Charles Town Session 7:
Yesterday, I went with Joe to Charles Town once again. We actually got massages in the morning first, and consequently, were actually able to hit the road earlier than usual. We arrived at 2:15, which had been early enough, but things looked ominous when we first saw the throng of people outside of the poker room. Yes, somehow by 2:15, the line had grown to 200 people.
Had I gone by myself, I might have just left (a 200-person waiting list equates to over 3 hours). However, I felt bad about dragging Joe out here so we instead just chilled for 3 hours. We also realized that apparently, there was a $300+ buy-in tournament that had been running all day (with about 70 entrants, that's a $10k first prize), which might explain partly why the list was so long (65 people had busted out so that could be an additional 50+ players on the list). Still, that doesn't explain everything, and perhaps, people have all adjusted like I have, and the new 2:30 might be something like 11:00. Anyways, I didn't ask whether this is a new weekly occurrence, but if it is, it's probably not a good thing as I might have to start making overnight trips on Friday. After watching a bit of the final table, our names were finally called at around 5:30.
The first thing I noticed when sitting down was the number of big stacks at the table. There was probably nobody intentionally playing short-stacked (i.e. buying in for less than 200), and there were about 4-5 stacks of at least 500. This can be both a good thing (more opportunity, as it can be like playing 2-5 with worse players) and a bad thing (if the players are in fact significantly better). From the hands I'll detail, it was clearly more of the former.
After sitting down with 200, I quickly lose about 50, add on 100 more, before the first interesting hand of the night.
-Hand #1-
I'm in the cutoff, and almost the full tables limps to me. I wake up with JJ and raise to 16. About 5 players call, including two villains, one in the big blind (who has me covered), and another in middle position (who has a stack of around 150 before the hand).
Flop is QJT rainbow. Everyone checks to the villain in middle position, who leads out with a bet of 30. Now, in hindsight, there's a couple of problems here. One, I hadn't seen how the players at the table play, but generally speaking, I don't expect players to limp middle-to-late position with AK (but I should definitely be less sure of this given my lack of info). Two, a bet of 30 into a pot of 80 is extremely suspicious, which is something I didn't pay particular attention to during the hand. It's either a bet by someone extremely strong (i.e. AK/K9/98) or by someone extremely weak (i.e. KQ). Still, I know that I'm never folding a set in position on the flop to one bet, and that I'm most likely paying middle-position villain off regardless even if I only call his flop bet (he'd have no more than 100 behind and the pot is at least 140 after my call). Now, I have to consider some of the other possibilities. For example, if he has KQ or some other hand I can beat (maybe two pair or AQ), what are the chances he'll pay me off, either on the flop or turn? I think they're pretty likely, at least enough to balance out the scenario where he has a straight and I need to pair the board. As a result, I'm resigned to risking 150 against villain. So why do I raise instead of call? Well, there are 4 other players in the hand, and villain's initial bet was small enough for a king/ace to chase, and if there's enough callers, perhaps even pairs with backdoors. By raising, I can obtain information about the other hands in the pot. I don't see any player with AK calling my raise (especially since it isn't absurdly large), which means I can actually get out of the hand if one of the original checkers reraises me. In fact, what happens is that the villain in the big blind calls, the other players fold to the other villain, who ships. Once the villain in the big blind calls my raise, I know he's weak (meaning not the nuts), and I'd been representing a big hand the entire time, which means I think I can get him off K9/98. Furthermore, if in fact both villains have a straight, then I get great odds to chase a board pair. However, the biggest difference is in fact if the villain in middle position has something that I have beat (i.e. two pair). By reshipping (which, admittedly, is only about 100 on top), I have a good chance of forcing out the best hand. Consequently, I pretty much instantly re-shove and the villain in the big blind correctly folds his K9 in fear of me. However, villain in middle position does indeed have AK, and I'm a 35:65 dog.
