Much as I aspire to be as lazy as certain members of the Cardschat blogger community who will remain nameless, well, it's a slow morning at work.
My time in the past week or two has been largely taken up by an unusually busy period at work and, of course, what are commonly known as 'visits to the pub to watch Euro 2008'.
I haven't played any poker at all. And the beauty of that is that I don't care.
To meander a little, much like any other casual poker player I have harboured dreams of turning pro. I still recall with amusement me thinking about how I could easily just open up a dozen tables of $50NL and happily grind away. I had only very limited liabilities at the time (I still lived at home with the parents until about six months ago), so I would always figure I had nothing to lose in giving it a shot. I often mulled over taking a week's holiday from work and doing a 'trial run', but I always ended up talking myself out of it.
On reflection, how wise I was.
Poker is a soul-destroying game. When one turns pro, (s)he crosses the line between poker being 'fun' and being 'a job'. I, like most casual players, play poker mainly because I enjoy it. I enjoy the learning process, and applying the learning process in actual gameplay. If someone came up to me and absolutely guaranteed that I would make $0 in profit over the rest of my poker playing career (but not make any losses), I would still play every now and then. I believe that's the question you need to ask yourself if you're unsure exactly why you play poker.
The great thing about having a 'normal' job is I have a boss. Sure, it may not seem great when I'm getting yelled at for doing something wrong or making long-winded blog posts when I should be working, but ultimately it's great for me because I have someone to answer to. A professional poker player has nobody to answer to but themselves. While on the surface this sounds wonderful, unless you are very, very commited and are capable of very high levels of self-control, you will end up lagging behind in your poker playing 'duties'. When you play less, the downswings hurt more, you have less working capital available, you tilt, you lose more money because of said tilt, and eventually you end up having to either go back to your old boss with cap in hand and say "oops" or look for another job.
I don't have the level of discipline required for the above to not apply. I don't believe that that level of discipline can be taught, so I'm somewhat stuck. If I don't want to play poker, I don't have to. I like that luxury.
Anyway, the moral of the story is don't be too hasty in 'turning pro'. The ability to distinguish fantasy from reality is a key characteristic of those of sane mind. It's okay to occasionally daydream about winning the WSOP, or even daydream of 12-tabling $50NL for 8 hours a day if you're particularly sad, but don't cross the line without due care and attention.
As I mentioned at the start of this post I've been watching a lot of Euro 2008, and as always when a big football tournament starts I've taken to having the odd wager, gambler that I am. Italy are pretty much single-handedly the reason why I'm only £20 up as opposed to over £100 up (results in the next couple of days going as expected) as including them in my group winners accumulator was unwise in hindsight, and betting on them to beat Romania to nil was probably equally silly. I can't decide whether it's wise to be results-oriented while sports betting or not - the poker player in me wants to say it obviously isn't, but the business absolutely hinges on results.
After much pre-tournament deliberation I backed Spain to win the whole thing, and I'm content with that at the moment. The inevitable Dutch blowup is imminent, Germany look average, Italy and France look worse than average so far, and Portugal are flattering to deceive, and their loss to Switzerland, no matter how understrength their team was, is troubling. Scolari's mind is likely elsewhere at the moment too. Turkey might make a decent outside bet as their morale has to be sky-high at the moment.
I don't think there's a lot of value in Austria v Germany and Poland v Croatia tonight so I'm abstaining, but France to beat an Italy side who appear to be on the brink of civil war at 7-4 looks appetizing in a game where a draw is very unlikely. Holland v Romania is horribly sketchy - you can get 12-5 on a Holland win which normally would be ridiculously long odds, but as the Dutch are already through as group winners and a win for Romania would knock out two potentially dangerous opponents in Italy and France, it doesn't take a genius to see that Holland won't care as much as they usually do. Regardless, I'm tempted to punt on the Dutch, as even their second team should have too much for Romania, and Italy and France have looked so average I doubt the Dutch will be too concerned at the prospect of playing either of them in the semi-finals.
