The Worst Case Scenario

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 28, 2009 in General | 2 comments

Good friend BW07507 calls it "the 200nl curse" and it appears to have hit me rather hard.  When you move up in stakes there's always one worst case scenario in the bank of your mind that might happen to you.  What is it? Well, you move up, run bad and play a few hands poorly at the higher stakes, be forced to move down, and then run bad there too. So no matter where you play, you lose.

This is the case for me unfortunately. I've been sending hands for analysis to friends and there's been some good discussion. I'd say right now it's a little obvious I am not playing my best poker right now. On top of that I keep getting the "one pip higher by the villain" thing which is very frustrating. In the last four sessions I've had KK<AA all in preflop where the villain is a loose fishy player. On top of that I've been having too many of these hands to even count:

Well that's great ... I can't even get pokerhandreplays.com to work right now. LOL it's been that kind of month people. What can go wrong HAS gone wrong. Let's try to recount this hand:

I have AK in EP and make a raise and get called by 4 other villains. The flop comes AT3 and I lead out for about 70% of pot and I am insta-called by the bad reg, called by the passive fish, fold, and then min-raised by the LAG fish. I fold, the bad reg raises, the middle fish folds, and the LAG fish shoves and is called by the bad reg.  The bad reg shows AQ and the LAG fish shows 33. It's been very frustrating because I have perceived the number of times a villain flops a set against my TPTK or overpair to be much MUCH greater than expectation. Conversely, I've only been hitting 9% of sets all month and it's been 17k hands ... and as Jurn points out hitting sets isn't the thing it's getting paid for them. That definitely hasn't happened.

So all in all looks like a standard downswing. Had the confidence shaken because of the blown shot at 200nl plus the cooler hands. That's given way to me making some poor decisions on a few hands that cost some stacks. The plan is for me to relax, reflect and study and then head back with a level head. Some winning sessions will definitely restore the confidence and I'll go from there.

Goodbye 200nl!

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 22, 2009 in 200nl | 1 comment

Funny that the 200nl shot lasted as short as it did. The result was only a -4 buy-in loss but I'm finding myself just unable to deal with losing on a 3 buy-in swing at 200nl. The money apparently affects me too much and I need to better mentally stabilize myself before taking another shot.

I do not believe that my play was bad at all, in fact, I thought it was pretty good. I felt like I handled the regs just fine, and the fish were fish just like any other level. There is a fair amount more aggression and the regs are definitely more competition than 100nl. I did a good job ID'ing the regs that knew what they were doing, and made sure at no point was I over-compensating or out-leveling myself.

In terms of bankroll guidelines I should stay at 200nl because I wanted to give myself an 8 buy-in loss attempt, but being more tilted now than I have been in months has proved to me that I'm just not ready yet. My poker A-Game might be, but I'm not able to play it yet. YET!

So what's happened? Basically swings going up and down which is really weird for Full Ring that would have you barf. There's just been a wild amount of villains hitting gin cards or sets against my big overpairs. I won't post 29 hands but I will post a bullet list of the good and bad.

THE GOOD (all of my +50 big blinds won hands)

• QQ holds against 99 on the 678 flop and I made a great hero read and call at the river for all unders against his 99 for a little more than a stack.
• AA holds against QQ on the J56 board as we got it in on the flop. Shipped a stack.

THE BAD (all of my -50 big blinds lost hands)

• Set under set against a 32/10/4 for a little more than a stack.
• JJ overpair against a 32/14/4 who hits a set for a stack.
• AA<KK for a stack.
• AK on a 3KQ2K board for trips loses to 22 for a good size pot.
• KK<JJ for a little more than half a stack (at this point I got good at seeing people flop sets on me)
• AK clubs for two overs and the nut flush draw on flop bricks off for half a stack.
• 2nd nut flush vs nut flush on a 3-tone board.

Anyways, I am obviously over emphasizing the losses because of the magnitude of the actual dollar figures being doubled. Clearly, it's no different than when I moved up from 50nl to 100nl many months ago. Looking back I dealt with the same thing then, and I got through it.  I will do the same thing again, and I am sure in time take another 200nl shot and hopefully succeed.

For now I'll go back to grinding 100nl, getting my game and head back together in the place it was before I took this shot, and then re-evaluate what I want my goals to be for poker.  Do I want to start cashing out regular money every month? Or do I want to save up for more than 40 buy-ins for another 200nl shot?

