18.5 million play dollars lost

Back at the beginning of June, I thought it was kind of a big deal that in my poker career up to that time I'd managed to lose almost 7 million play dollars. As it turns out, that was puppy food. As of the time of this writing, I've lost over 18.5 million play dollars. Of course, as before, there's a positive side to this story; I've managed to win over 24.5 million play dollars in my career. The takeaway here is that as long as you win more than you lose, it doesn't matter how much you lose. I look forward to losing many more play millions in the future!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        65     2   105000
 50000       800           6        88     1   195000
 50000       800           6        42     4        0
 50000       800           6        52     2   105000
 50000       800           6        66     3        0
 50000       800           6        24     5        0

delta: $100,200
tournament balance: $1,121,090
balance: $6,252,021

Fives'll get you ones

I've mentioned before that the style of play which can get you to heads up with a big chip lead is the same style of play which can get you out of the tournament in a hurry. I deprecated that style at the time, but now I see the error of my ways. I heartily endorse that style now. I'll happily trade third place finishes for firsts and fifths. Currently, I've had more thirds than any other place; I want to cut down on my thirds in a big way. I firmly believe that if I get more fives, I'll also get more ones.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        90     1   195000
 50000       800           6         4     5        0
 50000       800           6        33     4        0
 50000       800           6        23     5        0
 50000       800           6        47     5        0
 50000       800           6        59     1   195000

delta: $85,200
tournament balance: $1,021,090
balance: $6,151,821

Bad players considered harmful

Bad players, as a general rule, are good to have at your table. This is especially true in cash games. However, in tournaments, bad players can sometimes cripple your stack with their inexplicable plays. That happened to me in the penultimate hand of the third tournament I entered last night. Here's how it went down:

Table '620627199 1' 6-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 2: Seat 2 (1460 in chips)
Seat 4: Seat 4 (3070 in chips)
Seat 6: neostreet (1470 in chips)
Seat 2: posts small blind 100
Seat 4: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to neostreet [As 2c]
neostreet: calls 200
Seat 2: raises 400 to 600
Seat 4: folds
neostreet: calls 400
*** FLOP *** [Js Ah 5h]
Seat 2: bets 860 and is all-in
neostreet: calls 860
*** TURN *** [Js Ah 5h] [3s]
*** RIVER *** [Js Ah 5h 3s] [Ts]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Seat 2: shows [Td Th] (three of a kind, Tens)
neostreet: shows [As 2c] (a pair of Aces)
Seat 2 collected 3120 from pot

Seat 2 saw not one but two overcards to his pair of tens on the flop. A check was the correct play here. Instead, he shoved. I felt good about my aces and called. I was an 85% favorite, but he spiked a ten on the river and crippled me; I was left with $10 at the end of the hand. A good player would never shove in that situation. But since he made a bad play and did, and got really lucky, I ended up suffering for it. In this case I certainly wish I'd had a higher caliber of opponent to contend with!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        12     5        0
 50000       800           6        58     3        0
 50000       800           6        68     3        0

delta: $-152,400
tournament balance: $935,890
balance: $6,066,621

Heads up marathon

In the first tournament I entered last night, I got to heads up at the end of hand 67. At that point I had a chip lead of $3,625 to $2,375. A see-saw battle ensued for the next 30 hands. 30 hands heads up is a true marathon in a tournament, since the blinds never stop escalating. I have a feeling this may be another personal best; I'll have to check the archives to be sure. I ended up coming up short, but not for lack of trying. My opponent and I both played very well. I don't mind losing in that circumstance.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        97     2   105000
 50000       800           6        56     1   195000
 50000       800           6        26     5        0

delta: $147,600
tournament balance: $1,088,290
balance: $6,219,021

Another personal best

Last night, I set another personal best. I've had a top 3 finish in the last 7 tournaments I've entered; my previous best was 6. I'll see if I can extend the streak tonight. This suggests a psychological ploy which might make the golden one-two feel easier to achieve. Instead of telling myself that I'm aiming for one of the top two spots, I'm going to try telling myself that I'm aiming for one of the top 3 spots, even though only the top two spots make the money. The reasoning behind this is that if I make the top 3 spots often enough, I'll get my share of firsts and seconds. It's a pretty transparent trick, but I'm hoping I fall for it :-)

