,200
balance: $5,976,221

Friday, August 24, 2012

A compliment to remember

Thanks largely to my Gretzky session, I'm starting to put some serious daylight between my first place finishes and my second place finishes. Here are the current numbers:

place count(*) count(*) / 111

    1       23         0.2072
    2       18         0.1622
    3       16         0.1441
    4       22         0.1982
    5       14         0.1261
    6       18         0.1622

Last night, I added two more firsts. I got a memorable compliment midway through the final hand of the first win; my opponent simply said "you don't suck."

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        47     1   195000
 50000       800           6        19     4        0
 50000       800           6        13     5        0
 50000       800           6        22     4        0
 50000       800           6        17     6        0
 50000       800           6        58     1   195000

delta: $85,200
balance: $5,696,021

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Two thirds don't make a second

Last night, I was the bubble boy in two of the eight tournaments I played. That is, I came in third twice. Two thirds don't make a second, but if they did, I would essentially have broken even on the night. This illustrates how near each other tournament success and tournament failure live; because of those third places, I ended up losing over $100K. At the $50K buy in level, I don't consider an overall loss of $100K to be very significant.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        18     6        0
 50000       800           6        65     2   105000
 50000       800           6         6     6        0
 50000       800           6        12     5        0
 50000       800           6        30     3        0
 50000       800           6        42     3        0
 50000       800           6        32     4        0
 50000       800           6        49     1   195000

delta: $-106,400
balance: $5,610,821


Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Gretzky night

I'm a fan of many sports. I can recognize superlative performance regardless of what sport I'm watching. I can honestly say I've personally witnessed some of the greatest athletic performances of all time. You might think, therefore, that it would be hard for me to pick an athlete I thought was the very best in his or her sport, ever. However, you'd be wrong. For me, the pick is dead simple. I choose the Great One, Wayne Gretzky.

Last night, I had a Gretzky night. That is, I had a night where it was clear I was vastly superior to my opponents. I seriously doubt I'll ever be able to duplicate my performance. Rather than continuing to blow my own horn, I'll let the results speak for themselves.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        92     1   195000
 50000       800           6        51     2   105000
 50000       800           6        96     1   195000
 50000       800           6        24     6        0
 50000       800           6        48     1   195000
 50000       800           6        42     1   195000

delta: $580,200
balance: $5,717,221

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Feast or famine

To be successful in tournaments over the long haul, it's vitally important that you have top notch heads up skills. What will separate feast from famine is the ability, once you've made the money, to come in first more often than you come in second. I haven't achieved this yet. Here are my current place counts and percentages:

place count(*) count(*) / 91

    1       16        0.1758
    2       16        0.1758
    3       14        0.1538
    4       19        0.2088
    5       12        0.1319
    6       14        0.1538


As you can see, right now it's a dead heat between my firsts and seconds. Only the fact that I've been averaging just over 1 in 6 for both of these places has enabled me to get into the black.

Let's say it's a given that you're going to make the money in two out of every six tournaments you enter. Sounds like a great deal, right? Not exactly! If you come in second both times in this scenario, you'll end up losing money hand over fist. At the $50,000 buy in level, you'll lose a total of $94,800 for that series of six tournaments. If you win one and come in second in the other, you still end up on the losing side of the ledger; your buy ins will be covered, but you'll end up losing your entry fees. At the $50,000 buy in level, you'll lose a total of $4,800 for that series of six tournaments. If you're somehow able to win both times, you'll be making money hand over fist. At the $50,000 buy in level, you'll win a total of $85,200 for that series of six tournaments.

This makes it crystal clear that you must have more firsts than seconds in the tournaments where you make the money. As I've said before, this is truly a severe challenge. If you can take on these formidable odds and come out on top, no one can say that you're not a great player.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        65     1   195000
 50000       800           6        22     5        0
 50000       800           6        22     5        0
 50000       800           6        33     3        0
 50000       800           6        38     4        0
 50000       800           6        57     1   195000

delta: $85,200
balance: $5,137,021

Monday, August 20, 2012

Tournament selection imperative

I've been running some numbers, and realize I've been much too fast and loose in my tournament selection. Here's a rough approximation of my typical tournament selection thought process: "I'll start with a 50K or 80K buy in. If I feel like I'm 'on', I'll move up to a 150K or 200K buy in. If not, I'll stay at the lower level buy ins." There are several things wrong with this philosophy, but the most basic one is purely mathematical. In order to maximize your profit potential, it's imperative that you choose just one buy in and stick with it. The reason is simple; if you're able to win just slightly better than one in six tournaments, and come in second in just slightly better than one in six, you'd better make sure your winnings cover your buy ins for the tournaments where you don't make the money. If you lose a huge buy in tournament, winning a lower buy in tournament won't cover that loss.

