Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
I just wanted to wish everyone who reads my blog a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I've got many things to be happy about and I'm looking forward to 2010.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
AlwaysLimp Q/A at CR FR Forum
I wanted to copy/past so i can read at work because CR is blocked.
Alwayslimp,
100bb deep for all situations
1) How do you combat light 3 betters OOP and IP? What variables do you factor in when you decide to call or 4 bet light?
I'm going to give you a short, unsatisfying answer for this one right now since I think it's a tough subject and I want more time to think about it. Basically, if I'm up against a player who 3bets a ton (whether I'm in position or out of position) I just increase my 4bet bluffing frequencies and/or widen my value range for getting all in preflop. When you 4bet bluff you would like to create a good leverage situation for yourself, make sure you don't size it too big. For example say you open to 3bb and your opponent makes it 11bb. You only need to make it 25bb here. You've created a situation where you risk only 25bb but you've force your opponent into a decision for his whole stack. In theory he really can't call here (sometimes they do though which is bad for them) so you lay yourself a nice price since he can only fold or shove. If you make it any more than 25bb in this spot you are just creating more dead money for him to capitalize on if he 5bets.
Some of the variables I consider are my position, my opponents position, the hand I'm holding, what I think their tendencies are, and any dynamic we have. I'll explain all of these in more detail.
Position: I will 4bet bluff more often if I'm opening the button and get 3bet by one of the blinds. I will 4bet bluff slightly less often if I open in the CO and get 3bet by one of the blinds. And the trend continues.
Player tendencies: This is related to position. There are players that like to 3bet a lot in position but do it very rarely oop, and vice versa. You need to determine which type of player you are up against. Some players have a really high 3bet from the button but relatively low from the blinds. Against these guys I would 4bet more as a bluff if they 3bet from the button, but would proceed with more caution if they 3bet oop. If you have HEM you can look at someones 3bet by position to make some assumptions and then look to solidify them as you gain more knowledge.
Hand Selection: I am more likely to 4bet bluff with a hand like Ax or Kx. The reason is card removal. If I assume my opponent is 5betting for value with QQ+,AK, I considerably decrease the number of combinations he has of those hands if I hold one of the A or K.
Dynamic: A lot of players will 3bet with junk hands to create a dynamic with you. Then they tighten up their range when they sense you are ready to play back at them. Then all of a sudden you find yourself getting all in preflop with 88 against their QQ+,AK. This gets easier with some practice and experience but simply put, if it looks like you are ready to play back, don't bluff, wait for a good hand. If it doesn't seem like an obvious spot to play back then your bluffs will gain more credibility. Find out which players fold to a lot of 4bets. Find out which players are capable of 5bet bluffing. This kinda stuff is really hard for me to explain in a paragraph and maybe I'll revisit it later.
One last thing that I'll add is if you are playing 100nl and below, chances are people aren't getting too out of line with 3betting as a bluff. If it seems like you are getting 3bet a ton then it's probably just a variance thing. Some sessions it happens where everytime you raise someone behind you picks up a hand worth 3betting. I would take this rule to heart, generally people are 3betting with tighter ranges than you think. Make sure you don't over adjust as soon as a guy 3bets you a couple times. Trust me I've lost more money in the past two years over adjusting to people 3betting than I have from just folding to a lot of their 3bets, getting it in with a tight range, and occassionally 4bet bluffing.
2) What boards do you like to attack with 2 barrels or 3 barrels IP and OOP?
There are two times where you want to 2barrel. The first is when the board changes in a way that greatly increases your fold equity. The second is when the board changes on the turn to give you more equity. If you get both, well then you have a dream two barrel spot. Examples to follow:
1.) The board changes to give you more fold equity.
These are the obvious spots where you cbet a 725 board and the turn is an A or K (the best) or something like a Q (good). A lot of times your opponent will have a weak peeling range on this flop and you can easily rep the A or K on the turn. They will be put into a tough spot when you fire another bet into them.
2.) The board changes to give you more equity. Think anytime you turn a flush draw, some sort of combo draw, or even as little as a gutshot depending on board texture.
Say you have As5s on a Js4h6d board and the turn is the 3s. This is a great spot for a two barrel. Your pot equity is so high vs. almost any hand that you only need to generate a fold a small percentage of the time to show a profit. Even vs. hand as strong as QQ you have 18 outs.
3.) A combo of 1 and 2
Think something like As2s on 5s8h2dKs board.
You really want to avoid two barreling anytime a turn card comes that coordinates the board more. An example of a board like this might be 8h9h2sJd. The J brings an overcard to the board but it greatly improves your opponents range and gives him more equity he can continue with (lots of pair +draw stuff) or it already got him there (QT).
Against people who peel the flop lightly, like your 60 vpip fish, you might have license to 2barrel the turn relentlessly. There flop calling range is so weak they often don't have enough strength to continue on the turn. Say the board is 42Q. Well it might not seem obvious but against really loose players you may want to 2barrel a J turn. There flop calling range will contain A2-A5, 56, 64, 53, 55-TT, hands like A9,AT,AK, etc. You can get your opponent to fold a lot of these hans on the turn even though the J might not seem like an obvious "scare card". All the better if you have a hand like AT which just picked up more equity.
Good 3barrels are tough. I'll be honest it something I'm still working on myself. I have lost a lot of money in the past running bad 3barrel bluffs. I'll give one example that I think is a good one to 3barrel.
In general, you want to 3barrel boards where your opponents are slightly loose and can have hands that have enough equity two call two streets but can't stand the 3rd barrel. Consider this board. Jh8d7hKc. You have AhQs. Your two barrel in this spot is probably only good if you are commited to betting the river as well. Your opponent is going to have a ton of hands like J9,T8,T7, 69, JT,Q9, weak flush draws, and the list goes on and on. He's going to peel the flop and turn with these hands since they have good enough equity. However, none of them can really call the river (unless he's a very poor player and won't fold a pair). And you can rule out that he has strong hands on this board if he calls twice. The drawy nature of the board would force him to raise sets, two pairs, and straights earlier in the hand. So you see what I'm getting at here? Look for spots where people are going to have a lot of weak pair+draw stuff in their range. If all teh draws brick on the river they are going to be left with a weak pair that can decide to fold or hero call. My guess is that they fold most of the time.
There are definitely a lot more spots you can pull off 3barrels but I'll leave those to someone else out of fear of giving bad information.
3) What's the biggest leak that you find $100 nlhe FR and below make?
I'll focus on mistakes that weak regs tend to make. It's obvious what the fish are doing that is really bad.
You are going to get a lot of players at 100nl that are either doing too little or too much of something. It's your job to find out which side they are on. Some guys fold to 3bets too much, some guys don't fold to 3bets enough. Too much cbetting or too little cbetting. Certain things like that.
Another big one is that people pot control way too much on the turn. They miss out on a ton of value that is there for the taking. I'll give two examples. Say you have KJ on a J65r board and the turn is a Q. This is a bet. Too many people check behind here. It's important for value and for balance. Ideally we'd like to fire this Q as a bluff (as I outlined earlier in this post). So if we check back here when we have KJ but bet it as a bluff we become extremely unbalanced. I can just c/r you everytime you barrel a scare card on the turn and you will always fold. A lot of people would prefer to check this on the turn and bet the river for value. That is wrong. Most weakish villains are still going to peel turn with a lot of hands we beat. By betting the turn we still get value, protect our hand, and balance our range more with bluffs and value hands. The only reason I could see for checking back is if the villain will blindly stab at a lot of rivers and is really prone to bluffing.
A second example is QQ on a T73K board. We need to be betting this again on the turn for the same reasons stated above.
One last leak I'll give is that people often dont' know why they are betting. There are two main reaons you bet; for value and as a bluff. Sometimes I see people make bets that don't fall into either category and it puzzles me. Say I cbet in position against a reg on KT2. They c/c and it goes ck/ck on a 4 turn. The river is a 5 and they lead with T9. What does this bet accomplish? I'm almost never call with worse and I don't fold any better hands here. This is an extreme example and I'm not saying it happens a lot. But, just start thinking about why you are betting. If it's not for value and not for a bluff, then you shouldn't be betting.
There are others. For example, people in general play too straight forward and their ranges are so defined by the time they get to the river. Typing all this out wore me down though so I'll take a break and maybe describe more later
Well, first I should say that a 2ptbb winrate is not bad. I think more is achieveable at 100nl and below but showing that kind of winrate is still commendable.
I would imagine that most of your leaks are coming post flop. You certainly don't need to have a laggy game to be a big winner. One of the most steady winners at 200nl over the past two years plays a 12/10 style preflop. Sure, you could maybe increase your winrate by playing more pots in position vs. fish and limpers (more isolating) but you want to make sure you don't over do it. It is easy to over adjust and play too many hands. All of a sudden you are playing a ton of hands and getting in marginal spots without the postflop experience to navigate those spots and play them profitably. You could open up a little bit by finding some more spots to play in position vs. bad players but don't go too far. You could probably relax your opening standards a little bit from the CO and button too. Stealing a ton in late position is either going to win you the blinds or get you in a "bread and butter" type situation (where you make the most money playing poker). That is playing raised pots in position vs. bad players with weak ranges.
Keep in mind that small leaks add up post flop. At 100nl the difference between a 2ptbb winner and someone who is crushing (6ptbb) is only 8 dollars every 100 hands. Thats 40 bucks a session if you play 500 hands. Go back and look at your latest session. I'm sure you can find tons of spots where you made a tilty river call or tried to bluff a fish that was never going to fold a pair. Maybe you could have bet sized a little bit better to squeeze out a few extra dollars on the flop, which leads to bigger turn bet sizes, which leads to even bigger river bet sizes. There are so many spots where we all aren't playing optimal. The guys that crush are the ones that are most aware of that and are achieving it the most often. Focus harder when you play, review your sessions afterwards, and you will find that there are a lot of spots where you are giving up a few dollars (or chunks). Cut those out of your game and you will see the WR start to rise.
Also, it is so important to never tilt. Tilting off a 100bb stack is about the most detrimental thing you can do to achieving a high winrate. I can bet that the guys who crush are also the ones that tilt the least amount. Their dollars lost to tilt are lower than the averge reg. That all affects the bottom line.