Unfortunately, both the turn and the river miss. There's a number of reasons I think my play during this hand is flawless. 1) I can never fold on the flop, regardless of the table. If it's a fishy table, then enough players will pay me off with worse hands simply because they think they're still good. If the table is actually much more skilled, then there's enough of a chance that someone is bluffing/semi-bluffing (either him or me) that I'll still get paid off enough by worse hands (i.e. I could easily be raising with KQ and two pair might not be able to fold). 2) By raising preflop, reraising a flop bet, and then shoving on top of an all-in, the other players have to fold all non-nut hands. This means that I'm often able to fold out the best hand with the second best hand (meaning the short-stacked villain has two pair/TT/KQ/AQ). 3) The worst case scenario is if I get called by QQ, but that's extremely unlikely, especially at the 1-2 tables, because the players love to "protect" their big pocket pairs by raising big preflop (as opposed to something like AK, which they're not willing to invest much money in until they hit an A or K). So the second worst case scenario is what actually happened, where short-stacked villain has a straight and I'm heads up against him. Given that I can't fold the flop, I'm still losing at least the 30 (assuming I can fold later). In other words, I ended up risking 100 more (which is what the villain had behind) for a chance to win 250. Even in that case, I have pot odds (I'm getting 2.5:1 on my money when I'm less than a 2:1 dog). Actually, if I'd simply realized this earlier, I could have saved so much analysis... Anyways, if I actually get called by more hands, then I'm getting even better odds.
The rest of this recap wasn't finished, and it definitely won't get now (updated April 2).
-Summary-
Time at 1-2 cash tables: 4.5 hours
1-2 Cash: +$292
Poker total: +$292
Gas and food: ~-$15
Net: ~ +$280
-On record career to date-
Time at the 1-2 cash tables: 57 hours
1-2 Cash: +$2180
Time at the 2-5 cash tables: 9 hours
2-5 Cash: +$560
Total time at cash tables: 66 hours
Cash games: +$2740
Time at the tournies: 12 hours
Tournies: -$570
Poker total: +$2170
Net: +$2010
Brags: Another session of essentially mistake-free 1-2 play.
Beats: While I'm making a lot of correct decisions (or specifically, even more than before), a lot of these decisions are made using gut feelings that are based more or less on mathematical principles but not on actual calculations. As a result, there's a lot of potential error in my "gut feelings." Specifically, I need to learn to think 2-3 moves in ahead, particularly in terms of how my current actions affect my pot odds on future streets and in terms of how they relate to my opponents' odds. This will help me optimize both my calling/raising decisions and my betting/raising sizes.
Variance: JJ failed me for once (although to be fair to them, I still hit my set).
Monday, February 27, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Charles Town Sessions 5 and 6: the Sparknotes Version
I've been way too lazy to update this recently, and I've already forgotten most of the details about Session 5 (I don't remember any hands from the night, and I forgot exactly how long I was there). So this post is so that I don't forget even more...
Charles Town Session 5 (Jan 15, 2012):
Charles Town Session 5 (Jan 15, 2012):
Played 1-2 for about 5.5 hours. Was up 400 before the dinner break. Lost it all after the dinner break. Played really well imo; unfortunately got called with strong semi-bluffing hands (straight and flush draws/flush draw + 2 overs) by one-pair hands that probably shouldn't have called and missed all three times. No particularly interesting hands on the night.
Charles Town Session 6 (Jan 28, 2012):
It was ridiculously crowded last Saturday (probably because many people are planning to have Super Bowl parties this weekend), but the 2-5 line was inefficiently short (4 guys) so I was able to get on the 2-5 tables about an hour before my 1-2 name was called. This was my first time playing 2-5 at Charles Town and second time overall.
In short the players were significantly better than the 1-2 players. In particular, they were simply much more aggressive, which I was able to realize but not fully adjust to (as you'll see from the notable hands). I didn't play horribly (meaning no especially egregious errors) but I also didn't play well. This is concerning because there's fewer identifiable flaws that I can correct for the future (as opposed to if I'd made a lot of good and a lot of bad plays).
I bought in for 360 (max is 500) to allow myself some adjustment period. I tightened up significantly and as a result, there was very little swing during my first couple of hours there. I was eventually down to around 250 before the first interesting hand of the night.
