I realized my overall numbers weren't necessarily useful without some context to go with them. So, here is a better rundown for November.
All games
Earnings: $1540
Win Rate: $23.13/hr.
Sessions: 19
Avg. Session length: 3 hrs. 30 min.
Total time: 66 hrs. 35 min.
Just 2/5 NL Hold Em
Earnings: $1401
Win Rate: $34.25/hr.
Sessions: 11
Avg. Session length: 3 hrs. 43 min.
Total time: 40 hrs. 55 min.
Just 1/2 NL Hold Em
Earnings: -$530
Win Rate: -$47.45/hr.
Sessions: 3
Avg. Session length: 3 hrs. 43 min.
Total time: 11 hrs. 10 min.
Just 10/20 Limit Omaha 8
Earnings: $733
Win Rate: $58.27/hr.
Sessions: 4
Avg. Session length: 3 hrs. 9 min.
Total time: 12 hrs. 35 min.
I'm happy with those numbers. Sure, the 1/2 game knocked me back a little, but compared with the 2/5 game I didn't put much time into it. And fortunately, my 4 Omaha 8 sessions more than compensated for the loss.
This last week of the year is supposedly a great time to be playing cards in Vegas. I'm going to find out if that's true or just a myth.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Friday, December 21, 2007
Leading up to The Holidays
November finished on a positive note. I went out for 4 sessions of 10/20 Omaha 8 at The Wynn just after Thanksgiving. I suspected that the game might be crowded with regulars being eager to get back to their routine. I was right and was rewarded with 3 wins and 1 loss over the 4 sessions for a $733 profit.
For 2/5 NL Hold Em for the month I booked a $1401 win. But for the lower limit game which I played 3 last sessions of I lost $594. Add it up and I was up $807 for the month.
I haven't often written about the bottom line in this blog and have concentrated more on a strategy and environmental reviews. But sometimes it's good to get back to the bottom line because after all, at some point if I'm not making my monetary goals, all the theory in the world won't save me from going broke. Thankfully I'm not going broke.
December has been a vacation month for me thus far. Holiday shopping, travels and relaxing make for some pleasant distractions from poker. I'll be back in the habit for the last week of the year, as I have been told that the week leading up to New Year's Eve can be particularly profitable.
For 2/5 NL Hold Em for the month I booked a $1401 win. But for the lower limit game which I played 3 last sessions of I lost $594. Add it up and I was up $807 for the month.
I haven't often written about the bottom line in this blog and have concentrated more on a strategy and environmental reviews. But sometimes it's good to get back to the bottom line because after all, at some point if I'm not making my monetary goals, all the theory in the world won't save me from going broke. Thankfully I'm not going broke.
December has been a vacation month for me thus far. Holiday shopping, travels and relaxing make for some pleasant distractions from poker. I'll be back in the habit for the last week of the year, as I have been told that the week leading up to New Year's Eve can be particularly profitable.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
October/Early November
Some things changed for me in October, and I might as well start writing about the most important change first: I switched my primary game from 1-2 or 1-3 no-limit to 2-5 no-limit Texas Hold Em. On paper it looks a little counter intuitive. After losing money in September, it might seem that the correct move would be to play smaller games or to get out of no-limit altogether. Several books have alluded to this solution (including "Your Worst Poker Enemy" by Alan N. Schoonaker, Ph. D.) for the problems of "running bad". I felt a month of losses (and as it turned out only about 55 hours on the tables) wasn't really a large enough sample size to go on in this regard. And part of the reason I was playing 1-2 and 1-3 no-limit was so I could make some mistakes and learn from them without it costing too much. And then I had a visitor.
My friend, Sol, was in town for a convention and he was going to play a lot of poker. We had a chance to catch up and chat over dinner and to go over some of my recent difficulties. He suggested I was ready for the 2-5 game and that it was actually easier than the smaller no-limit games. I cautiously agreed but still wasn't sure.
Later that night I had lost about $300 after six hours in the smaller game. I took a break and walked around and decided, what the hell -- I was going back in to play 2-5. I was seated immediately, bought in for $400 and within an hour I was up $650. It was like magic. I ended the session soon afterwards and went home to think about just why it was so much easier.
The Benefits of 2-5 NL Texas Hold Em over the smaller NL games
My friend, Sol, was in town for a convention and he was going to play a lot of poker. We had a chance to catch up and chat over dinner and to go over some of my recent difficulties. He suggested I was ready for the 2-5 game and that it was actually easier than the smaller no-limit games. I cautiously agreed but still wasn't sure.
Later that night I had lost about $300 after six hours in the smaller game. I took a break and walked around and decided, what the hell -- I was going back in to play 2-5. I was seated immediately, bought in for $400 and within an hour I was up $650. It was like magic. I ended the session soon afterwards and went home to think about just why it was so much easier.