Alwayslimp,
100bb deep for all situations
1) How do you combat light 3 betters OOP and IP? What variables do you factor in when you decide to call or 4 bet light?
I'm going to give you a short, unsatisfying answer for this one right now since I think it's a tough subject and I want more time to think about it. Basically, if I'm up against a player who 3bets a ton (whether I'm in position or out of position) I just increase my 4bet bluffing frequencies and/or widen my value range for getting all in preflop. When you 4bet bluff you would like to create a good leverage situation for yourself, make sure you don't size it too big. For example say you open to 3bb and your opponent makes it 11bb. You only need to make it 25bb here. You've created a situation where you risk only 25bb but you've force your opponent into a decision for his whole stack. In theory he really can't call here (sometimes they do though which is bad for them) so you lay yourself a nice price since he can only fold or shove. If you make it any more than 25bb in this spot you are just creating more dead money for him to capitalize on if he 5bets.
Some of the variables I consider are my position, my opponents position, the hand I'm holding, what I think their tendencies are, and any dynamic we have. I'll explain all of these in more detail.
Position: I will 4bet bluff more often if I'm opening the button and get 3bet by one of the blinds. I will 4bet bluff slightly less often if I open in the CO and get 3bet by one of the blinds. And the trend continues.
Player tendencies: This is related to position. There are players that like to 3bet a lot in position but do it very rarely oop, and vice versa. You need to determine which type of player you are up against. Some players have a really high 3bet from the button but relatively low from the blinds. Against these guys I would 4bet more as a bluff if they 3bet from the button, but would proceed with more caution if they 3bet oop. If you have HEM you can look at someones 3bet by position to make some assumptions and then look to solidify them as you gain more knowledge.
Hand Selection: I am more likely to 4bet bluff with a hand like Ax or Kx. The reason is card removal. If I assume my opponent is 5betting for value with QQ+,AK, I considerably decrease the number of combinations he has of those hands if I hold one of the A or K.
Dynamic: A lot of players will 3bet with junk hands to create a dynamic with you. Then they tighten up their range when they sense you are ready to play back at them. Then all of a sudden you find yourself getting all in preflop with 88 against their QQ+,AK. This gets easier with some practice and experience but simply put, if it looks like you are ready to play back, don't bluff, wait for a good hand. If it doesn't seem like an obvious spot to play back then your bluffs will gain more credibility. Find out which players fold to a lot of 4bets. Find out which players are capable of 5bet bluffing. This kinda stuff is really hard for me to explain in a paragraph and maybe I'll revisit it later.
One last thing that I'll add is if you are playing 100nl and below, chances are people aren't getting too out of line with 3betting as a bluff. If it seems like you are getting 3bet a ton then it's probably just a variance thing. Some sessions it happens where everytime you raise someone behind you picks up a hand worth 3betting. I would take this rule to heart, generally people are 3betting with tighter ranges than you think. Make sure you don't over adjust as soon as a guy 3bets you a couple times. Trust me I've lost more money in the past two years over adjusting to people 3betting than I have from just folding to a lot of their 3bets, getting it in with a tight range, and occassionally 4bet bluffing.
2) What boards do you like to attack with 2 barrels or 3 barrels IP and OOP?
There are two times where you want to 2barrel. The first is when the board changes in a way that greatly increases your fold equity. The second is when the board changes on the turn to give you more equity. If you get both, well then you have a dream two barrel spot. Examples to follow:
1.) The board changes to give you more fold equity.
These are the obvious spots where you cbet a 725 board and the turn is an A or K (the best) or something like a Q (good). A lot of times your opponent will have a weak peeling range on this flop and you can easily rep the A or K on the turn. They will be put into a tough spot when you fire another bet into them.
2.) The board changes to give you more equity. Think anytime you turn a flush draw, some sort of combo draw, or even as little as a gutshot depending on board texture.
Say you have As5s on a Js4h6d board and the turn is the 3s. This is a great spot for a two barrel. Your pot equity is so high vs. almost any hand that you only need to generate a fold a small percentage of the time to show a profit. Even vs. hand as strong as QQ you have 18 outs.
3.) A combo of 1 and 2
Think something like As2s on 5s8h2dKs board.
You really want to avoid two barreling anytime a turn card comes that coordinates the board more. An example of a board like this might be 8h9h2sJd. The J brings an overcard to the board but it greatly improves your opponents range and gives him more equity he can continue with (lots of pair +draw stuff) or it already got him there (QT).
Against people who peel the flop lightly, like your 60 vpip fish, you might have license to 2barrel the turn relentlessly. There flop calling range is so weak they often don't have enough strength to continue on the turn. Say the board is 42Q. Well it might not seem obvious but against really loose players you may want to 2barrel a J turn. There flop calling range will contain A2-A5, 56, 64, 53, 55-TT, hands like A9,AT,AK, etc. You can get your opponent to fold a lot of these hans on the turn even though the J might not seem like an obvious "scare card". All the better if you have a hand like AT which just picked up more equity.
Good 3barrels are tough. I'll be honest it something I'm still working on myself. I have lost a lot of money in the past running bad 3barrel bluffs. I'll give one example that I think is a good one to 3barrel.
In general, you want to 3barrel boards where your opponents are slightly loose and can have hands that have enough equity two call two streets but can't stand the 3rd barrel. Consider this board. Jh8d7hKc. You have AhQs. Your two barrel in this spot is probably only good if you are commited to betting the river as well. Your opponent is going to have a ton of hands like J9,T8,T7, 69, JT,Q9, weak flush draws, and the list goes on and on. He's going to peel the flop and turn with these hands since they have good enough equity. However, none of them can really call the river (unless he's a very poor player and won't fold a pair). And you can rule out that he has strong hands on this board if he calls twice. The drawy nature of the board would force him to raise sets, two pairs, and straights earlier in the hand. So you see what I'm getting at here? Look for spots where people are going to have a lot of weak pair+draw stuff in their range. If all teh draws brick on the river they are going to be left with a weak pair that can decide to fold or hero call. My guess is that they fold most of the time.
There are definitely a lot more spots you can pull off 3barrels but I'll leave those to someone else out of fear of giving bad information.
3) What's the biggest leak that you find $100 nlhe FR and below make?
I'll focus on mistakes that weak regs tend to make. It's obvious what the fish are doing that is really bad.
You are going to get a lot of players at 100nl that are either doing too little or too much of something. It's your job to find out which side they are on. Some guys fold to 3bets too much, some guys don't fold to 3bets enough. Too much cbetting or too little cbetting. Certain things like that.
Another big one is that people pot control way too much on the turn. They miss out on a ton of value that is there for the taking. I'll give two examples. Say you have KJ on a J65r board and the turn is a Q. This is a bet. Too many people check behind here. It's important for value and for balance. Ideally we'd like to fire this Q as a bluff (as I outlined earlier in this post). So if we check back here when we have KJ but bet it as a bluff we become extremely unbalanced. I can just c/r you everytime you barrel a scare card on the turn and you will always fold. A lot of people would prefer to check this on the turn and bet the river for value. That is wrong. Most weakish villains are still going to peel turn with a lot of hands we beat. By betting the turn we still get value, protect our hand, and balance our range more with bluffs and value hands. The only reason I could see for checking back is if the villain will blindly stab at a lot of rivers and is really prone to bluffing.
A second example is QQ on a T73K board. We need to be betting this again on the turn for the same reasons stated above.
One last leak I'll give is that people often dont' know why they are betting. There are two main reaons you bet; for value and as a bluff. Sometimes I see people make bets that don't fall into either category and it puzzles me. Say I cbet in position against a reg on KT2. They c/c and it goes ck/ck on a 4 turn. The river is a 5 and they lead with T9. What does this bet accomplish? I'm almost never call with worse and I don't fold any better hands here. This is an extreme example and I'm not saying it happens a lot. But, just start thinking about why you are betting. If it's not for value and not for a bluff, then you shouldn't be betting.
There are others. For example, people in general play too straight forward and their ranges are so defined by the time they get to the river. Typing all this out wore me down though so I'll take a break and maybe describe more later
Originally Posted By: never win 05
[quote=AppleSeed]Alwayslimp,
I play around 12/10 -- 14/12 style 3bet is very dependent on my opponents some people i 3bet all day others i can only 3bet them with KK+. Do I have to play more laggy like 20/17 in order to have a 4-6ptbb win rate at 50nl and 100nl or is it mostly just post flop leaks you think?
I play around 12/10 -- 14/12 style 3bet is very dependent on my opponents some people i 3bet all day others i can only 3bet them with KK+. Do I have to play more laggy like 20/17 in order to have a 4-6ptbb win rate at 50nl and 100nl or is it mostly just post flop leaks you think?
Well, first I should say that a 2ptbb winrate is not bad. I think more is achieveable at 100nl and below but showing that kind of winrate is still commendable.
I would imagine that most of your leaks are coming post flop. You certainly don't need to have a laggy game to be a big winner. One of the most steady winners at 200nl over the past two years plays a 12/10 style preflop. Sure, you could maybe increase your winrate by playing more pots in position vs. fish and limpers (more isolating) but you want to make sure you don't over do it. It is easy to over adjust and play too many hands. All of a sudden you are playing a ton of hands and getting in marginal spots without the postflop experience to navigate those spots and play them profitably. You could open up a little bit by finding some more spots to play in position vs. bad players but don't go too far. You could probably relax your opening standards a little bit from the CO and button too. Stealing a ton in late position is either going to win you the blinds or get you in a "bread and butter" type situation (where you make the most money playing poker). That is playing raised pots in position vs. bad players with weak ranges.
Keep in mind that small leaks add up post flop. At 100nl the difference between a 2ptbb winner and someone who is crushing (6ptbb) is only 8 dollars every 100 hands. Thats 40 bucks a session if you play 500 hands. Go back and look at your latest session. I'm sure you can find tons of spots where you made a tilty river call or tried to bluff a fish that was never going to fold a pair. Maybe you could have bet sized a little bit better to squeeze out a few extra dollars on the flop, which leads to bigger turn bet sizes, which leads to even bigger river bet sizes. There are so many spots where we all aren't playing optimal. The guys that crush are the ones that are most aware of that and are achieving it the most often. Focus harder when you play, review your sessions afterwards, and you will find that there are a lot of spots where you are giving up a few dollars (or chunks). Cut those out of your game and you will see the WR start to rise.
