Interesting day at the tables. Beer and I got a one day pass to cardrunners, and after watching all sorts of videos about TAG ABC play for low limits, I decided to get on and do it up. Sat at the $.01/$.02 tables, and just LOSTTTTTT. Couldn't stop. It was horrendous. It got to the point where I was down $18, almost 4 full buyins. Horrendous beats, truly gut-wrenching, and these made me decide to leave .01/.02 behind and go back to .02/.05 where I left off awhile ago.
Once there, I immediately got off to a good start. Just kept grinding chips off the table, taking down pots preflop, winning small pots on the flop, and avoiding any big pots really. I didn't get great cards, but I was up $8 with almost no resistance. Then this guy named "TheTableCpt" happend. Un-freakin-real player. This guy sucked like a vacuum, yet he sucked up money like one too. He slammed inside straights, backdoor flushes, two-outers, and I'm pretty sure at least one zero-outer, to just decimate the table. Very erratic play, and I still don't know what he was doing, but he won a lot this time. So he ended up cutting my profits down to a measly $0.25 for .02/.05.
So I took a break, then came back to the .05/.10 tables, still a $10nl limit. I squeezed out $6.50 over 60 quick hands there, and decided I was done with that level, as I for some reason have been killed at it in the past.
Still down a bit for the day, I wanted another go at the .01/.02 and I decided to do it my favorite way. LAG just one or two tables, use my reading, and just run the damn table over. All I can say is mission accomplished. In true LAG form I made people's eyes bleed, and they didn't know what I was doing ever. I got in 61 hands, and that's all I needed to decimate 3 seperate tables. Over those hands I had:
vpip: 60.5%, pfr: 51.2%, af: 9.00
went to sd: 50%
won at sd: 50%
Made back $9 in those hands, plus enough from other .01/.02 play to end the day down $1.32 there, which felt great after being down so far. With my other levels factored in, I actually made $5.50 which isn't bad. Added another buyin to the br.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Not quite what I expected
So I posted my last post on 2p2, to see what the general consensus was. The first poster actually had a link to an old post that was exactly the same thing I was proposing, that you could play only 22+ and AQ+ at uNL and win a good amount. Here's that post.
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=microplnl&Number=12907966&page=4&fpart=1
And here are some responses to it, the op is Gelford.
"Gelford, I [heart] you."
"Great post Gelford."
"nh Gelford. people like to moan about 'recipe' type ideas here, but i wouldn't mind betting that they are the most popular posts and that this will help lots of beginners find their feet while they start learning to think about poker. this feels like the new tien 'raise that [censored] up'."
"What you described is not real poker, lol."
So there were some nay-sayers, but the others in the post flamed them pretty good and told the to literally, F off doouchebags, lol. Here's what people had to say about mine though.
"why would you do this?"
"With stacks of 250bb you can play way more hands than with 100bb. Also, over my last 5000 hands, I have lost money with every pocket pair except QQ and 66. Pocket pairs are not as good as you think"
"It is so far from optimal it isn't funny"
"What you describe here isn't even poker...."
Hey at least I got one response like the ubernit thread, maybe I'll get some in support as well. :)
"its poker lol, it may be bad poker but its still poker."
Okay, so maybe I won't be getting any pats on the back. The closest I came was this guy who kinda defended me sort of somewhat.
"So someone comes in and says ... I'm not very good at handreading, but if I play only 22+ and AQ+ I seem to make a very nice profit ... and the entire forum goes: ZOMG exploitable, bad poker, move to bbv .. etc.If it shows a profit over a large enough sample, then it is good ... if not then it's notEthical or moral considerations about what type of poker is correct do not exist."
I guess they liked the idea more when it was new. Based on my social-psychology I'm also pretty sure that because the first response in Gelford's was that they love him for posting it, and my first responses were, 1)Someone has done this before and 2) Why would you do this? we got very different feedback. I still think I could come up with the basic foundations of a bot that shows a profit at uNL. Oh my god, I have to go now, it's 9:20 and it's the final day of my girlfriend's swimming championships. They start in 40 minutes, I'm out!
http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=microplnl&Number=12907966&page=4&fpart=1
And here are some responses to it, the op is Gelford.