The Benefits of 2-5 NL Texas Hold Em over the smaller NL games
- Larger or unlimited buy-ins. Now, when sitting in a 2-5 game, you can enter with an appropriate amount of chips for that game. In the smaller games around town, you're limited to a capped buy-in between $200 - $500 depending on where you play. In those games, if everyone already has more chips than you, it can be more difficult play effectively.
- More poor and loose players. I had just always assumed that the higher up you go, the better the competition would be. This is not always the case. In the 2-5 game I am constantly finding great action from casual players who are willing to push and or call with weak hands against my better holdings. Often, the more chips they have, the worse they'll play. In the smaller NL games, the dearth of chips often fostered an environment of very tight play for hours on end. It was much more difficult to get anyone to risk anything.
- More chips = better pot management. With more chips on the table it is easier for you to plan your hand and your actions. With less total chips, you just don't have as much wiggle room to trap, to bluff, to build a pot, etc. Your decisions, however, will most likely require more thought.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Losing and Learning
Well, from a strict earnings perspective this month has continued to SUCK for me and may just go down as my biggest ever one-month loss. Although I'm not happy about this state, I am at peace with it. I've been playing better and making better decisions as the month has progressed and I've been more diligent in my studies of poker theory.
I bought two books this month. I've nearly finished the first one, "Professional No-Limit Hold 'Em Volume I" by Matt Flynn, Sunny Mehta and Ed Miller. I like this book because the examples it uses are based around the types of games I've been playing. It introduces some good theory on controlling pot sizes and planning out a poker hand in advance of the flop. A major goal of the book is helping players to reduce the tough decisions they may have to make on the turn or river. If decisions are easier, a player can feel more confident about making them.
The second book I have yet to start: "Your Worst Poker Enemy" by Alan N. Schoonaker, Ph. D. I have read some of this author's columns in the CardPlayer magazine and I like his style. I'll write a review of this book for my next post.
As I've been reflecting on the past month today, a conceptualized feeling and associative phrase entered my head: Be Nimble and Precise. I've always had a problem with the concept of striving for perfection. Since nobody is really perfect (and just what is true perfection anyway?) the idea of striving towards it seems in the end like so much running-in-place. But the idea of deftly acting in a precise manner (in life and in poker) sounds much more manageable and as a result, more motivational, too.
I bought two books this month. I've nearly finished the first one, "Professional No-Limit Hold 'Em Volume I" by Matt Flynn, Sunny Mehta and Ed Miller. I like this book because the examples it uses are based around the types of games I've been playing. It introduces some good theory on controlling pot sizes and planning out a poker hand in advance of the flop. A major goal of the book is helping players to reduce the tough decisions they may have to make on the turn or river. If decisions are easier, a player can feel more confident about making them.
The second book I have yet to start: "Your Worst Poker Enemy" by Alan N. Schoonaker, Ph. D. I have read some of this author's columns in the CardPlayer magazine and I like his style. I'll write a review of this book for my next post.
As I've been reflecting on the past month today, a conceptualized feeling and associative phrase entered my head: Be Nimble and Precise. I've always had a problem with the concept of striving for perfection. Since nobody is really perfect (and just what is true perfection anyway?) the idea of striving towards it seems in the end like so much running-in-place. But the idea of deftly acting in a precise manner (in life and in poker) sounds much more manageable and as a result, more motivational, too.
Friday, September 14, 2007
More on one-pair woes
I'm having a terrible month at the poker tables, taking some tremendous beats. And the worst thing about this is that I have only myself to blame. Let me explain.
In my last post I mentioned something about over-valuing having only pair, whatever it may be. Lately, despite being aware of this snafu, I've been "applying" this same mistake to my no-limit game with devastating results -- as in, I lose all my chips.
In limit play (structured betting) I learned how to play big pocket pairs a certain way. And then when I got into playing no-limit tournaments, I learned how to play them a little differently. In the no-limit cash game, I sometimes remember how to play them yet another way. Let's get into a little detail about this third, most important point.
Having a pair before the flop is important because it can develop into a set (three-of-a-kind), which itself can develop into a full house or quads (4-of-a-kind). In fact, this type of development is usually where I make my money in the no-limit game. Someone else during such an event will make top pair, two pair, or a worse full house and usually pay me off. Those are the situations I want to wait for before I risk all my chips on a given hand.
In a limit game, because of the structured betting, players will often be drawing to a straight or a flush against sets. This hasn't happened as often to me in the no-limit game because I can make a large enough bet or raise on the flop get them to get them to release their draws. The players that hold on to their two pairs or top pair usually either call or play back at me with a re-raise.
