Results tagged “Poker” from Cordinc Blog

I've been playing a little poker since my earlier decision not to play seriously - not much, just a few games now and again. I lost a little, then won a lot, stayed steady for a bit and now I'm on another losing streak. One thing I've learnt is that I'm a worse tilter than I thought. I lose most of my games the same way. It seems to be a mental issue and it's driving me crazy. It would be easy to handle if I thought it was just bad luck or my opponent was a better player.

Here is an example from early in a $2.20 heads-up tournament, too early to get a good read on my opponent.
Board:
Me (BB): $1,440
Them (Button): $1,560

Dealt to me: 10 7 off

Pre-flop:
They raise to $60, I call $40
[At this early stage I'm not sure what they could have, but probably a pocket pair or Ax. I decide to call and just see. If I miss the flop I'd probably check-fold]

Flop: ($120) Q 10 7
I bet $80, they call $80
[Oh yeah, I was feeling good here. Pretty sure I had the better hand.]

Turn: ($280) K
I bet $200, they call $200
[Now I'm getting a little worried. Ax has a straight draw and the chance of trips or a higher two pair are increased. However, I still think I'm ahead]

River: ($680) J

At this point any Ax hand has made a straight. Chances are I'm probably behind. A bet could be justified just to see if there is any resistance, but it would have to be fairly large in terms of my stack. Probably the worst possible action is to go all-in. In that situation my opponent would probably fold if I was ahead and call if I was behind.

I went all-in, they had A9s and the game was over. I knew going all-in was a bad decision before I did it, but that didn't stop me. Why? This is an egregious example, but certainly not an isolated example. I do this all the time. Just a few days earlier I was in a 3000 person tournament (it was free to enter) where the top 10% won money. After playing very well for over an hour there were 360 players left - a number decreasing at a 5/minute rate. With a nearly 30BB stack, I had over double the average. I could probably have just walked away from my laptop and still made the money. Instead I blew it all in 3 consecutive hands. The first hand was an acceptable loss, the other guy got lucky with his 3 outer on the river. The second was bad and the third was awful.

I'm getting the impression poker is a game of gathering information. You start with knowledge of your hole cards, but no knowledge of your adversary's cards or the community cards to come. You need to gain information for the least cost and greatest gain - goals which are often opposed. When all-in there is no possibility of gaining more information; your opponent has all the choices. Rarely will they call with a bad hand. There are occasions when it is good to go all in: if you have the best possible hand and your opponent is still betting big; or preflop if you have a very good hand and have a stack several times your opponent's. In general I think it is a tactic to be used sparingly. I wrote that last sentence as a note to myself over a month ago, I know better than to go all-in on what is bearly more than a whim.

If I know better, why do I keep making these obvious mistakes. I have a few ideas. It could be the thrill of catching a bluff, or it could be a lack of patience, or trying to dominate a game and refusing to acknowledge a losing hand. However, I have no problem concentrating for hours at a time in other areas of my life. I'm aware that my opponent will have the best hand 50% of the time on average and that luck plays a large part in poker, so controlling it is hard. Also, I tend to play well if I'm ahead or grinding out a game. Thus, while all the above may play a part I think it may be caused by losing interest if the game isn't going in my favour - sometimes this manifests itself as an all-in and sometimes as generally bad play.

I think when not tilting I'm an ok player, but definitely not a good player. When I read other online posts they are thinking about things that don't occur to me during the 30 seconds I have to make a decision in an online game. However, I don't think that matters until I get over the tilt problem and go up a level to better opponents. That is why this matters to me and I'm writing a long blog post about it. If it was just a matter of not knowing the game well enough I could leave it. It would be a matter of accepting the game would take too long to learn well. Instead, I consider it a personal flaw that I'm not able to stay rational and maintain concentration until the end of the game. I want to beat the flaw, then I can decide whether I want to beat the game.