-Hand #1-
I don't think I played this hand particularly well at all (for a number of reasons), but it's not like I made any obviously incorrect decisions. To start off with, I'd been starting to get bored with my tightened game so I'd been loosening up. Unfortunately, I was playing much more loose-passive than anything else, and that's a horrible thing to do with a small stack. Anyways, after a very loose old Asian reg limps, I limp as well with JTo. An LAG big stack raises it to 30 and only the old Asian guy and I call.
Flop is Q98 rainbow. I've never seen a better flop in my life (flopping quads for example gets you no action, and Q98 hits the majority of a preflop raiser's range). Checks around to the preflop raiser, who bets 60. Old Asian guy calls, surprisingly. I call with only 150 behind (I think calling second OOP with only 150 behind is the wrong move, as it's extremely suspicious, since I'd probably be shoving 76, but I guess I could be playing to my table image, which currently is that of a beginner). The thing is that I don't expect the LAG big stack to be betting the turn without a made hand (given the two callers), and he'll call a flop shove with those hands anyways. By not shoving the flop, I'm probably giving LAG big stack turns/rivers that would let him fold, and I'm probably giving old Asian guy free outs (say he has QJ or QT).
The turn is a blank (that does now put a flush draw out there). Checks around to the preflop raiser (I probably should have just shoved into him as I think it's weakly dominant since he'll call with any reasonable hand given the odds, but similar to before, I don't want a check here and that could easily happen). Luckily, LAG big stack bets 100, which causes old Asian guy to fold. I put in 50 on top, and he has to call. He shows AQ and is drawing dead.
I bought in for 360 (max is 500) to allow myself some adjustment period. I tightened up significantly and as a result, there was very little swing during my first couple of hours there. I was eventually down to around 250 before the first interesting hand of the night.
-Hand #1-
I don't think I played this hand particularly well at all (for a number of reasons), but it's not like I made any obviously incorrect decisions. To start off with, I'd been starting to get bored with my tightened game so I'd been loosening up. Unfortunately, I was playing much more loose-passive than anything else, and that's a horrible thing to do with a small stack. Anyways, after a very loose old Asian reg limps, I limp as well with JTo. An LAG big stack raises it to 30 and only the old Asian guy and I call.
Flop is Q98 rainbow. I've never seen a better flop in my life (flopping quads for example gets you no action, and Q98 hits the majority of a preflop raiser's range). Checks around to the preflop raiser, who bets 60. Old Asian guy calls, surprisingly. I call with only 150 behind (I think calling second OOP with only 150 behind is the wrong move, as it's extremely suspicious, since I'd probably be shoving 76, but I guess I could be playing to my table image, which currently is that of a beginner). The thing is that I don't expect the LAG big stack to be betting the turn without a made hand (given the two callers), and he'll call a flop shove with those hands anyways. By not shoving the flop, I'm probably giving LAG big stack turns/rivers that would let him fold, and I'm probably giving old Asian guy free outs (say he has QJ or QT).
The turn is a blank (that does now put a flush draw out there). Checks around to the preflop raiser (I probably should have just shoved into him as I think it's weakly dominant since he'll call with any reasonable hand given the odds, but similar to before, I don't want a check here and that could easily happen). Luckily, LAG big stack bets 100, which causes old Asian guy to fold. I put in 50 on top, and he has to call. He shows AQ and is drawing dead.
I think the hand turns out the same way regardless if he has AQ, but if he had KQ, he probably would have been able to check the turn. Similarly, if the turn had been a J or T, I probably would have lost LAG big stack's action, and old Asian guy may have hit.
That leaves me at 500, and not soon after comes the second interesting hand of the night.
-Hand #2-
Same 2 villains from the prior hand are involved in this one. Old Asian guy straddles to 10, I call with AKo early position (I didn't want to be playing AKo OOP with a big stack out of my comfort zone against multiple callers). LAG big stack calls and so does one other player. Old Asian guy checks.