Ah the joys of poker.

Hello 200nl!

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 19, 2009 in 200nl | 4 comments

As you can tell from the title, I've finally gotten a bankroll together to take a shot at the 200nl ($1-$2 blinds) games.  It's a tremendous accomplishment to make it this far as so many players flame out or are simply unable to make it this far. So from that perspective, I'm very proud that I've "hung in there" and made it to the point to competently take a shot at the mid-stakes (or upper small stakes depending on your definition).

A lot of players or donkeys (for lack of a better term) buy-in under-rolled for a higher level than they are normally used to play.  Other players make a big score in an MTT through pure luckbox efforts (it happens, lots) and take their new found money to the cash game tables ... only to lose it to the likes of people ready and willing to eat up the fish.

At 200nl there are definitely a group players playing for a living and occasionally the 400nl guys will step down to make some money.  That's a pretty big concept to put my hands around, but it really became a lot easier to grasp once I started scouting the games and saw that many of the 200nl regulars were people I was already familiar with.  Quite a few had taken "step downs" to 100nl from time to time so seeing some of them at 200nl was a bit of a relief.  If I could handle them at 100nl, I can handle them at 200nl so long as I don't change my game.

And in that last sentence I reveal my greatest fear - over adaptation to my new surroundings. Too often, myself included, a player will move up in stakes and out-level himself into playing a game completely different than the one that got him or her there in the first place. That player begins to spew chips, get into constant flip situations and lose enough to where they have to move back down. It's that type of behavior I'm looking to avoid.

I am very proud to say I had never sat at a 200nl table until tonight when I was properly bankrolled for it.  BR management is just so important as I have seen the pitfalls of those that don't adhere to it.  Anyways, I played my regular nitty full ring style game and played 7 tables as always, and in the end, had a positive session.  For the record, here is my first ever hand at 200nl in my entire life (pure skill!!!):

Answers for Nick (and you too)

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 15, 2009 in poker | 1 comment

I have a good online friend, Nick, who plays small stakes Sit n Gos and was really successful last year in building a bankroll.  Unfortunately this year has been terrible for him results-wise and he's very frustrated about his current poker state.  He asked me some good questions and I'm posting his email and my responses (with his permission).  It should make for a great read for microstakes players.  Enjoy.

//////////////////////

With pure unadulterated discipline is it possible to play consistently x hours per day and x tables per session and come up in the black every month. Factoring things such as natural variance, bad beats and emotional tilt, if someone plays the best style according to the information they know that works, is it possible to do so?

It's possible for good players at a level they've proved they can beat.  If you can reliably know that you can beat a level, you can grind it out for an income so long as you've buffered potential downswings in your bankroll.  I write a bit about this in my last post, about specifically about how many hands does it take to know you're beating a level consistently.  I made the case that for a low variance style and a low variance game, it doesn't take many hands, maybe 30,000 or 40,000 (pulling that number out of the air).  For a high variance style and a high variance game (say, Heads Up PLO) it takes a ton more hands, like 200,000 (or more!).  There are other factors to consider, like a potentially dwindling player pool for online poker at some sites and players generally being better than they were 2 years ago.  For the most part though you'll see guys at 100nl play their 30-50k hands a month and see the same "x" amount of guys in the black.  The amount of "full timers" that are actually above the 2BB/100 would shock you. I'd say it's less than 20% of the full timers are that profitable.  A lot of people win marginally and add in rakeback/rewards and that's their income. The big winners are the ones that seem to play less but more focused and profitable poker.

Why is it the best players online multiple table, is it because they know poker has now become more of a cash transaction game and are purely relying on the luck of maths?

Playing online poker on one table is easy, especially with a HUD.  There's not much to pay attention to, at least, not TOO much to lower your maximum abilities. It absolutely is not "the luck of maths" because if that was the case we'd all even out in the long run (actually we'd all lose because of the rake).  So good players use their skill and win.  Since they are able to, they can add tables until that maximum threshold is reached.  Sometimes players go above that threshold because the more tables, the bigger rakeback or rewards, and thus more bottom line money.  At the end of the day, the only reason that people add tables is to increase their take-home $$/hour (or session).