"Gelford, I [heart] you."
"Great post Gelford."
"nh Gelford. people like to moan about 'recipe' type ideas here, but i wouldn't mind betting that they are the most popular posts and that this will help lots of beginners find their feet while they start learning to think about poker. this feels like the new tien 'raise that [censored] up'."
"What you described is not real poker, lol."
So there were some nay-sayers, but the others in the post flamed them pretty good and told the to literally, F off doouchebags, lol. Here's what people had to say about mine though.
"why would you do this?"
"With stacks of 250bb you can play way more hands than with 100bb. Also, over my last 5000 hands, I have lost money with every pocket pair except QQ and 66. Pocket pairs are not as good as you think"
"It is so far from optimal it isn't funny"
"What you describe here isn't even poker...."
Hey at least I got one response like the ubernit thread, maybe I'll get some in support as well. :)
"its poker lol, it may be bad poker but its still poker."
Okay, so maybe I won't be getting any pats on the back. The closest I came was this guy who kinda defended me sort of somewhat.
"So someone comes in and says ... I'm not very good at handreading, but if I play only 22+ and AQ+ I seem to make a very nice profit ... and the entire forum goes: ZOMG exploitable, bad poker, move to bbv .. etc.If it shows a profit over a large enough sample, then it is good ... if not then it's notEthical or moral considerations about what type of poker is correct do not exist."
I guess they liked the idea more when it was new. Based on my social-psychology I'm also pretty sure that because the first response in Gelford's was that they love him for posting it, and my first responses were, 1)Someone has done this before and 2) Why would you do this? we got very different feedback. I still think I could come up with the basic foundations of a bot that shows a profit at uNL. Oh my god, I have to go now, it's 9:20 and it's the final day of my girlfriend's swimming championships. They start in 40 minutes, I'm out!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Keith uNL Game Theory
The Beginning
This all began with a pokertracker self-check session. I came to a shocking realization that I was playing really horrendously with every type of holding but one, pocket pairs. I don't remember what the $$$ amounts were exactly, but I had won twice as much with pocket pairs as all the money I'd won total. What I mean is if I'd won $400 with pocket pairs, I was only up $200 overall. This meant I was losing with other holdings enough to cut my winnings in more than half. Turns out I suck with suited connectors. I just couldn't play them at all. Most likely due to my extreme agression. I have difficulty with middle gears, I'm generally either at 0 or 100, no middle ground.
So I begain playing nothing but pocket pairs, and threw in AK and AQ because they really are quite strong holdings. Admittedly I would still at time play things like AJ suited in late position with limpers, or raise it from late if folded to me. I did quite well for myself and at the .05/.10 game I was 12-tabling averaging about $10 an hour. I had the lifebeat though, and now I'm playing .01/.02 and things don't seem to work quite as well.
The first thing is people don't respect bets period. Preflop raises are taking down the pot preflop only about 1/3 of the time! Further, cbets on the flop seem to be even less respected with the same result of pulling down the pot about 1 in 3 times. I started crunching numbers to get an idea about the equity of playing this tight style at the lowest of low limits, and got, well here's what I got....
Assumptions
First we're going to make some assumptions that can significantly alter actual results. It is assumed that:
1) We play only {AA-22, AK-AQ}
2) We raise all these hands preflop
3) We will be 3bet 1/5 of the time we raise preflop
*This may be a higher % than it actually occurs.
4) If we flop a set when 3bet preflop, we will stack our opponent.
5) If our cbet is called, we cannot win the hand without turning a set.
*I feel this point needs the most improvement. There
*should be more equations regarding showing down.
6) When we cbet, we will be raised 1/5 of the time.