Also, it is so important to never tilt. Tilting off a 100bb stack is about the most detrimental thing you can do to achieving a high winrate. I can bet that the guys who crush are also the ones that tilt the least amount. Their dollars lost to tilt are lower than the averge reg. That all affects the bottom line.
Friday, December 4, 2009
November Review
I basically broke even after getting rake back and bonuses at $50 nlhe FR. I played a little over 30k hands. I've been experimenting with a wider 3 betting range preflop and expanding my c/r range on the flop and turn. I probably don't double and triple barrel enough when I suspect my opponents are floating or calling down light.
I also bought Tri Nguyen's NLHE Workbook. I read it and I have tried out a few things that worked. It was def interesting to be able to recognize some great bluffing spots on the turn and river. Awesome book, I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to think outside the box.
As for this month, same thing as last month. Just grind a ton of $50 nlhe FR and regain my confidence. I want to beat $100 nlhe FR and go up from there.
I also bought Tri Nguyen's NLHE Workbook. I read it and I have tried out a few things that worked. It was def interesting to be able to recognize some great bluffing spots on the turn and river. Awesome book, I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to think outside the box.
As for this month, same thing as last month. Just grind a ton of $50 nlhe FR and regain my confidence. I want to beat $100 nlhe FR and go up from there.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Back on the Grind
I'm back on the grind. I plan to play 1 hour per session. I'm using an online alarm clock and setting it at 1 hour. When it beeps, I play until the BB and start sitting out. It will be a great way for me to not tilt and lose 10 bi per session.
I plan to 16 table $50 nlhe FR. I need to refocus and start playing my A game at all times. So far I've played 4 sessions and it has been fun. I haven't said that about poker in a long time. It's actually fun to play poker again. I had to look deep down and figure out why I'm playing this game. I def want this to be a big part of my income so I have to take this game more seriously.
I plan to play 100k hands of $50 nlhe FR and then reevaluate wether to move up to $100 nlhe FR. This will be a test of tilt and discipline. If I can't stick to that plan, I guess I just suck at that part of my game.
I plan to 16 table $50 nlhe FR. I need to refocus and start playing my A game at all times. So far I've played 4 sessions and it has been fun. I haven't said that about poker in a long time. It's actually fun to play poker again. I had to look deep down and figure out why I'm playing this game. I def want this to be a big part of my income so I have to take this game more seriously.
I plan to play 100k hands of $50 nlhe FR and then reevaluate wether to move up to $100 nlhe FR. This will be a test of tilt and discipline. If I can't stick to that plan, I guess I just suck at that part of my game.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Self Ban until Nov 1st
I tilted like a monkey on Oct first after dropping about 13 buyins to the sickest coolers/beats that I could remember. I'm not proud of it and lost close to 2k playing high stakes limit hold em. It's so embarrassing writing about it. I'm just going to think long term and regroup on Nov 1st. I still got close to a 5k roll and I'm going to drop down in November.
I just looked at my long term results and it makes me feel better. I know I'm a small winner overall since I started playing online poker in summer 2005. I'm up a little over 10k (over 400k hands with bonuses/rakeback) but it's nothing to brag about.
I really do think tilt is the biggest edge in this game. I know it too, I love playing against people who are on tilt. Strange thing is, I go on tilt too.
When I come back, I'll probably just play 100 k hands of $50 nlhe FR and get my confidence back and just go from there. I really do think I'll be stuck grinding out low stakes forever until I get my tilt under control.
As for life, I've been working out alot at the local YMCA. Fifteen minutes of cardio and then stretching. Playing pick up basketball and the touch football league. We're getting killed in the football league but it's still fun to compete. I feel alot better physically and mentally. Hopefully, it'll transfer over to my poker game.
I just looked at my long term results and it makes me feel better. I know I'm a small winner overall since I started playing online poker in summer 2005. I'm up a little over 10k (over 400k hands with bonuses/rakeback) but it's nothing to brag about.
I really do think tilt is the biggest edge in this game. I know it too, I love playing against people who are on tilt. Strange thing is, I go on tilt too.
When I come back, I'll probably just play 100 k hands of $50 nlhe FR and get my confidence back and just go from there. I really do think I'll be stuck grinding out low stakes forever until I get my tilt under control.
As for life, I've been working out alot at the local YMCA. Fifteen minutes of cardio and then stretching. Playing pick up basketball and the touch football league. We're getting killed in the football league but it's still fun to compete. I feel alot better physically and mentally. Hopefully, it'll transfer over to my poker game.
Friday, September 4, 2009
August results and thoughts
I played a little over 12k hands. 6 k hands of $50 nlhe FR. 6k hands of $50 and $100 nlhe HU. I worked on my red line and won more pots that I would usually give up on. My W$WF was around 45%. It is usually around high 30 or low 40. My FR game is solid right now and I will probably play alot of that this month.
As for HU, this game has some sick variance. I played a guy at $50 and won about 6 bi off of him. A few days later, I played another guy at $100 nlhe for over 6 hours str8. It was a pretty epic match. I was down close 9 bi vs him at one point.
I knew I was running terrible and he was running me over. I bolted down and starting to really focus on what he was trying to do. I readjusted my turn and river play. I made an epic comeback over 1k hands to be up 1 bi. This match really tested my tilt control. I realized I'm not ready for $100 nlhe HU unless they are completely terrible. This villain actually played pretty good and I would def avoid him in the future.
This month, I plan to only play $50 nlhe HU/FR. If I decide to play higher, it will be $100 nlhe FR. I really enjoy HU because I can really get a read on their style. It's especially satisfying when you can soul read them and follow through with the plan. I guess the only thing I hate about HU is the variance. I need to build my tolerance to that because I am def prone to tilting when I'm done 5 plus bi.
First 6k hands is $50 nlhe FR and last 6k hands or so is $50 and $100 nlhe HU.
As for life, my co workers and I formed a touch football team. There will be 6 games over 6 weeks. This will def motivate me to get in better shape. I got a YMCA membership and if I go workout atleast 12 times a month, my insurance will reimburse me for $20. I def think feeling good physically about yourself will def improve my poker game. I am def putting my physical/mental health first now. I love poker but my physical/mental health needs to be a priority right now because I got more control over that.
Also, I read that Alex (DWarrior) is going to be going to school at the U of M Twin Cities. I went there and got my BA in Psy back in Fall 2005. Alex emailed me his cell and I'm looking forward to showing him around here. I'm not sure how much poker Alex plans to play while in school. Hopefully, we can motivate each other to play better poker.
As for HU, this game has some sick variance. I played a guy at $50 and won about 6 bi off of him. A few days later, I played another guy at $100 nlhe for over 6 hours str8. It was a pretty epic match. I was down close 9 bi vs him at one point.
I knew I was running terrible and he was running me over. I bolted down and starting to really focus on what he was trying to do. I readjusted my turn and river play. I made an epic comeback over 1k hands to be up 1 bi. This match really tested my tilt control. I realized I'm not ready for $100 nlhe HU unless they are completely terrible. This villain actually played pretty good and I would def avoid him in the future.
This month, I plan to only play $50 nlhe HU/FR. If I decide to play higher, it will be $100 nlhe FR. I really enjoy HU because I can really get a read on their style. It's especially satisfying when you can soul read them and follow through with the plan. I guess the only thing I hate about HU is the variance. I need to build my tolerance to that because I am def prone to tilting when I'm done 5 plus bi.
First 6k hands is $50 nlhe FR and last 6k hands or so is $50 and $100 nlhe HU.
As for life, my co workers and I formed a touch football team. There will be 6 games over 6 weeks. This will def motivate me to get in better shape. I got a YMCA membership and if I go workout atleast 12 times a month, my insurance will reimburse me for $20. I def think feeling good physically about yourself will def improve my poker game. I am def putting my physical/mental health first now. I love poker but my physical/mental health needs to be a priority right now because I got more control over that.
Also, I read that Alex (DWarrior) is going to be going to school at the U of M Twin Cities. I went there and got my BA in Psy back in Fall 2005. Alex emailed me his cell and I'm looking forward to showing him around here. I'm not sure how much poker Alex plans to play while in school. Hopefully, we can motivate each other to play better poker.
Monday, August 3, 2009
56k plus hands in July & Massive Tilt
I played 56k plus hands in July and won about $300 plus $600 in rake back/$325 bonuses. I tried to stick to my plan of playing $50 nlhe FR during the week and playing 6 tables of $100 nlhe FR during the weekend. I ended up eventually just playing 16 tables of $100 for the rest of the month. I ended up tilting after dropping 9 buyins. I quitted and then came back to the tables to get my $ back. I ended up playing my A game at 1/2 nlhe HU and winning about 3 buyins. It's pretty stupid of me because the variance is pretty sick at hu. I ended up getting good spots and getting my money in good.
My br stands at around 5950 and I'm going to be getting over $600 in rakeback. I'm pretty disgusted with myself even though I won 3 buyins at 1/2 nlhe hu. I'm going to be playing 16 tables of $50 nlhe FR and get my confidence back.
My redline sucks and I'm going to be working at it this month. My showdown pots go straight up and my redline goes straight down. I'm going to try to pick up pots where no one has a hand. I'm hoping that will lower my variance.
Here's my sick graph for July.
My br stands at around 5950 and I'm going to be getting over $600 in rakeback. I'm pretty disgusted with myself even though I won 3 buyins at 1/2 nlhe hu. I'm going to be playing 16 tables of $50 nlhe FR and get my confidence back.
My redline sucks and I'm going to be working at it this month. My showdown pots go straight up and my redline goes straight down. I'm going to try to pick up pots where no one has a hand. I'm hoping that will lower my variance.