So, the point is that holding a pair pre-flop is good because it can develop into something powerful. But what happens when the flop comes and it doesn't hit you? What's supposed to happen is this: observe your opponents to see if this flop might have helped them and act accordingly, with caution. The mistake I've been making has been to risk most or all of my chips on the flop without making these considerations. I see the AA or KK and go into stupid mode, pretending I'm invincible. At least, that's what's been happening to me lately. Hopefully with this self-awareness I can tighten up and plug this serious hole in my game -- fast! Losing sucks!
In my last post I mentioned something about over-valuing having only pair, whatever it may be. Lately, despite being aware of this snafu, I've been "applying" this same mistake to my no-limit game with devastating results -- as in, I lose all my chips.
In limit play (structured betting) I learned how to play big pocket pairs a certain way. And then when I got into playing no-limit tournaments, I learned how to play them a little differently. In the no-limit cash game, I sometimes remember how to play them yet another way. Let's get into a little detail about this third, most important point.
Having a pair before the flop is important because it can develop into a set (three-of-a-kind), which itself can develop into a full house or quads (4-of-a-kind). In fact, this type of development is usually where I make my money in the no-limit game. Someone else during such an event will make top pair, two pair, or a worse full house and usually pay me off. Those are the situations I want to wait for before I risk all my chips on a given hand.
In a limit game, because of the structured betting, players will often be drawing to a straight or a flush against sets. This hasn't happened as often to me in the no-limit game because I can make a large enough bet or raise on the flop get them to get them to release their draws. The players that hold on to their two pairs or top pair usually either call or play back at me with a re-raise.
So, the point is that holding a pair pre-flop is good because it can develop into something powerful. But what happens when the flop comes and it doesn't hit you? What's supposed to happen is this: observe your opponents to see if this flop might have helped them and act accordingly, with caution. The mistake I've been making has been to risk most or all of my chips on the flop without making these considerations. I see the AA or KK and go into stupid mode, pretending I'm invincible. At least, that's what's been happening to me lately. Hopefully with this self-awareness I can tighten up and plug this serious hole in my game -- fast! Losing sucks!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Hate
I had one of those "I hate poker and I hate poker players" days yesterday.
I've been building up to longer sessions lately at this place near the apartment called Silverton. They claim they're a "locals" casino and sure enough, it's a nice place with a great aquarium and a Mexican restaurant that has become a habit for me. Their theme is outdoorsy/lodge-life. Anyway they have a little 4-table poker room tucked away that mostly runs 3/6 limit, 2 tournaments a day and an evening 1/2 no-limit game. My first several days there I killed the 3/6 game. The play was terrible -- passive callers that would pay me off whenever I had a hand. The flip side of that environment was what went on yesterday; the passive callers kept hitting their miracle card on the turn and river. I've never seen so many people that call with bottom pair trying to hit trips or two pair. I'm glad for the action long-term but in that short window I became sour and nearly disgusted after a 6 hour session. I "rescued" myself by going to dinner at the Mi Casa restaurant and wolfing down three mahi tacos.
I guess the lesson there is more of a reminder. One pair isn't all that great a hand if you're ahead. You're not ahead by much. Thinking back to the session, I don't think I made one set yesterday, and sets, straights and flushes get paid off in that game handsomely.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
July review
Well, July is to be considered a success. I did what I intended to do: stick to hold em and post a profit. I finished the month up $860. From the mid-July review, you can read that I was concerned about a recent $1000 loss. I played basically even until the end of the month, still averaging about 22 hours of poker each week.
On July 28th I went to Caesar's to play around 3:00 pm. My friend Roger was in town and I was trying to meet up with him. He was playing in a tournament there that I was too late to attend. So, I got seated in a 1-3 no-limit game and bought in for $300. The game was short, but filled up within a few hands.
Early in the session I was dealt pocket eights in early position. I raised it to $15 and everyone folded but the guy to my left. The flop came 7 7 3 rainbow. I bet the pot and the guy hesitated and called. The turn brought a blank. I put him on two big cards and decided I didn't want him to draw. I also had him outchipped. So, I shoved it all-in and he instacalled and turned over pocket sevens. Ouch. Running into quads blows. I guess after that loss I had about $50 left on the table, so I rebought for another $200.
Over the next hour I ran the $250 up to about $325 and then would lose a few small pots in a row and fall back down to about $250. Then, I'm dealt A Q suited on the button. There were a few callers already, but I didn't mind raising it up to $15 to go even if just to lose the blinds. All previous callers called along and so did the small blind. The flop came A 2 2. They all check it to me, so I bet about the pot and shove out $60. Everyone folds but the guy who had the quads against me earlier. He says, "$60? What's that?" "It's a pot-sized bet" I tell him. He says he HAS to make a bad call. The turn brings a 10 and adds a third club to the board. I check to the guy and he bets $100. I'm sure he doesn't have the flush, but I'm confused about what he does have. Quad deuces? No, I can't put him on those. I just don't know. I call the $100 and the river brings a blank. I check again and he shoves all-in. I've only got $100 left and at this point I just can't get away from the hand. I call and he turns over A 10 and wins with a bigger two pair.