If I'd realized this in the beginning, I'd now be in tournament black, all other things being equal. Of course, all other things aren't always equal; it's certainly possible that some buy in levels will be tougher to win than others, because of tougher competition typically buying in at those levels.

Counting last night's 8 tournaments, I've now played in 85 sit and gos, winning 14 of them and coming in second 16 times. Here are the profits I would have made at each buy in level, if I'd played all the tournaments at that level:

 $50,000 buy in:  $92,000
 $80,000 buy in: $171,000
$150,000 buy in: $373,750
$200,000 buy in: $512,500

As it turns out, my current tournament delta is $-78,910; the reason I'm in the red is that my losses in bigger buy in tournaments weren't covered by my wins in lower buy in tournaments.

Here's how I've done at each buy in level:

  buy_in    count      delta

$150,000       11   $766,250
 $50,000       13   $134,600
    $300        1       $850
  $2,000        1    $-2,110
 $80,000       52  $-348,000
$200,000        7  $-630,500

At first glance, my choice seems clear: I should choose the $150,000 buy in level and stick with it. However, there are a couple of flaws associated with this choice. First, my sample size isn't big enough. Second, fairly often I switched to the $150,000 level since I was on a losing streak, felt my luck would turn around, and wanted to hit a home run to recoup my losses. Given my skill level and the fact that I'd usually lost several tournaments in a row when I chose a $150,000 tournament, statistically I was more likely to win those tournaments than the lower buy in ones. This advantage goes away when you're playing exclusively at one level.

I'm going to go with my gut and pick the lowest buy in, $50,000, as my solitary buy in level. I pledge to play at least 100 straight tournaments at this level; at that point, I'll do another tournament report card and reassess.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        40     4        0
 80000      1000           6        25     5        0
150000      1250           6        31     2   315000
 80000      1000           6       106     2   168000
 80000      1000           6        25     5        0
200000      1500           6         4     6        0
 80000      1000           6        23     4        0
150000      1250           6        65     2   315000

delta: $-111,000
balance: $5,051,821

Sunday, August 19, 2012

Tournament report card

Counting the nine tournaments I entered yesterday, I've now played in 77 sit and gos. That's a big enough sample to get an idea if I'll be able to make a profit over the long haul. Here's the number of times I've finished in each place, along with the corresponding percentage:

place count(*) count(*) / 77

    1       14        0.1818
    2       13        0.1688
    3       13        0.1688
    4       16        0.2078
    5        8        0.1039
    6       13        0.1688

The way the tournaments are set up, you essentially break even if you win one out of every six tournaments, and also come in second one out of every six. So to make a profit, you want both your first place winning percentage and your second place winning percentage to be slightly more than 1 / 6, or .1667. As you can see, I've just managed that so far.

One of the things I'm noticing about playing for bigger stakes is that no matter how big the stakes are, if you play at that level regularly, it becomes second nature and not at all scary. Given that fact, you lose all appetite for playing for smaller stakes. The smallest buy in I'd ever consider for a tournament is $50,000, and even that feels really tiny.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        98     1   312000
150000      1250           6        53     2   315000
 80000      1000           6        15     6        0
 80000      1000           6        25     3        0
 80000      1000           6         4     6        0
150000      1250           6        28     4        0
150000      1250           6        37     5        0
200000      1500           6         2     6        0
150000      1250           6        89     1   585000

delta: $81,500
balance: $5,162,821

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Chip attraction

It's a wonderful thing to have a big stack in a tournament. Since everyone starts with the same size stack, it takes skill and luck to build yours up. If you can manage to do it, though, you've gained an incredible advantage over the rest of the table. This is tournament 101, of course. The funny thing is, when your stack gets big enough, it starts to act like a chip magnet. You start winning a lot of pots before the flop; people won't even take you on without a really good starting hand. You also start winning a lot of pots betting on the flop; people get scared that if they call, you'll put them all in on a later street. They're also scared that if they raise, you'll come over the top and put them all in on the current street. So they take the prudent course and fold. Of course, the more pots you win, the larger your stack grows, and the more frightening it becomes, causing your opponents to fold with even more alacrity. At some point you pass a tipping point, and your stack becomes an unstoppable juggernaut. Opponents won't be able to win by betting, since the size of your stack will put them all in on every serious confrontation, and the law of averages dictates that they'll lose. You only have to win one time to beat them, whereas they have to beat you multiple times. Opponents also won't be able to win by not betting, as their stacks will get eaten away by the ever escalating blinds. In short, at a certain point your victory is assured. That's exactly what happened to me in the final tournament I entered last night. Take it from me, it was sweet!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6        18     5        0
 50000       800           6        24     4        0
 50000       800           6        55     3        0
150000      1250           6       127     1   585000