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        85     1   195000
 50000       800           6        59     3        0
 50000       800           6        51     3        0

delta: $42,600
tournament balance: $940,690
balance: $6,071,421

Seduced into passivity

Every now and then a player at a tournament table becomes a phantom; they sit out and never return. When a player sits out, the PokerStars software takes over for him, folding his hand to every bet. In the second tournament I entered last night, an opponent sat out on hand 22 and never returned. At the time he sat out, only three players (including the phantom and me) were still alive in the tournament. The chip leader had $3,525 in chips, the phantom had $2,000, and I was the short stack with $475. I was fully expecting the chip leader to make some bullying bets, but he was content to check everything. This non-action on his part seduced me into passivity; instead of playing my own hands on their merits, I fell into his pattern of checking by default. I was hoping that by so doing, the big stack and I would basically split the phantom's chips between us, and I'd get to heads up with a chance, albeit a small one, of coming in first. The problem with this strategy was that it takes a lot of hands to blind off a $2,000 stack, and there was no guarantee that the big stack would remain passive for that long. As it turned out, he didn't. I made it to hand 47, but that was all she wrote. At the start of that final hand, the big stack had $5,025 in chips, the phantom had $600, and I was still the short stack with $375. I was dealt Kd 7d, and the big stack put me all in preflop. I called, and the big stack turned over a pair of fours. Three aces hit on the board, and my three of a kind aces lost to a full house of aces full of fours.

What I should have realized was that with the phantom sitting out, I was basically heads up with the big stack starting at hand 22. I should have played to win at that point, instead of playing for second. I definitely got what I deserved, and I won't make that mistake again.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6       104     3        0
 50000       800           6        47     3        0
 50000       800           6        94     2   105000

delta: $-47,400
tournament balance: $898,090
balance: $6,028,821

Scuttled buttons

Last night, after 30 straight winless tournaments, I finally won one. I employed a technique that may have helped me win; I call it "scuttled buttons". This refers to the practice of folding before the flop when you have the dealer button. Of course, you never do this with a very strong hand; more often than not, however, you won't have such a hand. In the tournament I won, I had the dealer button 17 times, and folded fully 10 of those 17 hands before the flop.

In cash games, you very rarely want to scuttle your button; position is such an advantage in cash games that you should think long and hard about willingly throwing it away. Position is a big advantage in tournaments, too, of course, but several other factors come into play which can make it the right choice to scuttle your button. First and foremost is the need to conserve your stack. You'd like your stack to be as big as or bigger than anyone else's; you want to be able to scare people away from pots with healthy bets and raises, with more chips behind. If you make a healthy bet or raise, but have to go all in to make it, you'll get called a lot more often than you would if you have chips left over to fight back with. Another reason to scuttle your button is to maintain the image of a no-nonsense player who rarely bluffs. If you have this image, you can throw in the occasional bluff and have a better chance of pulling it off. Perhaps the best reason of all to scuttle your button when you don't have a very strong hand is to realize that anyone who pays to see the flop will likely have your hand beat.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        13     6        0
 50000       800           6        63     1   195000

delta: $93,400
tournament balance: $945,490
balance: $6,076,221

Starved for firsts

I just checked the records, and I've now played twenty-nine straight tournaments without a win. I don't even have to check to know that this stretch qualifies as my longest winless streak. I'm starved for firsts! I haven't figured out yet whether my play has deteriorated, or the play of my opponents has improved, or I'm in a rotten patch of bad luck, or my previous results reflected an extended streak of good luck. All I know is that I'm going to continue to play tournaments until I find out the truth.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        81     3        0
 50000       800           6        35     3        0
 50000       800           6        30     5        0

delta: $-152,400
tournament balance: $852,090
balance: $5,982,821

Dogs that bite

When you're in a slump, no all in situation feels good to you. If you're an underdog, you have no belief you'll win the pot. If you're a favorite, you don't have a lot of confidence that the dog won't bite you. You can't avoid all in situations, however, unless you want to just slowly fade away. The only thing to do when the dogs keep biting is to put in the forefront of your mind that you're banking some big runs of good luck in the future. This is the poker equivalent of Schwarzenegger's famous "Terminator" line, "I'll be back".