Flop is QTx rainbow. Old Asian guy and I check, and LAG big stack bets 30. Other player folds, and both Asian guy and I call.
Turn is a J. Nut-nut! Checks to LAG big stack, who also checks (which is what probably would have happened in the prior hand as well had he not had a hand, and I don't want to be giving free cards in that scenario).
River is a 9, which I don't like since it might kill my action. Luckily, old Asian guy bets 60 of his stack of around 300, and had the river not been a 9, I may have been able to raise to 200+. However, if he just has a set/two-pair, he's not calling any big raise with a 4-to-a-straight out there. So I raise to around 180, and old Asian guy seems to suspect something weird, but given his calling station nature, he calls anyways. I show AK for the nuts and he claims to have had 2-pair.
That hand leaves me at almost 750.
-Hand #3-
Villain sits in late position and has a stack of about 400. I limp early position with 79 of spades, and almost a full table sees the flop.
Flop comes 653 with two spades. One of the blinds bets 15 and I call. 3-4 more players call (including villain) to the button who raises to 45. Original better calls as do I. A few of the original callers call again, but villain makes it 125. This time, only I call.
Turn is a blank. I check, resigned to having to fold to villain's inevitable push, as I have 12 outs max (fewer if villain actually has a made straight as it takes away one of my outs), while villain is playing around 250 and the pot is currently 400. Surprisingly, villain checks as well (at which point I know he does not have a made straight).
River is the 4 of spades (which obviously sucks because it hits a number of draws and I'm almost never going to get action here). I bet make an extremely small value bet of around 125, but villain folds two pair face up. I show the 7 to demonstrate I had the goods, at least by the river.
Now, I made a number of mistakes in this hand, which actually ended up working out well because villain made an even more egregious error. Using backwards induction, I'll start with villain's decision on the turn. He claims that he thought I would have called the turn if he'd shoved, so he checked instead, which is probably the most elementary mistake in the book. To start with, the only drawing hand that definitely calls the turn is a flush draw with a 4 (the open ended and flush draws, which would have 15 outs and more than enough pot odds to call villain's shove). Secondly, a made hand has equity over any drawing hand on the turn. Now, I can almost guarantee that villain isn't being entirely truthful in that the bigger reason he checked the turn is because he's afraid I have the made straight. However, the made straight should always lead out here on the turn (if it doesn't already reraise at some point on the flop). If I had the made straight, villain's hand looks suspiciously like what I actually had (a big draw), so I would have to ship the turn. Since I checked, I can't possibly have a straight, so villain has to put the pressure there (especially since if I had a non-straight made hand that beats villain, like a set, I'm probably check-folding the turn).
Since villain should be shoving the turn, that makes my 125 call on the flop a poor decision. One of the biggest takeaways so far from the first quarter of Bill Chen's The Mathematics of Poker that I've read is that counter to what most people think, if hands are played face up, given most chip stacks (i.e. not super deep), draws want to get the money in on the flop. This is because the made hand can fold at any point when the draw hits, but if it doesn't hit on the turn, depending on pot odds, the draw will either have to pay the turn (which is worse than shoving the flop because had the draw hit the turn, it's not getting value) or fold the turn (which is bad because the draw doesn't get to see both streets). Since both options are worse off for the draw (this can be proven with a very simple calculation of the open-ended straight flush draw vs. the set), the made hand gets to "punish" the draw on the turn if it doesn't hit. This is especially egregious because given how many raises there were on the flop (none of which were by me), I'm almost playing my hand face up, as I definitely have the flush draw, and I either have the gutshot or the open-ender as well).
The somewhat less obvious mistake occurs one raise earlier on the flop. When the button makes it 45, I probably shouldn't be calling here. If I raise, I'm probably taking the pot right there, as anything short of my hand or the made straight can't justifiably call. Given that if I call and get raised, I should be reraising all-in, I'm going to pay off the made straights anyways, so by raising the 45, I can force other hands that have more equity than me to fold (i.e. two pairs, like villain hand, or probably sets as well). The reason this mistake isn't as clear cut as the others is that there's value to calling the 45 and allowing more calls to follow (which was the idea at the time). However, this actually holds less value than I originally thought because if I do hit my draw, I'm not getting paid off, as a made straight is going to shove on top of my reraise on the flop. The only way I'm getting paid off is if a non-spade 8 hits the turn, and two-pairs/sets will probably call a turn bet, as will higher flush draws. Still, I don't think this small possibility can outweigh the fold equity from simply raising the 45.
