Here's what the new site looks like:
And here's the RSS feed for Pokersift. Look for my posts under "Verstehen" at Pokersift.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Queen High Straight has moved to Pokersift.com
About a month ago, I joined a collective blog on the new site Pokersift.com. This is an offshoot of Bigpoker, the excellent site run by Vancouver poker pro Adam Schwartz. He's best known for Rounders: the Poker Show, which was sufficiently successful to become The 2+2 Pokercast (iTunes link).
Here's what the new site looks like:
And here's the RSS feed for Pokersift. Look for my posts under "Verstehen" at Pokersift.
Here's what the new site looks like:
And here's the RSS feed for Pokersift. Look for my posts under "Verstehen" at Pokersift.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Nat Arem's AP reports continue
Nat Arem has posted the latest installment of his Absolute Poker investigation online. Read it if, like me, you're morbidly fascinated with corruption in online poker:
Absolute Poker Costa Rica Trip: Part 4:
(Via N 82 50 24 / Nat Arem Blog.)
Technorati Tags:
Absolute Poker, Online poker
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Medium Flush on the River - Do you Raise?
Just today I had an interesting hand come up. As usual, I've posted it on the Low Limit Forum. I had 9 ♣ 8 ♣ and raised in the hijack, with only the blind calling. This isn't a usual play for me, but I'm trying to be more active with suited connectors.
The flop was:
T♣ 6♣ K♦
He check-called me, I checked behind when an ace came on the turn, and the river was the A♣, making my flush but putting a possible full house on the board.
He led out for a pot sized bet and I ... ?
Read it on the forum.
The flop was:
T♣ 6♣ K♦
He check-called me, I checked behind when an ace came on the turn, and the river was the A♣, making my flush but putting a possible full house on the board.
He led out for a pot sized bet and I ... ?
Read it on the forum.
Queen High Straight is Moving
Queen High Straight will be moving to the Bigpoker website some time very soon.
If you've never checked out BigPoker, they host a wonderful radio show that I recommend to all my poker friends. Here's the link:
Rounders: The Poker Show with Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz
If you've never checked out BigPoker, they host a wonderful radio show that I recommend to all my poker friends. Here's the link:
Rounders: The Poker Show with Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz
Making the Switch, Part V: Checking to Be Sure
I've had the best success of my (short) career so far playing low-stakes no-limit. But I wasn't completely sure no-limit was my game. To make sure, I got out Ed Miller's "Small Stakes Hold 'Em." I brushed up on the limit skills, learned a few new ideas, and hit the .25/.50 tables. I played full-ring, 6-max and shorthanded.
I got killed. I lost over 120 big bets in just over a day. That's not just variance - that's a long-term losing streak. Some of it was bad play and tilt. Some of it was the sick, insane beats we all associate with limit poker. Here's my favorite:
I hold AA. I raise in early position, and get re-raised (!) by one of the blinds. I cap and the flop is:
4♠ 3♣ 3♥
I consider that a great flop to aces. If he has an overpair, he's trapped with almost no outs. I don't see him re-raising with 44 or 33. I check-raise and he 3-bets me! Perfect.
The turn is:
K ♣
There's a small chance he has KK and hit a set, but I can't really slow down now. We go at it again on this street.
River:
K♦
Are you kidding me? He turns over AK and rakes the pot. According to Ed Miller's Equity Calculator, I was an 82:1 favorite on the flop. And yet I got called on every street and lost. His only outs were running kings, and he stayed in to hit them.
Of course, beats happen in NL. But you'd have to think hard about calling a big bet with AK on a 443 board. There was no thinking here, and that's why it's frustrating.
It seems I'm just a better player at NL. I can win long-term at low-stakes NL, and I can't at limit.
This is good news, since I started in limit cash games and it took a long time to grind up a bankroll (not sure how I did it, actually). It turns out I'm just not that good at limit. I've won more than 1000 big blinds playing NL in the past month, and I clearly can't match that at the limit tables.
I'm glad I checked. You have to know your game, and some people are savants at one or the other (limit or big-bet). I'm no savant, but I'm pretty sure NL is where my edge is.
I got killed. I lost over 120 big bets in just over a day. That's not just variance - that's a long-term losing streak. Some of it was bad play and tilt. Some of it was the sick, insane beats we all associate with limit poker. Here's my favorite:
I hold AA. I raise in early position, and get re-raised (!) by one of the blinds. I cap and the flop is:
4♠ 3♣ 3♥
I consider that a great flop to aces. If he has an overpair, he's trapped with almost no outs. I don't see him re-raising with 44 or 33. I check-raise and he 3-bets me! Perfect.
The turn is:
K ♣
There's a small chance he has KK and hit a set, but I can't really slow down now. We go at it again on this street.
River:
K♦
Are you kidding me? He turns over AK and rakes the pot. According to Ed Miller's Equity Calculator, I was an 82:1 favorite on the flop. And yet I got called on every street and lost. His only outs were running kings, and he stayed in to hit them.