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        37     5        0
 50000       800           6        27     3        0
 50000       800           6        36     4        0
 50000       800           6        22     5        0
 50000       800           6        75     2   105000
 50000       800           6        63     3        0
 50000       800           6        23     4        0

$-250,600
tournament balance: $1,004,490
balance: $6,135,221

Corrections to incorrect thinking

After doing some more thinking, I realize I need to correct two mistakes in my recent thinking. Thinker, heal thyself! :-) The first mistaken thought process I want to address is the hpe formula I came up with last night. I knew at the time I devised it that it had a flaw, but couldn't quite put my finger on what that flaw was. Now I can. At a six player table, only five players can be eliminated; once the fifth player is eliminated, you have a winner and the tournament is over. The sixth player can never be eliminated. My original formula had the winner eliminating himself, which is a logical impossibility. The formula worked fine for places 2 through 6, but failed for first place finishes; the hpe value came out too low in those cases. The hpe for the first place finisher should be identical to the hpe for the second place finisher, since they both played the same number of hands and both saw the same number of players eliminated (the 2nd place finisher sees himself being eliminated on his way out). The corrected formula is therefore as follows:

hpe = num_hands / (num_players + 1 - max(place,2))

The other thought process I want to correct is my recent theory about second place finishes. The golden 2 is untenable. The golden one-two is tenable, and must be the goal. To achieve a profit, both first and second place finishes are equally important. Without the first place finishes, you have no realistic chance of making a profit. Without the second place finishes, you need more first place finishes than you otherwise would; this also ends up meaning you have no realistic chance of making a profit. I'll amend my golden one-two definition slightly. To achieve the golden one-two, you must average just a hair better than one first place finish and one second place finish every six tournaments. Where that hair falls is up to you!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        71     2   105000
 50000       800           6        31     5        0

delta: $3,400
tournament balance: $1,255,090
balance: $6,385,821

yaps: hpe

Last night, I was shut out again; no money finishes in three tournaments played. I had a bit of bad luck here and there. Overall, I thought I played pretty well. The disparity between my results and how I felt I was playing inspired me to come up with yet another poker statistic (yaps). I call this one hpe; it stands for hands per elimination. It attempts to measure your ability to survive in a tournament. Since in general the longer you play, the better you place, it measures how long you play per player eliminated, up until such time as either you're eliminated yourself, or you win the tournament. Here's the formula:

hpe = num_hands / (num_players + 1 - place)

Looking over my historical hpe and place data, it's clear there's no real correlation between hpe and place, as I'd hoped. If your hpe is under 6, that's a strong indication that you placed 4th, 5th or 6th; however, if your hpe is 6 or over, that doesn't indicate where you ended up. Back to the statistical drawing board!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        66     4        0
 50000       800           6        45     5        0
 50000       800           6        55     3        0

delta: $-152,400
tournament balance: $1,251,690
balance: $6,382,421

Tournament milestone

Last night, unbeknownst to me at the time, I achieved a tournament milestone. I surpassed the 15 million play dollar mark in money invested in playing tournaments. That's the sum of all the buy ins and entry fees for every tournament I've entered. Here are the exact figures to date:

play money invested:  $15,061,080
winnings:             $16,465,170
profit:                $1,404,090
return on investment:       9.32%

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there's no easy way to calculate the return on investment (aka profit percentage) from playing cash games. That's yet another reason why I prefer tournaments.