7) If we are raised on the flop and have a set, we will stack our opponent.
8) I have not included hands in which we have AA-KK and after being
3bet preflop, we may shove for value against bad players calling {AK-AJ, QQ-99}.
9) Our opponent has a full stack to win (250 big blinds)
That covers our assumptions. There's probably more, but I can't think of them right now. On to the equations.
First is the likelyhood to be dealt one of our hands. There are 6 ways to be dealt a pocket pair, and 13 pairs for 78 total combinations. AK and AQ can be dealt to a player 16 ways each for 32 more combinations, a total of 110 combinations which comprises 8.75% of all possible dealings. This equates to about 1/11.5 hands. Round this to an even 1/12 which works nicely for a 6max table, where we will be dealt a playable hand about once every 2 orbits. In those 2 orbits we will pay 3bb (bb in this essay stands for big blinds NOT big bets), so we must subtract 3bb from whatever our equity equation totals.
Preflop Equity
Our raise will fold the blinds to us 1/3 of all hands played
(1/3)(1.5bb) = 0.50bb
One-fifth of the remaining 2/3 hands will be 3bet preflop. Of these, we will hold AQ 14.6% of the time and fold. We will call the 3bet with the other 85.4% of hands, flopping a set and winning our opponent's stack 11% of those hands, and missing the flop and folding 89%.
(1/5)(2/3)(.146)(-4bb) = -0.08bb
(1/5)(2/3)(.854)(.11)(250bb) = 3.13bb
(1/5)(2/3)(.854)(.89)(-12bb) = -1.22bb
Postflop Equity
The remaining situations comprise 4/5 of 2/3 of all outcomes. First our cbet of 1/2 the pot will win the pot 1/3 of the time.
(1/3)(4/5)(2/3)(11bb) = 1.96bb
Our cbet will be raised 1/5 of the time. If we have flopped a set (11%) we will stack our opponnent, but if we have not (89%), we will fold even with overpairs.
(1/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.11)(250bb) = 1.96bb
(1/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.89)(-9bb) = -0.57bb
Our cbet will be called 4/5 of the time. I have just noticed an error leading to too small an equity in my equations. I have not satisfied the scenario in which our cbet is called, but we have flopped a set. In lieu of this I will continue with my original equations as completed, and work out an updated version correctly expressing this parameter. Therefore in this equity equation if our cbet is flat-called we CANNOT have a flopped set. This is obviously not true, and therefore our equity shall in truth be larger. Without a set we will complete one on the turn 4% of the time, and win 1/2 our opponnent's stack on average, and will miss the turn 96% of the time, at which point we cannot win the hand, again a fallacy as we will win with our pair in the hole at showdown some % of the time.
(4/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.04)(125bb) = 1.42bb
(4/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.96)(-9bb) = -2.46bb
Analysis
The summation of the equities yields a result of 4.64 big blinds. Again, this gain is after paying 3 big blinds, so our net gain is 1.64 big blinds/12 hands, or 13.7 big blinds/100 hands, which in regular poker terms comes to 6.8 Big Bets/100 hands before rake.
As stated in this essay, the mathematics are not completely accurate, and the data is skewed to a lower winrate than what should be actually attained through employing this strategy. I would like to gather additional data in order to more accurately express the likelyhoods of opponent's folding, calling, and raising in various situations. Despite these shortcomings, I feel I have sufficiently supported my hypothesis that playing only {AA-22, AK, AQ} at uNL tables with stacks of 250bb is a very profitable strategy.
This all began with a pokertracker self-check session. I came to a shocking realization that I was playing really horrendously with every type of holding but one, pocket pairs. I don't remember what the $$$ amounts were exactly, but I had won twice as much with pocket pairs as all the money I'd won total. What I mean is if I'd won $400 with pocket pairs, I was only up $200 overall. This meant I was losing with other holdings enough to cut my winnings in more than half. Turns out I suck with suited connectors. I just couldn't play them at all. Most likely due to my extreme agression. I have difficulty with middle gears, I'm generally either at 0 or 100, no middle ground.