Here's my sick graph for July.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
June Results and Last 100k Hands
After taking a 2 month break, I started this month playing 16 tables of $50 nlhe FR. I played about 28k hands then moved up to $100 nlhe FR. I played about 5k hands there and posted a solid month.
Here's my June Graph.
Here's my last 100k hand Graph. It's pretty sick.
My last 200k hands or so, I'm up around $200 bucks. Luckily for rake back/bonuses, I'm probably up around $3,000. I keep telling myself I should play less tables and focus more but I just don't have the discipline to do it right now.
I hope to make a change this month because my results are terrible. I plan to play 6 tables of $100 nlhe FR on the weekends and 16 table $50 nlhe FR during the week. I can honestly say I probably go on auto pilot too much and tilt. So it looks like the results are indicative of my play.
Here's my June Graph.
Here's my last 100k hand Graph. It's pretty sick.
My last 200k hands or so, I'm up around $200 bucks. Luckily for rake back/bonuses, I'm probably up around $3,000. I keep telling myself I should play less tables and focus more but I just don't have the discipline to do it right now.
I hope to make a change this month because my results are terrible. I plan to play 6 tables of $100 nlhe FR on the weekends and 16 table $50 nlhe FR during the week. I can honestly say I probably go on auto pilot too much and tilt. So it looks like the results are indicative of my play.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Freedom Watch Live today at 2pm EST
Friday, June 12, 2009
Vote for Online Poker on Freedom Watch
Copy and pasted this from the 2plus2 Forum. Schwallie stickied this and we need to vote to get on this show. Never heard of it but any type of publicity is another step forward to get online poker regulated.
Vote for Online Poker on Freedom Watch
Hey guys,
I feel like us getting voted onto this show would be a great help for us poker players and would really bring some more publicity onto the subject
You can vote by logging in with a facebook/twitter/etc account, or register an account at the site.
It only takes a couple minutes, and we need some votes!
Vote for Online Poker on Freedom Watch
Vote for Online Poker on Freedom Watch
Hey guys,
I feel like us getting voted onto this show would be a great help for us poker players and would really bring some more publicity onto the subject
You can vote by logging in with a facebook/twitter/etc account, or register an account at the site.
It only takes a couple minutes, and we need some votes!
Vote for Online Poker on Freedom Watch
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Haseeb Qureshi aka InternetPokers Blog (Beauty in Poker)
I copy and pasted this on my blog for my own benefit. His real name is Haseeb Qureshi aka Internet Pokers...
Beauty in Poker
Picasso once said, “Beauty?... To me it is a word without sense because I do not know where its meaning comes from nor where it leads to.” Beauty is a difficult word to define, and it has no single definitive characteristic. It can manifest itself in various forms. There can be beauty in a flower, beauty in a waterfall, beauty in a woman, beauty in a newborn baby. But there are other forms of beauty that are less basic to our perception. We can imagine finding beauty in the movement of dance, beauty in the richness of music, beauty in the rhythm of poetry.And yet we can go further, to beauty that departs from this placid sense of the word. We can find beauty in the construction of mathematical proofs, beauty in the handling of a basketball, beauty in a chess strategem, and indeed, beauty in a hand of poker.
In what sense can a hand of poker be beautiful? It certainly isn’t beautiful in any purely aesthetic sense (that is, in its appeal to our senses): a hand of poker will never be sensually stimulating, and in that way it is more like the beauty in a mathematical derivation than in visual beauty. In order to understand what makes a hand of poker beautiful, I think we must first decide how we ought to appropriate the concept. If there is beauty in poker, then it seems to me that there must be some experience in common between observing a beautiful hand of poker and anything else that is beautiful. The first step then is to probe the experience itself. What’s it like to experience a beautiful hand of poker?
Looking to the Source
To discover if beauty existed in poker, I looked to the source, poker players. I picked a few poker players I knew and interviewed them. Of course, I only wanted to choose poker players who I thought were particularly reflective and intelligent, and I wanted to be sure that I phrased my questions carefully to try to extract as much of their own thoughts as possible, without biasing them toward my own opinions. Although I won't name the poker players I interviewed, they were very established high stakes regulars (and for what it’s worth, these interviews took place several months prior to my writing this).
What I found was that there was a surprising unanimity among them as to the existence of beauty in poker, and what constituted that beauty. For all three players I interviewed, I began in the same way - "can you name some hand or event in the context of poker that you would describe as beautiful?" All three of them provided one hand that they felt fit this criterion. After that, I probed their reasoning about why they thought the particular hand was beautiful, what made it beautiful, and what it shared in common with other hands they thought were beautiful.
The first person told me, "I think anytime I make a 'perfect bet,' as in one with a certain timing or amount to make my opponent do exactly what I want, that's beautiful." The second person described a beautiful poker hand as "manipulating [one's] opponents in an artistic way." The third person described beauty in poker as "finding an eloquent, unexpected solution." The sentiment seemed slightly different among the three poker players, but when I questioned them further, I found that they actually could be distilled to the same essential component – mastery.
Mastery is beautiful. It’s making perfect bets, making your opponent do exactly what you want. It’s manipulating your opponent in an artistic way. It’s finding that eloquent, unexpected solution. Mastery is beautiful, and so we must explore what mastery is to explore what is beautiful about poker.
What is Mastery?
If you imagine the world from an undifferentiated, “objective” perspective, there is no such thing as mastery. There are various ways of making sense of this statement, such as saying “everything is just particles mashing about chaotically” or “if an alien came to earth and watched humans playing a game of basketball, they would see nothing but animals romping around with a ball,” and of course you could invent infinitely many variations on this theme. Essentially, all you have to do to deny the existence of mastery is to deconstruct some element of the cultural frame that we share. Mastery does not exist objectively; it exists once you set parameters on what experiences are meaningful, and what goals can be set for human endeavors.
The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre aptly separates the human sphere thus: the widest sphere, which we can just call the human community, recognizes a limited number of forms of mastery. These are generally limited to the basic virtues that everyone acknowledges as worthwhile: moral goodness, industriousness, courage, et cetera. It is only when we narrow our scope to looking within what he calls a practice, that more variegated and interesting goals of human effort can become meaningful (he calls these “internal goods” – goods or goals that are meaningful within a certain practice, but not outside it). A practice is any subsection of the human experience in which people are pursuing a more specific set of goals than those which are pursued by the larger human community. Practices can be simply understood as crafts or arts, like carpentry or basketball or cardplaying.
So in order to understand mastery in poker, we have to understand that outside of the practice of poker, there is no meaning or intrinsic value in the mastery of poker, and hence it could not possibly translate into beauty. You must first acknowledge poker as a worthwhile practice, and you must then understand poker to enough of an extent that you can recognize mastery. If there is beauty in poker, it is entrenched behind these two layers which are difficult to cut through for the undifferentiated person. In the same way, I may be told that a mathematical proof is beautiful, but even though I have some rudimentary understanding of mathematics and I respect mathematics as a practice, I don’t have anywhere near the understanding of the practice to recognize mastery, and hence beauty. Show me two potential proofs of the Poincaré conjecture, and setting aside which proof is beautiful and which isn’t, I wouldn’t even be able to tell which one were a proof and which was garbled nonsense.
So if there is beauty in poker, then this beauty can only exist within the practice, and can only be recognized among those who have sufficient understanding of the practice. You might even go so far as to say that within every practice that is sufficiently complex and understood, there exists some form of beauty (hence, it shouldn’t puzzle you to hear a CEO talk about a beautiful deal, or a boxer talk about a beautiful round, or even a scammer talk about a beautiful scam). So we should have no apprehensions with talking about beauty in poker so long as we understand how we are constraining the possibility of acknowledging this beauty.
So, that being said, what constitutes mastery? The dictionary will tell you that mastery is “the possession of consummate skill.” This is easy enough to understand, but it falls short of providing the clear picture of what we’re trying to resolve. If you think about mastery in terms of poker, it seems as though mastery can be defined as the ability to make the most +EV set of actions over the widest possible window of time (assuming, of course, imperfect information). So to recognize mastery, we must be able to recognize what is the most +EV action to take at any point in time, or in other words, we must know what “the right play” is. If you have no idea what the right play is while looking at all possible options, then you will not be able to perceive mastery, and hence aren’t qualified to make an aesthetic judgment about a hand.
Now, this definition actually gets a little tricky here, because defining mastery as simply “making the right play,” seems to be overly inclusive. For example, folding 39o preflop UTG in a full ring game is absolutely the right play each and every time. And yet, if we had the hole card cam on Phil Ivey folding 39o UTG, we would not be impressed. This would not strike us beautiful. The notion of mastery would not even enter our thoughts. Why is this? Think of this analogy – in a game of basketball, when there is a turnover, the opposing team has to inbound the ball from out of bounds. There is a 5 second window for the player to pass the ball, and if he doesn’t inbound the ball in time, then there is an automatic turnover and his team loses possession. Well clearly, it is always going to be bad for the team if the passer waits longer than 5 seconds. 100% of times in 100% of games, waiting longer than 5 seconds is the wrong play. Since it’s always the right play to pass the ball before 5 seconds pass, then this must be a demonstration of mastery, and hence it must be beautiful. And yet this is absurd, because this is the most trivial and unimpressive part of any ball possession, calling this beautiful is silly. We should infer then that there are some things which are optimal (“the right play”), but which are not beautiful.
How is this line drawn? How are some things which are optimal beautiful, and others trivial? I think the first reaction is to look for the purely aesthetic element – i.e., a dunk is more visually impressive than inbounding a ball, so that’s why a great dunk will be more beautiful than a great inbound pass. But I don’t think that this is enough. I think a better way to understand this problem is to think about the difference between structure and “gameplay.” I choose the word gameplay because the analogies that I’m using here are games like chess, basketball, and poker, but this all still applies to a practice which is not a game, such as mathematics or carpentry or whatever.
