This sort of thing happens far, far, far too often.
This is a scheduled MTT. 125 folks are vying for 27 prizes. That's right - one chance in three.
What? I bought in before I figured that out. :)
Anyway, let's take a look at this hand:
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $75 Token Frenzy (_), Table 5 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 16:55:20 ET - 2008/10/25
Seat 1: (1,290)
Seat 2: (1,950)
Seat 3: (1,770)
Seat 4: (1,395)
Seat 5: (1,440)
Seat 6: (1,375)
Seat 7: (5,245)
Seat 8: hero (1,560)
Seat 9: (1,835)
Seat 9 posts the small blind of 20
Seat 1 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #8
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Ts 4c]
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
Seat 4 folds
Seat 5 raises to 1,440, and is all in
Seat 6 folds
Seat 7 folds
hero folds
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 calls 1,250, and is all in
Seat 5 shows [7c 7s]
Seat 1 shows [Qh Ah]
Uncalled bet of 150 returned to Seat 5
*** FLOP *** [As Js Kc]
*** TURN *** [As Js Kc] [4d]
*** RIVER *** [As Js Kc 4d] [7d]
Seat 5 shows three of a kind, Sevens
Seat 1 shows a pair of Aces
Seat 5 wins the pot (2,600) with three of a kind, Sevens
Seat 1 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,600 | Rake 0
Board: [As Js Kc 4d 7d]
Seat 1: (big blind) showed [Qh Ah] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: showed [7c 7s] and won (2,600) with three of a kind, Sevens
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: hero (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Come on now. You're seriously going to flip a coin with 7s (after all, with pocket 7s, you're likely at best a coin-flip against any hand that can call) on a tournament that's one-in-three? Really?
The big question here is, what do you do with AQ? It's for sure that the donkey opposite wouldn't bet 30 big blinds with a really premium hand. So you're either up against a weaker ace or a small pair or perhaps even dog crap. In other words, the AQ is at worst a coin flip.
But fundamentally, even though your opponent has forced you into a decision like that, I can see both sides. If it were a cash game, you'd be +EV to call, but this is a tournament. If you fold AQ in that spot, you do so only because you don't want to risk the entire tournament on a single early coin flip against a maniac.
How should that hand have gone?
The 7s should have either made a normal raise or limped with the expectation of ether flopping a set or folding. Whether you raise pre-flop or not depends on your playing style. The AQ would have either re-raised or called, depending on his playing style. The 7s would have flat-called the re-raise if it happened. The flop would have come and if there was no re-raise pre-flop, the 7s would have perhaps continuation-bet and the AQ raised, or the 7s would have checked and the AQ bet. The 7s would have folded and the AQ would have taken down a pot with maybe 300 chips in it, but both stacks lived to see the next hand.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
M zone calculator
I actually made this little site to help someone else, but on the off chance that it is helpful, I'll let my other 5 or 6 readers check it out too. It's an "M zone" calculator. You can use it during a tournament (it is set up for Full Tilt and PokerStars SnG tournament structures) to figure out what M zone (basic and effective) your chip stack lies in.
Check it out.
Check it out.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Cold deck
I wasn't involved, and there's nothing really to be learned here, but you don't see this sort of thing every day.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $55 + $5 Sit & Go (Turbo) (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:06:21 ET - 2008/10/21
Seat 1: (1,485)
Seat 2: (1,455)
Seat 3: (1,395)
Seat 4: hero (1,470)
Seat 5: (1,500)
Seat 6: (1,500)
Seat 7: (1,545)
Seat 8: (1,650)
Seat 9: (1,500)
hero posts the small blind of 15
Seat 5 posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4c Qc]
Seat 6 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 folds
Seat 2 raises to 90
Seat 3 folds
hero folds
Seat 5 raises to 180
Seat 2 calls 90
*** FLOP *** [8d Ad As]
Seat 5 checks
Seat 2 checks
*** TURN *** [8d Ad As] [Th]
Seat 5 bets 300
Seat 2 raises to 1,275, and is all in
Seat 5 calls 975
Seat 2 shows [Td Ts]
Seat 5 shows [Ac Ah]
*** RIVER *** [8d Ad As Th] [Tc]
Seat 2 shows four of a kind, Tens
Seat 5 shows four of a kind, Aces
And there you have it: quads over quads.
If this was a cash game at Lucky Chances, that would have been a bad beat jackpot.
Seat 5 wins the pot (2,925) with four of a kind, Aces
Seat 2 stands up
The blinds are now 20/40
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,925 | Rake 0
Board: [8d Ad As Th Tc]
Seat 1: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: showed [Td Ts] and lost with four of a kind, Tens
Seat 3: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: hero (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: (big blind) showed [Ac Ah] and won (2,925) with four of a kind, Aces
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: didn't bet (folded)
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $55 + $5 Sit & Go (Turbo) (_), Table 1 - 15/30 - No Limit Hold'em - 12:06:21 ET - 2008/10/21
Seat 1: (1,485)
Seat 2: (1,455)
Seat 3: (1,395)
Seat 4: hero (1,470)
Seat 5: (1,500)
Seat 6: (1,500)
Seat 7: (1,545)
Seat 8: (1,650)
Seat 9: (1,500)
hero posts the small blind of 15
Seat 5 posts the big blind of 30
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [4c Qc]
Seat 6 folds
Seat 7 folds
Seat 8 folds
Seat 9 folds
Seat 1 folds
Seat 2 raises to 90
Seat 3 folds
hero folds
Seat 5 raises to 180
Seat 2 calls 90
*** FLOP *** [8d Ad As]
Seat 5 checks
Seat 2 checks
*** TURN *** [8d Ad As] [Th]
Seat 5 bets 300
Seat 2 raises to 1,275, and is all in
Seat 5 calls 975
Seat 2 shows [Td Ts]
Seat 5 shows [Ac Ah]
*** RIVER *** [8d Ad As Th] [Tc]
Seat 2 shows four of a kind, Tens
Seat 5 shows four of a kind, Aces
And there you have it: quads over quads.
