I placed 60th out of about 114. The hand I went out, it was folded around to me in the small blind and I raised with ATo. The big blind re-raised and I went all-in. Yes, it was a bluff, but I had been showing nothing but quality for the entire morning. The two of us started the hand with virtually identical stacks. He called with AJo, which has to be about the dumbest thing I've seen anyone do at Bay 101 all year long. Seriously. If you're in his seat, do you really, really think your AJo is good enough to risk your entire tournament life on?
So I came home and have been playing online some more and being repeatedly screwed. Shit like this:
PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $12+$1 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2007/08/29 - 17:25:44 (ET)
Table '59681430 1' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: villain (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: (1500 in chips)
Seat 4: (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: hero (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: posts small blind 10
Seat 3: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kd Ac]
Seat 4: calls 20
hero: raises 60 to 80
Seat 6: folds
villain: calls 80
Seat 2: folds
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Ts Kc Kh]
Seat 4: checks
hero: checks
villain: checks
*** TURN *** [Ts Kc Kh] [2d]
Seat 4 has timed out
Seat 4: folds
Seat 4 is sitting out
hero: checks
villain: bets 100
hero: calls 100
Got him right where I want him.
*** RIVER *** [Ts Kc Kh 2d] [6s]
hero: bets 200
villain: raises 200 to 400
hero: raises 920 to 1320 and is all-in
villain: calls 920 and is all-in
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero: shows [Kd Ac] (three of a kind, Kings)
villain: shows [6d 6c] (a full house, Sixes full of Kings)
Fucked again.
Seat 1 collected 3110 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3110 | Rake 0
Board [Ts Kc Kh 2d 6s]
Seat 1: villain (button) showed [6d 6c] and won (3110) with a full house, Sixes full of Kings
Seat 2: (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: folded on the Turn
Seat 5: hero showed [Kd Ac] and lost with three of a kind, Kings
Seat 6: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
I just don't know what I have to do to win anymore. It's really, really, depressing.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Bay 101 Open short-handed tournament
Well, I'm here at the one Bay 101 Open event I'm willing to miss work for. This event will be 20 tables of 6. Very unusual for a B&M site to play that way. The entire poker floor looks like it's shut down just for us.
I've had a really rotten week at FTP. Let's hope things have chosen this exact moment to turn around.
I've had a really rotten week at FTP. Let's hope things have chosen this exact moment to turn around.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tournament strategy
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:19:19 ET - 2007/08/24
Seat 1: (100)
Seat 2: hero (1,515)
Seat 3: (1,455)
Seat 4: (1,960)
Seat 5: (1,440)
Seat 6: (2,530)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jc 4d]
Seat 3 calls 40
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
Seat 1 raises to 100, and is all in
hero calls 60
What?! Calling a pre-flop raise out of position with jack-crap offsuit?!
Yes. Because he was extremely short and because I was partially invested. The goal of a tournament is to get rid of everybody else at the table. The more people who call a short stack all-in the more likely he will be beaten. The same reasoning leads to the other cardinal rule of tournament poker: Never, ever, ever bluff into a dry side pot. By bluffing into a dry side pot you could chase away a hand that has the all-in player beat. You can't bluff the all-in player. All you can do is lose to him. If you're going to lose the pot anyway, better to lose it to a big stack than chip up a small stack.
Seat 3 calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8s 3c Ac]
hero checks
Seat 3 checks
*** TURN *** [8s 3c Ac] [Kc]
hero checks
Seat 3 checks
*** RIVER *** [8s 3c Ac Kc] [Tc]
Nice. I've caught my flush, and it's the 2nd-to-nut flush. I said the rule was to never bluff into a dry side pot. Not never to bet into one.
hero bets 300
I suppose making it a pot-sized bet was potentially a mistake. Better to try and bet for value, but I really wanted to know if my neighbor in the side pot had the queen of clubs. Besides, it's clear that the goal here is to get rid of the short stack. Better to send the message that I'm not bluffing.
Seat 3 folds
Uncalled bet of 300 returned to hero
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [Jc 4d] a flush, Ace high
Seat 1 mucks
hero wins the pot (300) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 1 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 300 | Rake 0
Board: [8s 3c Ac Kc Tc]
Seat 1: (small blind) mucked [Ks 6h] - a pair of Kings
See? What would have happened if, say, Seat 1 had bluffed at the pot post-flop with, say, Qd 4h. He would have chased me away and lost the pot to the short stack. He'd have still lost his pre-flop call, so for him the outcome would not have changed, but we'd still have 6 players at the table instead of 5.
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [Jc 4d] and won (300) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 3: folded on the River
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 1: (100)
Seat 2: hero (1,515)
Seat 3: (1,455)
Seat 4: (1,960)
Seat 5: (1,440)
Seat 6: (2,530)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jc 4d]
Seat 3 calls 40
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
Seat 1 raises to 100, and is all in
hero calls 60
What?! Calling a pre-flop raise out of position with jack-crap offsuit?!
Yes. Because he was extremely short and because I was partially invested. The goal of a tournament is to get rid of everybody else at the table. The more people who call a short stack all-in the more likely he will be beaten. The same reasoning leads to the other cardinal rule of tournament poker: Never, ever, ever bluff into a dry side pot. By bluffing into a dry side pot you could chase away a hand that has the all-in player beat. You can't bluff the all-in player. All you can do is lose to him. If you're going to lose the pot anyway, better to lose it to a big stack than chip up a small stack.
Seat 3 calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8s 3c Ac]
hero checks
Seat 3 checks
*** TURN *** [8s 3c Ac] [Kc]
hero checks
Seat 3 checks
*** RIVER *** [8s 3c Ac Kc] [Tc]
Nice. I've caught my flush, and it's the 2nd-to-nut flush. I said the rule was to never bluff into a dry side pot. Not never to bet into one.
hero bets 300
I suppose making it a pot-sized bet was potentially a mistake. Better to try and bet for value, but I really wanted to know if my neighbor in the side pot had the queen of clubs. Besides, it's clear that the goal here is to get rid of the short stack. Better to send the message that I'm not bluffing.
Seat 3 folds
Uncalled bet of 300 returned to hero
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [Jc 4d] a flush, Ace high
Seat 1 mucks
hero wins the pot (300) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 1 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 300 | Rake 0
Board: [8s 3c Ac Kc Tc]
Seat 1: (small blind) mucked [Ks 6h] - a pair of Kings
See? What would have happened if, say, Seat 1 had bluffed at the pot post-flop with, say, Qd 4h. He would have chased me away and lost the pot to the short stack. He'd have still lost his pre-flop call, so for him the outcome would not have changed, but we'd still have 6 players at the table instead of 5.
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [Jc 4d] and won (300) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 3: folded on the River
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Syndrome of a down
Serj, the lead singer of System of a Down has a solo album that's starting to get air-play on SquiZZ. I have a message for Serj:
Gilbert & Sullivan called. They said you should stop biting their style.
Gilbert & Sullivan called. They said you should stop biting their style.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Why me?
I really don't understand why this sort of thing keeps happening. I really don't.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $5 + $0.50 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 30/60 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:42:42 ET - 2007/08/21
Seat 2: (1,465)
Seat 3: hero (3,845)
Seat 5: villain (3,690)
Seat 2 posts the small blind of 30
nsayer posts the big blind of 60
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jd Ts]
villain raises to 210
This guy has been getting out of line all tourney long. His pre-flop raises no longer have any value.
Seat 2 folds
hero calls 150
*** FLOP *** [7c Td 9h]
If he has an over-pair, then so be it. But I just don't think he does.
hero checks
villain bets 450
hero raises to 1,800
villain raises to 3,150
hero raises to 3,635, and is all in
villain calls 330, and is all in
hero shows [Jd Ts]
villain shows [9c 8d]
Uh huh. Outside straight draw. He's a 2:1 underdog at this point. He can't get the 8 for two pair, since that'll give me the better straight.
Uncalled bet of 155 returned to nsayer
*** TURN *** [7c Td 9h] [6d]
Naturally.
*** RIVER *** [7c Td 9h 6d] [4s]
hero shows a pair of Tens
villain shows a straight, Ten high
villain wins the pot (7,410) with a straight, Ten high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 7,410 | Rake 0
Board: [7c Td 9h 6d 4s]
Seat 2: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: hero (big blind) showed [Jd Ts] and lost with a pair of Tens
Seat 5: villain (button) showed [9c 8d] and won (7,410) with a straight, Ten high
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $5 + $0.50 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 30/60 - No Limit Hold'em - 21:42:42 ET - 2007/08/21
Seat 2: (1,465)
Seat 3: hero (3,845)
Seat 5: villain (3,690)
Seat 2 posts the small blind of 30
nsayer posts the big blind of 60
The button is in seat #5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Jd Ts]
villain raises to 210
This guy has been getting out of line all tourney long. His pre-flop raises no longer have any value.