After a few more hands, I leave the table with a stack of 1050 in order to take my dinner break. I come back from dinner hoping to be able to play 1-2, as I'm aware that I hadn't played optimally in the 2-5 so far, but that apparently isn't allowed (I'd have to go to the back of the 1-2 line). Reluctantly, I buyin for 300.
I continue with my poor play, as my stack quickly dwindles to 180. That's when the only interesting post-dinner hand occurred.
-Hand #4-
I'm in middle position with A7 diamonds. I limp, along with a few other players. Villain in late position makes it 20. I call and 4 players see the flop.
Flop is A64 rainbow (but with one diamond). Everyone checks to villain, who c-bets 50. Only I call.
Turn is a 3 of diamonds. This is where I make my mistake, as I check-call instead of leading out. The point of checking instead of leading out in general is to either limit the size of the pot when OOP or to extract value from marginal hands. I have only about 100 behind, so any bet by either villain or me essentially puts me all-in, which already limits the size of the pot. In addition, that means villain is almost guaranteed to shut down with 77-KK, and I'm not going to be able to extract any value from hands that I can beat anyways (although it's probably more likely for KK to call a bet in this scenario than to bet after I check). What leading out does do is that it might get marginal Aces (that have me beat, say A8-AT/AJ) to fold. If I check, any ace is almost forced to bet, to at least get draws to pay for the river. Granted, I think most players aren't folding any ace in this scenario, especially since I was weak pre-flop, but I still have some fold equity from betting and consequently, it's weakly dominant to lead out. Anyways, after I check, villain bets around 80, I shove for the rest, and he calls. He predictably shows a higher ace (AJ), and I'm drawing to 15 outs. In hindsight, AJ is almost guaranteed to call my bet anyways, but that's not true had villain been slightly weaker.
River is a diamond, and I sheepishly scoop the pot.
That hand leaves me at slightly below 400, and I leave not soon after with around 360. I once again ran well while playing 2-5, but played poorly. Still, I played less poorly than my Bay 101 trial, so at the very least, I leave the night up. In the future, I'll need to play more aggressively, especially on early streets, against the 2-5 players, because my playing style at the 1-2 tables (play lots of nut-chasing hands, which means all connectors and one-gappers, and keep the size of the pot as small as possible until the river, where there's much less uncertainty and I can capitalize on calling stations) isn't going to translate to the 2-5 tables, as I'll have to pay too much for bad draws and it's not a guarantee that I'll extract full implied value when I do hit.
That leaves me at 500, and not soon after comes the second interesting hand of the night.
-Hand #2-
Same 2 villains from the prior hand are involved in this one. Old Asian guy straddles to 10, I call with AKo early position (I didn't want to be playing AKo OOP with a big stack out of my comfort zone against multiple callers). LAG big stack calls and so does one other player. Old Asian guy checks.
Flop is QTx rainbow. Old Asian guy and I check, and LAG big stack bets 30. Other player folds, and both Asian guy and I call.
Turn is a J. Nut-nut! Checks to LAG big stack, who also checks (which is what probably would have happened in the prior hand as well had he not had a hand, and I don't want to be giving free cards in that scenario).
River is a 9, which I don't like since it might kill my action. Luckily, old Asian guy bets 60 of his stack of around 300, and had the river not been a 9, I may have been able to raise to 200+. However, if he just has a set/two-pair, he's not calling any big raise with a 4-to-a-straight out there. So I raise to around 180, and old Asian guy seems to suspect something weird, but given his calling station nature, he calls anyways. I show AK for the nuts and he claims to have had 2-pair.
That hand leaves me at almost 750.