Structure and Gameplay
In all of human experience, there is an essential duality that defines our interaction with the world. This duality is the opposition between the conscious and the unconscious; foreground and background; substructure and superstructure. All of experience is predicated upon this fundamental, yet in a sense invisible distinction. In any experience of the external world, the unconscious filters out what is unimportant, otherwise it would be impossible for your brain to extract patterns from such enormous quantities of information (all of the visual, aural, and tactile stimulation that your nerves are transmitting at every moment of your life). If you are exposed to any stimulus long enough, it congeals into a simplified entity, subsumed into the background of your mind, and ceases to be an object of direct perception. This is obvious with things like putting on pants or wearing sunglasses– at first, it is an object of experience, but as it the experience is repeated (the feeling of having your leg press against denim or seeing an object shaded darker than it usually is) it becomes filtered out and you no longer notice it. In a way, this is what happens in games like poker as well.
The initial way in which this manifests itself is in understanding the most basic structure of the game. When two hands get to showdown and the players turn up their cards, if you had no idea how poker was played, looking at their hands would be completely meaningless to you. You don’t know the structure of the game – you don’t know the rules. How do you decide who wins? Well, it turns out that poker has a complicated set of rules about how to combine certain cards of certain suits together in order to create different types of hands, some of which beat others. This is the structure of the game on the simplest level. Once you understand how to evaluate showdowns, then this becomes subsumed into your understanding of the structure of the game. At that point, you understand the rules. You can’t break these rules. You can’t take the pot if you have a straight and your opponent has a flush; the structure of the game determines that the person who has the flush will win no matter what.
Well, we can actually go further than that. The structure of the game is simply what is constant to your perception – there’s no reason why it has to be limited to the most explicit rules of the game. Once you understand the rules of poker, you don’t have to consult a hand chart every time you get to showdown to figure out who wins. The way showdowns work becomes incorporated into your perception of the game. Now, once you go further than that and have learned basic preflop hand requirements, then you know that raising 39o UTG is definitely a bad play, so you fold it every time. In fact, everybody else folds 39o UTG as well. When you fold 39o UTG, you no longer have to mentally consult a preflop raising chart to see whether that falls into the range of hands you can play around with, it is simply a fold. Folding 39o preflop becomes a mental constant, you stop perceiving it or thinking about it as a decision in your poker game. Folding 39o becomes a rule of the game. You effectively can’t break this rule, in the same way that you can’t take the pot if you have a straight against a flush. It becomes subsumed into the structure of the game.
So structure becomes more and more developed as one moves closer to mastery of any practice. In poker, many things start to become relegated to structure, such as continuation betting, raising the river with the nuts, 3-betting AK preflop, etc. If anything is obviously the correct play and is constantly repeated, it eventually becomes incorporated into structure, because it ceases to be a point of gameplay. Gameplay, then, can be defined as that which is not constant – gameplay is whatever we need to think about, it’s what’s dynamic in any instance of the game that we play. In a 10/20 6-max round, nobody is ever going to raise 39o UTG; that is simply not a part of gameplay, which is effectively the same as saying that it’s not allowed or that it’s an illegal move. However, 3-betting an UTG raiser with 67s IS a legal move. People know that this is a viable play, but they also know that it’s not a mandatory play. Hence, 3-betting an UTG raiser with 67s counts as gameplay.
The conclusion of this short detour is that mastery will only be appreciated by somebody within a practice if it occurs within the gameplay, not within the structure. Anybody who follows the structure of a game has, in a sense, some basic level of mastery. Neither an amateur nor a professional basketball player will try to travel to the other side of the court without dribbling the ball, and so they both are obeying the structure of the game, but we don’t find this to be indicative of mastery. It simply means that if they don’t do this, then they haven’t outright broken the rules yet. It takes gameplay to demonstrate how close one is to mastery.
Delineating Structure
To properly separate structure from gameplay, one must first understand structure on the level similar to that of a master. If an amateur were to watch a professional chess match, he might marvel at the thoughtfulness displayed in the first four or five opening moves. But for masters of chess, gameplay doesn’t begin until their respective “opening lines” begin to interact. The first few opening moves are all structure, because they are determined by each player before the match began and are not particularly dynamic.
Thinking about structure in high level poker is quite similar. When amateur poker players observe a high level match, very often what they tend to do is ascribe elements of gameplay to what is actually structure. When railbirds see a preflop 3-bet or a flop check/raise, they tend to say things like “Oh, he’s fighting back!” Or if they see somebody call a jam with a hand like 99, they might say something like “He’s taking a stand, he won’t be pushed around!” In reality, the gameplay in a high level match is occurring on the battlefield of ranges – the individual hands usually are of minimal importance. Individual flop checkraises and preflop 3-bets create the structure of the match, and the adjustments and frequencies that each player adopts are what constitute the actual gameplay. This is difficult to see for those not privy to how high stakes matches are played, which is again what makes it impossible for amateurs to evaluate what’s actually going on in these matches.
In spite of the fact that little gameplay occurs within individual hands, there seem to be some hands which can be described as genuinely beautiful. If most gameplay is actually taking place within the interplay of ranges and large scale adjustments, then it seems to be impossible for there to be such a thing as a hand that demonstrates extraordinary gameplay, but the fact is that hands like this do occasionally come about, although they are rare.
I think what it is that defines beauty in poker is not just gameplay within structure, but gameplay that challenges structure. Structure, as I defined it, is anything that fails to be perceived as within the field of gameplay. But there are times when inspiration strikes a player to see beyond structure, and to harness some tool or technique that seems to be structurally disallowed. These are the moments that we see as beautiful—the beauty is in the breaking of the rules that we then see were never really rules. It’s the eloquent, unexpected solution.
An Eloquent Unexpected Solution
When I conducted those interviews with the high stakes players, it was around the time that the QT hand that Durrrr played on High Stakes Poker had just aired. It caused quite a stir among poker aficionados, and two of the players I interviewed actually mentioned it as an example of a beautiful hand of poker. Here it is:
Eastgate and Durrrr are 500k deep, and Barry is 200k deep. The blinds are 400/800 with a 200 ante, and Barry Greenstein opens under the gun for 2500 with AA. Durrrr who is immediately to his left calls with QTs, six other players behind him call, including Peter Eastgate in the small blind with 42s. The flop comes down 22T. Peter checks, and Barry leads out the flop for 10k. Durrrr makes it 37k, Peter overcalls, and Barry calls as well. The turn comes down an 8 and they both check to Durrrr, who bets 104k. Peter Eastgate folds quickly, and Barry folds after some thinking.
The vast majority of people who commentated on this hand had a poor understanding of what was actually going on in this hand. When Barry’s bet comes around to Durrrr, the standard play is going to be to fold (Barry is betting here into 8 players, so he almost certainly has something after raising UTG). The way that full ring players are conditioned to react to a spot where there are 8 players in the pot and UTG bets into them is to realize that a lot of strength is being represented here by this action, and so they fold all but the strongest of hands. The structure of the action (the positions, board texture, and amount of players in the pot) are supposed to create a situation where Durrrr has to play straightforwardly. But instead of obeying this schema, he goes the other way – he exploits the structure of the action and the fact that he has a ten, which blocks the most likely nuts (TT), and he decides to strong-arm the structure of the hand and use it to his advantage. When UTG+1 raises the UTG player with 7 players left to act in a pot with 9 players on a board where UTG obviously has something, it represents enormous strength and an indifference as to what action occurs behind.
When he makes the raise, Peter Eastgate overcalls from the small blind, and Barry calls as well, and the turn comes down a blank. Durrrr bets the turn a big size – one that seems to tell Eastgate that he’s looking to get all-in, and one that has Barry completely covered. Once Peter Eastgate overcalls the flop, it’s very obvious that his range includes some 2’s, TT, and 22. The structure has become again intensified because all players in the hand know that every other player acknowledges this structure, and so when Durrrr bets the turn big even when he knows what is meant by Eastgate’s overcall, Eastgate’s decision must reflect this fact. He knows that Durrrr is not stupid, and so he’s going to play his hand value relative to what is dictated by the structure of the hand and everybody’s perceived ranges. Now, of course if Eastgate had had 22, Durrrr would have not looked so spectacular, but it was a risk that he took and I’m sure he was not going to beat himself up for it if Eastgate turned out to have had quads. It wasn’t just the fearlessness that Durrrr demonstrated or the fact that he bluffed for such an enormous pot, or even that he bluffed Eastgate off of trips and Barry off of aces up. What’s beautiful about the hand is how Durrrr managed to find an eloquent solution that challenges the basic structure of the hand.
Ascending the Ladder
Now, I won’t get carried away here. I won’t say that this bluff that Durrrr made was a sudden spark of creativity or some kind of eureka moment that broke full ring poker wide open. The bluff itself is actually fairly basic, and I’m sure Durrrr makes these kinds of bluffs with some regularity when the opportunity presents itself. If you wanted to, you could just call it something as simple as balance (i.e., since Durrrr is bluffing here so rarely, he has to include the occasional bluff, and if you look at the situation holistically QT is the best hand to do it with). High caliber full ring players make this kind of bluff all the time I’m sure – if they didn’t, then it’d be far too easy to play in these situations, and they’d be missing out on too much bluffing EV since they usually get credit for having hands. The hand is beautiful because it demonstrates mastery, as Durrrr certainly understood everything that was going on (he basically called both of their hands when the hand was over), and its defiance of structure. But in spite of that, there are many other hands like it that could be summoned, which moves it closer and closer to being structurally sound (something like “standard”).
Ultimately, the higher and higher you go on the ladder of poker prowess, the more difficult it is to find hands that an expert player will consider beautiful. If a hand is demonstrative of mastery, then the highest caliber poker players understand the inherent concepts and employ them whenever they can in their games. If you asked somebody like Durrrr or LarsLuzak for an example of a beautiful hand, they’d have much more difficulty producing an example than a mid to low level player would. This is because of all of the possibilities that are available in poker, players like Durrrr and Lars have explored so many of them and can see every inch of gameplay that is possible (that is, they are not obstructed by false structure), and so there is very little that appears to them as genuinely novel or beautiful. The situation would either have to be very rare for it to seem beautiful (because it would come about so rarely, they could appreciate that moment of discovering a solution), or it would have to manifest itself not in a hand but in the higher level gameplay of adjustments and counteradjustments.