Having read a couple of online articles on overcoming tilt, they suggest: identifying when tilt is occurring; stop playing when tilting; overcome the origins of the tilt. I can identify my tilt, so the first step is covered. Stopping play is harder because when I lose as a result of tilting I want to play more, whereas when I win I'm happy to stop (is that normal?). I just have to force myself to stop for an hour at least, which would normally mean I don't play again that day. Another part of this is to not set goals around amount won or games to play. I have noticed my tilting gets worse if I feel some pressure to play, regardless of whether I am on track to meet the goal or not. I need to play only if I want to for my own pleasure. To that end I will not play online for a while to build my interest again. Lastly, I need to focus on logical play. Reading online postings to see how other players think through hands will help. Similarly with reading the hand histories of my own games - it's a bit like rubbing my nose in it:) I won't set any plans or goals around overcoming tilt, just keep a record of how I perform.

Onward!

Five hardy souls braved the hail to attend the 4th Poker evening held last Saturday in the salubrious surroundings of a Fitzrovia public house. Ann, Pete, Christian, Amanda and I met for the now standard 2 Hold'em tournaments. Congratulations Amanda for being the big winner on the day, with Christian just edging out myself in the winnings list.

The first game started slow with few big hands, small bets and a great deal of bluffing (at least from myself). At one point my bad dealing allowed some people to see that one of Pete's pre-flop cards was a jack. He decided to keep it and displayed it for all to see. When the flop was jack-high, everyone folded except Ann. When another jack came on the turn, the bets got bigger and the quips began "Ann, do you think he's bluffing"? In the end Ann's J10 was better than Pete's J6. As soon as the half hour mark was reached and the blinds increased the game became much looser. Amanda was out first, then Ann tried to catch my bluff with KQs against my heavy betting, but I wasn't bluffing with QQ. Soon Pete was out and it was Christian and I, man-to-man. However, Christian's luck ran out shoving against my A10 with his pocket pair. It was all over in under an hour.

The second match began with a furious pace. Early on Pete and I were quite aggressive and on a couple of occasions got caught in bluffs (I did and it looked like Pete did too). Myself, Amanda and Pete went out in the first 30 minutes and rebought. I was out again soon after, going all-in on the flop with a mid-pair and flush draw. Ann was again sure I was bluffing, and considering my roughly 35% change of getting the flush she wasn't too far off. Later Pete pushed preflop and most of the table folded. As two 4's came on the flush Ann was visibly disappointed - she had folded the other two 4's. The commiserations didn't last long as in the next hand Pete's AKs was beaten by Amanda who had four 5's! With Pete and myself out it looked like the game may settle down as the next few hands were quite passively played. However, Amanda soon took up the mantle of aggression with relish, building a stack that would win any game of desktop defense. With consistent betting she gave no clues to her hands. At one point Amanda with 27o (the worst possible hand) matched big pre-flop bets against Ann with JJ. When the flop and turn came with two 7's and not much else, Amanda bet big and Ann again tried to catch a bluff. Thus, a very small stack Christian played Amanda heads-up. Amanda continued to push every hand ("poker is easy when you have such a big stack") and Christian was soon left as the big blind with only a small blind stack. With Christian all-in just to make the blinds, the hole cards were dealt face-up - his AA won the smallest possible pot! Christian's luck came too late and the game was over on the next hand - Amanda was the winner.

I have completed another 50 online HU poker SnGs. At least I am consistent - I won 26, the same as the last 50. Again, despite winning more games than I lose, I have less money than when I started due to fees (27.5 games is the breakeven point). Also like the previous 50s, I experienced great runs. I won 14 of the first 18 games. Which of course means that I won only 12 of the last 32. Urrrgh. I have read that the variance in HU SnGs is higher than other kinds of poker, but results like that still really knock your confidence. Worst of all I kept some stats and discovered the average game runs around 15 minutes. That quickly adds up and is preventing me doing other things.

I've decided to take this poker thing a little less seriously. I'm not going to quit, but neither am I going to keep track of results and actively try to play more. I still have some money in my online account, and will play with that if I feel like it. However, I don't think I have the time to continue playing at a rate high enough to get much better right now. Just standing still for a while will be good enough. I'm not yet sure what I will do if I run my account down to 0. So for the foreseeable future there will be no more online poker updates.