-Hand #3-
Villain sits in late position and has a stack of about 400. I limp early position with 79 of spades, and almost a full table sees the flop.
Flop comes 653 with two spades. One of the blinds bets 15 and I call. 3-4 more players call (including villain) to the button who raises to 45. Original better calls as do I. A few of the original callers call again, but villain makes it 125. This time, only I call.
Turn is a blank. I check, resigned to having to fold to villain's inevitable push, as I have 12 outs max (fewer if villain actually has a made straight as it takes away one of my outs), while villain is playing around 250 and the pot is currently 400. Surprisingly, villain checks as well (at which point I know he does not have a made straight).
River is the 4 of spades (which obviously sucks because it hits a number of draws and I'm almost never going to get action here). I bet make an extremely small value bet of around 125, but villain folds two pair face up. I show the 7 to demonstrate I had the goods, at least by the river.
Now, I made a number of mistakes in this hand, which actually ended up working out well because villain made an even more egregious error. Using backwards induction, I'll start with villain's decision on the turn. He claims that he thought I would have called the turn if he'd shoved, so he checked instead, which is probably the most elementary mistake in the book. To start with, the only drawing hand that definitely calls the turn is a flush draw with a 4 (the open ended and flush draws, which would have 15 outs and more than enough pot odds to call villain's shove). Secondly, a made hand has equity over any drawing hand on the turn. Now, I can almost guarantee that villain isn't being entirely truthful in that the bigger reason he checked the turn is because he's afraid I have the made straight. However, the made straight should always lead out here on the turn (if it doesn't already reraise at some point on the flop). If I had the made straight, villain's hand looks suspiciously like what I actually had (a big draw), so I would have to ship the turn. Since I checked, I can't possibly have a straight, so villain has to put the pressure there (especially since if I had a non-straight made hand that beats villain, like a set, I'm probably check-folding the turn).
Since villain should be shoving the turn, that makes my 125 call on the flop a poor decision. One of the biggest takeaways so far from the first quarter of Bill Chen's The Mathematics of Poker that I've read is that counter to what most people think, if hands are played face up, given most chip stacks (i.e. not super deep), draws want to get the money in on the flop. This is because the made hand can fold at any point when the draw hits, but if it doesn't hit on the turn, depending on pot odds, the draw will either have to pay the turn (which is worse than shoving the flop because had the draw hit the turn, it's not getting value) or fold the turn (which is bad because the draw doesn't get to see both streets). Since both options are worse off for the draw (this can be proven with a very simple calculation of the open-ended straight flush draw vs. the set), the made hand gets to "punish" the draw on the turn if it doesn't hit. This is especially egregious because given how many raises there were on the flop (none of which were by me), I'm almost playing my hand face up, as I definitely have the flush draw, and I either have the gutshot or the open-ender as well).
The somewhat less obvious mistake occurs one raise earlier on the flop. When the button makes it 45, I probably shouldn't be calling here. If I raise, I'm probably taking the pot right there, as anything short of my hand or the made straight can't justifiably call. Given that if I call and get raised, I should be reraising all-in, I'm going to pay off the made straights anyways, so by raising the 45, I can force other hands that have more equity than me to fold (i.e. two pairs, like villain hand, or probably sets as well). The reason this mistake isn't as clear cut as the others is that there's value to calling the 45 and allowing more calls to follow (which was the idea at the time). However, this actually holds less value than I originally thought because if I do hit my draw, I'm not getting paid off, as a made straight is going to shove on top of my reraise on the flop. The only way I'm getting paid off is if a non-spade 8 hits the turn, and two-pairs/sets will probably call a turn bet, as will higher flush draws. Still, I don't think this small possibility can outweigh the fold equity from simply raising the 45.
After a few more hands, I leave the table with a stack of 1050 in order to take my dinner break. I come back from dinner hoping to be able to play 1-2, as I'm aware that I hadn't played optimally in the 2-5 so far, but that apparently isn't allowed (I'd have to go to the back of the 1-2 line). Reluctantly, I buyin for 300.
