I've been too lazy to update this, partly because I've had some poor sessions in the last half year and partly because it takes too long to write all of these posts. So from now on, there will be a lot less commentary.
In June prior to my Vegas trip, I had 2 Charles Town sessions, primarily to become more familiar with 2-5, but I was down a net $1100 combined. At Vegas, I ran really well in cash games to start, up around $2000 in the first couple of days playing 2-5, and making a number of mistakes that caused me to win even less than I should have. I also played 2 $1000 WSOP events, cashing in neither. In both cases, I bluffed/called away up to a third of my starting stack early, which left me small stacked the entire tournaments. I did, however, play both well short-stacked, surviving until 350th (just outside of the money, which paid 320 places) in one but getting knocked out with JJ against AJ and AA in the other. After the two events, I stopped running well in cash games, and lost about a net $1000 in the last few sessions. The main problem in addition to running poorly was an inability to devise an optimal strategy to how to play 2-5 (i.e. in 1-2, I'll chase with high-upside hands because 1-2 players don't bet much prior to the river, and they'll pay off most river value bets). After that and another poor 2-5 session at Charles Town in July, I decided to take a break from poker.
I started playing again starting with my Thanksgiving vacation in Reno and another time at Bay 101 in San Jose. I was able to play 1-2 very well in both sessions, and also fixing my call-fold imbalances that surfaced during the summer. Back at Charles Town, I had a well-played session of 1-2 but ran poorly and only won $200, and then a following 2-5 session in which I ran extremely poorly and lost $1000.
Here are the most interesting hands of the past 2 months:
Reno Session 1 (November 30, 2012):
-Hand #1-
KQs middle position, Villain in hijack.
I raise 13, Villain calls.
Flop is Q9x rainbow, I bet 20, Villain calls.
Turn is a blank club (2 clubs on board), I bet 30, Villain calls.
River is a non club ace, I check, Villain bets 100, I tank call. Villain shows KJ clubs for K high.
Analysis:
This is a matter of Villain having no credible story. A number of hands actually have me beat: any ace, two pair, or set. However, given the obvious JT open-ender and various gutshot/overcard combos like KJ/KT, I would expect any two pair/set to raise by the turn (whether they should raise the flop is debatable; I personally prefer not to raise the flop, especially in position). Even assuming non-optimal behavior from Villain, I can't imagine many bad players not raising at some point either. And the other hand that has me beat, the Ace, shouldn't be in the hand except to float the flop, given that there's no draw involving an ace. Furthermore, assuming Ax clubs that floated the flop and wants to value the river, the bet is too big to be reasonable. A pair of aces is still beat by a number of potential hands that would check-call in my position (i.e. Q9s), and given that he should expect such a big bet to get many one-pair hands (that he has beat) to fold, a smaller value would make a lot more sense. Finally, every draw missed, from the obvious JT, the KJ/KT, and any turned club draw, and that gives me more than enough odds to call.
It can be argued villain should have raised the turn, since I would have easily folded. Granted, he can't assume I'm a decent player, so I could theoretically call the raise. As a result, he might have been looking to maximize implied odds if he hits his draws, especially since even I most likely pay him off if either of his draws hit, given that they're not the most obvious draws to be chasing.
I too often like to pot control, because it maximizes my EV given my strengths and weaknesses (namely, I don't read raises well). This hand shows the pluses of betting when you're likely still ahead.
-Hand #2-
AA on botton, Villain BB.
I raise 12, Villain calls.
Flop is Q77 rainbow, Villain checks, I check.
Turn is 8 of spades (2 spades on board), Villain checks, I bet 15, Villain raises 35, I call.
River is a blank, Villain bets 55, I call, Villain shows 77.
Analysis:
My favorite move is the pot control check with an overpair on a paired board. People normally call flop bets with draws anyways, so the only people the flop bet affects are the two pair draws. However, given the paired board, that eliminates a number of outs. And a flop check gives people another chance to hit something so that I can value the turn/river.
-Hand #3-
Straddle 89 clubs, Villain 1 UTG+2, Villain 3 UTG+3.
Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 raises 15, I call, Villain 1 calls.
Flop is A34 with 2 clubs, I check, Villain 1 checks, Villain 2 bets 25, I call, Villain 1 calls.
Turn is 2 of clubs, I check, Villain 1 checks, Villain 2 checks.
River is non club 5, I bet 105, Villain 1 folds, Villain 2 tank calls.
Analysis:
This hand ended up being played perfectly, but not necessarily for all of the reasons I'd anticipated. First off, I've learned to limit flop raises with draws in 1-2 because there just isn't enough fold equity for betting and there's too much implied odds for calling, especially when compared to higher levels. My reasoning behind the turn check was actually to get more information about Villain 1's hand (I already had a very narrow range for Villain 2--something like 70% pair between 5 and A, 25% A, and 5% something else). Namely, I wanted to know if Villain 1 had the A of clubs (or another high club), regardless if the A was just a draw or if it was already part of a made flush, as I'd expect him to bet the turn in these scenarios. However, my check turned out even better when the 5 hit the river. People (including me) often act irrationally when big preflop hands hit a horrible flop (or big flop hands hit a horrible turn) and then get deceivingly better on the following street. In this case, he most likely had a high pocket pair that c-bet the flop, shut down on the turn because one of us had to at least have an A, and then mistakingly believed that the river 5 saved him. Plus, the size of my river bet looks so deceivingly like a bluff (the chances of getting a call to chop don't necessarily decrease as the size of the bet increases), so a large bet there is likely to have a much higher EV than a smaller bet.
Bay 101 Session 7 (December 3, 2012):
No real interesting hands, especially since it was an abbreviated cash session as I entered the morning 120-buyin tournament (and failed to cash again).
Charles Town Session 18 (December 9, 2012):
-Hand #4-
T8o in cutoff, Villain 1 UTG, Villain 2 in middle position.
Villain 1 limps, Villain 2 limps, I raise 13, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 calls.
Flop is J97 with 2 diamonds, Villain 1 checks, Villain 2 checks, I bet 15, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 raises 45, I jam for 200+ more, Villain 2 folds out of turn, Villain 1 tank calls.
Turn is a blank.
River is blank diamond. Villain 1 mucks and says he had two pair (top two probably).
Analysis:
Again, a perfect move in hindsight for not necessarily the correct reasons. My reasoning for the huge re-raise is that I'm not sure I can optimally play the following streets if they aren't blanks (diamonds/board pairs/higher straight cards). As a result, I accepted the likelihood of just winning the pot there, and getting called would just be gravy. It ended up being a good move because Villain 1 had two pair and called, which may have been the correct move for him. There are so many bad players in 1-2 who raise small preflop and then overbet/raise the flop without regard to board texture. Of course, given my demographic (young Asian), it's much less likely I play that way, but still, it's not clear his call was bad. Knowing he has two pair, my jam is actually fine as a result (even assuming I can play optimally on future streets without the jam, because there's enough of a likelihood he calls), but I shouldn't expect him to have had 2 pair.
-Hand #5-
AKo UTG+1, Villain UTG.
Villain limps, I raise 13, Villain calls.
Flop is QTx rainbow, Villain checks, I bet 15, Villain calls.
Turn is a J, Villain checks, I bet 35, Villain calls.
River is a T, Villain checks, I tank check. Villain shows 89.
Analysis:
I think I played this hand incorrectly and not just in hindsight. Again, the reasoning behind the check was the belief that I wouldn't necessarily respond optimally to a large raise, and given the stack sizes, a raise could have gotten as high as 200, which would be more than pot size. Villain was a very tight player the whole day, so his range for limping UTG and calling a raise is any pocket pair until JJ, AK/AQ/AJ/suited A's, suited connectors/one-gappers, and some suited K's (like KQ/KJ, maybe KT/K9). However, given my information, I couldn't expect him to call K9/89 on the flop very often, so that's not the reason I think I should have bet the river. However, possible hands I can see calling the river are AQ (AQ probably raises the flop but that's not guaranteed), KQs, QJs, KTs/T9s (T's often can be good on the flop if I have an underpair, and turn brings an open-ender). Hands that have me beat are basically QTs, JTs, and QQ/JJ. However, the reasoning behind betting is that I should be bet-fold-ing. My range easily includes QQ, JJ, and TT, so it's basically those hands and AK/AQ/AJ. Villain should expect AK to call the river raise anyways, so most of the hands in my range would call his raise. As a result, this should easily deter a check-raise bluff on the river (if he's sophisticated enough to check-raise bluff that board, he should be sophisticated enough to think this through). Further adding to this decision is that I would expect most people to lead out on the river with the full house.