If this was a cash game at Lucky Chances, that would have been a bad beat jackpot.
Seat 5 wins the pot (2,925) with four of a kind, Aces
Seat 2 stands up
The blinds are now 20/40
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 2,925 | Rake 0
Board: [8d Ad As Th Tc]
Seat 1: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 2: showed [Td Ts] and lost with four of a kind, Tens
Seat 3: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: hero (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: (big blind) showed [Ac Ah] and won (2,925) with four of a kind, Aces
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: didn't bet (folded)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Beat iPhone hold 'em
So that picture is what you get when you win the Dubai tournament. It's the same as the "winner" screen for all the other tournaments except for the prize amount. I've done this a few times now. It's really not too much trouble to beat the bots in the iPhone poker program. They don't really change any as you progress upwards through the tournaments.
I play with the phone in the landscape mode. In this mode, you can't watch the video of them to look for their "tells," but I find I can't easily follow the position very well with the portrait view. And position and relative stack size are more important anyway.
The biggest weakness of the bots is that they don't have any internal concept of being pot committed or of fold equity. They're quite content to bluff 75% of their stack and then fold to the re-raise. This makes the ideal strategy against them to be one of always raising and never calling. They will call you all-in with crap draws that would normally be very -EV plays (particularly in tournament play). Yes, occasionally those will suck out, but most of the time they won't. And once you cash, simply either fold or go all-in on every hand pre-flop (which alternative will obviously depend on the relative stack sizes in question and, of course, your cards).
Of course, all of this is sort of poker masturbation. In general, it's a bad idea to play against bots - particularly bad ones. The risk is that you'll pick up habits against the bots that don't work against real players (particularly good ones). But in this case, the ideal strategy isn't tremendously different from normal SnG strategy. You just need to crank the aggression factor up much, much higher than you normally would.
The payouts for the "two table" tournaments (that is, everything above the "Cruise Ship") have payouts that would be reasonably correct if they were actually 3 table shoot-outs, meaning that they take the top 3 finishers from 3 tables and sit them down at the final table (which means you actually had 27 opponents in the prize pool). I've never come across any real tournaments that do that (most shootouts take the 9 first place finishers from 9 single table tournaments and have them play a final table). The payouts for the single table tournaments (Cruise Ship and below) pay out at a much higher rate than they should (obviously the Garage game, being a free-roll, pays out fixed prizes simply as a bootstrap). Thus the ideal bankroll strategy is to play only up to Cruise Ship for as long as you can to build your bank. Then skip upwards only once you've got a lot of (fake) money. Once you have a couple hundred grand you can take a couple shots at Dubai and if one of them hits, you'll have plenty of bank to repeat and build from there.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Oh, *I'M* the donkey?
After the hand, the guy called me out in the chat window, so he gets a public rebuttal. He took a chance on a deceptive play and it backfired on him. That's my fault somehow?
Let's see who made the bad play here.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $55 + $5 Sit & Go (Turbo) (_), Table 1 - 100/200 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:30:18 ET - 2008/10/20
Seat 1: (1,900)
Seat 2: (1,015)
Seat 3: (1,600)
Seat 4: (2,920)
Seat 6: villain (1,390)
Seat 7: hero (1,635)
Seat 8: (3,040)
Seat 8 posts the small blind of 100
Seat 1 posts the big blind of 200
The button is in seat #7
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5d 5c]
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 calls 200
Seat 4 folds
villain calls 200
hero raises to 1,635, and is all in
1. The two limpers are unlikely to have better pairs since they didn't raise.
2. Because the blinds are so high here, any raise would be enough of my stack that I should just push anyway.
3. I have enough fold equity left to hopefully push these two off mediocre hands and pick up a nice pot.
Seat 8 folds
Seat 1 folds
Seat 3 folds
villain calls 1,190, and is all in
hero shows [5d 5c]
villain shows [Td Ts]
Really? Limping with tens? So you're ok letting a big blind see the flop for free with a big pair?
Now, don't get me wrong: I've done a limp-reraise play myself sometimes. But you pull that sort of play only against very aggressive players who have established a pattern of raising with junk. It's also a lot safer once you're actually in the money. Before the money, it's much, much better to win a small pot than lose a big one (which is really about the only two choices available to you with pocket tens).
Uncalled bet of 245 returned to hero
*** FLOP *** [5s 9c Kh]
So, yeah, I sucked out there. But what if the big blind had 59? You make a proper raise there and I guarantee that my 5s hit the muck before your chips stop moving. And if you get called by someone else I'll see that 5 come and I'll go kick my dog.
