Charles Town Session 20 (December 22, 2012):
Crazy session yesterday, first at 1-2 and then at 2-5. At 1-2, I first won an early 600 pot with a flopped flush against a supposed set of aces. Then I lost a 250 dollar pot after hitting an A-Q-7 flop with A7, getting it all in on the flop against AT, only to have a Q hit the river. Finally, I lost a 1000 pot with 6-2 clubs on a 5-4-3 rainbow (with 1 club) board against 4-4 that rivered a boat (6-7 was in for the main pot of 200). At 2-5, the table was extremely loose and aggressive, with one extremely maniacal degenerate. I lost 500 early, 250 of it barreling twice with AK, and another 300 of it on a coin flip with QJ spades against AK on a flop of K98 with 2 spades. Once I realized that everyone at the table was fairly loose and very aggressive, and there were was the one guy who over-bet everything, I decided to just shut down and play extremely nitty and passive poker. First I won 300 from him with AA against QQ and then I won 600 from him with JJ against 88. Anyways, here are the most interesting hands of the day/night.
-Hand #1-
58 spades UTG+2, Villain 1 in late position, Villain 2 on button.
Lots of limps, Villain 1 raises 10, 5 people see flop.
Flop is Axx all spades, I check, Villain 1 bets 30, Villain 2 calls, I call.
Turn is a blank, I check Villain 1 bets 50, Villain 2 calls, I raise 150, Villain 1 jams for 100 more, Villain 2 tank folds, I call.
River is another spade, I show my flopped flush, Villain 1 mucks and claims to have had AA, Villain 2 claims to have had the K of spades.
Analysis:
Nothing to really say here, as everything is consistent with my style. Let the draws get an inexpensive turn, and punish them on the turn.
-Hand #2-
A7o middle position, Villain straddle.
I raise 15, Villain calls.
Flop is AQ7 rainbow, Villain bets 20, I raise 50, Villain re-raises allin for 60 more.
Turn is a blank, river is a Q, Villain shows AT and I'm counterfeited.
Analysis:
Again, nothing to really say here. Villain was horrible (top pair for him was always the nuts), and I was able to get another all-in as a 70% favorite.
-Hand #3-
62 clubs middle position, Villain 1 one seat after me, Villain 2 UTG.
Villain 1 limps, I limp, Villain 2 limps, someone else raises 12, 6 people see flop.
Flop is 543 rainbow (with 1 club). Villain 2 checks, I check, Villain 1 checks, pre-flop raiser bets 25, Villain 2 raises 75, I re-raise 150, Villain 1 all-in for 70, Villain 2 re-raises all-in for 425, I tank call.
Turn is a blank, river is a 5, Villain 2 shows 44 for the rivered boat.
Analysis:
The decision of whether to call the additional 300 all-in from Villain 2 is based on the chances he's a bad player. I would be calling 300 to win ~600 (I'm excluding Villain 1 from the hand, which is actually conservative, because small stacks more often than usual don't have the nuts in this scenario, meaning I should expect there to be a smaller than 33% chance he has 67). Granted, if Villain 2 does have 67, I'm destroyed, as I have only a 12% to chop and 5% to win, for a total of 10% equity. If Villain 2 has A2, it's the total opposite of 67, and I have 90% equity. If Villain 2 has a set, I have 65% equity. So basically, if there's any chance that Villain 2 is going to play this way with A2 or a set, I have more than enough odds. Furthermore, I usually wouldn't expect 67 to play this way, as he really shouldn't be afraid of anything. There's no flush draw, 2 pairs/sets have very few outs, and all reasonable straight draws are draws to chop. As a result, I would expect Villain 2 to often call the flop bet with 67.
After playing a couple more hands and losing around 50, I realize I'm tilting a little and decide to go eat. After coming back, I play 1-2 for about 30 minutes more, and eventually make it back above even for the day. Still, I'm afraid of some additional tilting, so I decide to play 2-5, which helps keep me in check.
-Hand #4-
AKs middle position, Villain right before me.
Villain raises 15, I re-raise 50, Villain calls.
Flop is 954 with two hearts, Villain checks, I bet 75, Villain calls.
Turn is a 5, Villain checks, I bet 125, Villain calls.
River is 3 of hearts, Villain checks, I check, Villain shows 43.
Analysis:
I'd realized before the hand that Villain was very loose with his pre-hands, but I didn't expect 43. Still, my 2 barrel bluff was probably the worst of both worlds. I could have gotten free/cheap turns/rivers by checking behind, and given Villain's looseness, I would expect the flop and turn calls to be easiest for him (assuming he hits any part of the board, he could call both with showdown value and to chase two pair/trips). However, if I do want to represent a hand, I would be repping either AA/KK or AK of hearts, and in both cases, I would value the river after a check. Although to be honest, after learning even more about Villain after the hand, I'd expect him to call there (he called off all of his money later basically to catch a bluff). Still, many bad LAG players still fold there, and given my information, I probably should have fired a third barrel.
-Hand #5-
QJ spades BB, Villain on button.
Villain raises 35, I call.
Flop is K98 with 2 spades, I check, Villain bets 70, I jam for 150 more, Villain calls.
Turn is a blank, river is a blank, Villain shows AK.
Analysis:
I probably shouldn't have called the 35 preflop bet from Villain, because he was one of the solid players at the table, and at best, I'm against a pocket pair TT and under or AK, and even then, I'm still OOP. I was just so excited to see a good hand (I'd been mostly card dead up until that point) that I wanted to see a flop at any cost.