The reason for all this, I’ve suffered serious and I mean serious variance in my sng’s and I’m unsure if I made the right decision in playing them. Maybe its emotions talking but I am at the point where I do need to be drawing some form of income from the game, the hours are going in, the heart is there, yet the results are not. I remember playing abc @ 10nl and overall being up, not much but up nonetheless in the long run.

Ya, I am actually at a bit of a crossroads myself too about bringing in income from playing poker.  Unfortunately here in the United States it's nothing we can solidly rely on.  I would recommend you take a page out of BelgoSuisse's book.  He's a poker mind I hold in the highest regard, and he played Sit & Gos regularly until he took an extremely nasty slide.  It's why players like him, me, Chuckts, and others simply couldn't stay with SNGs - the results were too unpredictable and the wild swings you go on as a full time SNG grinder are too great for many to handle (myself included).  Full ring no limit Texas Hold'em is a low variance game.  Playing a nitty style is a low variance style.  Low Variance = Greater Chance of Expectations Being Met.  At 10nl and 25nl you don't even have to play ABC poker to be a marginal winner.  At 50nl you should be an ABC Poker master and still win nicely and be able to start to handle things like 3betting with position.  At 100nl ABC poker will keep you at least breakeven, but monsters like me will exploit you to no end.  Ideally by the time you are at 100nl you'll have the experience to handle all of it, but that's just my cash game perspective.  From what I understand at $33 SNGs and above, the play is extremely robotic.  Mistakes from your opponents are rare.  We win money when our opponents make more (and bigger) mistakes when we do.  Since a lot of SNGs are ICM and math based, the edge we have in mistakes being made is very thin.

I’m a little all over the shop and really REALLY want to sit at a game type, play the situation accordingly and know that whilst I will cop horrendous beats, in the long run, I will be up. Long run being far more important than anything else.

It's always a tough thing to juggle "short term variance" vs "leaks in your game" and figure out which is which.  That's where your internet friends come in and why having a support group of poker analysts is something that the profitable people are able to do.

End of the day, I’m putting in the hours and work and want to start seeing some fruits of my labour come through.

Winning is a by-product of playing well.  Your job is to play well.  I know you want to win.  Your opponents want to win too.  The only way you can win is if you play optimally and make fewer (and smaller) mistakes than they do.

I trust, value and respect your opinion hence me sitting here at 9am asking you. For me its time to get serious, make some big personal adjustments and stick to them.

We've had similar conversations to this before, specifically with moves for you to cash games and getting to a point where you can draw from poker a small income.  In the end though, a few times over, those things have gone by the wayside.  Failure is a part of success and not seeing immediate results and then quitting is the sign of a player that doesn't have the chops to last in the long run.  After seeing a lot of small and mid-stakes pros now, I can tell you that "poker skill" is probably 50% of what it takes to be a long term winner.  Fortitude, a thirst for knowledge and a level head are the other 50%.  Do you think you've demonstrated what it takes?

My mate/neighbour (Dr.G) I’ve spoken of in my blog said my problem this year, is I’ve ‘chopped and changed’ way to many times which is so true, I’m either grinding sng don’s 1 day or playing 1 table of 100nl the other day. We’re at August 13th and I am actually down like $X for the year, that’s just wrong on so many levels.

Maybe it's right on so many levels (literally).  There's a big danger in life when you become a "jack of all trades" - you are versed in many trades but a master of none.  Big winners or highly successful people in any field aren't people that can do everything, they are people that do something specific better than anyone else.  The best baseball player on Earth is paid $20 million USD because he's the best BASEBALL player, not the best athlete in the world.  You have to think of poker as something as vague as "sports" and something like NLHE Cash Games or PLO SNGs as as specific sport to specialize in and absolutely master to the best of your abilities.  That's my 2 cents, I hope it helps.

Play More Hands! Play More Hands?

Posted by icemonkey9 on Aug 11, 2009 in stakes | 2 comments

After showing a select few my results graph and numbers from last month I got one overwhelming comment repeated to me over and over - Play More Hands! With my win-rate being what it was/is (it's been the same this month so far) more hands in theory would mean more money. It would mean more experience. It would mean being able to move up ... quicker.

Last month I didn't really start playing until I got back from Vegas and the few days it took to move my bankroll from PokerStars to another poker room. As I've stated before I've kept the identity of this room and my username private for various reasons. Anyway in about 16 days I got in about 13,000 hands which over the course of 30 days would be around my all time high for a month (which I think was 21,000).