*** TURN *** [5s 9c Kh] [2s]
*** RIVER *** [5s 9c Kh 2s] [Ad]
hero shows three of a kind, Fives
villain shows a pair of Tens
hero wins the pot (3,280) with three of a kind, Fives
villain: lol pos
I agree: limping with tens is a very POS play, dumb-ass.
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,280 | Rake 0
Board: [5s 9c Kh 2s Ad]
Seat 1: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: folded before the Flop
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: villain showed [Td Ts] and lost with a pair of Tens
Seat 7: hero (button) showed [5d 5c] and won (3,280) with three of a kind, Fives
Seat 8: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Let's see who made the bad play here.
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $55 + $5 Sit & Go (Turbo) (_), Table 1 - 100/200 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:30:18 ET - 2008/10/20
Seat 1: (1,900)
Seat 2: (1,015)
Seat 3: (1,600)
Seat 4: (2,920)
Seat 6: villain (1,390)
Seat 7: hero (1,635)
Seat 8: (3,040)
Seat 8 posts the small blind of 100
Seat 1 posts the big blind of 200
The button is in seat #7
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [5d 5c]
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 calls 200
Seat 4 folds
villain calls 200
hero raises to 1,635, and is all in
1. The two limpers are unlikely to have better pairs since they didn't raise.
2. Because the blinds are so high here, any raise would be enough of my stack that I should just push anyway.
3. I have enough fold equity left to hopefully push these two off mediocre hands and pick up a nice pot.
Seat 8 folds
Seat 1 folds
Seat 3 folds
villain calls 1,190, and is all in
hero shows [5d 5c]
villain shows [Td Ts]
Really? Limping with tens? So you're ok letting a big blind see the flop for free with a big pair?
Now, don't get me wrong: I've done a limp-reraise play myself sometimes. But you pull that sort of play only against very aggressive players who have established a pattern of raising with junk. It's also a lot safer once you're actually in the money. Before the money, it's much, much better to win a small pot than lose a big one (which is really about the only two choices available to you with pocket tens).
Uncalled bet of 245 returned to hero
*** FLOP *** [5s 9c Kh]
So, yeah, I sucked out there. But what if the big blind had 59? You make a proper raise there and I guarantee that my 5s hit the muck before your chips stop moving. And if you get called by someone else I'll see that 5 come and I'll go kick my dog.
*** TURN *** [5s 9c Kh] [2s]
*** RIVER *** [5s 9c Kh 2s] [Ad]
hero shows three of a kind, Fives
villain shows a pair of Tens
hero wins the pot (3,280) with three of a kind, Fives
villain: lol pos
I agree: limping with tens is a very POS play, dumb-ass.
villain stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,280 | Rake 0
Board: [5s 9c Kh 2s Ad]
Seat 1: (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: folded before the Flop
Seat 4: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: villain showed [Td Ts] and lost with a pair of Tens
Seat 7: hero (button) showed [5d 5c] and won (3,280) with three of a kind, Fives
Seat 8: (small blind) folded before the Flop
What does it take?
What the do I have to do to get retards to lay down their stupid flush draws? Go all-in on any flop with two of a suit?
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: Turbo Fiddy (_), Table 13 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:15:06 ET - 2008/10/20
Seat 2: (3,595)
Seat 3: (540)
Seat 4: (2,005)
Seat 5: hero (2,000)
Seat 6: (1,315)
Seat 7: villain (3,675)
Seat 8: (1,060)
Seat 9: (3,810)
Seat 4 posts the small blind of 25
hero posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Ad 6d]
Sear 6 folds
Seat 7 calls 50
Seat 8 folds
Seat 9 calls 50
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
Seat 4 folds
hero raises to 225
villain calls 175
Seat 9 folds
*** FLOP *** [As Qc 5c]
hero bets 525
villain calls 525
*** TURN *** [As Qc 5c] [Kd]
hero bets 1,250, and is all in
villain calls 1,250
hero shows [Ad 6d]
villain shows [2c 3c]
Really? You called a pre-flop raise and went all the way to the river with the worst flush draw possible?
You know, when they talk about licensing and regulating Internet poker, I often wonder if it's the sites they should really be licensing.
*** RIVER *** [As Qc 5c Kd] [8c]
Oh, of FUCKING course.
hero shows a pair of Aces
villain shows a flush, Queen high
villain wins the pot (4,075) with a flush, Queen high
hero stands up
The blinds are now 30/60
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4,075 | Rake 0
Board: [As Qc 5c Kd 8c]
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: hero (big blind) showed [Ad 6d] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: villain showed [2c 3c] and won (4,075) with a flush, Queen high
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: folded before the Flop
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: Turbo Fiddy (_), Table 13 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 1:15:06 ET - 2008/10/20
Seat 2: (3,595)
Seat 3: (540)
Seat 4: (2,005)
Seat 5: hero (2,000)
Seat 6: (1,315)
Seat 7: villain (3,675)
Seat 8: (1,060)
Seat 9: (3,810)
Seat 4 posts the small blind of 25
hero posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #3
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Ad 6d]
Sear 6 folds
Seat 7 calls 50
Seat 8 folds
Seat 9 calls 50
Seat 2 folds
Seat 3 folds
Seat 4 folds
hero raises to 225
villain calls 175
Seat 9 folds
*** FLOP *** [As Qc 5c]
hero bets 525
villain calls 525
*** TURN *** [As Qc 5c] [Kd]
hero bets 1,250, and is all in
villain calls 1,250
hero shows [Ad 6d]
villain shows [2c 3c]
Really? You called a pre-flop raise and went all the way to the river with the worst flush draw possible?