-Hand #6-
AA UTG+2, Villain middle position.
UTG raises 20, I re-raise 60, Villain re-raises 160, I re-raise 260, Villain calls.
Flop is Kxx, I play with my chips, Villain folds disgustedly, showing QQ and saying he was trying to chase a Q.
Analysis:
In hindsight, I probably could have gotten more from Villain, given that he was the maniac. Given that he has me on AA/KK and still called 100 to chase his Q on the flop (he has a 10% chance of flopping a Q (I only had 450 to start the hand, so he's not getting great odds to chase his Q, assuming max implied odds for him), I probably could have gotten an additional 50-100 out of him, if not my entire stack (although in the final case, I would have to fade two additional streets, so actually, it's not horrible that I didn't go all-in). Still, the ideal amount probably would have been to raise to 300-350 and leave myself with 100 to bet the flop. The same action probably would have occurred in that case.
-Hand #7-
88 middle position, Villain 1 button, Villain 2 SB.
I limp, Villain 1 raises 20, 5 people see flop.
Flop is 874 with 2 spades, I check, Villain 1 bets 45, Villain 2 calls, I call.
Turn is 5 of spades, Villain 2 checks, I check, Villain 1 checks.
River is a blank, Villain 2 bets 65, I call, Villain 1 folds, Villain 2 shows KT spades.
Analysis:
Obviously, the river call is horrendous. 3-handed, you can't expect a 65 bluff into a pot of 200 won't get called. I was just frustrated by how the hand turned out, and perhaps frustrated with my own play at the time. In hindsight, outside of the river call, I'm fine with how I played that hand. The flop has a very possible 65 straight, and given that I'm 700 deep at this point (and both Villains and 1 of the other players to see the flop have me covered), I don't want to raise and both possibly have to fold a re-raise and increase the pot when the flush draw/open-ender inevitably call. The turn check is obviously easy, but assuming Villain 1 was the one who had the flush and bet again, I can call there repping a number of hands (straight, baby flush, A of spades) in addition to what I actually had. Granted, I'd established a nitty image by that point, so if I did river the boat, it's possible I wouldn't have gotten paid off very much.
-Hand #8-
JJ UTG+1, Villain 1 middle position, Villain 2 BB.
I limp, Villain 1 raises 25, 6 people see flop.
Flop is 444, Villain 2 bets 50, I call, Villain 1 raises 150, Villain 2 folds, I call.
Turn is a 2, I check, Villain 1 bets 250, I tank shove for 200 more, Villain 1 snap calls.
River is a T, I show JJ and Villain 1 shows 88.
Analysis:
Villain again was the maniac, and after his flop raise, I'd already made up my mind that I was going to eventually go all-in, given that I know he's going to keep firing regardless of what he has (so I'm not actually getting any more information, so making up my mind there isn't horrible). First, I had to consider the likelihood he would play this way with a lower pocket than JJ, and I'd guessed that 88/99/TT wasn't any less likely than QQ/KK/AA. Furthermore, he'd exhibited a pretty consistent pattern of basing his pre-flop raise size on the strength of his hand, so a 25 raise didn't scream QQ/KK/AA. This hand ended up being one of my adjustments to the maniac at the table, as I would never play this way against normal players (calling off/re-raising all-in for 600 with JJ when most people wouldn't be in there with anything less than TT).
-Hand #9-
QQ UTG, Villain BB.
I limp, Villain raises 50, I call.
Flop is JJx, Villain bets 65, I call.
Turn is a blank, Villain checks, I check.
River is a J, Villain checks, I bet 120, Villain folds.
Analysis:
This was poorly played, and the reason it was played this way was due to cowardice. I was slightly scared that Villain was checking the turn with AA/KK to trap me. However, there are two reasons I think that this is unlikely. One, most people outside of me don't do that. Two, I'd given off a very passive table image to that point, so Villain shouldn't have expected me to bet the turn with QQ/TT/99. By checking behind, I'm giving him a free card to either hit or bluff (he obviously has the A, but it's not clear if he has AK or AQ, so the K is dangerous as well). Furthermore, if the river misses, I can't expect to be paid off, so I might as well try to get him to pay me off on the turn with AK/AQ (he still has showdown value and outs).
-On record career to date-
Time at 1-2 cash tables: 134 hours
1-2 Cash: +$3310
Time at 2-5 cash tables: 75 hours
2-5 Cash: +$1440
Total time at cash tables: 209 hours
Cash games: +$4750
Time at tournies: 30 hours
Tournies: -$2840
Poker total: +$1910
Net: +$900
Brags: I walked away when I realized I might tilt. I played 1-2 perfectly for the session. While my 2-5 play wasn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, I was able to realize the market inefficiency (the maniac), my likely disadvantages against everyone else, and exploit the one advantage I had.
Beats: I'm not convinced I can beat 2-5 yet against a table full of the better players (there wer 4-5 of them at my table yesterday; the other 3-4, including the maniac, were horrible). They're able to combine tight play with a more accurate feel of when to not fold (when I actually play well at 2-5, I still fold too much).
Variance: Up to and including the $1000 rivered-boat hand, I'd lost 5 of 6 pre-river all-ins in which I was the favorite (and in 4 of them, I had >50% pot equity, with the 4-handed pre-flop all-in from last week the exception).
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
The last 6 months
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)