So I begain playing nothing but pocket pairs, and threw in AK and AQ because they really are quite strong holdings. Admittedly I would still at time play things like AJ suited in late position with limpers, or raise it from late if folded to me. I did quite well for myself and at the .05/.10 game I was 12-tabling averaging about $10 an hour. I had the lifebeat though, and now I'm playing .01/.02 and things don't seem to work quite as well.
The first thing is people don't respect bets period. Preflop raises are taking down the pot preflop only about 1/3 of the time! Further, cbets on the flop seem to be even less respected with the same result of pulling down the pot about 1 in 3 times. I started crunching numbers to get an idea about the equity of playing this tight style at the lowest of low limits, and got, well here's what I got....
Assumptions
First we're going to make some assumptions that can significantly alter actual results. It is assumed that:
1) We play only {AA-22, AK-AQ}
2) We raise all these hands preflop
3) We will be 3bet 1/5 of the time we raise preflop
*This may be a higher % than it actually occurs.
4) If we flop a set when 3bet preflop, we will stack our opponent.
5) If our cbet is called, we cannot win the hand without turning a set.
*I feel this point needs the most improvement. There
*should be more equations regarding showing down.
6) When we cbet, we will be raised 1/5 of the time.
7) If we are raised on the flop and have a set, we will stack our opponent.
8) I have not included hands in which we have AA-KK and after being
3bet preflop, we may shove for value against bad players calling {AK-AJ, QQ-99}.
9) Our opponent has a full stack to win (250 big blinds)
That covers our assumptions. There's probably more, but I can't think of them right now. On to the equations.
First is the likelyhood to be dealt one of our hands. There are 6 ways to be dealt a pocket pair, and 13 pairs for 78 total combinations. AK and AQ can be dealt to a player 16 ways each for 32 more combinations, a total of 110 combinations which comprises 8.75% of all possible dealings. This equates to about 1/11.5 hands. Round this to an even 1/12 which works nicely for a 6max table, where we will be dealt a playable hand about once every 2 orbits. In those 2 orbits we will pay 3bb (bb in this essay stands for big blinds NOT big bets), so we must subtract 3bb from whatever our equity equation totals.
Preflop Equity
Our raise will fold the blinds to us 1/3 of all hands played
(1/3)(1.5bb) = 0.50bb
One-fifth of the remaining 2/3 hands will be 3bet preflop. Of these, we will hold AQ 14.6% of the time and fold. We will call the 3bet with the other 85.4% of hands, flopping a set and winning our opponent's stack 11% of those hands, and missing the flop and folding 89%.
(1/5)(2/3)(.146)(-4bb) = -0.08bb
(1/5)(2/3)(.854)(.11)(250bb) = 3.13bb
(1/5)(2/3)(.854)(.89)(-12bb) = -1.22bb
Postflop Equity
The remaining situations comprise 4/5 of 2/3 of all outcomes. First our cbet of 1/2 the pot will win the pot 1/3 of the time.
(1/3)(4/5)(2/3)(11bb) = 1.96bb
Our cbet will be raised 1/5 of the time. If we have flopped a set (11%) we will stack our opponnent, but if we have not (89%), we will fold even with overpairs.
(1/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.11)(250bb) = 1.96bb
(1/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.89)(-9bb) = -0.57bb
Our cbet will be called 4/5 of the time. I have just noticed an error leading to too small an equity in my equations. I have not satisfied the scenario in which our cbet is called, but we have flopped a set. In lieu of this I will continue with my original equations as completed, and work out an updated version correctly expressing this parameter. Therefore in this equity equation if our cbet is flat-called we CANNOT have a flopped set. This is obviously not true, and therefore our equity shall in truth be larger. Without a set we will complete one on the turn 4% of the time, and win 1/2 our opponnent's stack on average, and will miss the turn 96% of the time, at which point we cannot win the hand, again a fallacy as we will win with our pair in the hole at showdown some % of the time.