You know, when they talk about licensing and regulating Internet poker, I often wonder if it's the sites they should really be licensing.
*** RIVER *** [As Qc 5c Kd] [8c]
Oh, of FUCKING course.
hero shows a pair of Aces
villain shows a flush, Queen high
villain wins the pot (4,075) with a flush, Queen high
hero stands up
The blinds are now 30/60
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4,075 | Rake 0
Board: [As Qc 5c Kd 8c]
Seat 2: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 3: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 4: (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 5: hero (big blind) showed [Ad 6d] and lost with a pair of Aces
Seat 6: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: villain showed [2c 3c] and won (4,075) with a flush, Queen high
Seat 8: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: folded before the Flop
There is nothing to say
Here's a two-fer from the same SnG:
First, try and guess what each of these two players has. You're going to be wrong. Promise.
PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $50+$2 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2008/10/19 3:05:13 ET
Table '_ 1' 10-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: donkey (1540 in chips)
Seat 3: (1460 in chips)
Seat 4: shark (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: hero (1500 in chips)
Seat 10: (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: posts small blind 10
shark: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7s 3s]
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: folds
Seat 7: folds
Seat 8: folds
hero: folds
Seat 10: folds
Seat 1: folds
donkey: raises 20 to 40
Seat 3: folds
shark: raises 60 to 100
donkey: calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Qc Js 5d]
shark: bets 100
donkey: calls 100
*** TURN *** [Qc Js 5d] [Ah]
shark: bets 180
donkey: calls 180
*** RIVER *** [Qc Js 5d Ah] [4h]
shark: bets 500
donkey: raises 660 to 1160 and is all-in
shark: calls 620 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (40) returned to donkey
*** SHOW DOWN ***
donkey: shows [Ts 4s] (a pair of Fours)
shark: shows [As Ad] (three of a kind, Aces)
shark collected 3010 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3010 | Rake 0
Board [Qc Js 5d Ah 4h]
Seat 1: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: donkey (button) showed [Ts 4s] and lost with a pair of Fours
Seat 3: (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: shark (big blind) showed [As Ad] and won (3010) with three of a kind, Aces
Seat 5: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: hero folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 10: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
And this one:
I was involved here, and once again... There must be something in the water.
PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $50+$2 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2008/10/19 3:21:33 ET
Table '_ 1' 10-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: (1640 in chips)
Seat 3: (1515 in chips)
Seat 4: (3465 in chips)
Seat 5: (1215 in chips)
Seat 7: villain (2000 in chips)
Seat 8: (1870 in chips)
Seat 9: hero (1975 in chips)
Seat 10: (1320 in chips)
[skip a bunch of lines of everybody putting in a 10 chip ante]
Seat 5: posts small blind 50
villain: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kd Ks]
Seat 8: folds
hero: raises 200 to 300
Seat 10: folds
Seat 1: folds
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: folds
Seat 5: folds
villain: raises 1690 to 1990 and is all-in
hero: calls 1665 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (25) returned to villain
He turns up 5To.
Really? I was making a bull-crap move from 2nd position? Having played almost no hands so far?
*** FLOP *** [4h Jh 6h]
*** TURN *** [4h Jh 6h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [4h Jh 6h 2h] [4s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
villain: shows [5c Ts] (a pair of Fours)
hero: shows [Kd Ks] (two pair, Kings and Fours)
hero collected 4060 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4060 | Rake 0
Board [4h Jh 6h 2h 4s]
Seat 1: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: villain (big blind) showed [5c Ts] and lost with a pair of Fours
Seat 8: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: hero showed [Kd Ks] and won (4060) with two pair, Kings and Fours
Seat 10: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
First, try and guess what each of these two players has. You're going to be wrong. Promise.
PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $50+$2 Hold'em No Limit - Level I (10/20) - 2008/10/19 3:05:13 ET
Table '_ 1' 10-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: (1500 in chips)
Seat 2: donkey (1540 in chips)
Seat 3: (1460 in chips)
Seat 4: shark (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: (1500 in chips)
Seat 6: (1500 in chips)
Seat 7: (1500 in chips)
Seat 8: (1500 in chips)
Seat 9: hero (1500 in chips)
Seat 10: (1500 in chips)
Seat 3: posts small blind 10
shark: posts big blind 20
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [7s 3s]
Seat 5: folds
Seat 6: folds
Seat 7: folds
Seat 8: folds
hero: folds
Seat 10: folds
Seat 1: folds
donkey: raises 20 to 40
Seat 3: folds
shark: raises 60 to 100
donkey: calls 60
*** FLOP *** [Qc Js 5d]
shark: bets 100
donkey: calls 100
*** TURN *** [Qc Js 5d] [Ah]
shark: bets 180
donkey: calls 180
*** RIVER *** [Qc Js 5d Ah] [4h]
shark: bets 500
donkey: raises 660 to 1160 and is all-in
shark: calls 620 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (40) returned to donkey
*** SHOW DOWN ***
donkey: shows [Ts 4s] (a pair of Fours)
shark: shows [As Ad] (three of a kind, Aces)
shark collected 3010 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3010 | Rake 0
Board [Qc Js 5d Ah 4h]
Seat 1: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: donkey (button) showed [Ts 4s] and lost with a pair of Fours
Seat 3: (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: shark (big blind) showed [As Ad] and won (3010) with three of a kind, Aces
Seat 5: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: hero folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 10: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
And this one:
I was involved here, and once again... There must be something in the water.