-Hand #6-
A6 clubs UTG+2, Villain 1 BB, Villain 2 UTG+1.
Villain 2 raises 10, I call, Villain 1 calls.
Flop is J54 with 2 clubs, Villain 1 checks, villain 2 bets 15, I call, Villain 1 calls.
Turn is 8 of diamonds (2 diamonds on board), Villain 1 checks, Villain 2 checks, I bet 40, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 folds.
River is non-club/diamond A, Villain 1 checks, I bet 40, Villain 1 calls and shows AQ diamonds.
Analysis:
The first extra piece of information is that Villain 1 was a very old lady, and it was clear she wasn't very good. However, it wasn't obvious until after this hand that she was bad enough to call 3-way with 2 overs and a backdoor flush draw (and I guarantee that the backdoor flush wasn't part of her decision process). In other words, I played this hand perfectly. The flop call with the nut flush draw is standard at 1-2, given that, as stated earlier, raising isn't worth it (especially since my hand isn't that strong if I get reraised as the A is now likely useless). The turn bet is standard in position given the checks, as I can get pairs to fold, and/or weaker flush draws to call (against whom I also have showdown value with A high). With the river A, I would expect Villain 1 (especially since she's an old lady and is almost guaranteed to not have the check-raise in her arsenal) to lead out with a rivered two pair, so the only way my A isn't good is against a flopped/turned two pair that was played poorly (too many draws for her to be calling on the turn) or something ridiculous like what she actually had. The size was also about right for most people (and especially bad players) to not be scared enough by the ace.
-Hand #7-
JJ UTG+1, Villain in middle position.
I raise 12, Villain reraises 35, I call.
Flop is KQx, I check, Villain checks.
Turn is a blank, I check, Villain bets 55, I fold. Villain implies he had KK/QQ.
Analysis:
Earlier that day, I'd actually folded AKo to a 3-bet, which I'd never done before, and I honestly think I should have done the same thing here. 1-2 in general is just so nitty that unless an extreme manic raises, you're almost always against AA/KK/QQ/JJ on a 3-bet. You could theoretically be against AK/TT as well, but I don't exactly want to play a pot OOP when I should be folding on any non-J flop against the majority of Villain's range (so even if I'm against AK/TT, I should be folding to a c-bet). In that case, JJ is no different from any lower pocket pair, as I'm basically set mining, which is something you don't want to do when Villain has only 4-5x his raise behind.
-Hand #8-
AA straddle, Villain 1 in middle position, Villain 2 after Villain 1, Villain 3 in BB.
Lots of calls to me, I raise 25, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 calls, Villain 3 calls.
Flop is 665 rainbow, Villain 3 jams for 50, I call, Villain 2 folds, Villain 1 raises 100 more, I move allin for ~80 more, Villain 1 calls.
Turn is a blank. River is a blank. Everyone mucks, and Villain 1 claims to have had a hand similar to last time (the QQ/KK).
Analysis:
Pretty straightforward. Only decision is whether to call or raise Villain 3's jam, and calling pretty much weakly dominates raising (the only case it wouldn't would be if Villain 1 had 78 and that's not likely). Plus, he thought about raising my raise preflop, so unless it was an act, he clearly has an overpair as well. Anyways, calling makes it much more likely an inferior overpair comes in and perhaps raises, which supposedly is what happened.