I'm definitely in a bit of a slump right now, but have a feeling I'll break out of it soon.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        26     5        0
 50000       800           6        58     3        0
 50000       800           6        23     5        0
 50000       800           6       111     2   105000

delta: $-98,200
tournament balance: $1,404,090
balance: $6,534,821

Two new personal bests

The title of this post wins the record for putting the best spin on a bad night :-) Looking for the positives from a dismal session, I discovered I'd set two new personal bests. One of them was for the longest streak of tournament sessions with at least one finish in the money. Of course, to set a record like this, you have to have ended the streak, so it's a bittersweet accomplishment. Starting on August 15th, and ending last night, I had a streak of 31 such sessions. The other record was for the greatest number of hands played in a tournament where I finished 4th - a rather astounding 67.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        42     4        0
 50000       800           6        57     3        0
 50000       800           6        26     4        0
 50000       800           6        67     4        0

delta: $-203,200
tournament balance: $1,502,290
balance: $6,633,021

The golden 2

Last night, for the third session in a row, I made the money in the first three tournaments I entered. Of those nine tournaments, I only won two, but came in second a hefty seven times. These recent results suggested to me an alternate profit path, which I'll call the golden 2. Briefly stated: to achieve the golden 2, you must come in second in four of every six tournaments you play. At the $50,000 buy in level, that amounts to a $115,200 profit. Of course, that's a ridiculous, unrealistic goal, but it's fun to think about.

I've been wondering why my first place finishes have been tapering off lately, and have a theory. I think it's because I'm getting better at avoiding 4th, 5th, and 6th place finishes. To really set yourself up for a first place finish, you need to have the lion's share of the chips when you get to heads up. To achieve that, you have to play more riskily than you otherwise would. The style which can assure you a big chip lead if you make it to heads up is the same style which assures that you'll have a good number of 4th, 5th, and 6th place finishes. I'm starting to perfect the art of tournament survival; one of the consequences of this is that I often have a significant chip disadvantage when I get to heads up. So the question is: do I prefer to get more first places, but significantly fewer second places, or do I prefer to get fewer first places, but significantly more second places? Right now, I'm opting for the latter.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        55     2   105000
 50000       800           6        55     2   105000
 50000       800           6        84     2   105000

delta: $162,600
tournament balance: $1,705,490
balance: $6,836,221

Doppelsix

Now that I've switched to playing tournaments, specifically six player tournaments, I've been focusing on statistics dealing with sets of six tournaments. Ideally, I'd like to play six tournaments every session, but that's not very practicable on a work night. Friday and Saturday nights are a different story. Last night, as I had the night before, I played six tournaments. The two sessions were eerily similar; not only did I make the money the same number of times and for the same amounts, but I did so in the same order. That's why I dub last night's session a doppelsix of the previous one :-)

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        82     2   105000
 50000       800           6        65     2   105000
 50000       800           6        88     1   195000
 50000       800           6        51     3        0
 50000       800           6        39     4        0
 50000       800           6        35     5        0

delta: $100,200
tournament balance: $1,542,890
balance: $6,673,621

Bluidity

As you may have guessed from the title of this post, I've coined another neo neo. Bluidity is the state of being in the blue. As you may remember, you're in the blue when your balance has reached a new personal best. Last night, I achieved bluidity again.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        52     2   105000
 50000       800           6        43     2   105000
 50000       800           6        45     1   195000
 50000       800           6        59     3        0
 50000       800           6        13     6        0
 50000       800           6         6     5        0

delta: $100,200
tournament balance: $1,442,690
balance: $6,573,421

Types of impatience

Last night, I displayed at least two different types of impatience. In the first tournament I entered, I got to heads up with a 2-1 chip lead. On a hand where I had an open-ended straight draw, I decided to call when my opponent went all in on the turn. I missed my straight, and to add insult to injury, my opponent made a full house on the river. This is an example of being impatient late.

In the second tournament I entered, I went up $450 on the very first hand. Unfortunately, that was the only hand I won that tournament. I didn't sit on my early lead the way I should have, and ended up going out in fifth place. This is an example of being impatient early.