Poker is all about possibilities, and I think it is the moment of discovering a new possibility that is the sweetest moment for a poker player. For a lower level player you might imagine that they’d find the most mundane of poker dogma, such as deciding to fold offsuit ace rags from out of position, as a beautiful solution to a difficult problem. And as we move up the ladder, we start to see players appreciating more fine and creative solutions to different problems, slowly uncovering more and more of the field of gameplay. Experienced players often speak of “aha” moments, at which point their understanding of poker suddenly jumps up to another level, or some concept which they once didn’t really grasp is suddenly elucidated. I think these are the moments in poker we all are looking for. The moment when we emerge out of the cave of ignorance, and the light that we never knew was there shines upon our eyes… it is then that the field of possibilities unfurls itself upon our vision. And it’s true. It is a thing of beauty.
Beauty in Poker
Picasso once said, “Beauty?... To me it is a word without sense because I do not know where its meaning comes from nor where it leads to.” Beauty is a difficult word to define, and it has no single definitive characteristic. It can manifest itself in various forms. There can be beauty in a flower, beauty in a waterfall, beauty in a woman, beauty in a newborn baby. But there are other forms of beauty that are less basic to our perception. We can imagine finding beauty in the movement of dance, beauty in the richness of music, beauty in the rhythm of poetry.And yet we can go further, to beauty that departs from this placid sense of the word. We can find beauty in the construction of mathematical proofs, beauty in the handling of a basketball, beauty in a chess strategem, and indeed, beauty in a hand of poker.
In what sense can a hand of poker be beautiful? It certainly isn’t beautiful in any purely aesthetic sense (that is, in its appeal to our senses): a hand of poker will never be sensually stimulating, and in that way it is more like the beauty in a mathematical derivation than in visual beauty. In order to understand what makes a hand of poker beautiful, I think we must first decide how we ought to appropriate the concept. If there is beauty in poker, then it seems to me that there must be some experience in common between observing a beautiful hand of poker and anything else that is beautiful. The first step then is to probe the experience itself. What’s it like to experience a beautiful hand of poker?
Looking to the Source
To discover if beauty existed in poker, I looked to the source, poker players. I picked a few poker players I knew and interviewed them. Of course, I only wanted to choose poker players who I thought were particularly reflective and intelligent, and I wanted to be sure that I phrased my questions carefully to try to extract as much of their own thoughts as possible, without biasing them toward my own opinions. Although I won't name the poker players I interviewed, they were very established high stakes regulars (and for what it’s worth, these interviews took place several months prior to my writing this).
What I found was that there was a surprising unanimity among them as to the existence of beauty in poker, and what constituted that beauty. For all three players I interviewed, I began in the same way - "can you name some hand or event in the context of poker that you would describe as beautiful?" All three of them provided one hand that they felt fit this criterion. After that, I probed their reasoning about why they thought the particular hand was beautiful, what made it beautiful, and what it shared in common with other hands they thought were beautiful.
The first person told me, "I think anytime I make a 'perfect bet,' as in one with a certain timing or amount to make my opponent do exactly what I want, that's beautiful." The second person described a beautiful poker hand as "manipulating [one's] opponents in an artistic way." The third person described beauty in poker as "finding an eloquent, unexpected solution." The sentiment seemed slightly different among the three poker players, but when I questioned them further, I found that they actually could be distilled to the same essential component – mastery.
Mastery is beautiful. It’s making perfect bets, making your opponent do exactly what you want. It’s manipulating your opponent in an artistic way. It’s finding that eloquent, unexpected solution. Mastery is beautiful, and so we must explore what mastery is to explore what is beautiful about poker.
What is Mastery?
If you imagine the world from an undifferentiated, “objective” perspective, there is no such thing as mastery. There are various ways of making sense of this statement, such as saying “everything is just particles mashing about chaotically” or “if an alien came to earth and watched humans playing a game of basketball, they would see nothing but animals romping around with a ball,” and of course you could invent infinitely many variations on this theme. Essentially, all you have to do to deny the existence of mastery is to deconstruct some element of the cultural frame that we share. Mastery does not exist objectively; it exists once you set parameters on what experiences are meaningful, and what goals can be set for human endeavors.
The philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre aptly separates the human sphere thus: the widest sphere, which we can just call the human community, recognizes a limited number of forms of mastery. These are generally limited to the basic virtues that everyone acknowledges as worthwhile: moral goodness, industriousness, courage, et cetera. It is only when we narrow our scope to looking within what he calls a practice, that more variegated and interesting goals of human effort can become meaningful (he calls these “internal goods” – goods or goals that are meaningful within a certain practice, but not outside it). A practice is any subsection of the human experience in which people are pursuing a more specific set of goals than those which are pursued by the larger human community. Practices can be simply understood as crafts or arts, like carpentry or basketball or cardplaying.
So in order to understand mastery in poker, we have to understand that outside of the practice of poker, there is no meaning or intrinsic value in the mastery of poker, and hence it could not possibly translate into beauty. You must first acknowledge poker as a worthwhile practice, and you must then understand poker to enough of an extent that you can recognize mastery. If there is beauty in poker, it is entrenched behind these two layers which are difficult to cut through for the undifferentiated person. In the same way, I may be told that a mathematical proof is beautiful, but even though I have some rudimentary understanding of mathematics and I respect mathematics as a practice, I don’t have anywhere near the understanding of the practice to recognize mastery, and hence beauty. Show me two potential proofs of the Poincaré conjecture, and setting aside which proof is beautiful and which isn’t, I wouldn’t even be able to tell which one were a proof and which was garbled nonsense.
So if there is beauty in poker, then this beauty can only exist within the practice, and can only be recognized among those who have sufficient understanding of the practice. You might even go so far as to say that within every practice that is sufficiently complex and understood, there exists some form of beauty (hence, it shouldn’t puzzle you to hear a CEO talk about a beautiful deal, or a boxer talk about a beautiful round, or even a scammer talk about a beautiful scam). So we should have no apprehensions with talking about beauty in poker so long as we understand how we are constraining the possibility of acknowledging this beauty.
So, that being said, what constitutes mastery? The dictionary will tell you that mastery is “the possession of consummate skill.” This is easy enough to understand, but it falls short of providing the clear picture of what we’re trying to resolve. If you think about mastery in terms of poker, it seems as though mastery can be defined as the ability to make the most +EV set of actions over the widest possible window of time (assuming, of course, imperfect information). So to recognize mastery, we must be able to recognize what is the most +EV action to take at any point in time, or in other words, we must know what “the right play” is. If you have no idea what the right play is while looking at all possible options, then you will not be able to perceive mastery, and hence aren’t qualified to make an aesthetic judgment about a hand.
Now, this definition actually gets a little tricky here, because defining mastery as simply “making the right play,” seems to be overly inclusive. For example, folding 39o preflop UTG in a full ring game is absolutely the right play each and every time. And yet, if we had the hole card cam on Phil Ivey folding 39o UTG, we would not be impressed. This would not strike us beautiful. The notion of mastery would not even enter our thoughts. Why is this? Think of this analogy – in a game of basketball, when there is a turnover, the opposing team has to inbound the ball from out of bounds. There is a 5 second window for the player to pass the ball, and if he doesn’t inbound the ball in time, then there is an automatic turnover and his team loses possession. Well clearly, it is always going to be bad for the team if the passer waits longer than 5 seconds. 100% of times in 100% of games, waiting longer than 5 seconds is the wrong play. Since it’s always the right play to pass the ball before 5 seconds pass, then this must be a demonstration of mastery, and hence it must be beautiful. And yet this is absurd, because this is the most trivial and unimpressive part of any ball possession, calling this beautiful is silly. We should infer then that there are some things which are optimal (“the right play”), but which are not beautiful.
How is this line drawn? How are some things which are optimal beautiful, and others trivial? I think the first reaction is to look for the purely aesthetic element – i.e., a dunk is more visually impressive than inbounding a ball, so that’s why a great dunk will be more beautiful than a great inbound pass. But I don’t think that this is enough. I think a better way to understand this problem is to think about the difference between structure and “gameplay.” I choose the word gameplay because the analogies that I’m using here are games like chess, basketball, and poker, but this all still applies to a practice which is not a game, such as mathematics or carpentry or whatever.
Structure and Gameplay
In all of human experience, there is an essential duality that defines our interaction with the world. This duality is the opposition between the conscious and the unconscious; foreground and background; substructure and superstructure. All of experience is predicated upon this fundamental, yet in a sense invisible distinction. In any experience of the external world, the unconscious filters out what is unimportant, otherwise it would be impossible for your brain to extract patterns from such enormous quantities of information (all of the visual, aural, and tactile stimulation that your nerves are transmitting at every moment of your life). If you are exposed to any stimulus long enough, it congeals into a simplified entity, subsumed into the background of your mind, and ceases to be an object of direct perception. This is obvious with things like putting on pants or wearing sunglasses– at first, it is an object of experience, but as it the experience is repeated (the feeling of having your leg press against denim or seeing an object shaded darker than it usually is) it becomes filtered out and you no longer notice it. In a way, this is what happens in games like poker as well.
The initial way in which this manifests itself is in understanding the most basic structure of the game. When two hands get to showdown and the players turn up their cards, if you had no idea how poker was played, looking at their hands would be completely meaningless to you. You don’t know the structure of the game – you don’t know the rules. How do you decide who wins? Well, it turns out that poker has a complicated set of rules about how to combine certain cards of certain suits together in order to create different types of hands, some of which beat others. This is the structure of the game on the simplest level. Once you understand how to evaluate showdowns, then this becomes subsumed into your understanding of the structure of the game. At that point, you understand the rules. You can’t break these rules. You can’t take the pot if you have a straight and your opponent has a flush; the structure of the game determines that the person who has the flush will win no matter what.