Urgh, overconfidence is a killer. I have now completed the 50 online $2 + 0.20 heads-up tournaments I previously mentioned. You may remember my goal was to win 70%. Well, I didn't make it. The good news is I won more than I lost - 52%. The bad news is that with entrance fees, a win rate of 55% is required to break even. I lost $6 and so ended up with $66; a little disappointing.

It all started so badly. I'd like to think it was just variance - that the luck of the cards means that sometimes you are just going to lose. However, reading that goal-setting blog post and remembering those first few games, I think I might have been overconfident. I improved a little over time. If I played the first 25 like the second 25, then I would have made a small profit, but still a long way from the 70% goal.

Like my first posting, I think the main problem is my attitude. While playing this 50 I kept a record of whether I considered I played "well" or "badly", together with the final result. My definition of playing badly included: not starting in an appropriate frame of mind; getting disheartened during the match; chasing pots; or bluffing too much even when the other player was betting back. Those are my main vices. Just today I played a match where after I ground the other player down for 10 minutes, I went all in on the turn with a full house and then lost on a 2-outer as they made a slightly better full house on the river! Despite still having a playable stack (around 30BB), I was tilted and busted stupidly a few hands later. That was badly played. Playing well meant I played mostly calmly the entire match, allowing a few small bad hands as long as they were non-terminal. Notably, the maths of poker did not count for much in categorisation. If both players went all in pre-flop after just a few hands (a surprisingly common experience), then it was considered well played if I was ahead at the start (the normal situation). One game defied categorisation as the other player disappeared after 2 hands and had to be blinded out. Thus there were 49 entries.

I played well 59% of the time. When playing well I won 72% of the time. When playing badly I won only 20% of the time. Even allowing a bias towards saying I played well if I won and badly if I lost, that is still a big difference. Playing badly 40% of the time is way too high. If I played well every match, as I should, then I would be close to my original goal. So the goal for the next 50 is to win 30 (60%), by playing well 80% of the time. To that end, here is my beginner's advice (from a beginner to a beginner), which I will try to follow over the next 50:
* Decide before starting how many matches you want to play - many times the "just one more" game was a bad loss.
* Only play if you want to win and can play for the 30 minutes or more it can take.
* Don't chase pots, especially if your opponent is betting back.
* Think about what your opponent has - remember 50% of the time they have a better pre-flop hand.
* Start tight with small bets until you get an idea of your opponent. If they are tight don't bluff too much when they bet back (beware even if they are loose and aggressive). However, be aware people's style changes with stack size.
* If you play a hand badly, don't dwell on it, but do think about these guidelines.
* If you lose badly, stop.

Yesterday was the 3rd Poker evening. It was held at Ian's place and seven people turned up: Me, Ann, Ian, Christian, Cristina, Pete and Ury. We played three games and as has become usual, started by reducing expectations on our ability. I didn't take notes so my memories are a little limited.

The first game was a standard £5 NLHE tournament, and I started in my standard heads-up manner - aggressively. As people started betting small amounts, I bluffed the first hand and then bet big on the turn in the second with a flush draw, straight draw with two overcards. Then I realised I was betting pot percentages, while others were making bets of big blind. The game settled down a bit, but with the occasional big move reminiscent of the first few hands. Pete went out first and rebought. The numbers were steadily whittled down. Just after an hour Pete had a run of great cards (at least the ones we saw) and knocked out the last few people
in quick succession. I was second.

For the second game we played with substantially smaller stacks to accommodate Pete and Ury who had go in an hour. This seemed to make everyone aggressive and as the blinds doubled when someone was knocked out we were all quickly down to around 10 big blinds each. It seemed like nearly every other hand someone was all-in. There was rarely an obvious bluff - people just had good cards, often in fact the same good cards (on at least 2 occasions the pot was split equally). I went all-in against Ann on the first hand when there was a spade flush on the board - whoever had the higher spade would win. Knowing that Ann is quite a cautious player, I thought I could scare her off the pot despite not having a single spade. Ann knows I bluff so after an age of thinking, called with her 9 of spades and I had to rebuy. The carnage continued and Ian was out the next hand. Pete's run of good cards continued at the start, knocking out Cristina with KK vs QQ preflop. At the end Pete's luck ended and mine started with three great hands in a row to beat Pete into second. The whole game lasted under 45 minutes - very quick.