Charles Town Session 19 (December 15, 2012):
No real strategically interesting hands. Played a little 1-2, was card dead after winning a big early pot, entered a 150 buy-in tournament (that had ridiculously fast escalating blinds--dumped 1/3 of my chips in a stupid pot with 77 on a board with an A, and then got knocked out with A3o against A3s), and then played 2-5. The following hands are mostly about me bitching about my luck (only post all-in luck, not even the fact that I couldn't hit a flop all night). I ended up playing 3+ hours of 2-5 without winning a single hand, not even a preflop takedown.
-Hand #9-
AQ UTG+2 with a 300 stack (small for 2-5), Villain 1 on button, Villain 2 SB.
I limp, Villain 1 raises 25, Villain 2 calls, I raise 70, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 calls.
Flop is JTx rainbow. Villain 2 jams for 150, I tank call, Villain 1 folds. Villain 2 flips over KQ.
Turn is an A, and River is a 9 (just to rub it in further).
Analysis:
I played this hand perfectly. In 2-5 with a 300 stack, you can't afford to open too many pots, because any reraise pot commits you against someone who is repping a better starting hand. As a result, the limp raise becomes a much bigger weapon for a wide range of hands (it will also get the AA/KK limp raises paid off more). I probably could have raised preflop a little more, because I was trying to take the pot there, but I'm not sure how much an extra 10-15 would have affected their decisions. Anyways, the flop jam is very suspicious. Villain 2 is much less likely to be jamming into the pre-flop raiser with a set/2-pair, so really, most of his range is now limited to QJ, KJ, AJ, KQ, AQ, AK (less likely, I would have expected a preflop raise before my raise). I have more than enough odds to call against QJ, barely enough odds to call against KJ/AJ, and I'm the favorite against KQ and AQ. Of course, the problem is that Villain 1 could have very likely flopped a set, but I'm getting great enough odds against Villain 2 to take that risk. Anyways, the pot ended up being 490, I lost 210, and I had 72% equity (350) at the time of the all-in.
-Hand #10-
JJ in middle position, Villain 1 on button, Villain 2 BB.
I raise 25, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 calls.
Flop is xxx with 2 hearts, I bet 50, Villain 1 reraises allin for 50 more, Villain 2 folds, I call.
Turn is a heart, river is a blank. Villain 1 shows Q3 hearts.
Analysis:
Again, perfectly played. I'm trying to induce an all-in reraise from Villain 1, which deters Villain 2 from calling as well, because I can reraise. anyways, the pot ended up being 275, I lost 125, and I had 53% equity (145) at the time of the all-in.
-Hand #11-
AQ in BB with 80 stack, Villain 1 limps, Villain 2 raises 25, Villain 3 calls, I reraise all-in, Villain 1 calls, Villain 2 calls, Villains 3 calls.
Board ends up 8855x, and Villain 2 has 89o and Villain 3 has 8Js.
Analysis:
Given the action, I expect Villain 1 to have had a suited connector or suited A (flop was 85x, so most pocket pairs are likely to take a stab at the pot/are still ahead). Assuming he has 2 live cards or something that includes a J or 9, I have at least 40% equity; against a suited A, I have 35% equity. All in all, the pot ended up being 320, I lost 80, and I had ~37% equity (120) at the time of the allin.
Basically EV from these 3 hands should have been 615, which would have made my net loss <100 in 2-5 and just under 400 total on the night.
-On record career to date-
Time at 1-2 cash tables: 129 hours
1-2 Cash: +$3160
Time at 2-5 cash tables: 71 hours
2-5 Cash: +$880
Total time at cash tables: 200 hours
Cash games: +$4040
Time at tournies: 30 hours
Tournies: -$2840
Poker total: +$1200
Net: including airfare for my Vegas trip? ~+$200
Brags: I feel like I've gotten better? I guess that's the only plus...
Beats: I've been playing tournies pretty poorly, and the main thing is that I can't seem to figure out how to play the micro blinds. I haven't hit early in any of these tournies so that's part of it, but should I just be playing extremely tight then (nuts or fold)? No body's been folding to any bluffs/semi-bluffs (and the semi-bluffs of course haven't hit a single time).
Variance: Moving to 2-5 means having to deal with the much more extreme swings.
No comments:
Post a Comment