PokerStars Game #_: Tournament #_, $50+$2 Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2008/10/19 3:21:33 ET
Table '_ 1' 10-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: (1640 in chips)
Seat 3: (1515 in chips)
Seat 4: (3465 in chips)
Seat 5: (1215 in chips)
Seat 7: villain (2000 in chips)
Seat 8: (1870 in chips)
Seat 9: hero (1975 in chips)
Seat 10: (1320 in chips)
[skip a bunch of lines of everybody putting in a 10 chip ante]
Seat 5: posts small blind 50
villain: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [Kd Ks]
Seat 8: folds
hero: raises 200 to 300
Seat 10: folds
Seat 1: folds
Seat 3: folds
Seat 4: folds
Seat 5: folds
villain: raises 1690 to 1990 and is all-in
hero: calls 1665 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (25) returned to villain
He turns up 5To.
Really? I was making a bull-crap move from 2nd position? Having played almost no hands so far?
*** FLOP *** [4h Jh 6h]
*** TURN *** [4h Jh 6h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [4h Jh 6h 2h] [4s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
villain: shows [5c Ts] (a pair of Fours)
hero: shows [Kd Ks] (two pair, Kings and Fours)
hero collected 4060 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 4060 | Rake 0
Board [4h Jh 6h 2h 4s]
Seat 1: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: villain (big blind) showed [5c Ts] and lost with a pair of Fours
Seat 8: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: hero showed [Kd Ks] and won (4060) with two pair, Kings and Fours
Seat 10: folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Friday, October 17, 2008
Nice call, eeyore
Full Tilt Poker Game #_: $110 + $9 Sit & Go (Turbo) (_ Table 1 - 80/160 - No Limit Hold'em - 10:26:14 ET - 2008/10/17
Seat 1: (1,230)
Seat 5: (3,920), is sitting out
Seat 6: (850)
Seat 7: villain (4,650)
Seat 8: hero (2,850)
villain posts the small blind of 80
hero posts the big blind of 160
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [3h 3d]
Seat 1 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
villain calls 80
hero raises to 480
villain calls 320
*** FLOP *** [7c 4s 7h]
villain checks
He called a raise. The only hand I would do that with in this spot would be a couple of face cards or maybe a dry ace. If he has A7 then that would suck, but it's unlikely. This guy has been getting out of line all day long, so I think I can get paid in this spot.
hero bets 2,370, and is all in
villain calls 2,370
hero shows [3h 3d]
villain shows [9d 7d]
Fucking donkey. Keep calling my raises with shit.
*** TURN *** [7c 4s 7h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [7c 4s 7h 2h] [8h]
hero shows two pair, Sevens and Threes
villain shows three of a kind, Sevens
villain wins the pot (5,700) with three of a kind, Sevens
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5,700 | Rake 0
Board: [7c 4s 7h 2h 8h]
Seat 1: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: villain (small blind) showed [9d 7d] and won (5,700) with three of a kind, Sevens
Seat 8: hero (big blind) showed [3h 3d] and lost with two pair, Sevens and Threes
Seat 1: (1,230)
Seat 5: (3,920), is sitting out
Seat 6: (850)
Seat 7: villain (4,650)
Seat 8: hero (2,850)
villain posts the small blind of 80
hero posts the big blind of 160
The button is in seat #6
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to hero [3h 3d]
Seat 1 folds
Seat 5 folds
Seat 6 folds
villain calls 80
hero raises to 480
villain calls 320
*** FLOP *** [7c 4s 7h]
villain checks
He called a raise. The only hand I would do that with in this spot would be a couple of face cards or maybe a dry ace. If he has A7 then that would suck, but it's unlikely. This guy has been getting out of line all day long, so I think I can get paid in this spot.
hero bets 2,370, and is all in
villain calls 2,370
hero shows [3h 3d]
villain shows [9d 7d]
Fucking donkey. Keep calling my raises with shit.
*** TURN *** [7c 4s 7h] [2h]
*** RIVER *** [7c 4s 7h 2h] [8h]
hero shows two pair, Sevens and Threes
villain shows three of a kind, Sevens
villain wins the pot (5,700) with three of a kind, Sevens
hero stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5,700 | Rake 0
Board: [7c 4s 7h 2h 8h]
Seat 1: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: (button) didn't bet (folded)
Seat 7: villain (small blind) showed [9d 7d] and won (5,700) with three of a kind, Sevens
Seat 8: hero (big blind) showed [3h 3d] and lost with two pair, Sevens and Threes
Thursday, October 16, 2008
AP screws up statistics, film at 11
From this story about a deadly helicopter ambulance accident, comes this little tidbit:
Really?
Six incidents and you're ready to question the safety of medical ambulance flights? How many people die every year in four-wheeled ambulance accidents? I'd rather question whether or not perhaps helicopters are underutilized as ambulances if I were merely inclined to make judgments on accident statistics in isolation.
Stupid AP. No cookie for you. Instead, you get the Golden [Citation Needed] award.
It was the sixth fatal crash involving medical helicopters this year, according to federal data, including one just last month in Maryland that also killed four.
[...]