Only Ian and I were available for the third game, everyone else had to leave. Considering it was a heads up match, I don't remember much other than I finished my beers right at the start. I do recall that after playing for a while I won a big all-in pot and thought I had crippled Ian. Instead after matching chips we were equal with perhaps Ian slightly ahead! Ian was grinding me down. I tried to tighten up, but it didn't work and I got annoyed at a couple of hands I definitely played too weakly postflop. In the end I misread Ian's body language thinking he had nothing when infact he was trying to disguise having the nuts. Ian won.good

I have just completed my 50th online poker game. I lost. My top pair turned into a straight on the river and so I went all-in against a player who check-called. Turned out he made a full house on the flop! Now seems like a suitable milestone to think again about my play.

After the home games I thought I'd try online poker for real money (opposed to the online "play" money with which I learnt the game). So I put US$50 on Pokerstars. Pokerstars also invited me to a beginner's tournament, which seemed to be a ploy to get some more money into newbies' hands - I won US$32. Thus I started with US$82 and that is my baseline. I decided to focus on one type of game and chose micro stakes heads-up Hold'em sit'n'go tournaments. That is, there are two players, each puts in US$2.20 for a set number of chips and play until one person has all the chips. The winner gets US$4 and the site US$0.40 in fees - the loser gets nothing. There are always a couple of these games going so you can play whenever you want. It would take a long time to go broke and with a single opponent I could learn the basics in the simplest environment possible.

At first I started winning. I think I won my first 3 games straight. I started dreaming of becoming a poker pro. Then I starting losing, dropping to around the US$60 mark after nearly 20 games. I started paying more attention to the game and writing down results - 5/10, then 7/10, then 8/10, lastly a loss to reach the 50 game mark. In total I have won 25, lost 25. Thus, due to fees I have US$72 - US$10 down on where I started. I think in the right circumstances I can beat this level of the game. In the final eleven games I played noticeably worse than my opponent three times (I lost one and won two - lucky). Winning 7 out of 10 seems a reasonable goal. Which at about 2.5 hours per 10 games equates to roughly £1/hour (hence the title).

There is however one small problem. I have a tendency to tilt. Tilt is a great concept in poker, it is when for whatever reason you are not playing rationally and letting your emotions influence your decisions. This can be getting bored; overbetting back at someone who is annoying; or a vast range of other suboptimal play. I certainly think that my poker maths skills have a great deal of room for improvement, but that doesn't seem to matter too much at my level. My opponents have a lot to learn too. What seems to separate us, in my limited experience, is temperament. Over the last 30 games or so I focussed mainly on ensuring I was in an appropriate frame of mind before starting (patient, relaxed, time to play and a desire to win) and stopping if I felt this slipping. That lead to the improvement.

So what now? I have started reading a book on poker theory, so hopefully my game will slowly improve. Other than that I aim to control my tendency to tilt. I'll play another 50 games (which will take a couple of months) and aim to win 70%, which would mean I break US$100. If I can manage this and I think I'm playing well, I'll consider going up a level or trying a different game.

Yesterday was the second Poker evening I have organised. This time the turnout was a little smaller: me, Ann, Amanda and Ury. Like last time we played two Texas Hold'em tournaments, but the structure was a little different. As Amanda was a complete beginner we decided to split into pairs for heads-up tournaments for the first game. A decision with which I was happy as this is what I mainly play during my occasional forays online. Ury and I played each other, while Ann and Amanda went over the basics. The second game was all four of us. Below are the games as I remember them.

In the first game, I had the best of the early exchanges and built a decent lead. Then came a hand where I had K5o; as the small blind I 3-bet and Ury called. The flop came K54o, Ury made a small bet, I went all-in and Ury called. I was confident when he turned over K9, but when the 9 came on the river I went from a bit ahead to way behind. I brought myself back to par over the next 4 hands, with 3 all-in semi-bluffs (ace high or a Q-high flush draw after the flop). Ury called me on one, my A3 caught trip 3s. The game went on as Ury slowly lost ground with poor initial hands until forced in by the rising blinds on 10-8s (he said that was the best starting hand he had since my run of semi-bluffs), but beaten by my A2o with a pair of 2s. In all we played an hour and a half with only 4 showdowns.