Seat 2 folds
hero calls 150
*** FLOP *** [7c Td 9h]
If he has an over-pair, then so be it. But I just don't think he does.
hero checks
villain bets 450
hero raises to 1,800
villain raises to 3,150
hero raises to 3,635, and is all in
villain calls 330, and is all in
hero shows [Jd Ts]
villain shows [9c 8d]
Uh huh. Outside straight draw. He's a 2:1 underdog at this point. He can't get the 8 for two pair, since that'll give me the better straight.
Uncalled bet of 155 returned to nsayer
*** TURN *** [7c Td 9h] [6d]
Naturally.
*** RIVER *** [7c Td 9h 6d] [4s]
hero shows a pair of Tens
villain shows a straight, Ten high
villain wins the pot (7,410) with a straight, Ten high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 7,410 | Rake 0
Board: [7c Td 9h 6d 4s]
Seat 2: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: hero (big blind) showed [Jd Ts] and lost with a pair of Tens
Seat 5: villain (button) showed [9c 8d] and won (7,410) with a straight, Ten high
Sunday, August 19, 2007
One of these things is not like the other
I went to the Apple store at Valley Fair today to pick up a new monitor and have some lunch (Genghis Khan's mongolian BBQ in the food court. Almost as good as our normal mongo on El Camino, but they're open for lunch on Sunday). While I was there, I stumbled upon the Dell kiosk. Since I had my iPhone, I decided to snap a picture:
Now, the Apple store is actually under construction right now. They have a temporary store open in a little sliver of space next door to the real store. The temporary store isn't nearly as large or nice as the real store used to be. I can only hope that the new store will be an improvement. Anyway, with all that as a prologue, here's what the Apple store looked like at about the same time as the picture above of the Dell kiosk:
Uh huh. I don't think anyone needs to wonder if it's really true that Apple is gaining market share.
Now, the Apple store is actually under construction right now. They have a temporary store open in a little sliver of space next door to the real store. The temporary store isn't nearly as large or nice as the real store used to be. I can only hope that the new store will be an improvement. Anyway, with all that as a prologue, here's what the Apple store looked like at about the same time as the picture above of the Dell kiosk:
Uh huh. I don't think anyone needs to wonder if it's really true that Apple is gaining market share.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Turned the corner at P*!
I've done it: I have become profitable lifetime at PokerStars. I now am +$20 lifetime with a +2% ROI. I've also once again repeated my cycle of cashing in for $25, tripling up to exceed the $75 check limit and cashing out. I am a happy man today.
The original plan was to stop playing at P*, since I like the FTP mac software better than having to run P* in VMWare. I still may do that, but it is tempting to stick with what works, I have to say.
The original plan was to stop playing at P*, since I like the FTP mac software better than having to run P* in VMWare. I still may do that, but it is tempting to stick with what works, I have to say.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Tired of bullshit suck-outs
Played in the Bay 101 midnight points qualifier this evening. This is a re-buy tournament. I hate re-buy tournaments. But I came out of the re-buy period relatively unscathed. I re-bought once before we started (everybody did), and I did the add-on (everybody did), but didn't re-buy anymore than that with about the third highest stack at the table. About the 4th hand after the first break I'm in the small blind and get ATo. It's folded around, so I raise. The big blind calls. The flop comes KK4. I decide to represent the king by check-raising, so I check but then the big blind goes all-in. Now, if the flop had one king, I could fold. But would he really push if he flopped top set? Wouldn't he want to get value? So I went with my read that my AT was good and called. He turns over 56o. The table was suitably awed with my read. But then he rivers a 5 and I am out. Let's see: a 6 outer on the river is, what, a 7:1 dog?
Last night in the last midnight tournament for this group I got fucked just as badly. I had AQ suited and was short, so I went all-in and got two callers. The flop missed everybody, so both of them went all-in. One had 7s, the other had 8s. I got my ace on the river, which made me a 9:1 favorite. And the river came a 7.
So, I say to the poker Gods... whatever it is that I've done, I'M SORRY!
Last night in the last midnight tournament for this group I got fucked just as badly. I had AQ suited and was short, so I went all-in and got two callers. The flop missed everybody, so both of them went all-in. One had 7s, the other had 8s. I got my ace on the river, which made me a 9:1 favorite. And the river came a 7.
So, I say to the poker Gods... whatever it is that I've done, I'M SORRY!
Monday, August 13, 2007
Just how pot committed are you?
For those who don't know, being pot committed means that either your opponent has gone all-in for such a small amount that the pot odds demand a call or that your stack is so short that the same thing applies.
When you're in the latter situation, I think pot odds become a less than deciding factor - after all, your tournament life is on the line, and that's worth whatever the tournament buy-in was in real dollars.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $30 + $3 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 6:23:40 ET - 2007/08/13
Seat 1: villain (420)
Seat 2: (1,405)
Seat 3: (4,358)
Seat 5: (1,237)
Seat 7: (160)
Seat 8: (3,150)
Seat 9: hero (2,770)
Seat 2 posts the small blind of 25
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4h Ad]
Seat 5 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
hero raises to 150
An ace in the cut-off folded around? Sure.
villain calls 150
Seat 2 calls 125
Seat 3 calls 100
*** FLOP *** [9h 4d As]
Nice!
Seat 2 checks
Seat 3 checks
hero bets 600
villain calls 270, and is all in
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
hero shows [4h Ad]
villain shows [6d 5c]
Say what?
If he was going to call the pre-flop raise short stacked, why didn't he just move in? I probably would have folded my crappy ace. What was he really hoping to get with his 6-high post-flop? The back-door 78? Even if he thought I was just making a continuation bet, say, with KQo, I still had him down to 6 outs. Yes, there was 1200 in the pot and it cost him 270 to make the call, but it was his last 270, and against the pre-flop raiser. There's no chance at all I had an ace?
Uncalled bet of 330 returned to hero
*** TURN *** [9h 4d As] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [9h 4d As 3d] [8s]
hero shows two pair, Aces and Fours
villain shows Ace Nine high
hero wins the pot (1,140) with two pair, Aces and Fours
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,140 | Rake 0
Board: [9h 4d As 3d 8s]
Seat 1: villain (button) showed [6d 5c] and lost with Ace Nine high
Seat 2: (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 3: (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: hero showed [4h Ad] and won (1,140) with two pair, Aces and Fours
When you're in the latter situation, I think pot odds become a less than deciding factor - after all, your tournament life is on the line, and that's worth whatever the tournament buy-in was in real dollars.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $30 + $3 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 6:23:40 ET - 2007/08/13
Seat 1: villain (420)
Seat 2: (1,405)
Seat 3: (4,358)
Seat 5: (1,237)
Seat 7: (160)
Seat 8: (3,150)
Seat 9: hero (2,770)
Seat 2 posts the small blind of 25
Seat 3 posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4h Ad]
Seat 5 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
hero raises to 150
An ace in the cut-off folded around? Sure.
villain calls 150
Seat 2 calls 125
Seat 3 calls 100
*** FLOP *** [9h 4d As]
Nice!
Seat 2 checks
Seat 3 checks
hero bets 600
villain calls 270, and is all in
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
hero shows [4h Ad]
villain shows [6d 5c]
Say what?
If he was going to call the pre-flop raise short stacked, why didn't he just move in? I probably would have folded my crappy ace. What was he really hoping to get with his 6-high post-flop? The back-door 78? Even if he thought I was just making a continuation bet, say, with KQo, I still had him down to 6 outs. Yes, there was 1200 in the pot and it cost him 270 to make the call, but it was his last 270, and against the pre-flop raiser. There's no chance at all I had an ace?
Uncalled bet of 330 returned to hero
*** TURN *** [9h 4d As] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [9h 4d As 3d] [8s]
hero shows two pair, Aces and Fours
villain shows Ace Nine high
hero wins the pot (1,140) with two pair, Aces and Fours
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,140 | Rake 0
Board: [9h 4d As 3d 8s]
Seat 1: villain (button) showed [6d 5c] and lost with Ace Nine high
Seat 2: (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 3: (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: hero showed [4h Ad] and won (1,140) with two pair, Aces and Fours
Sunday, August 12, 2007
King Kong says, "It's loose!"
It's been a bad poker morning. Every coin flip has come up tails, everybody has sucked out. It's just been stupid chilly.