Of course, one can be impatient at any stage of a tournament, or session. Also, one can be impatient either optimistically or pessimistically. In both cases last night, I was optimistically impatient.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        76     2   105000
 50000       800           6        28     5        0
 50000       800           6        47     4        0

delta: $-47,400
tournament balance: $1,342,490
balance: $6,473,221

House falls on man

For the title of this post, I thought I'd try something that sounded like a newspaper headline :-) In this case, the house was a full house, and the man was me. Near the end of the second tournament I played last night, when I was heads up with most of the chips, I hit a flush on the turn, and called an all in bet by my opponent. I was already celebrating the victory when I saw the PokerStars software inexplicably moving chips to my opponent's spot at the table instead of mine. I was stunned, dumbfounded, and gobsmacked. My opponent had flopped a full house of aces full of fives. My stack fell from $3,695 to $1,390 in a heartbeat.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. As a poker player, you must expect cold decks like that to hit you with regularity. By that, I don't mean frequently; they won't hit you often, but they will hit you with regularity. In a way, they're a badge of honor; they signify you've played long enough to get hit by them. If you've managed to play that long, you must be pretty good :-)

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        66     1   195000
 50000       800           6       118     2   105000
 50000       800           6        19     5        0

delta: $147,600
tournament balance: $1,389,890
balance: $6,520,621

Rhythm feltee

Back in the day, there was a form of birth control called the rhythm method. The basic idea was to try to figure out exactly when the female of the couple was fertile, and simply abstain from sex during that critical time. As you might guess, this method didn't have a stellar track record. Failures of the method gave birth (pardon the pun) to the term "rhythm baby".

How does this relate to poker? It's pretty simple, really. Poker players don't want to hit the felt, so they need a form of felt control. One method is the poker rhythm method. This entails being attuned to the pulse of the game, to figure out when an opponent is probably bluffing. If the rhythm tells you an opponent's bet is likely a bluff, you should be emboldened to call. When you think you're attuned to the pulse of the game, but lose all your chips anyway, you're a rhythm feltee :-)

In the final hand of the last tournament I played last night, that moniker applied to me. I was one of three remaining players at the table. I'd been dealt a pair of sixes, and the flop came 8h 8s 4s. An opponent who had me covered went all-in for his last $745, and poker rhythm told me he was bluffing. I called; he turned over a pair of queens, and that was all she wrote.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        64     2   105000
 50000       800           6        49     4        0
 50000       800           6        46     3        0

delta: $-47,400
tournament balance: $1,242,290
balance: $6,373,021

The golden one-two

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a new poker indicator to submit for your approval. I call it the golden one-two. It applies to 6 player sit and go tournaments. Unlike the golden ratio, which virtually guarantees that you'll make a profit if you manage to achieve it, the golden one-two absolutely guarantees you'll make a profit. Briefly stated, the golden one two is when you win 1 out of every 5 tournaments, and come in second 1 out of every 6. That amounts to winning 6 times and coming in second 5 times every 30 tournaments. Your winning percentage must be at least .2000, and your percentage coming in second must be at least .1667. I'm proud to say that after playing 193 sit and gos, I've managed to hit and maintain the golden one-two.

place count(*) count(*) / 193

    1       40         0.2073
    2       33         0.1710
    3       36         0.1865
    4       34         0.1762
    5       23         0.1192
    6       27         0.1399

When I started playing sit and gos, I honestly thought I was on a fool's errand. I didn't think it was possible to sustain a profit playing them. I'm happy to have been mistaken!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        67     1   195000
 50000       800           6        50     3        0
 50000       800           6        70     1   195000

delta: $237,600
tournament balance: $1,289,690
balance: $6,420,421

Funny luck

In poker, it helps to have a sense of humor about luck, not least because sometimes luck is quite humorous. In the third and final tournament I played last night, I should have hit the felt on hand 4, but didn't. Why not? Because of funny luck. I'd been dealt 4d 2d, and the flop came 8d Tc Jd. An opponent who had me covered went all in for $870. I figured him for top pair, or possibly two of a kind, or possibly a straight. If I hit my flush, I'd have all three of those possibilities beat. I decided to take a risk, and called. When he turned over 9d 6d, I had to laugh. My read had been completely wrong, and I was a huge underdog. If I hit my flush, I'd lose to his uberflush. If I didn't hit my flush, my 4 would likely lose to his 9. As it turned out, the turn came 2c and the river came Jc, giving me a two pair of jacks and deuces and winning me a pot worth $1,400. I knew I didn't deserve any more luck that tournament; I ended up just out of the money in third.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        83     1   195000
 50000       800           6        32     4        0
 50000       800           6        53     3        0