The main game started in a similar manner to the heads-up games; big bets winning the pot without showdowns. At this point I seemed to get a reputation as a bluffer judging by the table banter. So to answer Ury's question after pushing him off a pot with an all spade 9,10,J flop - I had Q7, and open-ended straight draw with an overcard, not a complete bluff. Ann was then so sure I was bluffing when there was a possible straight on the board, she went all-in against me with the comment "I know what you are pretending to have." Ann then became the first rebuy in our home games. The action came quickly after that. Ann busted Ury and he bought in again right on the time limit. Amanda lost a couple of big hands and was forced to go all-in. Ury and I joined the pot, which I started betting big after the flop with an overcard, open-ended straight and flush draw. Ury "ummed and ahhed", complaining that we should do just enough to bust Amanda, but finally called. Sensing weakness, I continued to bet big and Ury agonised over the call. Then I went all-in and Ury took an age to call, but finally won with two-pair against my pair of kings. I was crippled with barely a big blind, and I was the big blind! Without looking at my cards I went all-in 4 times in a row. Then it was just Ann and Ury to finish. They seemed to get a little bored and soon were all-in. Ury won on the better starting hand.

Again this was a lot of fun. I thought the small group may be a problem, but it worked out very well. Also, changing the format of the games is something worth trying again.

Yesterday was the first poker game I organised at my place. I have been playing poker for a little over a month now, mainly free online games. I felt it was time to try playing against people. Although I was hoping it would be more of a social event than a full-blooded competition. For many years I was put off playing poker due to the "fresh victims" attitude many experienced players had towards people new to the game. It didn't seem like the learning experience would be much fun. I hoped we would avoid that and think we succeeded.

I sounded out a few friends and invited them around for an afternoon and evening of tournament style play. In the end there were six of us playing - Ann, Ian, Ury, Christian, Cristina, and me. A good number considering the space. Ian and Ury said they had played before, but everyone else claimed to be a beginner. We played two £5 buy-in tournaments with the blinds doubling every half-hour and rebuys allowed for the first hour (although no one used them). I don't remember many of the hands, but will attempt a short description of the evening.

In the first game Christian went out first, almost right on the hour mark, then Ury went, quickly followed by myself. However, Ury was lucky not to be the first out on a few occasions. Ann's patented "fold-raise" tactic put out an unlucky Cristina and bewildered the other players. On three hands when Ann was the big blind she "folded" before being reminded checking was free. Then post flop she would raise or call against Cristina's all-in. All three times she won with river or turn cards. The Cristina event was the last appearance of the "fold-raise", perhaps due to the laughter and friendly taunts that ensued. Still, we all left the night with a new poker trick in our arsenal, though I personally wouldn't have the audacity to attempt it! Ann assures us it was just "ditzy play", but who knows? Ann ended up beating Ian heads-up as he lost 5 showdowns in a row as the rising blinds forced one or both all-in pre-flop.

In the second game Ian was out first - although this was just after a call from his girlfriend inquiring as to his whereabouts. He left soon after. Then Ury and I went out. At this point the game settled down with three roughly equal stacks and few big raises. As the blinds rose Ann tried a few bluffs and got burnt by calls. With a single big blind left she went all-in a couple of times without looking at her cards, busting out Christian in the process. Ann and Cristina went heads-up for the win. Again the rising blinds forced pre-flop all-in play and again, despite starting the heads-up as the small stack, Ann was the lucky winner.

Afterwards Ann described her winning tactics as "staying sober and bamboozling them with ditzy play". Future opponents beware!

Things I learnt from the evening:

• Watch out for people staying sober!
• Poker games go longer than expected.
• Having the blinds rise so high that the game finishes with people being forced to go all-in pre-flop every hand is not a satisfying end. However, I can't see a way of forcing an end otherwise.
• Don't bluff people who always call.
• I won't remember specific hands later - I should take notes if they are noteworthy.
• It is fun to play (as long as there is not too much at risk - at least at my level). I will definitely organise another.

If any of the players remember any other good hands other than the ones I mentioned, feel free to add them in the comments.