Here's a hand where the lessons of position were drilled in once again.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 16:52:29 ET - 2007/08/12
Seat 1: (890)
Seat 2: (2,310)
Seat 3: hero (1,515)
Seat 4: (1,410)
Seat 5: (1,240)
Seat 6: (1,635)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 20
Seat 2 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kc Jc]
hero raises to 120
A loose raise under the gun, I admit. But I had been very tight and thought it was good enough to try for a steal.
Seat 4 calls 120
Seat 5 calls 120
Seat 6 raises to 480
Seat 1 raises to 890, and is all in
Seat 2 folds
And, of course, that's pretty much the worst case scenario. The one nice thing about raising with a less-than-fantastic hand is that it's easy to get away from it.
hero folds
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 calls 770
Seat 6 raises to 1,635, and is all in
Seat 5 calls 350, and is all in
Seat 6 shows [Ad As]
Seat 1 shows [Th Qd]
Seat 5 shows [7s 9s]
Obviously, the rockets I can understand, but 79s? He called a raise, then called a re-raise and all-in? And QTo went all-in after a re-raise?
Ironically, I had them all beat apart from the aces.
Uncalled bet of 395 returned to Seat 6
*** FLOP *** [6s 5c 5h]
*** TURN *** [6s 5c 5h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [6s 5c 5h 2h] [6h]
Seat 6 shows two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 5 shows two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6 wins the side pot (700) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 1 shows two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6 wins the main pot (2,950) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 1 stands up
Seat 5 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,650 Main pot 2,950. Side pot 700. | Rake 0
Board: [6s 5c 5h 2h 6h]
Seat 1: (small blind) showed [Th Qd] and lost with two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 2: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: hero folded before the Flop
Seat 4: folded before the Flop
Seat 5: showed [7s 9s] and lost with two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6: (button) showed [Ad As] and won (3,650) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Here's a hand where the lessons of position were drilled in once again.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $10 + $1 Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 16:52:29 ET - 2007/08/12
Seat 1: (890)
Seat 2: (2,310)
Seat 3: hero (1,515)
Seat 4: (1,410)
Seat 5: (1,240)
Seat 6: (1,635)
Seat 1 posts the small blind of 20
Seat 2 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kc Jc]
hero raises to 120
A loose raise under the gun, I admit. But I had been very tight and thought it was good enough to try for a steal.
Seat 4 calls 120
Seat 5 calls 120
Seat 6 raises to 480
Seat 1 raises to 890, and is all in
Seat 2 folds
And, of course, that's pretty much the worst case scenario. The one nice thing about raising with a less-than-fantastic hand is that it's easy to get away from it.
hero folds
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 calls 770
Seat 6 raises to 1,635, and is all in
Seat 5 calls 350, and is all in
Seat 6 shows [Ad As]
Seat 1 shows [Th Qd]
Seat 5 shows [7s 9s]
Obviously, the rockets I can understand, but 79s? He called a raise, then called a re-raise and all-in? And QTo went all-in after a re-raise?
Ironically, I had them all beat apart from the aces.
Uncalled bet of 395 returned to Seat 6
*** FLOP *** [6s 5c 5h]
*** TURN *** [6s 5c 5h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [6s 5c 5h 2h] [6h]
Seat 6 shows two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 5 shows two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6 wins the side pot (700) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 1 shows two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6 wins the main pot (2,950) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 1 stands up
Seat 5 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,650 Main pot 2,950. Side pot 700. | Rake 0
Board: [6s 5c 5h 2h 6h]
Seat 1: (small blind) showed [Th Qd] and lost with two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 2: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: hero folded before the Flop
Seat 4: folded before the Flop
Seat 5: showed [7s 9s] and lost with two pair, Sixes and Fives
Seat 6: (button) showed [Ad As] and won (3,650) with two pair, Aces and Sixes
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Bread machine bread recipe
A slight variation on Alton Brown's bread recipe from Good Eats episode Dr. Strangeloaf:
1 pound bread flour
10 ounces water
2 tsp sugar
2 tsp salt
1 tsp instant yeast
Measuring the flour by weight is the key.
Add to bread machine pan in the right order (water flour, sugar, salt, yeast).
Use 1½ pound white cycle.
1 pound bread flour
10 ounces water
2 tsp sugar
2 tsp salt
1 tsp instant yeast
Measuring the flour by weight is the key.
Add to bread machine pan in the right order (water flour, sugar, salt, yeast).
Use 1½ pound white cycle.
The future of Microsoft
With the release of iWork '08, Apple now has a competitive answer that lines up perfectly against Microsoft's two main monopolistic pillars: Windows and Office.
If Apple continues to gain installed-base share, it won't be too long before the automatic nature of the purchasing policies of business stop being quite so automatic. When that happens, the curve will get a nice knee in it and Apple will at the very least achieve a duopoly.
At that point, what does Microsoft do?
It took them 6 years to release Windows XP.2, aka Vista. And the world has not stopped yawning. Will Vista be the last monopoly Windows product?
I think everyone can agree that without the monopoly propping it up, Windows has nothing to recommend it. And it's interesting to note that the only competition left are Unix clones of one sort or another (in fact, MacOS X recently passed the Open Group's Unix certification, so it's safe to say that MacOS X is not just a Unix clone anymore - it IS Unix).
The Windows NT architecture is dead. It hasn't seen any significant development since Windows 2000. Microsoft's development cycles are doubling in length for each minor release (though if that trend continues, Vista's successor won't appear until 2019, so it's unlikely that it will). Microsoft has, in the past, stated that .Net was the way forward, but most apps for Windows still use the WIn32 api. In that sense, the applications barrier to entry is now working against Microsoft in exactly the same way it has worked against Java and all of the rest of its competitors.
No, it's clear that Microsoft's only alternative to move forward is to do what Apple did when it was in the same spot 10 years ago. Microsoft needs to throw away the underlying architecture and start over. And as it does so, it can provide a backwards compatibility layer for legacy Win32 applications.
So what should they choose?
Linux.
Shocking? Not so much. I didn't say GNU/Linux. I don't suggest that Microsoft should adopt the Gnu LIBC implementation. Microsoft would likely make a clean-room reimplementation of the basic Unix library set. Why would they do that? Because they'll be falling back on their old bag of tricks: embrace, enhance, destroy. By making subtle, incompatible changes to the API, they can re-achieve platform lock-in. Doing this in the kernel will be virtually impossible because of the GPL. But the kernel is irrelevant. Make the libraries proprietary and Microsoft will realize the revenue stream anyway. See also: Mach and MacOS X.
What would Microsoft gain from this strategy? Well, assuming they didn't do it in an asinine way, they'd gain a lot of security improvements. They'd gain incalculable political points - they'd be able to claim that they were based on an "open" system, even though the most important bits would be closed. They'd pass off development and maintenance of their kernel to someone else, effectively, which would dramatically reduce their costs. And to top it all off, this is the exact same play that Apple made when they brought out OS X, so it's not a completely unprecedented move.
It would take some imagination for someone in the upper echelons to grasp this concept. It's not something I think Steve would be able to figure out without help. But maybe Bill still has enough imagination left.
If Apple continues to gain installed-base share, it won't be too long before the automatic nature of the purchasing policies of business stop being quite so automatic. When that happens, the curve will get a nice knee in it and Apple will at the very least achieve a duopoly.
At that point, what does Microsoft do?
It took them 6 years to release Windows XP.2, aka Vista. And the world has not stopped yawning. Will Vista be the last monopoly Windows product?
I think everyone can agree that without the monopoly propping it up, Windows has nothing to recommend it. And it's interesting to note that the only competition left are Unix clones of one sort or another (in fact, MacOS X recently passed the Open Group's Unix certification, so it's safe to say that MacOS X is not just a Unix clone anymore - it IS Unix).
The Windows NT architecture is dead. It hasn't seen any significant development since Windows 2000. Microsoft's development cycles are doubling in length for each minor release (though if that trend continues, Vista's successor won't appear until 2019, so it's unlikely that it will). Microsoft has, in the past, stated that .Net was the way forward, but most apps for Windows still use the WIn32 api. In that sense, the applications barrier to entry is now working against Microsoft in exactly the same way it has worked against Java and all of the rest of its competitors.
No, it's clear that Microsoft's only alternative to move forward is to do what Apple did when it was in the same spot 10 years ago. Microsoft needs to throw away the underlying architecture and start over. And as it does so, it can provide a backwards compatibility layer for legacy Win32 applications.
So what should they choose?
Linux.