On Sept. 28, a medical helicopter carrying traffic accident victims crashed in a Maryland suburb, killing four of the five people on board. On June 8, a copter crashed on an isolated ranch in the Sam Houston National Forest in Texas, killing a patient and three crew members. Those and other crashes have raised questions on whether medical ambulance flights are overused.
Really?
Six incidents and you're ready to question the safety of medical ambulance flights? How many people die every year in four-wheeled ambulance accidents? I'd rather question whether or not perhaps helicopters are underutilized as ambulances if I were merely inclined to make judgments on accident statistics in isolation.
Stupid AP. No cookie for you. Instead, you get the Golden [Citation Needed] award.
ATSC vs DVB for North American amateurs
Fred Spinner, W0FMS, posted a comment to an earlier post that I think is deserving of a prominent reply. Here's his comment:
Everything Fred says is true on its face. I still, however, believe that ATSC for amateur TV is not a completely wasted effort.
Although DVB-S receivers can be had for cheap, DVB-T would be the better mode for terrestrial reception (it is, after all, what European broadcasters themselves use). DVB-T receivers not only would be uncommon here in North America, they'd likely not be set up for the U.S. Amateur bands. DVB-S receivers also are going to require some fiddling to get them to work.
But some ATSC receivers are frequency agile enough to be able to work at least on the 73 cm ham band (I'm thinking mostly of computer controlled receivers, like the HD HomeRun or DTV receiver cards). I have some hopes that the HD HomeRun may work on the 900 MHz band as well. We'll have to see. But even if we have to use downconverters to tune alternate bands into the receive range of a traditional ATSC receiver, those downconverters could also be used for analog TV as well. And, as Alton Brown is fond of saying, I look down on unitaskers. :)
We hams have been extraordinarily lucky that for the past 30 years or so cable ready TVs were able to receive 70 cm ATV transmissions completely without modification. I wonder how many TV hams we'd have today if it weren't for the fact that anyone could take a consumer TV, attach a different kind of antenna to the input and tune in the local repeater. With the transition to digital, the chickens are coming home to roost and this happy coincidence is going to go away. Because most (but not all) ATSC receivers are not frequency agile enough to tune amateur bands, we won't be able to tell interested folks that all they have to do is tune their TV to a certain channel. But the opposite side of that coin is that in a few years' time after the transition is complete and the last generation of analog TVs is put out to pasture, there will be a boat load of old ATSC converter boxes that potentially could be modified (perhaps simply by supplying alternative firmware) into amateur TV decoders. There's also all of those PC controlled receivers that are frequency agile.
Fred's last comment about bandwidth is also true - and it is certainly the case that the intent is for the system to multiplex multiple inputs eventually. But you have to walk before you can run. Eventually, I'd like to see the system have 4 video channels: an outdoor camera, an analog TV input, a digital TV input, and a system information slide show.
A okay quality DVB-S receiver can be had for far less cost than a PC electronics downconverter. All that likely would be necessary is a preamp at the antenna. I've seen PC card DVB receivers go for $10 and used DVB-S receivers go for $30. New ones, non high def, are less than $100 at the low end.
The disadvantage of ATSC is the complexity and the fact that you are transmitting on a 6 MHz channel. A DVB-S transmission can be done in good quality at about 2 MHZ. Also QPSK isn't going to be nearly as touchy as 8VSB as far as linearity is concerned. I've experimented with both-- I have an e-bay ATSC modulator/transmitter (formally used for demos at "Best Buy") and I find the fiddling that has to be done with ATSC (such as PSIP) data to be a big waste of effort.
The only disadvantage with DVB-S is multipath as QPSK/Satellite isn't really designed for that.. but if you are going to use gain antennas on both ends who cares? The MPEG-2 DVB-S or S2 standards are also far more lenient of audio and video rates. I suppose if you'd like to be cutting edge DVB-S2 and MPEG-4 H.264 would even be better than ATSC.... It's possible to do HD at low rates with H.264 and still only use 2-3 MHz of bandwidth.
I do hope if you are going to use ATSC for a repeater output that you strongly consider multiplexing multiple input receivers.. otherwise you are literally wasting the spectrum that the null packets consume.
Everything Fred says is true on its face. I still, however, believe that ATSC for amateur TV is not a completely wasted effort.
Although DVB-S receivers can be had for cheap, DVB-T would be the better mode for terrestrial reception (it is, after all, what European broadcasters themselves use). DVB-T receivers not only would be uncommon here in North America, they'd likely not be set up for the U.S. Amateur bands. DVB-S receivers also are going to require some fiddling to get them to work.
But some ATSC receivers are frequency agile enough to be able to work at least on the 73 cm ham band (I'm thinking mostly of computer controlled receivers, like the HD HomeRun or DTV receiver cards). I have some hopes that the HD HomeRun may work on the 900 MHz band as well. We'll have to see. But even if we have to use downconverters to tune alternate bands into the receive range of a traditional ATSC receiver, those downconverters could also be used for analog TV as well. And, as Alton Brown is fond of saying, I look down on unitaskers. :)
We hams have been extraordinarily lucky that for the past 30 years or so cable ready TVs were able to receive 70 cm ATV transmissions completely without modification. I wonder how many TV hams we'd have today if it weren't for the fact that anyone could take a consumer TV, attach a different kind of antenna to the input and tune in the local repeater. With the transition to digital, the chickens are coming home to roost and this happy coincidence is going to go away. Because most (but not all) ATSC receivers are not frequency agile enough to tune amateur bands, we won't be able to tell interested folks that all they have to do is tune their TV to a certain channel. But the opposite side of that coin is that in a few years' time after the transition is complete and the last generation of analog TVs is put out to pasture, there will be a boat load of old ATSC converter boxes that potentially could be modified (perhaps simply by supplying alternative firmware) into amateur TV decoders. There's also all of those PC controlled receivers that are frequency agile.