(4/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.04)(125bb) = 1.42bb
(4/5)(2/3)(4/5)(2/3)(.96)(-9bb) = -2.46bb
Analysis
The summation of the equities yields a result of 4.64 big blinds. Again, this gain is after paying 3 big blinds, so our net gain is 1.64 big blinds/12 hands, or 13.7 big blinds/100 hands, which in regular poker terms comes to 6.8 Big Bets/100 hands before rake.
As stated in this essay, the mathematics are not completely accurate, and the data is skewed to a lower winrate than what should be actually attained through employing this strategy. I would like to gather additional data in order to more accurately express the likelyhoods of opponent's folding, calling, and raising in various situations. Despite these shortcomings, I feel I have sufficiently supported my hypothesis that playing only {AA-22, AK, AQ} at uNL tables with stacks of 250bb is a very profitable strategy.
It's time to get serious about heads up play
Got through a few things today, and it's pretty awesome. First I worked out the numbers for an equity equation of playing only pocket pairs and AK-AQ at the uNL tables. I'm going to make a post after this one with the finalized numbers, which still need some more refining, but are all right for a rough draft.
2nd I checked some numbers for heads up play. My current winning percentage is 77%. If I can maintain that winrate while 6 tabling, then an 8 hour day would get in 96 games, winning on average, 73.8 of them for a gain of $295.20 and paying $211.20 in entry fees for a profit of $84 a day, or $420 a week. That's not super, but making just under $22k to play $2.20 heads up matches isn't an awful thought. And likely my winrate will suffer multitabling. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall to 63% or so, in which case I'm only winning 60.48 games a day for $241.92 - $211.20 = $30.72/day * 5 days * 52 weeks = $7987/year. Now it's a really crappy number that won't pay for anything. Big difference.
Here's where it gets good. If I'm playing the $5.25 matches, I can cut it to 3 matches at a time. That should lead to about 48 matches a day, and if my winrate holds, I'm winning 36.9/day for $369 - $252 in fees = $117/day or $30.4k/year and that's only at the lowest levels of play.
I'm not really thinking of this as a career at the moment, I just want to build my bankroll, but it's intriguing to see what my current results could yield in the long term. Allright, I'm ending this post and delving into my mathematics behind my new theory, have fun with this next one, I did.
2nd I checked some numbers for heads up play. My current winning percentage is 77%. If I can maintain that winrate while 6 tabling, then an 8 hour day would get in 96 games, winning on average, 73.8 of them for a gain of $295.20 and paying $211.20 in entry fees for a profit of $84 a day, or $420 a week. That's not super, but making just under $22k to play $2.20 heads up matches isn't an awful thought. And likely my winrate will suffer multitabling. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall to 63% or so, in which case I'm only winning 60.48 games a day for $241.92 - $211.20 = $30.72/day * 5 days * 52 weeks = $7987/year. Now it's a really crappy number that won't pay for anything. Big difference.
Here's where it gets good. If I'm playing the $5.25 matches, I can cut it to 3 matches at a time. That should lead to about 48 matches a day, and if my winrate holds, I'm winning 36.9/day for $369 - $252 in fees = $117/day or $30.4k/year and that's only at the lowest levels of play.
I'm not really thinking of this as a career at the moment, I just want to build my bankroll, but it's intriguing to see what my current results could yield in the long term. Allright, I'm ending this post and delving into my mathematics behind my new theory, have fun with this next one, I did.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Few Heads up Matches
So I had to play a few more, and I made them count. This one gave me a spot of trouble though. Really bad player, who I pretty much dominated from the beginning. After 21 hands, I'd taken 1/3 of his stack, winning 17 of the 21 or 81%. All little pots, just taking his blinds, maybe a small raise and then a cbet taking it down on the flop. I kept whittling away at him and took his 950 down to 770, and had this hand occur.