Shocking? Not so much. I didn't say GNU/Linux. I don't suggest that Microsoft should adopt the Gnu LIBC implementation. Microsoft would likely make a clean-room reimplementation of the basic Unix library set. Why would they do that? Because they'll be falling back on their old bag of tricks: embrace, enhance, destroy. By making subtle, incompatible changes to the API, they can re-achieve platform lock-in. Doing this in the kernel will be virtually impossible because of the GPL. But the kernel is irrelevant. Make the libraries proprietary and Microsoft will realize the revenue stream anyway. See also: Mach and MacOS X.
What would Microsoft gain from this strategy? Well, assuming they didn't do it in an asinine way, they'd gain a lot of security improvements. They'd gain incalculable political points - they'd be able to claim that they were based on an "open" system, even though the most important bits would be closed. They'd pass off development and maintenance of their kernel to someone else, effectively, which would dramatically reduce their costs. And to top it all off, this is the exact same play that Apple made when they brought out OS X, so it's not a completely unprecedented move.
It would take some imagination for someone in the upper echelons to grasp this concept. It's not something I think Steve would be able to figure out without help. But maybe Bill still has enough imagination left.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Casino Royale
So a while ago, before I created this blog, I saw Casino Royale and, since they played a lot of poker, I'd been asked by a couple of friends for my opinions on the depiction of poker in the film.
The very first scene, where Bond was at a ring game and the dealer insisted on table stakes was my first "Yes!" moment. So often in the movies they make a big deal about one player or another trying to either add a marker to a bet or what not, where the reality of modern poker games is that table stakes is all you ever see. I don't think the casino would have (or should have) allowed the car as a bet, since there was no way to quickly establish the value of it so that Bond could correctly match the bet, but whatever.
That takes us to the tournament. Which had some issues.
1. They splash the pot a lot when making bets, particularly all-ins. If you are a monster chip-lead at the table and you go all-in, the usual move is to put out a small token stack of chips as you say "all-in," not to take your hands and mush a big pile of chips forward. After the hand, if you win, you don't have such a mess to clean up if you do it the right way. If you lose, the dealer will count your opponent's stack and tell you exactly how much to count out to double him up.
2. This was a tournament. That being the case, the apparent relationship between the buy-in amounts and the tournament chip denominations is fiction. The players were regularly making "million dollar" bets and raises, but it would be far more likely for them to start with T$10000. And if this was Montenegro, wouldn't it all have been in Euros?
3. Vesper should not have had any qualms about giving Bond the re-buy. His entire explanation should have been, "Bad beat (shrug)." Her response, "That's poker. Go try again." If he was bluffing with 72o, it would have been a different story, but he had LeChiff beat until the river.
4. The last hand had some issues. When the two short-stacks moved all-in, there was $30M in the pot. LeChiff's raise of $6M was way, way, way too small. Given his hand, he should have pushed all-in at that moment. The showdown was also wrong. Bond was the last player not all-in to take aggressive action, so he would have been first to show his hand. He would have shown the straight-flush and everybody else would have mucked. Not nearly as dramatic, of course. But if LeChiff had raised the correct amount, then he would have had to show first and Bond would have shown second - the side pots always come before the main. Another way that play could have gone would have been for LeChiff and Bond to just check the hand down. Their real interests were in getting rid of the short stacks and going heads-up for the tournament. It's hard to make a case for that play with a boat and a straight flush, but it would have been a reasonable alternative. The saying is, "Never bluff into a dry side-pot." Finally, What was Bond doing anywhere NEAR that last hand with 57s? That's a donkey play. It would have been defensible if he was the big blind and was allowed to check, but from what I could tell, he was on the button. Maybe he raised on the button to steal, but then I'd be surprised that he got 3 callers. It would have been far more plausible for him to have shown A8 for a better boat than LeChiff's Aces-over-6s (he would have had top two pair on the flop, too, though at that point the two short stacks had a set of 8s and a flush and were both beating him). In the film, until the turn, all he had was the 7-flush with an outside straight-flush draw. Yes, it's a flush, but it's vulnerable to an over-flush (which in this case the short stack actually had). Last, but not least, if there was $20M in the pot before the flop, why weren't the short stacks already all-in? ESPECIALLY the guy with 8s? What, exactly, were they saving the extra $5M and $6M for? He could have easily pushed Bond out pre-flop, and probably LeChiff as well. The two blinds would have battled it out and the flush would have been sent packing and the 8-boat would have doubled up. The three-handed chip-stacks would have been not entirely unreasonable, with LeChiff and Bond both about even with about 40% chips each and the short stack with 20%.
5. At the end, Bond tipped the dealer with what would have been a tournament chip with no actual monetary value. Asshole. You know that's the case because of all of the real money shenanigans with the passwords and the telephoning into swiss bank accounts and on and on that followed. If the chips were money, then he wouldn't have bothered with any of that. He simply would have cashed them out.
The very first scene, where Bond was at a ring game and the dealer insisted on table stakes was my first "Yes!" moment. So often in the movies they make a big deal about one player or another trying to either add a marker to a bet or what not, where the reality of modern poker games is that table stakes is all you ever see. I don't think the casino would have (or should have) allowed the car as a bet, since there was no way to quickly establish the value of it so that Bond could correctly match the bet, but whatever.
That takes us to the tournament. Which had some issues.
1. They splash the pot a lot when making bets, particularly all-ins. If you are a monster chip-lead at the table and you go all-in, the usual move is to put out a small token stack of chips as you say "all-in," not to take your hands and mush a big pile of chips forward. After the hand, if you win, you don't have such a mess to clean up if you do it the right way. If you lose, the dealer will count your opponent's stack and tell you exactly how much to count out to double him up.
2. This was a tournament. That being the case, the apparent relationship between the buy-in amounts and the tournament chip denominations is fiction. The players were regularly making "million dollar" bets and raises, but it would be far more likely for them to start with T$10000. And if this was Montenegro, wouldn't it all have been in Euros?
3. Vesper should not have had any qualms about giving Bond the re-buy. His entire explanation should have been, "Bad beat (shrug)." Her response, "That's poker. Go try again." If he was bluffing with 72o, it would have been a different story, but he had LeChiff beat until the river.
4. The last hand had some issues. When the two short-stacks moved all-in, there was $30M in the pot. LeChiff's raise of $6M was way, way, way too small. Given his hand, he should have pushed all-in at that moment. The showdown was also wrong. Bond was the last player not all-in to take aggressive action, so he would have been first to show his hand. He would have shown the straight-flush and everybody else would have mucked. Not nearly as dramatic, of course. But if LeChiff had raised the correct amount, then he would have had to show first and Bond would have shown second - the side pots always come before the main. Another way that play could have gone would have been for LeChiff and Bond to just check the hand down. Their real interests were in getting rid of the short stacks and going heads-up for the tournament. It's hard to make a case for that play with a boat and a straight flush, but it would have been a reasonable alternative. The saying is, "Never bluff into a dry side-pot." Finally, What was Bond doing anywhere NEAR that last hand with 57s? That's a donkey play. It would have been defensible if he was the big blind and was allowed to check, but from what I could tell, he was on the button. Maybe he raised on the button to steal, but then I'd be surprised that he got 3 callers. It would have been far more plausible for him to have shown A8 for a better boat than LeChiff's Aces-over-6s (he would have had top two pair on the flop, too, though at that point the two short stacks had a set of 8s and a flush and were both beating him). In the film, until the turn, all he had was the 7-flush with an outside straight-flush draw. Yes, it's a flush, but it's vulnerable to an over-flush (which in this case the short stack actually had). Last, but not least, if there was $20M in the pot before the flop, why weren't the short stacks already all-in? ESPECIALLY the guy with 8s? What, exactly, were they saving the extra $5M and $6M for? He could have easily pushed Bond out pre-flop, and probably LeChiff as well. The two blinds would have battled it out and the flush would have been sent packing and the 8-boat would have doubled up. The three-handed chip-stacks would have been not entirely unreasonable, with LeChiff and Bond both about even with about 40% chips each and the short stack with 20%.
5. At the end, Bond tipped the dealer with what would have been a tournament chip with no actual monetary value. Asshole. You know that's the case because of all of the real money shenanigans with the passwords and the telephoning into swiss bank accounts and on and on that followed. If the chips were money, then he wouldn't have bothered with any of that. He simply would have cashed them out.
Out in one hand
When you see someone lose a tournament in one hand, it either means that one of the players in the hand is a complete donkey or one of them got ridiculously unlucky. And there aren't many situations that match that description. Pocket Aces vs. pocket Kings is certainly a qualifier. Just about the only other one that comes to mind where all the money went in and nobody is to blame is set over set.
Guess what.
I played at tonight's midnight tournament. I started on the button (lucky me). The blinds start at $25/$25 with a spread of $25-$1000 with stacks of $3000. I was dealt pocket 5s. 2nd to act raises by one chip, but he didn't actually say it. I suspect he was trying to limp and thought the blinds were $25/$50. The hijack (one to the right of the cut-off, which is to the right of the button) then raises to $150.