Fred's last comment about bandwidth is also true - and it is certainly the case that the intent is for the system to multiplex multiple inputs eventually. But you have to walk before you can run. Eventually, I'd like to see the system have 4 video channels: an outdoor camera, an analog TV input, a digital TV input, and a system information slide show.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Full Tilt Poker Matrix SnGs
Have you ever thought that you were better than the rest of the folks at the table, but that you couldn't prove it because of a cold deck or bad beat?
Full Tilt has introduced a new concept called a Matrix Sit-n-Go. The idea is that they take 9 players and sit them down to 4 simultaneous single table SnG tournaments. It's one thing to get lucky and win a tournament. It's quite another to pwn the same field of 9 over the course of 4 independent ones.
But is it worth it? Let's analyze the Matrix and see how far down the rabbit hole goes.
There are actually 5 prize pools in a Matrix tournament - one for each of the individual tournaments, plus an overall prize pool for the Matrix itself. The prize pools take the traditional 50%, 30%, 20% breakdown for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. If you win all four of the individual tournaments, you can "scoop" the Matrix pool. So let's make the math easy - There are 50 "points" for the Matrix, and winning any of the contests gets you 5, coming in 2nd gives you 3 and coming in 3rd gives you 2. "Scooping" the Matrix gives you 10. So the best you can theoretically do is 4 * 5 + 10 - 30 points. For a $22+$2 Matrix SnG, each point is worth $3.96, so that's $118.80. If you instead had entered 4 plain SnGs each worth $5.50 + $0.50 (which is the $22+$2 divided by four), you'd have won $99. That's a premium of $19.80, or 20%. The next best finish you can get is winning 3 of them and placing 2nd in the 4th. No scoop for you! Instead, you'd almost certainly win the Matrix prize, plus 3 1st place and 1 2nd place, or 4 * 5 + 3 - 23 points. That's $91.08, compared to the alternative of $89.10 - a premium of only 2%!
Still, I played a $22+$2 one for the novelty of it. I didn't do too badly. I won two of the four tournaments, placed 4th in the third (bad beat) and 9th in the last (made an ill advised move against pocket kings). I wound up 1st in the Matrix prize pool, so I earned 15 points, or $59.40. Had I played individually, I would have won $49.50 - a 20% premium.
Here's how it broke down:
Figuring out who benefitted is easy. Everybody who cashed at all cashed 20% less than they would have, except for the 3 of us who cashed in the Matrix pool. So if you don't make it into the upper echelons pretty predictably, you probably should avoid these. I may play one once in a while for the novelty of it, but playing 4 SnGs at the same time is a bit more busy than I would normally want to be.
Full Tilt has introduced a new concept called a Matrix Sit-n-Go. The idea is that they take 9 players and sit them down to 4 simultaneous single table SnG tournaments. It's one thing to get lucky and win a tournament. It's quite another to pwn the same field of 9 over the course of 4 independent ones.
But is it worth it? Let's analyze the Matrix and see how far down the rabbit hole goes.
There are actually 5 prize pools in a Matrix tournament - one for each of the individual tournaments, plus an overall prize pool for the Matrix itself. The prize pools take the traditional 50%, 30%, 20% breakdown for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. If you win all four of the individual tournaments, you can "scoop" the Matrix pool. So let's make the math easy - There are 50 "points" for the Matrix, and winning any of the contests gets you 5, coming in 2nd gives you 3 and coming in 3rd gives you 2. "Scooping" the Matrix gives you 10. So the best you can theoretically do is 4 * 5 + 10 - 30 points. For a $22+$2 Matrix SnG, each point is worth $3.96, so that's $118.80. If you instead had entered 4 plain SnGs each worth $5.50 + $0.50 (which is the $22+$2 divided by four), you'd have won $99. That's a premium of $19.80, or 20%. The next best finish you can get is winning 3 of them and placing 2nd in the 4th. No scoop for you! Instead, you'd almost certainly win the Matrix prize, plus 3 1st place and 1 2nd place, or 4 * 5 + 3 - 23 points. That's $91.08, compared to the alternative of $89.10 - a premium of only 2%!
Still, I played a $22+$2 one for the novelty of it. I didn't do too badly. I won two of the four tournaments, placed 4th in the third (bad beat) and 9th in the last (made an ill advised move against pocket kings). I wound up 1st in the Matrix prize pool, so I earned 15 points, or $59.40. Had I played individually, I would have won $49.50 - a 20% premium.
Here's how it broke down:
Figuring out who benefitted is easy. Everybody who cashed at all cashed 20% less than they would have, except for the 3 of us who cashed in the Matrix pool. So if you don't make it into the upper echelons pretty predictably, you probably should avoid these. I may play one once in a while for the novelty of it, but playing 4 SnGs at the same time is a bit more busy than I would normally want to be.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
More Analog ATV success
I decided to mount the 1.2 GHz loop yagi pointed towards K6BEN/R today. Of course, that also meant getting a run of really good (LMR-400) coax to go up the tower for it. Soldering the N connectors on is sort of weird. I have to sort of take it on blind faith that I did it right, I guess, because it appears to be working correctly.