delta: $42,600
tournament balance: $1,052,090
balance: $6,182,821

Three and out

In honor of the start of football season, I'm using a football saying for the title of this post. In football, a three and out describes what has befallen a team which only had three downs in an offensive series, and was then forced to punt because they hadn't been able to make a first down. Last night, I had the poker equivalent of a three and out in the first tournament I entered; I hit the felt on just the third hand. I'd made top two pair on the flop, but the flop was all hearts. I bet $100 on the flop and got one caller; I bet $240 on the turn and my opponent went all in. I called, because I just couldn't believe that the opponent had flopped a flush. Of course, he had. In retrospect, I played much too friskily, and paid the price.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6         3     6        0
 50000       800           6        33     3        0
 50000       800           6        74     1   195000
 50000       800           6        14     6        0
 50000       800           6        94     2   105000
 50000       800           6        40     5        0

delta: $-4,800
tournament balance: $1,009,490
balance: $6,140,221

The competitive imperative

Looking dispassionately at it, I realize I've got the poker bug bad. It's so fulfilling when I play it that I'm perilously close to feeling compelled to play. What separates passion from obsession? I don't really know. I guess if I were truly obsessed, I wouldn't be able to miss playing a single day. That's not the case. If I were truly obsessed, the hours I spent playing poker would keep increasing. That's not the case either. I guess the best way to describe my poker habit is to say that I have a deep need to compete, and poker satisfies that need. Call it the competitive imperative!

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        54     3        0
 50000       800           6        51     3        0
 50000       800           6        67     1   195000
 50000       800           6        40     3        0
 50000       800           6        59     2   105000
 50000       800           6        15     6        0

delta: $-4,800
tournament balance: $1,014,290
balance: $6,145,021

The quest for quod

Poker is the art of decision-making given incomplete information. The more information you have, the better your decisions can (though not necessarily will) be. It would be really nice if there were a way to measure the quality of the poker decisions you make. I dub this the quest for quod, where quod stands for "quality of decision". Unfortunately, by poker's very nature, the data on which to base any such measurement is incomplete. Therefore, any attempt to find a measurement formula is essentially doomed from the start.

If there were a good quod formula, it would help ease the pain when you lose. Many great poker writers stress that the goal in poker should not be to make money, but to make good decisions. If you routinely make good decisions, the money will follow.

Last night, I had a bad night, delta-wise. However, I think I had a great night, quod-wise. I don't know for sure, though, since I haven't come up with the formula yet :-)

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        41     4        0
 50000       800           6        60     2   105000
 50000       800           6        59     3        0
 50000       800           6        24     3        0
 50000       800           6        72     3        0
 50000       800           6        59     5        0

delta: $-199,800
tournament balance: $1,019,090
balance: $6,149,821

Clucksters considered harmful

The beginning of the second tournament I played last night has inspired another neo neo (neostreet neologism) - cluckster. A cluckster is a cluster of luck. On the whole, I don't really like clucksters. They're fickle, and they also become quite apparent to your opponents, enabling them to gun for you when they figure your luck is bound to have run out. By the start of the 13th hand of last night's second tournament, my stack had shot up to $2,445; I'd won 6 of the first 12 hands. That's a cluckster by any definition. However, it was unsustainable, and I ended up having to settle for third place, just out of the money. Though I didn't do nearly as well early on in the other two tournaments I played, I managed to make the money in both.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        91     2   105000
 50000       800           6        51     3        0
 50000       800           6        33     1   195000