So what do we do with small pocket pairs in position? We get in as cheaply as possible and try to flop a set. Was I worried about being re-raised by the initial "raiser?" No, because I interpreted it as a limp, and he probably did too. Would I have called with 5s if it had been raised to $75, then re-raised to $225? Probably not, because I would have worried about a re-raise.
I call, the blinds fold and the limper/raiser guy calls. The flop comes 562 with two diamonds (I have the 5d). The first guy checks, then the hijack bets $400. I raise to $1400. The limper guy folds. The hijack raises to $2400, I go all-in, he calls. And turns up pocket 6s. The turn is a diamond, so that makes him sweat a little, but the river is a spade. And I'm out in one hand.
This is, of course, the very first hand, so none of us have any information about the other players.
So, gentle readers... what do you think? I think folding 2nd set in that spot is definitely -EV. Statistically the next time it'll be against pocket aces and I'll be the happy one.
Guess what.
I played at tonight's midnight tournament. I started on the button (lucky me). The blinds start at $25/$25 with a spread of $25-$1000 with stacks of $3000. I was dealt pocket 5s. 2nd to act raises by one chip, but he didn't actually say it. I suspect he was trying to limp and thought the blinds were $25/$50. The hijack (one to the right of the cut-off, which is to the right of the button) then raises to $150.
So what do we do with small pocket pairs in position? We get in as cheaply as possible and try to flop a set. Was I worried about being re-raised by the initial "raiser?" No, because I interpreted it as a limp, and he probably did too. Would I have called with 5s if it had been raised to $75, then re-raised to $225? Probably not, because I would have worried about a re-raise.
I call, the blinds fold and the limper/raiser guy calls. The flop comes 562 with two diamonds (I have the 5d). The first guy checks, then the hijack bets $400. I raise to $1400. The limper guy folds. The hijack raises to $2400, I go all-in, he calls. And turns up pocket 6s. The turn is a diamond, so that makes him sweat a little, but the river is a spade. And I'm out in one hand.
This is, of course, the very first hand, so none of us have any information about the other players.
So, gentle readers... what do you think? I think folding 2nd set in that spot is definitely -EV. Statistically the next time it'll be against pocket aces and I'll be the happy one.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Sharkscope check-up
I still haven't quite turned the corner at P* yet, but I am closing in on it - just under $40 to go. But 6 months ago I went to the WPT boot camp, and that changed my game quite a bit. At first, the change was negative, but after I had some tutoring from Crispin, I've seen a definite change. I can validate this by doing an advanced search limiting the results to the last 6 months.
Doing that, on P* I've actually made $109 with a 12% ROI. But that's only with 95 games. I don't play much on P*, since it's so much more convenient to play on FTP.
FTP has not been quite so successful. I'm down $293 with an average loss per game of 50¢ (-10% ROI). But if you look at the graph, there's a huge $600 slide included in that time period that I'm still digging out from. That's across 564 games.
Doing that, on P* I've actually made $109 with a 12% ROI. But that's only with 95 games. I don't play much on P*, since it's so much more convenient to play on FTP.
FTP has not been quite so successful. I'm down $293 with an average loss per game of 50¢ (-10% ROI). But if you look at the graph, there's a huge $600 slide included in that time period that I'm still digging out from. That's across 564 games.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Never give up
Last night was not a great poker night for me. I played in about 7 tournaments of different types (6 way, heads-up) and various stakes and ended up ahead by $1.50. I feel good about all the decisions I made last night, but wound up repeatedly losing to 2- and 3-out draws. But that's beside the point. The tournaments I won were not trouble-free either. In one heads-up match, I was down to $400 and came back to win it, and in one of the 6-ways, I was down to just $50 (pocket kings lost to ATo that made top pair - whereupon all the money went in - and then rivered a set) when we were 6 handed and came back to win.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Parallels Desktop v. VMware Fusion
Those of you who haven't been paying attention might have missed the fact that Macs now have Intel processors in them. This means that they can run Windows without ugly, slow CPU emulation. Instead, you can use Boot Camp to boot the machine directly into a separate Windows partition, or you now have a choice of two competing commercial virtualization offerings: Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion.
I've been using Parallels for some time now. They certainly have gotten more right than wrong, but although Fusion is late to the party (and it isn't even released yet), I have to say, their initial offering is a very, very strong competitor with the more mature Parallels product.
Suspending and resuming virtual machines in Parallels has always been a sore spot for me. Though the screen will pop up quite quickly, the entire machine - both the host and guest - seem to be mired in a tar pit for a very long time while the virtual machine pages itself in. During this time, you really have no indication of what is happening or how long it might take. Perhaps this has more to do with the fact that I use Mac Minis that have slow disks, but even so, it's an annoyance.
The only other real difference of any consequence I have found so far is when using the Netflix Watch Now movie player. Under parallels, rapid motion and panning camera shots often show ugly visible "tearing" artifacts. This is likely caused by a lack of synchronization between the vertical refresh interval of the monitor and the virtual graphics card in the guest. Fusion doesn't have this problem. The netflix player in full screen looks and acts, to my eye, exactly like it would running under Boot Camp.
The other sore spot is converting from one to the other. Although you'd really only likely ever have to do this once, so far as I am aware, in both directions it is a byzantine arrangement involving installing a special Windows program in the opposite software's guest and having it write out the disk contents to a network share. Ugh. Even then, there are a couple of added annoyances. VMWare's virtual machine supports ACPI. The Parallels one does not. There is no way to switch Windows XP from standard to ACPI, so you wind up with no MP support and other quirks until/unless you reinstall Windows. Plus, the Parallels tools won't de-install unless you run the deinstall from within Parallels. There's no real harm in leaving the tools there, but you can't get rid of them.
I took VMware up on their pre-release pricing offer and bought a license. At the time, I figured I was just donating money to a lost cause. Parallels had such a lead, it was hard to imagine VMware being able to catch up. Boy, was I wrong. Now we've got a horse race. And the real winners are mac users who are surely going to benefit one way or the other.
I've been using Parallels for some time now. They certainly have gotten more right than wrong, but although Fusion is late to the party (and it isn't even released yet), I have to say, their initial offering is a very, very strong competitor with the more mature Parallels product.
Suspending and resuming virtual machines in Parallels has always been a sore spot for me. Though the screen will pop up quite quickly, the entire machine - both the host and guest - seem to be mired in a tar pit for a very long time while the virtual machine pages itself in. During this time, you really have no indication of what is happening or how long it might take. Perhaps this has more to do with the fact that I use Mac Minis that have slow disks, but even so, it's an annoyance.
The only other real difference of any consequence I have found so far is when using the Netflix Watch Now movie player. Under parallels, rapid motion and panning camera shots often show ugly visible "tearing" artifacts. This is likely caused by a lack of synchronization between the vertical refresh interval of the monitor and the virtual graphics card in the guest. Fusion doesn't have this problem. The netflix player in full screen looks and acts, to my eye, exactly like it would running under Boot Camp.
The other sore spot is converting from one to the other. Although you'd really only likely ever have to do this once, so far as I am aware, in both directions it is a byzantine arrangement involving installing a special Windows program in the opposite software's guest and having it write out the disk contents to a network share. Ugh. Even then, there are a couple of added annoyances. VMWare's virtual machine supports ACPI. The Parallels one does not. There is no way to switch Windows XP from standard to ACPI, so you wind up with no MP support and other quirks until/unless you reinstall Windows. Plus, the Parallels tools won't de-install unless you run the deinstall from within Parallels. There's no real harm in leaving the tools there, but you can't get rid of them.
I took VMware up on their pre-release pricing offer and bought a license. At the time, I figured I was just donating money to a lost cause. Parallels had such a lead, it was hard to imagine VMware being able to catch up. Boy, was I wrong. Now we've got a horse race. And the real winners are mac users who are surely going to benefit one way or the other.
A complete heads-up SnG
Just for a change of pace, let's go through an entire heads-up SnG with me giving the commentary... on my own play. Schizophrenic? Maybe. Let's not analyze that, though. We've got 15 hands to get through. Let's shuffle up and deal!
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:09:03 ET - 2007/07/31
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Ad Ah]
Nice way to start the day.
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [5d 9h Kc]
There just is nothing at all better in this world than having rockets and seeing an uncoordinated board with a king on it.
villain checks
hero bets 140
Standard continuation bet.
villain raises to 440
hero raises to 1,410, and is all in
Why mash here? Well, any 3x raise is going to be virtually all-in anyway, so my choice is call or raise. Why raise? Because if he folds, he won't know what I'm holding. I want to protect my continuation bets. He'll think better of trying to raise them, perhaps. Besides, there's an outside chance he could hit two pair or a set. While you can't worry about monsters under the bed, it is still better to win a small pot than lose a big one.