This month I've played about 7,000 hands through 10 days, a pace that puts me at 21,000 for the month.  Although I do wish I could play more in terms of finding another hour a day to play or play on a day like Saturday where I am too busy, I am finding that playing "more" probably wouldn't mean more money.

There are two things that got me thinking about this. First, there's a prop bet amongst some friends who are frickin' killing themselves trying to get gaudy hands-played volume in for the month. Second, a good friend who I like a lot, Jurn8, mentioned that he doesn't consider anything a large sample unless you've played 200k hands.

To address the prop bet of playing lots and lots of hands ... I tried to participate in these in the past and always failed save one time. I know some people thrive in these but I've learned I am not one of these types of people. I can't force myself to play during a tough time mentally or sacrifice time from family/work/writing. I'm only willing to play when the conditions are right for me - it's quiet, I don't have anything else on my plate and I can totally focus on the tables.

That moves into the second point - that a large sample of hands is 200k and you can only draw conclusions from that sized a sample (less would be premature). There seems to be a subliminal message that less hands played isn't a good sample or indicator of results. I think most of the guys I know are hung up on a popular Excel spreadsheet that shows how variance can swing you from huge winner to break-even player over a 100k hand sample.

It's a depressing thing to look at to be sure, but what is extremely understated is the Standard Deviation entered in to the data.  I have seen most people enter in numbers ranging from 55-69 for the Standard Deviation (taken from Hold'em Manager). For a Pot Limit Omaha 6max player I would expect this high a number. For a full ring player playing No Limit Hold'em, I wouldn't expect this number this high. This number would be high for people that play a high variance style, thus, their results would be less predictable. Usually this means players that play a big LAG (loose aggressive) or a lot of Heads Up or 6max play. Naturally, with such a high Standard Deviation, a much larger sample would be needed to draw results, most of which I would expect to include huge swings.

I'll have to look at my main computer (I'm on my laptop on the road right now) for my entire 100nl stats which is about 80k hands to find out my total Standard Deviation. However,  do have the last 22k hands since moving back to full ring and playing super-nitty and my Standard Deviation was 32. Plugging that into the spreadsheet showed that variance really doesn't play a major part in my 100k results. Sure, there were some graphs where I ended up less profitable, but for the most part it was a nice line going up during the course of the entire period.

So that brought me to the conclusion that both Jurn8 and myself just might be right in our arguments. For a player that plays a high variance style and game, 200k hands might not even be enough hands to draw conclusions.  For a player that plays a low variance style and low variance game, much less hands are needed to draw conclusions. Clearly, it would take a lot more statistical analysis and data modeling to find out exactly what that would be; much more so than I'm willing to commit to than I have superficially here in my blog.

The final point is this - you don't need to play 200k hands (necessarily) to have it be a good sample to draw conclusions from. If you are a historically steady player playing a low variance game (as indicated from a Standard Deviation less than, say, 40) you probably wouldn't need half that number. Clearly, I'm fighting for that point because that's where I perceive myself to exist.

For us "turtles" of the internet poker scene that only play one-hour sessions and seven to nine tables at a time, we're able to put all our focus on the tables. I absolutely 100% believe it's possible for other people to play 12, 16, 20 tables and still be able to give that 100% attention and focus. Nevetheless, I have recognized I am not one of these types, so rather than sacraficing win-rate and playing 14 tables @ 1.5BB/100, I'm playing seven tables @ 5.2BB/100.  The money, in the end, dictates my behavior because I am doing what is most profitable and keeps me happiest while playing. The wild card is entered with rewards like FPPs or Rakeback, where you could make up for the gap in profit with the rewards money. My counter to that is what is the value of lost income thanks to FPPs versus the reward of improved play and experience. Interesting concept.

For now I'll keep turtling away playing seven or eight tables for one-hour sessions and probably get in 20-25k hands a month. Ideally that means I'll keep winning between a 4.5-5.2BB/100 win-rate as well.  It's what works for me and keeps me happy, profitable and learning at the tables.  I would never presume that this same formula works for everyone and admire those that can play more just as profitable if not more. I believe that a poker player should not exceed their capacity and should know just what that capacity is before embarking on volume-based adventures.