Well, we can actually go further than that. The structure of the game is simply what is constant to your perception – there’s no reason why it has to be limited to the most explicit rules of the game. Once you understand the rules of poker, you don’t have to consult a hand chart every time you get to showdown to figure out who wins. The way showdowns work becomes incorporated into your perception of the game. Now, once you go further than that and have learned basic preflop hand requirements, then you know that raising 39o UTG is definitely a bad play, so you fold it every time. In fact, everybody else folds 39o UTG as well. When you fold 39o UTG, you no longer have to mentally consult a preflop raising chart to see whether that falls into the range of hands you can play around with, it is simply a fold. Folding 39o preflop becomes a mental constant, you stop perceiving it or thinking about it as a decision in your poker game. Folding 39o becomes a rule of the game. You effectively can’t break this rule, in the same way that you can’t take the pot if you have a straight against a flush. It becomes subsumed into the structure of the game.
So structure becomes more and more developed as one moves closer to mastery of any practice. In poker, many things start to become relegated to structure, such as continuation betting, raising the river with the nuts, 3-betting AK preflop, etc. If anything is obviously the correct play and is constantly repeated, it eventually becomes incorporated into structure, because it ceases to be a point of gameplay. Gameplay, then, can be defined as that which is not constant – gameplay is whatever we need to think about, it’s what’s dynamic in any instance of the game that we play. In a 10/20 6-max round, nobody is ever going to raise 39o UTG; that is simply not a part of gameplay, which is effectively the same as saying that it’s not allowed or that it’s an illegal move. However, 3-betting an UTG raiser with 67s IS a legal move. People know that this is a viable play, but they also know that it’s not a mandatory play. Hence, 3-betting an UTG raiser with 67s counts as gameplay.
The conclusion of this short detour is that mastery will only be appreciated by somebody within a practice if it occurs within the gameplay, not within the structure. Anybody who follows the structure of a game has, in a sense, some basic level of mastery. Neither an amateur nor a professional basketball player will try to travel to the other side of the court without dribbling the ball, and so they both are obeying the structure of the game, but we don’t find this to be indicative of mastery. It simply means that if they don’t do this, then they haven’t outright broken the rules yet. It takes gameplay to demonstrate how close one is to mastery.
Delineating Structure
To properly separate structure from gameplay, one must first understand structure on the level similar to that of a master. If an amateur were to watch a professional chess match, he might marvel at the thoughtfulness displayed in the first four or five opening moves. But for masters of chess, gameplay doesn’t begin until their respective “opening lines” begin to interact. The first few opening moves are all structure, because they are determined by each player before the match began and are not particularly dynamic.
Thinking about structure in high level poker is quite similar. When amateur poker players observe a high level match, very often what they tend to do is ascribe elements of gameplay to what is actually structure. When railbirds see a preflop 3-bet or a flop check/raise, they tend to say things like “Oh, he’s fighting back!” Or if they see somebody call a jam with a hand like 99, they might say something like “He’s taking a stand, he won’t be pushed around!” In reality, the gameplay in a high level match is occurring on the battlefield of ranges – the individual hands usually are of minimal importance. Individual flop checkraises and preflop 3-bets create the structure of the match, and the adjustments and frequencies that each player adopts are what constitute the actual gameplay. This is difficult to see for those not privy to how high stakes matches are played, which is again what makes it impossible for amateurs to evaluate what’s actually going on in these matches.
In spite of the fact that little gameplay occurs within individual hands, there seem to be some hands which can be described as genuinely beautiful. If most gameplay is actually taking place within the interplay of ranges and large scale adjustments, then it seems to be impossible for there to be such a thing as a hand that demonstrates extraordinary gameplay, but the fact is that hands like this do occasionally come about, although they are rare.
I think what it is that defines beauty in poker is not just gameplay within structure, but gameplay that challenges structure. Structure, as I defined it, is anything that fails to be perceived as within the field of gameplay. But there are times when inspiration strikes a player to see beyond structure, and to harness some tool or technique that seems to be structurally disallowed. These are the moments that we see as beautiful—the beauty is in the breaking of the rules that we then see were never really rules. It’s the eloquent, unexpected solution.
An Eloquent Unexpected Solution
When I conducted those interviews with the high stakes players, it was around the time that the QT hand that Durrrr played on High Stakes Poker had just aired. It caused quite a stir among poker aficionados, and two of the players I interviewed actually mentioned it as an example of a beautiful hand of poker. Here it is:
Eastgate and Durrrr are 500k deep, and Barry is 200k deep. The blinds are 400/800 with a 200 ante, and Barry Greenstein opens under the gun for 2500 with AA. Durrrr who is immediately to his left calls with QTs, six other players behind him call, including Peter Eastgate in the small blind with 42s. The flop comes down 22T. Peter checks, and Barry leads out the flop for 10k. Durrrr makes it 37k, Peter overcalls, and Barry calls as well. The turn comes down an 8 and they both check to Durrrr, who bets 104k. Peter Eastgate folds quickly, and Barry folds after some thinking.
The vast majority of people who commentated on this hand had a poor understanding of what was actually going on in this hand. When Barry’s bet comes around to Durrrr, the standard play is going to be to fold (Barry is betting here into 8 players, so he almost certainly has something after raising UTG). The way that full ring players are conditioned to react to a spot where there are 8 players in the pot and UTG bets into them is to realize that a lot of strength is being represented here by this action, and so they fold all but the strongest of hands. The structure of the action (the positions, board texture, and amount of players in the pot) are supposed to create a situation where Durrrr has to play straightforwardly. But instead of obeying this schema, he goes the other way – he exploits the structure of the action and the fact that he has a ten, which blocks the most likely nuts (TT), and he decides to strong-arm the structure of the hand and use it to his advantage. When UTG+1 raises the UTG player with 7 players left to act in a pot with 9 players on a board where UTG obviously has something, it represents enormous strength and an indifference as to what action occurs behind.
When he makes the raise, Peter Eastgate overcalls from the small blind, and Barry calls as well, and the turn comes down a blank. Durrrr bets the turn a big size – one that seems to tell Eastgate that he’s looking to get all-in, and one that has Barry completely covered. Once Peter Eastgate overcalls the flop, it’s very obvious that his range includes some 2’s, TT, and 22. The structure has become again intensified because all players in the hand know that every other player acknowledges this structure, and so when Durrrr bets the turn big even when he knows what is meant by Eastgate’s overcall, Eastgate’s decision must reflect this fact. He knows that Durrrr is not stupid, and so he’s going to play his hand value relative to what is dictated by the structure of the hand and everybody’s perceived ranges. Now, of course if Eastgate had had 22, Durrrr would have not looked so spectacular, but it was a risk that he took and I’m sure he was not going to beat himself up for it if Eastgate turned out to have had quads. It wasn’t just the fearlessness that Durrrr demonstrated or the fact that he bluffed for such an enormous pot, or even that he bluffed Eastgate off of trips and Barry off of aces up. What’s beautiful about the hand is how Durrrr managed to find an eloquent solution that challenges the basic structure of the hand.
Ascending the Ladder
Now, I won’t get carried away here. I won’t say that this bluff that Durrrr made was a sudden spark of creativity or some kind of eureka moment that broke full ring poker wide open. The bluff itself is actually fairly basic, and I’m sure Durrrr makes these kinds of bluffs with some regularity when the opportunity presents itself. If you wanted to, you could just call it something as simple as balance (i.e., since Durrrr is bluffing here so rarely, he has to include the occasional bluff, and if you look at the situation holistically QT is the best hand to do it with). High caliber full ring players make this kind of bluff all the time I’m sure – if they didn’t, then it’d be far too easy to play in these situations, and they’d be missing out on too much bluffing EV since they usually get credit for having hands. The hand is beautiful because it demonstrates mastery, as Durrrr certainly understood everything that was going on (he basically called both of their hands when the hand was over), and its defiance of structure. But in spite of that, there are many other hands like it that could be summoned, which moves it closer and closer to being structurally sound (something like “standard”).
Ultimately, the higher and higher you go on the ladder of poker prowess, the more difficult it is to find hands that an expert player will consider beautiful. If a hand is demonstrative of mastery, then the highest caliber poker players understand the inherent concepts and employ them whenever they can in their games. If you asked somebody like Durrrr or LarsLuzak for an example of a beautiful hand, they’d have much more difficulty producing an example than a mid to low level player would. This is because of all of the possibilities that are available in poker, players like Durrrr and Lars have explored so many of them and can see every inch of gameplay that is possible (that is, they are not obstructed by false structure), and so there is very little that appears to them as genuinely novel or beautiful. The situation would either have to be very rare for it to seem beautiful (because it would come about so rarely, they could appreciate that moment of discovering a solution), or it would have to manifest itself not in a hand but in the higher level gameplay of adjustments and counteradjustments.
Poker is all about possibilities, and I think it is the moment of discovering a new possibility that is the sweetest moment for a poker player. For a lower level player you might imagine that they’d find the most mundane of poker dogma, such as deciding to fold offsuit ace rags from out of position, as a beautiful solution to a difficult problem. And as we move up the ladder, we start to see players appreciating more fine and creative solutions to different problems, slowly uncovering more and more of the field of gameplay. Experienced players often speak of “aha” moments, at which point their understanding of poker suddenly jumps up to another level, or some concept which they once didn’t really grasp is suddenly elucidated. I think these are the moments in poker we all are looking for. The moment when we emerge out of the cave of ignorance, and the light that we never knew was there shines upon our eyes… it is then that the field of possibilities unfurls itself upon our vision. And it’s true. It is a thing of beauty.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Minnesota Legislation
I copy and pasted this off of Jason Senti's Blog on Bluefire Poker. He's a pro who resides in Minnesota. I happen to live in St. Paul, MN myself so that would really suck if they didn't allow me to play online poker. I just called and emailed Governor Tim Pawlenty. I even called the director of AGED and left him a message. Thanks for reading and helping the cause.
See below........
To anyone that hasn't heard, the state of Minnesota recently announced that they are requiring all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to any online gambling sites for residents of MN. This is absolutely ridiculous and blatent censorship of the internet (not to even mention that poker is a skill game, the wire act doesn't apply to the internet, etc)!
Please take action! I have posted some info below that should make it somewhat easy. FYI - I took the letter from a post on 2p2 by the poster "CrazyEyez."
You can copy and paste the following email. Below that is a notification with phone numbers from the PPA.