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 970 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (1,060)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,060 | Rake 0
Board: [5d 9h Kc]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (1,060), mucked
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:09:37 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (970)
Seat 2: hero (2,030)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Js Ad]
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
*** FLOP *** [4s 4c 5h]
hero checks
Here I probably might have continuation bet, but it would have looked pretty obvious. If I raised before the flop, did I really have a 4 or a 5 in my hand? That would have invited a check-raise. Could I have called a check-raise with ace high?
villain checks
*** TURN *** [4s 4c 5h] [Qd]
hero checks
villain checks
He's either slow-playing or the ace-high is good. It's not worth trying to steal, so let's see what happens.
*** RIVER *** [4s 4c 5h Qd] [Kc]
hero checks
villain checks
Same again - if my ace is good, then I won't get paid off if I bet, and if it isn't, I'm giving away money.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
villain shows [6h Ah] a pair of Fours
hero shows [Js Ad] a pair of Fours
hero ties for the pot (90) with a pair of Fours
villain ties for the pot (90) with a pair of Fours
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [4s 4c 5h Qd Kc]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [6h Ah] and won (90) with a pair of Fours
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [Js Ad] and won (90) with a pair of Fours
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:05 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (970)
Seat 2: hero (2,030)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qd 8s]
hero calls 15
Hand values go way up heads-up. Q8o is the "computer hand" because it has half the starting hands beat. Certainly worth completing here and then playing in position on my opponent post-flop.
villain checks
*** FLOP *** [Jd Qs 6h]
Nice.
villain checks
hero bets 40
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 40 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (60)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 60 | Rake 0
Board: [Jd Qs 6h]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (60), mucked
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:21 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (940)
Seat 2: hero (2,060)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2s Ks]
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
This was a bit of a mistake, perhaps. If he has an ace or a king, this hand is probably crushed, and since he is raising, the chances of that are far higher. At this moment, the plan was to get a flush or get out.
*** FLOP *** [Kd 7c 7d]
hero checks
No flush.
villain checks
*** TURN *** [Kd 7c 7d] [9c]
He's either trapping or has nothing. Let's find out.
hero bets 140
villain raises to 850, and is all in
hero calls 710
Oh! Nick, that was a dumb call. What could you beat there? A9? A7? Jacks? Would he have really pressed with those?
villain shows [Kh Qs]
Of course.
hero shows [2s Ks]
*** RIVER *** [Kd 7c 7d 9c] [3c]
villain shows two pair, Kings and Sevens
hero shows two pair, Kings and Sevens
villain wins the pot (1,880) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,880 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 7c 7d 9c 3c]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [Kh Qs] and won (1,880) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [2s Ks] and lost with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:52 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,880)
Seat 2: hero (1,120)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [As Kh]
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Ts 7d 9d]
villain checks
hero bets 140
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 140 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (180)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [Ts 7d 9d]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (180), mucked
That hand is one of the big patterns in no-limit hold 'em. Raise, call, flop, continuation bet, fold. Happens repeatedly in any tournament.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:12 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,790)
Seat 2: hero (1,210)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4d 6d]
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 15 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (30)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 30 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (30), mucked
Always nice to get a walk when you're holding crap.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:19 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,775)
Seat 2: hero (1,225)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qs Kc]
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8d 5c Kh]
villain checks
hero has 15 seconds left to act
hero bets 140
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 140 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (180)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [8d 5c Kh]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (180), mucked
There's that pattern again.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:45 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,685)
Seat 2: hero (1,315)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2c Ad]
villain calls 15
hero checks
*** FLOP *** [9d 2d Qh]
hero bets 40
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 40 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (60)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 60 | Rake 0
Board: [9d 2d Qh]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (60), mucked
You don't see the limp-continuation that often except for heads-up. Why? Because when you limp, it generally encourages further limping (by making the pot bigger, thus offering better odds to players acting behind). There's about a 1 in 3 chance that if you have different ranking cards in your hand that you will connect on the flop. The same holds for your opponent. That means that there's a 1 in 9 chance that you both will. So if you hit the flop at all, even with bottom pair, you have to feel good about it. That will come up later.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:01 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,655)
Seat 2: hero (1,345)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7c Qd]
hero calls 15
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Kh 5d 6s]
villain bets 120
hero folds
Uncalled bet of 120 returned to villain
villain mucks
villain wins the pot (180)
The blinds are now 20/40
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [Kh 5d 6s]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) collected (180), mucked
Seat 2: hero (small blind) folded on the Flop
Here, we saw the raise, call, flop, bet, fold pattern run the other direction. Could I have folded the Q7 pre-flop instead? Eh. I suppose. But big cards are valuable heads-up, and as we just discussed, the chances of your opponent connecting are low. Could I have raised him on the flop? What if this was one of those one-in-3 that he HAD connected? Not worth the risk. There's always a better spot.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:25 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,745)
Seat 2: hero (1,255)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qc 8h]
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 20 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (40)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 40 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (40), mucked
Walk.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:31 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,725)
Seat 2: hero (1,275)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kc 8c]
hero raises to 120
villain calls 80
*** FLOP *** [Kd 6c 9h]
villain checks
hero bets 180
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 180 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (240)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 240 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 6c 9h]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (240), mucked
There's that pattern again.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:55 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,605)
Seat 2: hero (1,395)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2s Qc]
villain calls 20
hero checks
*** FLOP *** [Td 6h Ah]
hero checks
villain checks
*** TURN *** [Td 6h Ah] [3d]
hero checks
villain checks
*** RIVER *** [Td 6h Ah 3d] [4c]
hero checks
villain checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [2s Qc] Ace Queen high
villain mucks
hero wins the pot (80) with Ace Queen high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 80 | Rake 0
Board: [Td 6h Ah 3d 4c]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) mucked [7c 8d] - Ace Ten high
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [2s Qc] and won (80) with Ace Queen high
Here, again, we got into that mode where my queen high was quite possibly good, but it wouldn't have been worth trying to steal for fear of being played back at.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:18 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,565)
Seat 2: hero (1,435)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5h Ah]
hero raises to 120
villain calls 80
*** FLOP *** [7h Js Kh]
villain checks
hero bets 180
Standard continuation bet...
villain raises to 1,445, and is all in
Wha...?
We have an overcard and the nut flush draw. What could he have?
If he has a set, two pair, aces, or if he has an ace and a king, jack or 7, our flush draw is a 2:1 dog. If he has an ace and bigger kicker than a 5, we have 9 flush outs and 3 5s to beat him. If he has a pair, then we have 9 flush outs and 3 aces to beat him. If he has nothing, we're actually in the lead.
So which situation is it? At this point, I actually think he might have KQ or K9, in which case, I'm in one of those 12 outs spots. With 12 outs, we're only a 2:3 dog, and that's only if I'm right about my read. Let's gamble.
(edit: When I wrote this, I was off by a little bit. The pot odds offered by his all-in were even money because we started with a shorter stack, so the call was not justified on pot-odds by the flush draw alone. But throw in the possibility of the 3 ace outs being good and suddenly it's a coin flip. So on pot odds the call was correct, but when you're going all-in in a tournament, it's no longer about pot odds. It's about life or death. That's why it was a gamble)
hero calls 1,135, and is all in
villain shows [Qc 2c]
Wow.
Let's look at the hand from his point of view. Our opponent raises from the button - so we're going to be playing out of position, and we have a suited queen. It's worth trying for a queen or a flush draw, so we call. The flop has an overcard and not a single club. We check, our opponent leads out and.... we bluff at it? Why would we do that? Our opponent showed pre-flop strength. So there's NO way he has a king or a jack? That's dangerous to the point of being foolhardy. Yes, you're putting your opponent to the test for his entire tournament life.... but look at the relative stacks at the start. You lose this hand and you are going to be completely crippled, so his life isn't the only one really on the line here. I like this bluff play if your opponent has shown aggression and is down to, say, $500 or so (so even if he wins it, you've still got the lead). I don't like it when the consequences of having it backfire are so great.
hero shows [5h Ah]
Uncalled bet of 130 returned to villain
*** TURN *** [7h Js Kh] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [7h Js Kh 3d] [Kc]
villain shows a pair of Kings
hero shows a pair of Kings
hero wins the pot (2,870) with a pair of Kings
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,870 | Rake 0
Board: [7h Js Kh 3d Kc]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) showed [Qc 2c] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [5h Ah] and won (2,870) with a pair of Kings
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:50 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (130)
Seat 2: hero (2,870)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7h 6d]
villain raises to 130, and is all in
hero folds
Uncalled bet of 90 returned to villain
villain mucks
villain wins the pot (80)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 80 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) collected (80), mucked
Seat 2: hero (big blind) folded before the Flop
He's so short now that every decision should be all-in or fold.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:59 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (170)
Seat 2: hero (2,830)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5s Qs]
hero calls 20
villain raises to 80
He raised half his stack, so it's clear he's pot committed, but he's letting me see the flop cheaply. If he pressed here, I probably would have folded and waited for a better hand. Instead...
hero calls 40
*** FLOP *** [5h Ac 4s]
villain bets 90, and is all in
There is no way in hell he wouldn't have pressed pre-flop holding an ace. Much more likely that this is a stop-n-go play. But the stop-n-go only makes sense if you have sufficient fold equity. Our opponent here had four big blinds at the start of this hand.