delta: $251,150
balance: $5,081,321

Friday, August 17, 2012

The hole in the table

I've mentioned before how big a fan I am of Stephen King. You already know that "Misery" is one of my favorite novels. You also know that one of the reasons why is King's wonderfully powerful metaphor for the process of literary creation - falling through the hole in the page. I'd like to reuse that metaphor in the context of poker. Just to recap, King was talking about when a writer is at his peak of concentration; when he's so in the zone his actual physical surroundings fall away, replaced by the landscapes and locales of his imagination. He starts by looking at a blank page, but as he creates, the page disappears. He falls through the hole in the page.

I submit to you that the act of playing poker is also an act of creation. Just as you can fall through the hole in the page when you're writing, you can fall through the hole in the table when playing poker. When you come to, you might be surprised to discover how well you did while under the creative spell. That's what happened to me last night.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        73     3        0
 50000       800           6        87     2   105000
 50000       800           6        85     1   195000
 80000      1000           6        78     1   312000

delta: $378,600
balance: $4,830,171

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Plink, plank, plunk

I've only played the Nintendo game "Guitar Hero" once in my life, but it was a lot of fun. My wife's brother and his family brought it with them when they came to visit at Christmas several years ago. One of the things that struck me about the game was that if you were playing well, hitting the right buttons at the right times, the music sounded great; on the other hand, if  you were off on your timing or were pressing the wrong buttons, the music started to sound really bad. It devolved into discordant jangling, like guitar strings on the point of snapping. A lot of off-key plink, plank, plunk!

In poker, your timing needs to be nearly as precise as is required in "Guitar Hero". When my poker timing is off, sometimes in my head I hear the atonal notes of a bad "Guitar Hero" session. That was certainly the case last night, except for the last tournament I entered.

My balance is heading south in a hurry, but I'm having so much fun playing these tournaments I don't even care!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

150000      1250           6        22     6        0
 50000       800           6        37     3        0
 80000      1000           6        28     4        0
 80000      1000           6        35     3        0
 80000      1000           6        23     6        0
 80000      1000           6        90     2   168000

delta: $-358,050
balance: $4,451,571

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Tournament red

As you might guess from the title of this post, things didn't go well for me at the poker table last night. The thing is, you have to expect big swings when you play tournaments; you have to expect to have nights where you really take a beating. You hope those nights get balanced out by the nights when you're totally in the sweetness.

Even though I didn't make the money in a single one of the four tournaments I entered, I think I played pretty well. I didn't back down when I read that an opponent was bluffing; I stayed true to my reads. Staying true to your reads is a vital poker skill, even though sometimes they'll be wrong.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 80000      1000           6         3     5        0
 80000      1000           6        39     5        0
150000      1250           6        23     4        0
 50000       800           6        46     3        0

delta: $-364,050
balance: $4,809,621

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Tournament black

Last night, I got into tournament black. That is, my overall delta in sit and go tournaments went from a net loss to a net gain. I've now played in 50 sit and go tournaments, and have made the money in 19 of them (9 firsts, 10 seconds). I'm starting to believe a sustainable profit in sit and go tournaments is possible. Playing sit and gos, I've never felt as challenged at a poker table, or as alive!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        66     1   195000
 80000      1000           6        79     3        0
 50000       800           6        71     2   105000
 50000       800           6        32     4        0
 80000      1000           6        52     2   168000
 80000      1000           6         4     5        0
 80000      1000           6        72     3        0
 80000      1000           6        66     1   312000

delta: $222,600
balance: $5,173,671

Monday, August 13, 2012

Double first

In the British educational system, a double first is an exceptional achievement; it signifies first class honors in parts one and two of one's selected field of study. I'm indebted to my father, who achieved a double first in the natural sciences at King's College Cambridge, for this definition. In poker, a double first is not nearly as exceptional, but is still commendable; it signifies winning two tournaments in a row. Last Wednesday night, I entered two sit and go tournaments and won both, for the second double first of my young sit and go career.