Would've thought my putting him all in on the flop would discourage 9 high from calling, but I guess not. Things just got interesting, he's actually got the chip lead. Just 6 hands later I'd regained the lead slightly and this finished it off.
Scary board, but my AK held and netted me another victory. Good stuff.
Would've thought my putting him all in on the flop would discourage 9 high from calling, but I guess not. Things just got interesting, he's actually got the chip lead. Just 6 hands later I'd regained the lead slightly and this finished it off.
Scary board, but my AK held and netted me another victory. Good stuff.
Game Theory 101
[Disclaimer: This may make your head spin]
So I've been playing with game theory a bit and found some interesting results. Here's an example of a game theory strategy for NL.
Basic Concepts:
1) Get in pot cheaply
2) Massively overbet with some premium draws
3) Massively overbet with the nuts or the best hand
That's pretty much the idea, but it's not as easy to do as it sounds. You have to know what you're doing, cuz you play this the wrong way, and you're spewing chips like there's no tomorrow.
Example:
2 Players get to the flop and the pot is $500
Both players have $5,000 in their stacks
Player 2 on button has Ac Kd
Flop [Ah 7s 6s]
Game theory player moves all in.
Now he's on a draw a good 75% of the time. Here are hands covering the spectrum.
GT Hand, Bet/Call, GT Chances, GT Equity, Player Chances, Player Equity
1) Ts 8s $5,000 47.80% $5,019 52.20% $5,481
2) 8s 5h $5,000 37.00% $3,885 63.00% $6,615
3) 7h 7d $5,000 98.40% $10,332 1.60% $ 168
4) 5h 9s $5,000 23.70% $2,488 76.30% $8,012
Game Theory Equity: $21,724 Player Equity: $20,276
Now even knowing he's on a draw 75% of the time, that 25% costs so much that you cannot call profitably. In fact if you called his "stupid" overbet with tptk, he's going to win $1,448 every four hands played this way, or $362 a hand.
On top of this, when the game theory player shoves and is called by a better hand which gets drawn out on, that player may go on severe tilt, and blow off a ton more chips in the hands following the beat.
Finally, this player is going to pick up SO MANY chips from uncalled pots. It's very tough to have a hand you want to call that $5,000 bet with. This super pressure allows the GT player to win chips he never could from his hand's strength alone.
The biggest downside is going to be variance. Playing this hyper-aggressive style is going to yield some wild swings both for good and bad. If he shoves in ten times in a row with a 35% chance to win, 1.5% of the time he will miss all ten shoves. That's going to cost him $50,000. But make no mistake about it, the reward of this style is much higher than the risk when employed correctly.
Now that I touched on some basic game theory, my next post is my first attempt at creating my own game theory for uNL.
So I've been playing with game theory a bit and found some interesting results. Here's an example of a game theory strategy for NL.
Basic Concepts:
1) Get in pot cheaply
2) Massively overbet with some premium draws
3) Massively overbet with the nuts or the best hand
That's pretty much the idea, but it's not as easy to do as it sounds. You have to know what you're doing, cuz you play this the wrong way, and you're spewing chips like there's no tomorrow.
Example:
2 Players get to the flop and the pot is $500
Both players have $5,000 in their stacks
Player 2 on button has Ac Kd
Flop [Ah 7s 6s]
Game theory player moves all in.
Now he's on a draw a good 75% of the time. Here are hands covering the spectrum.
GT Hand, Bet/Call, GT Chances, GT Equity, Player Chances, Player Equity
1) Ts 8s $5,000 47.80% $5,019 52.20% $5,481
2) 8s 5h $5,000 37.00% $3,885 63.00% $6,615
3) 7h 7d $5,000 98.40% $10,332 1.60% $ 168
4) 5h 9s $5,000 23.70% $2,488 76.30% $8,012
Game Theory Equity: $21,724 Player Equity: $20,276
Now even knowing he's on a draw 75% of the time, that 25% costs so much that you cannot call profitably. In fact if you called his "stupid" overbet with tptk, he's going to win $1,448 every four hands played this way, or $362 a hand.