Monday 16 June 2008
Thursday 5 June 2008
Cardschat Championships of Poker ("CCCOP") and Pot Limit Omaha ramblings
Only my third entry in this blasted thing and I'm already making brag posts? Damn right.
Apparently I won the leaderboard which Ian ran for the CCCOP. Mainly thanks to wins in everybody's favourite games, Pot Limit Omaha and Stud8, the former being a repeat victory as I won the PLO in the last series.
I recorded a live 'action' video of the PLO win which can be downloaded here. I also recorded last year's PLO win, which is up here. I should probably record more tournaments seeing as I appear to do well when I do. The educational value of these videos is somewhat spurious to say the least, but an absolute Omaha beginner may be able to pick up some things.
Of note is that both tournaments feature what I refer to as 'backwards' tournament strategy. Players who are clearly new to the game limping a lot early on, and tightening up as the blinds increase. For a new Omaha player, much like a new Holdem player, the best way to play preflop in general is tightly. The loose-aggressive strategy might benefit seasoned veterans who are exceptional postflop players, but new Omaha players are invariably terrible postflop players (largely as a consequence of (a) often not being sure exactly what they have, and (b) overvaluing weak draws, two pair, and even TPTK). The loose-passive strategy only benefits the other players at your table in the long run.
Another common mistake among newer PLO players is the tendency to limp rather than raise preflop. Their line of thinking is some variant of (and I know this because I've been there myself), "Well if I raise I'm only going to get called, and I won't be comfortable postflop unless I flop a really big hand". This is a fallacy. Anyone who has studied Holdem in any depth knows that we raise for three main reasons:
1) To reduce the number of players in the pot
2) To gain value with what we believe is the best hand
3) As a bluff to steal blinds or as a resteal.
Exactly the same applies in Omaha. Yes, hand rankings are much less 'spread' and closer in value than in Holdem simply because of the nature of the game (four holecards as opposed to two), but these three points still apply.
1) Just as in Holdem, some Omaha hands play a lot better heads-up than multiway, AAxx and other high paired hands being the obvious examples.
2) Although hand rankings are much closer in Omaha (for example there are no 'powerhouse' hands like AA/KK), some hands are still better than others. If you get money in with the better hand, you will profit in the long run, whether your edge is 51/49 or 70/30 (obviously you will profit more when it's 70/30, but that's why Omaha is oft described as a game of small edges).
3) Holdem tournament strategy still applies to Omaha. As blinds increase, you will find yourself having to steal blinds, as you can't always rely on being dealt good cards. Identifying who you can steal from and who will defend with anything is as crucial as it is in Holdem.
Upon reflecting on exactly how I was able to win back-to-back PLO events, three things came to mind.
1) I was lucky. Newsflash - you need luck to win tournaments.
2) I had more Omaha experience than most of the field.
3) I knew how a lot of the players would play Omaha before a hand had even been dealt.
To expand on point 3 above, I came up with a theorem as a result of a conversation with a fellow forum member a while back.
When regular Holdem players but inexperienced Omaha players play Omaha, they become exaggerated versions of their Holdem selves.
This probably doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment because I phrased it so terribly.
Essentially, the traits in a person's Holdem game are magnified when playing an unfamiliar poker game. Take a tight player, for example. Tight players, when met with what they believe to be marginal decisions, tend to fold. Put this tight player in an unfamiliar game, and they are invariably going to be met with more marginal decisions as a simple consequence of not knowing a great deal about the game they're playing. The inverse applies to looser players - they will get looser. Generally, when already tight players get tighter and already loose players get looser without any underlying reason behind it, their game suffers, and crucially they become far more predictable. All of a sudden it becomes evident who thinks they are value betting in PLO with AKxx on a KQ9 board and who will fold Q9xx to a single flop bet on the same board, or who will fold AQ77 when folded to in mid position because they're "not sure how good a hand it is".
This is all retrospective thought (which is why none of it is mentioned in the videos), but I believe that effective retrospective thought is a crucial weapon in the arsenal of a solid poker player.
On a side note, Party Poker have decided to drop me a $100 bonus so I almost feel obliged to clear it. You will probably catch me there over the next week or two under the name "Qhr1s0" if you look closely enough.