delta: $147,600
tournament balance: $1,218,890
balance: $6,349,621

Hammer and tongs

When you routinely play over 200 hands a night, not too many stand out. However, the ones that do, really do. Last night, of the 213 hands I played, 2 were really memorable. On the first, I was dealt a hammer (7 2 offsuit) when I was severely short stacked, and in the big blind. As you may know, a hammer is the worst possible starting hand in hold'em. I was one of three remaining players at the table. The big blind amount at this point had grown to $200, and I only had $125 in chips before the hand started. So I was automatically put all in, and resigned myself to this being my last hand of that particular tournament. The board came Jh 3c Tc 8h 9d, however; this gave me a straight, and won me the main pot of $375. One of my opponents had been dealt 8s 8c, and won a mammoth side pot of $2,680 with his set of eights, beating the other opponent, who'd been dealt Kc Ks. I just ran my homegrown poker odds calculator to determine that I was a 10% dog, the pair of eights was a 18% dog, and the pair of kings was a 72% favorite. The actual results stood the odds completely on their head. It would be nice to be able to tell you that this hand turned my tournament around, and that I ended up in the money. Sadly, that wasn't the case; I hit the felt just 7 hands later.

The other memorable hand was my last hand of the night. I'd been dealt a big slick, and went all in with it preflop. I got one caller, who turned over ace five offsuit. I was a 70.5% favorite to win, and felt good about my chances. However, a five hit on the turn, and my tournament was over. I felt like I'd been hit upside the head by a pair of fireplace tongs (hence the second part of this post's title).

Luck evens out over time. I definitely should have lost the first hand, and won the second. I don't get bothered when the odds get overthrown in this way, just wistful :-)

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        29     4        0
 50000       800           6        20     6        0
 50000       800           6        67     3        0
 50000       800           6        64     2   105000
 50000       800           6        28     3        0
 50000       800           6         5     5        0

delta: $-199,800
tournament balance: $1,071,290
balance: $6,202,021

The mysterious disappearing opponent

As I've mentioned before, I got into the habit of doing a fair amount of web surfing while playing in my cash game days. When I first started playing sit and go tournaments, I sharply curtailed this practice, believing I needed to pay full attention to everything that was happening at the table, even when I wasn't involved in a hand. Slowly, I've slid back into my old patterns, as I've come to realize that one can do quite well without paying much attention to the hands one isn't involved in. One interesting side effect of this is the phenomenon of the mysterious disappearing opponent. It's often the case that I'll discover that the number of players has diminished by one, or even two, all unbeknownst to me as I was happily surfing. It's a nice surprise, but almost makes me feel a little guilty; someone else did all the work of getting rid of those players, and I get to share the benefit of their absence without even knowing how they hit the felt :-)

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        57     2   105000
 50000       800           6        36     3        0
 50000       800           6        33     2   105000

delta: $57,600
tournament balance: $1,271,090
balance: $6,401,821

Hitting for the cycle

In baseball, hitting for the cycle is a rare feat, and a great achievement. That's when you hit a single, a double, a triple, and a home run all in the same game, though not necessarily in that order. In poker tournaments, hitting for the cycle is not as rare, and it's a mediocre achievement at best. It's when you come in first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth in a six tournament stretch, though not necessarily in that order. I hit for the cycle on Saturday night, and played two more tournaments after that, neither of which I won.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6        71     1   195000
 50000       800           6        53     2   105000
 50000       800           6        39     3        0
 50000       800           6        34     4        0
 50000       800           6        25     6        0
 50000       800           6        33     5        0
 50000       800           6        12     5        0
 50000       800           6        72     3        0

delta: $-106,400
tournament balance: $1,213,490
balance: $6,344,221

Now I'm 64

It's time for another tournament report card, now that I'm 64. That is to say, now that I've played 64 tournaments since deciding to pick a single buy in level and stick with it. Here's how I've done:

place count percentage

    1    19     0.2969
    2     9     0.1406
    3     8     0.1250
    4    12     0.1875
    5     8     0.1250
    6     8     0.1250

These sit and go tournaments are just so damn much fun I'll probably never go back to the cash games.

buy_in entry_fee num_players num_hands place winnings

 50000       800           6       110     1   195000
 50000       800           6         9     5        0
 50000       800           6        15     4        0
 50000       800           6        35     3        0
 50000       800           6        55     3        0
 50000       800           6        91     1   195000
 50000       800           6        23     6        0
 50000       800           6        11     6        0
 50000       800           6        72     1   195000

delta: $127,800
tournament balance: $1,319,890
balance: $6,450,621