Right now, the run of coax is way too long, but I am going to cut a hole in the outside wall of the garage above the sliding door and epoxy in a big piece of PVC to use as a pass-through (Scarlet will just love how that looks!) to make the coax runs as short as possible. I bought a long enough piece of the LMR coax so that hopefully I can get two runs up the tower out of it and use the other piece for the 420 MHz receive side. That should hopefully improve my reception side a little bit as well.
But at least now getting into the ATV repeater is no longer extraordinary.
Monday, October 6, 2008
OJ
So OJ was found guilty on all counts stemming from his involvement with a wacky scheme to retrieve stuff that he says was his.
I'm pretty sure that OJ was guilty of something. It may not have been exactly what he was actually convicted for, but it's probably pretty close.
My my my.
Let's say that that stuff really was his. How did it come into the hands of this other guy? Could it be because OJ was trying to hide assets from the Goldmans?
Let's FURTHER presume that the whole thing was on the up-and-up. If you were in OJ's shoes, wouldn't your next step be to call either the cops to bust the other guy for possession of stolen property, or call a lawyer to sue?
But most importantly, if you were going to be forced to spend the rest of your life in a rather intense tabloid spotlight, wouldn't you try to be sure to be on your best behavior? Is a scheme involving other guys toting guns in any way compatible with that concept?
I'm pretty sure that OJ was guilty of something. It may not have been exactly what he was actually convicted for, but it's probably pretty close.
Analog ATV video
Michael Wright (K6MFW) recorded my first analog transmission through K6BEN and put it up on YouTube!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Taking a hard, honest look at my play
SharkScope really is an invaluable tool for anyone serious about poker.
I played a dozen $14+1 and $28+$2 Super Turbo 9 handed SnGs on Full Tilt this afternoon. Lost Every. Damn. One. Sat down to a 9 handed $55+$5 SnG and won it.
Now, the good news is that the Super Turbo and regular Turbo tournaments have different stakes, so you can delve into SharkScope's database by filtering on a stake list to differentiate them. It's also nice that the Turbo and non-Turbo tournaments also have different stake levels.
So since my last boot camp, I have a -4% average ROI overall. That's actually much improved from where I was, say, a year ago (lifetime at full tilt before the last boot camp, average ROI -13%).
But the really shocking thing is that if you filter out 6 handed SnGs and super turbos, I actually have a positive 9% aROI.
6 or fewer handed, I have a -15% aROI and in the Super Turbos, I am -11%.
And then, it struck me. The reason I play 6 handed and Super Turbos is that I want it to be over faster. Call it a short attention span, or a desire for instant gratification or impatience, whatever, but I rather suspect that if you analyze every aspect of my life, that's the most glaring character flaw you'll be likely to find. And I can see it turning up in Poker too.
Sigh.
I don't need a Poker coach. Playing the plan that I was given at the last boot camp is working. SharkScope proves that. What I need to do is not try and get fancy in an attempt to get success more easily, because it should be obvious to me by now that it doesn't work.
I played a dozen $14+1 and $28+$2 Super Turbo 9 handed SnGs on Full Tilt this afternoon. Lost Every. Damn. One. Sat down to a 9 handed $55+$5 SnG and won it.
Now, the good news is that the Super Turbo and regular Turbo tournaments have different stakes, so you can delve into SharkScope's database by filtering on a stake list to differentiate them. It's also nice that the Turbo and non-Turbo tournaments also have different stake levels.
So since my last boot camp, I have a -4% average ROI overall. That's actually much improved from where I was, say, a year ago (lifetime at full tilt before the last boot camp, average ROI -13%).
But the really shocking thing is that if you filter out 6 handed SnGs and super turbos, I actually have a positive 9% aROI.
6 or fewer handed, I have a -15% aROI and in the Super Turbos, I am -11%.
And then, it struck me. The reason I play 6 handed and Super Turbos is that I want it to be over faster. Call it a short attention span, or a desire for instant gratification or impatience, whatever, but I rather suspect that if you analyze every aspect of my life, that's the most glaring character flaw you'll be likely to find. And I can see it turning up in Poker too.
Sigh.
I don't need a Poker coach. Playing the plan that I was given at the last boot camp is working. SharkScope proves that. What I need to do is not try and get fancy in an attempt to get success more easily, because it should be obvious to me by now that it doesn't work.
6th and 7th
Well, I am in the hospital for the weekend with a DVT, but I borrowed Mark's WAN data dongle so I could work and play. Yesterday I played a $10+$1 tournament and came in 6th. I played another one today and came in 7th. Each win was about $120 or so. Not bad for playing in bed in a gown with my ass hanging out the back.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Analog ATV success
The 1.2 GHz amp I ordered in July finally arrived. I was able to use it to get into the K6BEN ATV repeater tonight. That was fun. So that's step 1.
Ironically, Gizmo got his face on TV before I did. I still actually haven't been on camera above the waist, but Gizmo walked by me and got his picture out. :)
Ironically, Gizmo got his face on TV before I did. I still actually haven't been on camera above the waist, but Gizmo walked by me and got his picture out. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)