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).
No comments:
Post a Comment