So, that was minus $500 in an hour and a half. I didn't bring much more than that, so I left, remembering my own advice about getting out of a game that isn't paying me. I think I couldn't help the first hand I lost very much. But on the second I probably should have released my A Q. One pair isn't very much to go on when someone else takes over the betting on the turn. Even if it is a bluff, it's alright to let some of those go.
Looking over the entire month, if I didn't have the two big loss days ($1000 and $500 respectively) I would have finished up somewhere around $2300. Hopefully these latest lessons will sink in for me and I'll be able to protect my chips better.
I'm taking a break for the first week or two of August as a kind of vacation to do nothing and to reflect. There's something else I'm trying to absorb regarding the difference between playing poker recreationally (but seriously) and as a profession.
Because I've got a bankroll and enough stashed away for bills separately, I shouldn't have any difficulties with losses here or there. But because in my head I'm thinking "this is my job" and I'm trying to consistently make at least $1500 each month, when I don't or when I hit snags I get a little panicky. When I had played in Seattle and hit losing streaks, it bothered me from the standpoint of not wanting to make mistakes or play bad. The monetary loss didn't bother me really as I had a job to pay the bills.
My friend, Tony, narrowed it down for me on the phone a few days ago. When playing is your only job, when you're winning you feel like you should play more. When is enough, enough? And when you're losing, you feel like you should play more to try to get back into the black. So, psychologically it can be a bit daunting to wrap my head around.
On July 28th I went to Caesar's to play around 3:00 pm. My friend Roger was in town and I was trying to meet up with him. He was playing in a tournament there that I was too late to attend. So, I got seated in a 1-3 no-limit game and bought in for $300. The game was short, but filled up within a few hands.
Early in the session I was dealt pocket eights in early position. I raised it to $15 and everyone folded but the guy to my left. The flop came 7 7 3 rainbow. I bet the pot and the guy hesitated and called. The turn brought a blank. I put him on two big cards and decided I didn't want him to draw. I also had him outchipped. So, I shoved it all-in and he instacalled and turned over pocket sevens. Ouch. Running into quads blows. I guess after that loss I had about $50 left on the table, so I rebought for another $200.
Over the next hour I ran the $250 up to about $325 and then would lose a few small pots in a row and fall back down to about $250. Then, I'm dealt A Q suited on the button. There were a few callers already, but I didn't mind raising it up to $15 to go even if just to lose the blinds. All previous callers called along and so did the small blind. The flop came A 2 2. They all check it to me, so I bet about the pot and shove out $60. Everyone folds but the guy who had the quads against me earlier. He says, "$60? What's that?" "It's a pot-sized bet" I tell him. He says he HAS to make a bad call. The turn brings a 10 and adds a third club to the board. I check to the guy and he bets $100. I'm sure he doesn't have the flush, but I'm confused about what he does have. Quad deuces? No, I can't put him on those. I just don't know. I call the $100 and the river brings a blank. I check again and he shoves all-in. I've only got $100 left and at this point I just can't get away from the hand. I call and he turns over A 10 and wins with a bigger two pair.
So, that was minus $500 in an hour and a half. I didn't bring much more than that, so I left, remembering my own advice about getting out of a game that isn't paying me. I think I couldn't help the first hand I lost very much. But on the second I probably should have released my A Q. One pair isn't very much to go on when someone else takes over the betting on the turn. Even if it is a bluff, it's alright to let some of those go.
Looking over the entire month, if I didn't have the two big loss days ($1000 and $500 respectively) I would have finished up somewhere around $2300. Hopefully these latest lessons will sink in for me and I'll be able to protect my chips better.
I'm taking a break for the first week or two of August as a kind of vacation to do nothing and to reflect. There's something else I'm trying to absorb regarding the difference between playing poker recreationally (but seriously) and as a profession.
Because I've got a bankroll and enough stashed away for bills separately, I shouldn't have any difficulties with losses here or there. But because in my head I'm thinking "this is my job" and I'm trying to consistently make at least $1500 each month, when I don't or when I hit snags I get a little panicky. When I had played in Seattle and hit losing streaks, it bothered me from the standpoint of not wanting to make mistakes or play bad. The monetary loss didn't bother me really as I had a job to pay the bills.
My friend, Tony, narrowed it down for me on the phone a few days ago. When playing is your only job, when you're winning you feel like you should play more. When is enough, enough? And when you're losing, you feel like you should play more to try to get back into the black. So, psychologically it can be a bit daunting to wrap my head around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)