I continue with my poor play, as my stack quickly dwindles to 180. That's when the only interesting post-dinner hand occurred.
-Hand #4-
I'm in middle position with A7 diamonds. I limp, along with a few other players. Villain in late position makes it 20. I call and 4 players see the flop.
Flop is A64 rainbow (but with one diamond). Everyone checks to villain, who c-bets 50. Only I call.
Turn is a 3 of diamonds. This is where I make my mistake, as I check-call instead of leading out. The point of checking instead of leading out in general is to either limit the size of the pot when OOP or to extract value from marginal hands. I have only about 100 behind, so any bet by either villain or me essentially puts me all-in, which already limits the size of the pot. In addition, that means villain is almost guaranteed to shut down with 77-KK, and I'm not going to be able to extract any value from hands that I can beat anyways (although it's probably more likely for KK to call a bet in this scenario than to bet after I check). What leading out does do is that it might get marginal Aces (that have me beat, say A8-AT/AJ) to fold. If I check, any ace is almost forced to bet, to at least get draws to pay for the river. Granted, I think most players aren't folding any ace in this scenario, especially since I was weak pre-flop, but I still have some fold equity from betting and consequently, it's weakly dominant to lead out. Anyways, after I check, villain bets around 80, I shove for the rest, and he calls. He predictably shows a higher ace (AJ), and I'm drawing to 15 outs. In hindsight, AJ is almost guaranteed to call my bet anyways, but that's not true had villain been slightly weaker.
River is a diamond, and I sheepishly scoop the pot.
That hand leaves me at slightly below 400, and I leave not soon after with around 360. I once again ran well while playing 2-5, but played poorly. Still, I played less poorly than my Bay 101 trial, so at the very least, I leave the night up. In the future, I'll need to play more aggressively, especially on early streets, against the 2-5 players, because my playing style at the 1-2 tables (play lots of nut-chasing hands, which means all connectors and one-gappers, and keep the size of the pot as small as possible until the river, where there's much less uncertainty and I can capitalize on calling stations) isn't going to translate to the 2-5 tables, as I'll have to pay too much for bad draws and it's not a guarantee that I'll extract full implied value when I do hit.
-Summary-
Time at 1-2 cash tables: ~5.5 hours
1-2 Cash: ~0
Time at 2-5 cash tables: ~4.5 hours
2-5 Cash: +760
Poker total: +$760
Gas and food: -$40
Net: +$720
-On record career to date-
Time at the 1-2 cash tables: 52.5 hours
1-2 Cash: +$1890
Time at the 2-5 cash tables: 9 hours
2-5 Cash: +$560
Total time at cash tables: 62 hours
Cash games: +$2450
Time at the tournies: 12 hours
Tournies: -$570
Poker total: +$1880
Net: ~ +$1730
Brags: None really... well, other than realizing that my EV was likely negative at the 2-5 tables on that night and leaving relatively soon. That and the fact that I'm awesome at hitting at the 2-5 tables.
Beats: Played like the fish I usually feast on against the big boys.
Variance: I'll take running poorly at the 1-2 tables and running hot at the 2-5 tables every single time.
Time at 1-2 cash tables: ~5.5 hours
1-2 Cash: ~0
Time at 2-5 cash tables: ~4.5 hours
2-5 Cash: +760
Poker total: +$760
Gas and food: -$40
Net: +$720
-On record career to date-
Time at the 1-2 cash tables: 52.5 hours
1-2 Cash: +$1890
Time at the 2-5 cash tables: 9 hours
2-5 Cash: +$560
Total time at cash tables: 62 hours
Cash games: +$2450
Time at the tournies: 12 hours
Tournies: -$570
Poker total: +$1880
Net: ~ +$1730
Brags: None really... well, other than realizing that my EV was likely negative at the 2-5 tables on that night and leaving relatively soon. That and the fact that I'm awesome at hitting at the 2-5 tables.
Beats: Played like the fish I usually feast on against the big boys.
Variance: I'll take running poorly at the 1-2 tables and running hot at the 2-5 tables every single time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)