2nd pair here is almost certainly good.
hero calls 90
villain shows [2c Kh]
et voila.
hero shows [5s Qs]
*** TURN *** [5h Ac 4s] [Jd]
*** RIVER *** [5h Ac 4s Jd] [7d]
villain shows Ace King high
hero shows a pair of Fives
hero wins the pot (340) with a pair of Fives
villain stands up
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 340 | Rake 0
Board: [5h Ac 4s Jd 7d]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) showed [2c Kh] and lost with Ace King high
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [5s Qs] and won (340) with a pair of Fives
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:09:03 ET - 2007/07/31
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Ad Ah]
Nice way to start the day.
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [5d 9h Kc]
There just is nothing at all better in this world than having rockets and seeing an uncoordinated board with a king on it.
villain checks
hero bets 140
Standard continuation bet.
villain raises to 440
hero raises to 1,410, and is all in
Why mash here? Well, any 3x raise is going to be virtually all-in anyway, so my choice is call or raise. Why raise? Because if he folds, he won't know what I'm holding. I want to protect my continuation bets. He'll think better of trying to raise them, perhaps. Besides, there's an outside chance he could hit two pair or a set. While you can't worry about monsters under the bed, it is still better to win a small pot than lose a big one.
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 970 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (1,060)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,060 | Rake 0
Board: [5d 9h Kc]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (1,060), mucked
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:09:37 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (970)
Seat 2: hero (2,030)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Js Ad]
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
*** FLOP *** [4s 4c 5h]
hero checks
Here I probably might have continuation bet, but it would have looked pretty obvious. If I raised before the flop, did I really have a 4 or a 5 in my hand? That would have invited a check-raise. Could I have called a check-raise with ace high?
villain checks
*** TURN *** [4s 4c 5h] [Qd]
hero checks
villain checks
He's either slow-playing or the ace-high is good. It's not worth trying to steal, so let's see what happens.
*** RIVER *** [4s 4c 5h Qd] [Kc]
hero checks
villain checks
Same again - if my ace is good, then I won't get paid off if I bet, and if it isn't, I'm giving away money.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
villain shows [6h Ah] a pair of Fours
hero shows [Js Ad] a pair of Fours
hero ties for the pot (90) with a pair of Fours
villain ties for the pot (90) with a pair of Fours
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [4s 4c 5h Qd Kc]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [6h Ah] and won (90) with a pair of Fours
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [Js Ad] and won (90) with a pair of Fours
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:05 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (970)
Seat 2: hero (2,030)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qd 8s]
hero calls 15
Hand values go way up heads-up. Q8o is the "computer hand" because it has half the starting hands beat. Certainly worth completing here and then playing in position on my opponent post-flop.
villain checks
*** FLOP *** [Jd Qs 6h]
Nice.
villain checks
hero bets 40
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 40 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (60)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 60 | Rake 0
Board: [Jd Qs 6h]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (60), mucked
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:21 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (940)
Seat 2: hero (2,060)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2s Ks]
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
This was a bit of a mistake, perhaps. If he has an ace or a king, this hand is probably crushed, and since he is raising, the chances of that are far higher. At this moment, the plan was to get a flush or get out.
*** FLOP *** [Kd 7c 7d]
hero checks
No flush.
villain checks
*** TURN *** [Kd 7c 7d] [9c]
He's either trapping or has nothing. Let's find out.
hero bets 140
villain raises to 850, and is all in
hero calls 710
Oh! Nick, that was a dumb call. What could you beat there? A9? A7? Jacks? Would he have really pressed with those?
villain shows [Kh Qs]
Of course.
hero shows [2s Ks]
*** RIVER *** [Kd 7c 7d 9c] [3c]
villain shows two pair, Kings and Sevens
hero shows two pair, Kings and Sevens
villain wins the pot (1,880) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,880 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 7c 7d 9c 3c]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) showed [Kh Qs] and won (1,880) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [2s Ks] and lost with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:10:52 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,880)
Seat 2: hero (1,120)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [As Kh]
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Ts 7d 9d]
villain checks
hero bets 140
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 140 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (180)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [Ts 7d 9d]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (180), mucked
That hand is one of the big patterns in no-limit hold 'em. Raise, call, flop, continuation bet, fold. Happens repeatedly in any tournament.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:12 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,790)
Seat 2: hero (1,210)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4d 6d]
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 15 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (30)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 30 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (30), mucked
Always nice to get a walk when you're holding crap.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:19 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,775)
Seat 2: hero (1,225)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qs Kc]
hero raises to 90
villain calls 60
*** FLOP *** [8d 5c Kh]
villain checks
hero has 15 seconds left to act
hero bets 140
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 140 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (180)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [8d 5c Kh]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (180), mucked
There's that pattern again.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:11:45 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,685)
Seat 2: hero (1,315)
villain posts the small blind of 15
hero posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2c Ad]
villain calls 15
hero checks
*** FLOP *** [9d 2d Qh]
hero bets 40
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 40 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (60)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 60 | Rake 0
Board: [9d 2d Qh]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (60), mucked
You don't see the limp-continuation that often except for heads-up. Why? Because when you limp, it generally encourages further limping (by making the pot bigger, thus offering better odds to players acting behind). There's about a 1 in 3 chance that if you have different ranking cards in your hand that you will connect on the flop. The same holds for your opponent. That means that there's a 1 in 9 chance that you both will. So if you hit the flop at all, even with bottom pair, you have to feel good about it. That will come up later.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:01 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,655)
Seat 2: hero (1,345)
hero posts the small blind of 15
villain posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7c Qd]
hero calls 15
villain raises to 90
hero calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Kh 5d 6s]
villain bets 120
hero folds
Uncalled bet of 120 returned to villain
villain mucks
villain wins the pot (180)
The blinds are now 20/40
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 180 | Rake 0
Board: [Kh 5d 6s]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) collected (180), mucked
Seat 2: hero (small blind) folded on the Flop
Here, we saw the raise, call, flop, bet, fold pattern run the other direction. Could I have folded the Q7 pre-flop instead? Eh. I suppose. But big cards are valuable heads-up, and as we just discussed, the chances of your opponent connecting are low. Could I have raised him on the flop? What if this was one of those one-in-3 that he HAD connected? Not worth the risk. There's always a better spot.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:25 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,745)
Seat 2: hero (1,255)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Qc 8h]
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 20 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (40)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 40 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: hero (big blind) collected (40), mucked
Walk.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:31 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,725)
Seat 2: hero (1,275)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kc 8c]
hero raises to 120
villain calls 80
*** FLOP *** [Kd 6c 9h]
villain checks
hero bets 180
villain folds
Uncalled bet of 180 returned to hero
hero mucks
hero wins the pot (240)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 240 | Rake 0
Board: [Kd 6c 9h]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 2: hero (small blind) collected (240), mucked
There's that pattern again.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:12:55 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,605)
Seat 2: hero (1,395)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [2s Qc]
villain calls 20
hero checks
*** FLOP *** [Td 6h Ah]
hero checks
villain checks
*** TURN *** [Td 6h Ah] [3d]
hero checks
villain checks
*** RIVER *** [Td 6h Ah 3d] [4c]
hero checks
villain checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
hero shows [2s Qc] Ace Queen high
villain mucks
hero wins the pot (80) with Ace Queen high
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 80 | Rake 0
Board: [Td 6h Ah 3d 4c]
Seat 1: villain (small blind) mucked [7c 8d] - Ace Ten high
Seat 2: hero (big blind) showed [2s Qc] and won (80) with Ace Queen high
Here, again, we got into that mode where my queen high was quite possibly good, but it wouldn't have been worth trying to steal for fear of being played back at.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:18 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (1,565)
Seat 2: hero (1,435)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5h Ah]
hero raises to 120
villain calls 80
*** FLOP *** [7h Js Kh]
villain checks
hero bets 180
Standard continuation bet...
villain raises to 1,445, and is all in
Wha...?