You may be saying to yourself, "Wait. Sit and go career? I thought neo swore off sit and gos. What's he doing going back to them?" That's a legitimate question. The fact is, playing cash games all the time can get really boring. There's an excitement level to sit and gos that's highly addicting. You're forced out of your comfort zone. You're required to make bold moves - not all the time, but you must make them at times, or forfeit any chance of winning. Picking the right time to be bold is extremely satisfying.

The way I look at it, my mastery of the cash game is funding my education in tournaments; any money I lose in tournaments is money well spent, as long as I'm learning. So far, I believe I'm learning well!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        54     1   195000
 80000      1000           6        86     1   312000

delta: $375,200
balance: $4,951,071

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

The turn for a bettor

Last night, I couldn't stick to my poker diet. Instead of playing 30 odd hands, I played 54. However, I ended with a flourish, winning 7 of the last 11 hands. One play I found myself making more often than usual was betting on the turn. The turn is a great street to bet on, provided there was no betting on the flop. You scare away the marginal hands, and set yourself up nicely to either bluff or value bet on the river.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 54 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 7 times while in big blind (100%)
 - 9 out of 10 times while in small blind (90%)
 - 26 out of 37 times in other positions (70%)
 - a total of 42 out of 54 (77%)
 Pots won at showdown - 5 of 7 (71%)
 Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $39,698
balance: $4,575,871

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Back to a poker diet

Last night, I played a very short session by my current standards - only 31 hands. That's right in the range that I once set myself as the ideal number of hands for going on a poker diet. Like a real diet, I found a poker diet hard to stick to, but I'll give it another shot.

The biggest pot I won came early, on hand 7; my queen high flush won a pot worth $48,700.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 31 hands and saw flop:
 - 4 out of 6 times while in big blind (66%)
 - 3 out of 6 times while in small blind (50%)
 - 13 out of 19 times in other positions (68%)
 - a total of 20 out of 31 (64%)
 Pots won at showdown - 3 of 7 (42%)
 Pots won without showdown - 4

delta: $26,851
balance: $4,536,173

Monday, August 6, 2012

Early triple up

On Saturday night, I more than tripled my stack in just 10 hands. I decided to play on, in hopes of a really monster night. I played 123 more hands, but didn't gain any more ground; in fact, I lost a little. Nonetheless, my two big pots early allowed me to post my 17th best delta.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 133 hands and saw flop:
 - 9 out of 18 times while in big blind (50%)
 - 13 out of 20 times while in small blind (65%)
 - 51 out of 95 times in other positions (53%)
 - a total of 73 out of 133 (54%)
 Pots won at showdown - 12 of 19 (63%)
 Pots won without showdown - 8

delta: $85,368
balance: $4,509,322

Saturday, August 4, 2012

252 not out

I don't understand much about cricket, but despite that, I can tune in to the inherent drama of the game whenever I watch it on television. I can remember watching a player some 25 odd years ago achieve a century (100 runs) in a gallant losing effort. It was riveting. One of the phrases I remember the commentators using which has stuck in my mind all these years later is "not out". It was preceded by the number of runs the player had made to that point. So on the way to his century, the player was "58 not out", "63 not out", etc.

Last night, in a gallant losing effort at the poker table, I was "252 not out". In other words, I played 252 hands without hitting the felt. I finally quit, not because I had no more chips, but because it was very late at night (or more precisely, very early in the morning). Along the way, I amassed my largest number of won pots ever in a single session - 51.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 252 hands and saw flop:
 - 37 out of 47 times while in big blind (78%)
 - 34 out of 50 times while in small blind (68%)
 - 86 out of 155 times in other positions (55%)
 - a total of 157 out of 252 (62%)
 Pots won at showdown - 19 of 43 (44%)
 Pots won without showdown - 32

delta: $-15,576
balance: $4,423,954


Friday, August 3, 2012

Five week streak

I just took a peek at the data and discovered that I've played poker every day for the last five weeks. My longest streak prior to that was three weeks. In the last five weeks, which included a week of playing deuce and a week of playing sit and go tournaments, I've lost $171,183. Disregarding the sit and gos, I've won $383,677. Since returning to no limit hold'em, I've lost $15,006 in twelve sessions. So I'm definitely in a mini slump. I'm not worried; I'll break out of it soon.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 175 hands and saw flop:
 - 29 out of 31 times while in big blind (93%)
 - 22 out of 35 times while in small blind (62%)
 - 69 out of 109 times in other positions (63%)
 - a total of 120 out of 175 (68%)
 Pots won at showdown - 16 of 33 (48%)
 Pots won without showdown - 25