On top of this, when the game theory player shoves and is called by a better hand which gets drawn out on, that player may go on severe tilt, and blow off a ton more chips in the hands following the beat.
Finally, this player is going to pick up SO MANY chips from uncalled pots. It's very tough to have a hand you want to call that $5,000 bet with. This super pressure allows the GT player to win chips he never could from his hand's strength alone.
The biggest downside is going to be variance. Playing this hyper-aggressive style is going to yield some wild swings both for good and bad. If he shoves in ten times in a row with a 35% chance to win, 1.5% of the time he will miss all ten shoves. That's going to cost him $50,000. But make no mistake about it, the reward of this style is much higher than the risk when employed correctly.
Now that I touched on some basic game theory, my next post is my first attempt at creating my own game theory for uNL.
Heads up? Hell yes!
So I've got some good posting to do. Turns out theres' something on Stars that I never saw before. Insert Beer (best name ever) was kind enough to bring it to my attention that there are heads up tournaments on stars for micro stakes. And not only that, he was killing them, winning all six he played. Now I consider myself a pretty decent player, and I've really been working on my "Killer Poker" mentality, classifying opponnents and adjusting my game to take advantage of their style's specific weaknesses. I also consider myself wicked f***ing aggressive and figured I could run over the heads up games, basically leave people crying.
My bank wasn't very big at all, $25 or so. Right in that ballpark. So I sat myself at a heads up $2.00 + $0.20 hu sng. Winner gets $4 for a net gain of $1.80. Well I got sucked out on, and was feeling pretty damn unfulfilled. So I sat in another one...I won this time, and that was fun. I like winning money, but even better is to beat the guy. I beat you, I'm better than you, I'm awesome, you're not, blah blah blah, cuz I live for that. Speaking of, this isn't poker related, buttt my girlfriend kicked basically everyone's ass today at New Englad Collegiate Championships for swimming. She finished 5th in New England for the 100 Butterfly, and got the 2nd fastest time for the 100 Freestyle, but it was during a medly relay, so it doesn't count for that, but her team did get 6th overall which is cool.
But I digress....so I won the 2nd one, but that still left me negative, spending $4.40 on buyins and winning $4, so down $0.40. That meant I needed to play another, so I did, and I won. Then something happend. I just kept winning. I won the next 9 matches in a row in fact. Took a shot at the $5 + $0.25 heads up and lost the first, then won the next two. Then I stopped, cuz the roll still can't handle variance at that level, but I wanted to see how different it was. Answer: Not very.
When all the heads up to this point is tallied, I've played 3 $5.00 + $0.25 hu s&g's for a net profit of $4.25. I've also played 13 hus&g's for $2.00 + $0.20 for a net profit of $15.40. My record right now in heads up play is 13 wins and 3 losses. Not too shabby.
P.S. These are also earning me 1 FPP every time just like the 9 person sng's did, except they're faster and earning me wayyyyy more $$$.
My bank wasn't very big at all, $25 or so. Right in that ballpark. So I sat myself at a heads up $2.00 + $0.20 hu sng. Winner gets $4 for a net gain of $1.80. Well I got sucked out on, and was feeling pretty damn unfulfilled. So I sat in another one...I won this time, and that was fun. I like winning money, but even better is to beat the guy. I beat you, I'm better than you, I'm awesome, you're not, blah blah blah, cuz I live for that. Speaking of, this isn't poker related, buttt my girlfriend kicked basically everyone's ass today at New Englad Collegiate Championships for swimming. She finished 5th in New England for the 100 Butterfly, and got the 2nd fastest time for the 100 Freestyle, but it was during a medly relay, so it doesn't count for that, but her team did get 6th overall which is cool.