We have an overcard and the nut flush draw. What could he have?
If he has a set, two pair, aces, or if he has an ace and a king, jack or 7, our flush draw is a 2:1 dog. If he has an ace and bigger kicker than a 5, we have 9 flush outs and 3 5s to beat him. If he has a pair, then we have 9 flush outs and 3 aces to beat him. If he has nothing, we're actually in the lead.
So which situation is it? At this point, I actually think he might have KQ or K9, in which case, I'm in one of those 12 outs spots. With 12 outs, we're only a 2:3 dog, and that's only if I'm right about my read. Let's gamble.
(edit: When I wrote this, I was off by a little bit. The pot odds offered by his all-in were even money because we started with a shorter stack, so the call was not justified on pot-odds by the flush draw alone. But throw in the possibility of the 3 ace outs being good and suddenly it's a coin flip. So on pot odds the call was correct, but when you're going all-in in a tournament, it's no longer about pot odds. It's about life or death. That's why it was a gamble)
hero calls 1,135, and is all in
villain shows [Qc 2c]
Wow.
Let's look at the hand from his point of view. Our opponent raises from the button - so we're going to be playing out of position, and we have a suited queen. It's worth trying for a queen or a flush draw, so we call. The flop has an overcard and not a single club. We check, our opponent leads out and.... we bluff at it? Why would we do that? Our opponent showed pre-flop strength. So there's NO way he has a king or a jack? That's dangerous to the point of being foolhardy. Yes, you're putting your opponent to the test for his entire tournament life.... but look at the relative stacks at the start. You lose this hand and you are going to be completely crippled, so his life isn't the only one really on the line here. I like this bluff play if your opponent has shown aggression and is down to, say, $500 or so (so even if he wins it, you've still got the lead). I don't like it when the consequences of having it backfire are so great.
hero shows [5h Ah]
Uncalled bet of 130 returned to villain
*** TURN *** [7h Js Kh] [3d]
*** RIVER *** [7h Js Kh 3d] [Kc]
villain shows a pair of Kings
hero shows a pair of Kings
hero wins the pot (2,870) with a pair of Kings
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,870 | Rake 0
Board: [7h Js Kh 3d Kc]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) showed [Qc 2c] and lost with a pair of Kings
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [5h Ah] and won (2,870) with a pair of Kings
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:50 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (130)
Seat 2: hero (2,870)
villain posts the small blind of 20
hero posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7h 6d]
villain raises to 130, and is all in
hero folds
Uncalled bet of 90 returned to villain
villain mucks
villain wins the pot (80)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 80 | Rake 0
Seat 1: villain (small blind) collected (80), mucked
Seat 2: hero (big blind) folded before the Flop
He's so short now that every decision should be all-in or fold.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $6 + $0.25 Heads Up Sit & Go (_), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:13:59 ET - 2007/07/31
Seat 1: villain (170)
Seat 2: hero (2,830)
hero posts the small blind of 20
villain posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5s Qs]
hero calls 20
villain raises to 80
He raised half his stack, so it's clear he's pot committed, but he's letting me see the flop cheaply. If he pressed here, I probably would have folded and waited for a better hand. Instead...
hero calls 40
*** FLOP *** [5h Ac 4s]
villain bets 90, and is all in
There is no way in hell he wouldn't have pressed pre-flop holding an ace. Much more likely that this is a stop-n-go play. But the stop-n-go only makes sense if you have sufficient fold equity. Our opponent here had four big blinds at the start of this hand.
2nd pair here is almost certainly good.
hero calls 90
villain shows [2c Kh]
et voila.
hero shows [5s Qs]
*** TURN *** [5h Ac 4s] [Jd]
*** RIVER *** [5h Ac 4s Jd] [7d]
villain shows Ace King high
hero shows a pair of Fives
hero wins the pot (340) with a pair of Fives
villain stands up
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 340 | Rake 0
Board: [5h Ac 4s Jd 7d]
Seat 1: villain (big blind) showed [2c Kh] and lost with Ace King high
Seat 2: hero (small blind) showed [5s Qs] and won (340) with a pair of Fives
Profitable July!
According to Sharkscope, I made $250 in SnGs on Full Tilt during July, with a 25% ROI. Alas, PokerStars was not so hot. I lost $90. I think that's just because I hit a bad patch last night. My goal is to build up to break-even lifetime at P*, then cash out one last time and switch over to FTP exclusively. The statistics on sharkscope will be cleaner that way... I just don't want to leave P* without turning the corner, that's all.
WPT Boot Camp, Ca$h edition
I was at the Commerce Casino last weekend for the WPT Boot Camp's Ca$h edition. Like the tournament camp, it's a two day intensive series of lectures and live-play labs taught by a group of poker professionals. In addition to Jules and Crispin Leyser, our camp was taught by Mark Seif, Nick Brancato and Rick Fuller. Mark Seif is a well known poker player, with two WPT final table appearances to his credit and is also a commentator for the PPT. I had personally never heard of Nick Brancato, but in his short, 3 year career playing online poker he has probably seen as many hands as Doyle Brunson has played in his lifetime. Internet poker has made that possible by allowing him to not only see more hands per hour, but to be seated at multiple tables simultaneously.
In addition to the lectures and labs, there was a special component to the Ca$h camp: The ca$h challenge. I didn't really know how this was going to work until it was explained that day. They sat each of us, in turn, in front of a computer. The computer would present all of us the same sequence of 30 hands in a row. After every hand, our bankroll would be either reduced or replenished to $1000. In this way, everyone had the same experience. The sum total of money you made playing was your score. The top 6 played a 2nd challenge the next day. About half the class lost money. I made about $660. 6th place made just a bit less than twice that. I made exactly one decision that probably kept me out of the running - it cost me about $400 instead of allowing me to make about $200, a swing of $600. Still, if I was playing $5/$10 and made $600 in 30 hands, I'd be ecstatic.
I'm not sure I am going to go down the cash poker road or not. It's a different thing than tournaments, that's for sure. Cash poker is all about results over the long term. I liken it to being a day trader - but with fewer unknowns. There's no doubt at all that it can be a profitable experience. But I'm not sure it would be for me. Tournaments have an advantage in that your risk in any one tournament is limited, and each has an end. Cash poker is about statistics gathering and management. The disadvantage of tournament poker is that it's like being a major league hitter: Even the very best fail 2/3 of the time. Sometimes they knock one out of the park, but certainly not every time.
I might still decide to give it a try. I am undecided. At the moment, all my focus is on getting midnight tournament points for the upcoming Bay 101 open. As of the 24th, I'm in 7th place, and there are two shots left.
In addition to the lectures and labs, there was a special component to the Ca$h camp: The ca$h challenge. I didn't really know how this was going to work until it was explained that day. They sat each of us, in turn, in front of a computer. The computer would present all of us the same sequence of 30 hands in a row. After every hand, our bankroll would be either reduced or replenished to $1000. In this way, everyone had the same experience. The sum total of money you made playing was your score. The top 6 played a 2nd challenge the next day. About half the class lost money. I made about $660. 6th place made just a bit less than twice that. I made exactly one decision that probably kept me out of the running - it cost me about $400 instead of allowing me to make about $200, a swing of $600. Still, if I was playing $5/$10 and made $600 in 30 hands, I'd be ecstatic.
I'm not sure I am going to go down the cash poker road or not. It's a different thing than tournaments, that's for sure. Cash poker is all about results over the long term. I liken it to being a day trader - but with fewer unknowns. There's no doubt at all that it can be a profitable experience. But I'm not sure it would be for me. Tournaments have an advantage in that your risk in any one tournament is limited, and each has an end. Cash poker is about statistics gathering and management. The disadvantage of tournament poker is that it's like being a major league hitter: Even the very best fail 2/3 of the time. Sometimes they knock one out of the park, but certainly not every time.
I might still decide to give it a try. I am undecided. At the moment, all my focus is on getting midnight tournament points for the upcoming Bay 101 open. As of the 24th, I'm in 7th place, and there are two shots left.
Aussie Rules Football on KCSM!
I remember watching AFL (back then it was actually VFL) games on ESPN back when I was in college. I missed them when they went off the air. Well, they are available on the Setanta satellite TV channel, but fortunately for me, they're also showing a match of the week on KCSM! We're picking up their digital over-the-air signal, and I believe it's on the -2 stream, but I'm not sure. Through the magic of TiVo, I don't actually know when it gets aired. I have a season pass, so I don't actually worry about such things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)