'Till next time!
Apparently I won the leaderboard which Ian ran for the CCCOP. Mainly thanks to wins in everybody's favourite games, Pot Limit Omaha and Stud8, the former being a repeat victory as I won the PLO in the last series.
I recorded a live 'action' video of the PLO win which can be downloaded here. I also recorded last year's PLO win, which is up here. I should probably record more tournaments seeing as I appear to do well when I do. The educational value of these videos is somewhat spurious to say the least, but an absolute Omaha beginner may be able to pick up some things.
Of note is that both tournaments feature what I refer to as 'backwards' tournament strategy. Players who are clearly new to the game limping a lot early on, and tightening up as the blinds increase. For a new Omaha player, much like a new Holdem player, the best way to play preflop in general is tightly. The loose-aggressive strategy might benefit seasoned veterans who are exceptional postflop players, but new Omaha players are invariably terrible postflop players (largely as a consequence of (a) often not being sure exactly what they have, and (b) overvaluing weak draws, two pair, and even TPTK). The loose-passive strategy only benefits the other players at your table in the long run.
Another common mistake among newer PLO players is the tendency to limp rather than raise preflop. Their line of thinking is some variant of (and I know this because I've been there myself), "Well if I raise I'm only going to get called, and I won't be comfortable postflop unless I flop a really big hand". This is a fallacy. Anyone who has studied Holdem in any depth knows that we raise for three main reasons:
1) To reduce the number of players in the pot
2) To gain value with what we believe is the best hand
3) As a bluff to steal blinds or as a resteal.
Exactly the same applies in Omaha. Yes, hand rankings are much less 'spread' and closer in value than in Holdem simply because of the nature of the game (four holecards as opposed to two), but these three points still apply.
1) Just as in Holdem, some Omaha hands play a lot better heads-up than multiway, AAxx and other high paired hands being the obvious examples.
2) Although hand rankings are much closer in Omaha (for example there are no 'powerhouse' hands like AA/KK), some hands are still better than others. If you get money in with the better hand, you will profit in the long run, whether your edge is 51/49 or 70/30 (obviously you will profit more when it's 70/30, but that's why Omaha is oft described as a game of small edges).
3) Holdem tournament strategy still applies to Omaha. As blinds increase, you will find yourself having to steal blinds, as you can't always rely on being dealt good cards. Identifying who you can steal from and who will defend with anything is as crucial as it is in Holdem.
Upon reflecting on exactly how I was able to win back-to-back PLO events, three things came to mind.
1) I was lucky. Newsflash - you need luck to win tournaments.
2) I had more Omaha experience than most of the field.
3) I knew how a lot of the players would play Omaha before a hand had even been dealt.
To expand on point 3 above, I came up with a theorem as a result of a conversation with a fellow forum member a while back.
When regular Holdem players but inexperienced Omaha players play Omaha, they become exaggerated versions of their Holdem selves.
This probably doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment because I phrased it so terribly.
Essentially, the traits in a person's Holdem game are magnified when playing an unfamiliar poker game. Take a tight player, for example. Tight players, when met with what they believe to be marginal decisions, tend to fold. Put this tight player in an unfamiliar game, and they are invariably going to be met with more marginal decisions as a simple consequence of not knowing a great deal about the game they're playing. The inverse applies to looser players - they will get looser. Generally, when already tight players get tighter and already loose players get looser without any underlying reason behind it, their game suffers, and crucially they become far more predictable. All of a sudden it becomes evident who thinks they are value betting in PLO with AKxx on a KQ9 board and who will fold Q9xx to a single flop bet on the same board, or who will fold AQ77 when folded to in mid position because they're "not sure how good a hand it is".
This is all retrospective thought (which is why none of it is mentioned in the videos), but I believe that effective retrospective thought is a crucial weapon in the arsenal of a solid poker player.
On a side note, Party Poker have decided to drop me a $100 bonus so I almost feel obliged to clear it. You will probably catch me there over the next week or two under the name "Qhr1s0" if you look closely enough.
'Till next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