But I digress....so I won the 2nd one, but that still left me negative, spending $4.40 on buyins and winning $4, so down $0.40. That meant I needed to play another, so I did, and I won. Then something happend. I just kept winning. I won the next 9 matches in a row in fact. Took a shot at the $5 + $0.25 heads up and lost the first, then won the next two. Then I stopped, cuz the roll still can't handle variance at that level, but I wanted to see how different it was. Answer: Not very.
When all the heads up to this point is tallied, I've played 3 $5.00 + $0.25 hu s&g's for a net profit of $4.25. I've also played 13 hus&g's for $2.00 + $0.20 for a net profit of $15.40. My record right now in heads up play is 13 wins and 3 losses. Not too shabby.
P.S. These are also earning me 1 FPP every time just like the 9 person sng's did, except they're faster and earning me wayyyyy more $$$.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
I miss poker :(
It's been a long time since my last blog, and I'm sad about that. I've been very busy lately including the startup of my 3rd business. While I didn't need money for funding those startup costs, there were other "life-beats" that came about, and I was forced to be a mature adult, blah blah blah, (still NOT happy about this!) and cash out my entire bankroll to pay for things that aren't fun in life ($400 eyeglasses are on this list...as an aside not having insurance sucks when you have to pay for things, but I'm pretty sure I'm still very +EV for not having it).
So, my awesome progess, my 12-tabling, working towards an actual career playing cards, has all come to a ridiculously quick screeching halt. I managed to retain $30 on my epassporte after paying bills, so I've shoved it back onto stars, and going to start grinding the $.01/$.02 NL and $1.20 sngs to try and make a rush at finishing my FPP $50 bonus, giving me enough room to safely (in my opinion of my own personal play and results) 4-6 table $.02/$.05 and try to rebuild my roll.
This is the 2nd most I've ever wanted something, right after wanting to become a professional athlete. I'm going to do everything in my power to make this a reality, even if it's just playing 8 hours a week for a little extra something, if I'm grinding out 5BB/100 and my usual 700ish per hour, I'd be pulling down an extra $140 at $.10/$.25 all the way to $560 a week at $.50/$1.
As of late, I've been active on 2p2 more reading and talking with my favorite pokerstar, insert beer. Strategerizing is fun and all, but it's time for this junkie to get back to the felt. I hope I'm typing again sooner than later, and with good news. No more lifebeats, and who knows? Maybe even a life-suckout :)
P.S.
I'm resetting my Tracking Meter for my bankroll. I'm very sad about this, but I don't think it's right to freeze it. Instead I'm making a note for myself that before my lifebeat, I had 56% of my required roll for $.10/$.25.
So, my awesome progess, my 12-tabling, working towards an actual career playing cards, has all come to a ridiculously quick screeching halt. I managed to retain $30 on my epassporte after paying bills, so I've shoved it back onto stars, and going to start grinding the $.01/$.02 NL and $1.20 sngs to try and make a rush at finishing my FPP $50 bonus, giving me enough room to safely (in my opinion of my own personal play and results) 4-6 table $.02/$.05 and try to rebuild my roll.
This is the 2nd most I've ever wanted something, right after wanting to become a professional athlete. I'm going to do everything in my power to make this a reality, even if it's just playing 8 hours a week for a little extra something, if I'm grinding out 5BB/100 and my usual 700ish per hour, I'd be pulling down an extra $140 at $.10/$.25 all the way to $560 a week at $.50/$1.
As of late, I've been active on 2p2 more reading and talking with my favorite pokerstar, insert beer. Strategerizing is fun and all, but it's time for this junkie to get back to the felt. I hope I'm typing again sooner than later, and with good news. No more lifebeats, and who knows? Maybe even a life-suckout :)
P.S.
I'm resetting my Tracking Meter for my bankroll. I'm very sad about this, but I don't think it's right to freeze it. Instead I'm making a note for myself that before my lifebeat, I had 56% of my required roll for $.10/$.25.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