delta: $-40,000
balance: $4,439,530

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Not slick enough

Last night, I hit the felt twice. Interestingly, I had the same holding both times - the ace and king of diamonds. You could say that on each occasion, my big slick just wasn't slick enough :-) On hand 24, the board was Qc Jh Jc 7d 4c, and the hand was won by an opponent holding Qs Ah. On hand 39. the board was 7h 4d 2s 2d 4c, and the hand was won by an opponent holding Jc Jd. Afterwards, I calculated my preflop odds of winning those hands, and wasn't too surprised to see they were essentially the same. On hand 24, I was a 45.76% dog, and on hand 39, I was a 45.56% dog. After reupping for the second time, I had better luck, and entertained hopes of getting back into the black; alas, it wasn't to be.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 130 hands and saw flop:
 - 7 out of 15 times while in big blind (46%)
 - 9 out of 16 times while in small blind (56%)
 - 42 out of 99 times in other positions (42%)
 - a total of 58 out of 130 (44%)
 Pots won at showdown - 10 of 18 (55%)
 Pots won without showdown - 5

delta: $-18,077
balance: $4,479,530

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Kelvined

Last night, I failed to keep my seeing the flop percentage under 60, and paid the price. The very night I blogged about the value of patience, I didn't display enough of it! However, that's not what sticks in my mind about last night's session. What does is the hand where I had the nuts that wasn't the nuts. The coldness of the deck towards me on that hand inspired the title of this post. Zero degrees Celsius, as was know, is the temperature at which water freezes. Reasonably chilly. Zero degrees Kelvin, however, is the coldest of the cold; it's also known as absolute zero. On the hand in question, the deck wasn't zero degrees Celsius cold; it was zero degrees Kelvin cold. In other words, I was Kelvined :-) Here's how it went down:

Table 'Altair VIII' 9-max (Play Money) Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: Seat 1 (39405 in chips)
Seat 2: Seat 2 (39500 in chips)
Seat 3: Seat 3 (12600 in chips)
Seat 4: Seat 4 (11700 in chips)
Seat 5: Seat 5 (39700 in chips)
Seat 6: neostreet (47341 in chips)
Seat 7: Seat 7 (12985 in chips)
Seat 8: Seat 8 (82901 in chips)
Seat 9: Seat 9 (56674 in chips)
Seat 8: posts small blind 100
Seat 9: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [As 4s]
Seat 1: calls 200
Seat 2: folds
Seat 3: calls 200
Seat 4: calls 200
Seat 5: folds
neostreet: calls 200
Seat 7: calls 200
Seat 8: calls 100
Seat 9: checks
*** FLOP *** [7s 3h 8h]
Seat 8: bets 200
Seat 9: calls 200
Seat 1: calls 200
Seat 3: calls 200
Seat 4: folds
neostreet: calls 200
Seat 7: calls 200
*** TURN *** [7s 3h 8h] [5s]
Seat 8: bets 1200
Seat 9: calls 1200
Seat 1: calls 1200
Seat 3: calls 1200
neostreet: calls 1200
Seat 7: folds
*** RIVER *** [7s 3h 8h 5s] [6s]
Seat 8: checks
Seat 9: bets 2200
Seat 1: calls 2200
Seat 3: raises 8800 to 11000 and is all-in
neostreet: raises 8800 to 19800
Seat 8: folds
Seat 9: folds
Seat 1: folds
Uncalled bet (8800) returned to neostreet
*** SHOW DOWN ***
neostreet: shows [As 4s] (a flush, Ace high)
Seat 3: shows [9s 8s] (a straight flush, Five to Nine)
Seat 3 collected 34500 from pot

It's highly likely that I would have gone all in on this hand no matter what, so I was lucky that Seat 3 started it with a small stack.

During current Hold'em session you were dealt 108 hands and saw flop:
 - 13 out of 17 times while in big blind (76%)
 - 10 out of 15 times while in small blind (66%)
 - 51 out of 76 times in other positions (67%)
 - a total of 74 out of 108 (68%)
 Pots won at showdown - 9 of 23 (39%)
 Pots won without showdown - 10

delta: $-45,459
balance: $4,497,607