Of course, beats happen in NL. But you'd have to think hard about calling a big bet with AK on a 443 board. There was no thinking here, and that's why it's frustrating.
It seems I'm just a better player at NL. I can win long-term at low-stakes NL, and I can't at limit.
This is good news, since I started in limit cash games and it took a long time to grind up a bankroll (not sure how I did it, actually). It turns out I'm just not that good at limit. I've won more than 1000 big blinds playing NL in the past month, and I clearly can't match that at the limit tables.
I'm glad I checked. You have to know your game, and some people are savants at one or the other (limit or big-bet). I'm no savant, but I'm pretty sure NL is where my edge is.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Making the Switch, Part IV: Thriving in 6-Max?
If you play low-stakes no-limit online, you're probably playing in a six-max game. When I used to play on Absolute Poker, before the absurd scandals there (read all about it here, or follow Nat Arem's investigation (part 1) (part 2) (part 3), or listen to reportage here), six-max games were almost all that was available for no-limit. Now that I'm playing at Full Tilt, there's perhaps a fifty-fifty balance between 9-handed and 6-max.
I always struggled in 6-max games, at both limit and NL, because I had learned to play "the right way" from authors like T.J. Cloutier, Dan Harrington and David Sklansky. The right way, of course, meant waiting for cards and then value betting them. The problem is, at least one-third of your time in six-max games is spent in the blinds, and you simply don't get a hand frequently enough to make up for that disadvantage. When you do get a hand, it's more likely that you'll be out of position, since you're more likely to be UTG or in the blinds - these positions are half of the six-max game, compared to one-third of the available seats in a full ring.
I was frustrated, because I knew my opponents were playing "too loose" but I still wasn't winning. However, I've been able to gradually turn that around. The book that's been most helpful has been "Killer Poker Shorthanded" by John Vorhaus and Tony Guerrara:
I'd been pretty skeptical of the "Killer Poker" series. These books generally constitute a whole shelf in the poker section of the chain bookstore of your choice, and I was afraid they were the pulp fiction of the poker world: cranked out quickly, amusing, but insubstantial.
I was wrong, mostly. They are amusing, and they may be cranked out quickly, but there is some good information here. Not at the level of detail of the Ed Miller/David Sklansky/Mason Malmuth applied mathematics books from two-plus-two, but very useful nonetheless. The authors focus more on the mindset and adjustments necessary for six-max play, and advocate a "play-the-player" approach.
Killer Poker Shorthanded is new and I'd recommend it. While it may be unhelpful for better players in $100NL and up, for people like me at $10 NL it's invaluable.
I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good read, check out Tim Peters' review in Card Player here.
I always struggled in 6-max games, at both limit and NL, because I had learned to play "the right way" from authors like T.J. Cloutier, Dan Harrington and David Sklansky. The right way, of course, meant waiting for cards and then value betting them. The problem is, at least one-third of your time in six-max games is spent in the blinds, and you simply don't get a hand frequently enough to make up for that disadvantage. When you do get a hand, it's more likely that you'll be out of position, since you're more likely to be UTG or in the blinds - these positions are half of the six-max game, compared to one-third of the available seats in a full ring.
I was frustrated, because I knew my opponents were playing "too loose" but I still wasn't winning. However, I've been able to gradually turn that around. The book that's been most helpful has been "Killer Poker Shorthanded" by John Vorhaus and Tony Guerrara:
I'd been pretty skeptical of the "Killer Poker" series. These books generally constitute a whole shelf in the poker section of the chain bookstore of your choice, and I was afraid they were the pulp fiction of the poker world: cranked out quickly, amusing, but insubstantial.
I was wrong, mostly. They are amusing, and they may be cranked out quickly, but there is some good information here. Not at the level of detail of the Ed Miller/David Sklansky/Mason Malmuth applied mathematics books from two-plus-two, but very useful nonetheless. The authors focus more on the mindset and adjustments necessary for six-max play, and advocate a "play-the-player" approach.
Killer Poker Shorthanded is new and I'd recommend it. While it may be unhelpful for better players in $100NL and up, for people like me at $10 NL it's invaluable.
I'm not the only one who thinks this is a good read, check out Tim Peters' review in Card Player here.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Pocket Jacks in Position on a Q-x-x flop
As everyone knows, JJ is one of the most difficult hands to play correctly in hold 'em. Unlike the other premium pairs, there is a greater than 50% chance that an overcard will come on the flop.
I've posted this hand for discussion on the Low Limit Forum. I was dealt JJ and flat-called a standard raise from the first position player. Everyone else folded and the flop came:
Q 7 8 unsuited
The UTG player bet half the pot and I ...?
(I raised. But not everyone likes that play, as I quickly learned.)
I've posted this hand for discussion on the Low Limit Forum. I was dealt JJ and flat-called a standard raise from the first position player. Everyone else folded and the flop came:
Q 7 8 unsuited
The UTG player bet half the pot and I ...?
(I raised. But not everyone likes that play, as I quickly learned.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