Email to send to : tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
"Mr. Governor,
I am prompted to write to you because of the recent action taken by the Department of Public Safety to have ISPs block Minnesotan's access to online gambling sites. I will attempt to be brief as I convey some of the reasons I am outraged by this attack on my liberty.
Once again, members of the government and media have falsely characterized the legality of online gambling. We are frequently told that all online gambling is a violation of federal law. This is simply not true. Director of the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division John Willems implies as much in the DPS' own press release. “In broader context, the long-running debate on online gambling continues to raise significant issues, including absence of policy and regulation." Are we to believe that the government has by default the authority to limit all of our actions unless there are laws specifically allowing those actions? I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true. Surely you would not be proud to have your office set limits on the liberties of citizens at it's own discretion.
You, I believe, have taken great pride in calling yourself a conservative. Unfortunately it seems that conservative Republicans are becoming rarer by the month, and therefore your actions as governor have been welcome and refreshing. Minnesota, like many other states, is facing a challenge of historic proportions with regard to it's budget. Now, more than ever, is a time to prioritize needs and look for ways to cut spending in all but the most critical areas. You have presided over significant budget deficits in the past and I applaud the manner in which you resolved them. As a citizen of Minnesota, am I to believe that we have conquered so many other issues facing us that it is prudent to allocate human and monetary resources toward combating internet gambling? Again, Director Willems admits that he has little information on which to base this battle as he has no idea how much online gambling even takes place in the state. "It's hard to know that. I can't tell you if it's one [Minnesotan gambling online] or 500,000." He is clearly incapable of quantifying any sort of detriment to the State which might justify expenditures.
Surely you're aware of Kentucky's unsuccessful attempt to have ISPs block access to online gambling sites. You also must know that expenses to the taxpayers are going to skyrocket once interested parties begin battling this action in court. Internet censorship is something that citizens and businesses take very seriously. This is not merely a gambling issue.
The hypocrisy of this battle is astounding. It is undeniable that Minnesotans enjoy gambling. We have many casinos, a state-run lottery, an interstate lottery, and a proud horse racing history. Less than a year ago a new track and poker room was opened. Is there public demand for the government to "save" us from gambling? Is the State serving the people in this fight?
I implore you to act now. Put a stop to this egregious violation of personal liberty. I take pride in my conservative ideals, and I have been proud to give you my vote in the past. But you will have lost any future votes from me if you allow this to continue, because you will have betrayed the fundamental conservative belief - that individual freedom, not government interference, is valued above all else.
Thank you."
PPA Announcement:
The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has just learned that Minnesota's Department of Public Safety (DPS) Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) served written notice to all Internet service providers (ISPs) forcing them to shut down and block their customers access to online poker sites in the State.
The AGED also announced that they will be prohibitingMinnesota poker players from accessing their online poker monetary accounts. This is an outrageous attack on Internet freedom, personal liberty and the First Amendment.
Please take a moment right now and call,
John Willems, Director of AGED (651) 201-7529
AND
Governor Tim Pawlenty (651) 296-3391
Tell them:
* You are a poker player and you vote
* You strongly oppose their efforts to force ISPs to block your access to poker sites
* They do not have the right to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home
* They do not have the right to withhold your money from you
* Poker is a game of skill and NOT ILLEGAL in the USA or Minnesota
* Please abandon this misguided effort to censor the Internet and nullify personal freedoms
Your opinion matters. Your calls matter.
The rights of Minnesota poker players are under attack. Join the Minnesota PPA Facebook page to get the latest news and start discussing the issue with your fellow players.
Our opponents go to government to take our rights from us. We need to do the same to keep them. Please call now. (To leave feedback about your call, click here)
Proud to play,
Matt Werden
PPA State Director
MN@pokerplayersalliance.org
Go get em!
-Jaxx
See below........
To anyone that hasn't heard, the state of Minnesota recently announced that they are requiring all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block access to any online gambling sites for residents of MN. This is absolutely ridiculous and blatent censorship of the internet (not to even mention that poker is a skill game, the wire act doesn't apply to the internet, etc)!
Please take action! I have posted some info below that should make it somewhat easy. FYI - I took the letter from a post on 2p2 by the poster "CrazyEyez."
You can copy and paste the following email. Below that is a notification with phone numbers from the PPA.
Email to send to : tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us
"Mr. Governor,
I am prompted to write to you because of the recent action taken by the Department of Public Safety to have ISPs block Minnesotan's access to online gambling sites. I will attempt to be brief as I convey some of the reasons I am outraged by this attack on my liberty.
Once again, members of the government and media have falsely characterized the legality of online gambling. We are frequently told that all online gambling is a violation of federal law. This is simply not true. Director of the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division John Willems implies as much in the DPS' own press release. “In broader context, the long-running debate on online gambling continues to raise significant issues, including absence of policy and regulation." Are we to believe that the government has by default the authority to limit all of our actions unless there are laws specifically allowing those actions? I was under the impression that the exact opposite was true. Surely you would not be proud to have your office set limits on the liberties of citizens at it's own discretion.
You, I believe, have taken great pride in calling yourself a conservative. Unfortunately it seems that conservative Republicans are becoming rarer by the month, and therefore your actions as governor have been welcome and refreshing. Minnesota, like many other states, is facing a challenge of historic proportions with regard to it's budget. Now, more than ever, is a time to prioritize needs and look for ways to cut spending in all but the most critical areas. You have presided over significant budget deficits in the past and I applaud the manner in which you resolved them. As a citizen of Minnesota, am I to believe that we have conquered so many other issues facing us that it is prudent to allocate human and monetary resources toward combating internet gambling? Again, Director Willems admits that he has little information on which to base this battle as he has no idea how much online gambling even takes place in the state. "It's hard to know that. I can't tell you if it's one [Minnesotan gambling online] or 500,000." He is clearly incapable of quantifying any sort of detriment to the State which might justify expenditures.
Surely you're aware of Kentucky's unsuccessful attempt to have ISPs block access to online gambling sites. You also must know that expenses to the taxpayers are going to skyrocket once interested parties begin battling this action in court. Internet censorship is something that citizens and businesses take very seriously. This is not merely a gambling issue.
The hypocrisy of this battle is astounding. It is undeniable that Minnesotans enjoy gambling. We have many casinos, a state-run lottery, an interstate lottery, and a proud horse racing history. Less than a year ago a new track and poker room was opened. Is there public demand for the government to "save" us from gambling? Is the State serving the people in this fight?
I implore you to act now. Put a stop to this egregious violation of personal liberty. I take pride in my conservative ideals, and I have been proud to give you my vote in the past. But you will have lost any future votes from me if you allow this to continue, because you will have betrayed the fundamental conservative belief - that individual freedom, not government interference, is valued above all else.
Thank you."
PPA Announcement:
The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has just learned that Minnesota's Department of Public Safety (DPS) Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division (AGED) served written notice to all Internet service providers (ISPs) forcing them to shut down and block their customers access to online poker sites in the State.
The AGED also announced that they will be prohibitingMinnesota poker players from accessing their online poker monetary accounts. This is an outrageous attack on Internet freedom, personal liberty and the First Amendment.
Please take a moment right now and call,
John Willems, Director of AGED (651) 201-7529
AND
Governor Tim Pawlenty (651) 296-3391
Tell them:
* You are a poker player and you vote
* You strongly oppose their efforts to force ISPs to block your access to poker sites
* They do not have the right to dictate what you do in the privacy of your own home
* They do not have the right to withhold your money from you
* Poker is a game of skill and NOT ILLEGAL in the USA or Minnesota
* Please abandon this misguided effort to censor the Internet and nullify personal freedoms
Your opinion matters. Your calls matter.
The rights of Minnesota poker players are under attack. Join the Minnesota PPA Facebook page to get the latest news and start discussing the issue with your fellow players.
Our opponents go to government to take our rights from us. We need to do the same to keep them. Please call now. (To leave feedback about your call, click here)
Proud to play,
Matt Werden
PPA State Director
MN@pokerplayersalliance.org
Go get em!
-Jaxx
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Best Man @ my cousin's wedding
My cousin just got married and I was his best man. The wedding celebration lasted two days and I'm still sore since Sunday morning. It is Hmong Tradition to bow down twice for each of your relatives past and present. I lost count but it was close to 100 bow down. I was sweating when it was all over. My cousin told me right before we bowed down that he had been working out for it, lol.
Here's an example of it that I found on youtube.
Hmong Wedding Bow Down Video
As for poker, I haven't been playing much. Taking a little break but going to play soon. The group study is going well. It now consist of Tyler, Matt, Marissa, Ravi, Steve and I. Alot of the guys never got back to me so I think their no longer interested. However, I'm always open to talk/sweat poker with anyone.
Here's an example of it that I found on youtube.
Hmong Wedding Bow Down Video
As for poker, I haven't been playing much. Taking a little break but going to play soon. The group study is going well. It now consist of Tyler, Matt, Marissa, Ravi, Steve and I. Alot of the guys never got back to me so I think their no longer interested. However, I'm always open to talk/sweat poker with anyone.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Full Ring Study Group 2
There was alot of interest in people wanting to get into Group 1. They got shut out so I decided to organize another group. I'll get an opportunity to talk to alot of great poker players.
Group 2 will consist of
1) AppleSeed (John aka me)
2) JahDoos (Rob)
3) lefty2432 (Steve)
4) fuppnasty (Pat)
5) xtacy2004 (Hai)
6) VogelB (Billy)
7) Milhouse7 (Ravi)
I'll be participating in both groups.
good luck at the tables.
Group 2 will consist of
1) AppleSeed (John aka me)
2) JahDoos (Rob)
3) lefty2432 (Steve)
4) fuppnasty (Pat)
5) xtacy2004 (Hai)
6) VogelB (Billy)
7) Milhouse7 (Ravi)
I'll be participating in both groups.
good luck at the tables.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Full Ring Study Group
Sawdruhteez (Tyler) organized a FR Study Group at CR and I decided to join. The individuals consist of Schulucky, Dustydwn, WordHappy, Pataxxe, Sawdruhteez and I. We plan to meet this coming Thursday at 7pm Central Time through Skype/Mikogo. I'm pretty sure we are going to bring 1-3 hand histories for review and then go from there.
Looking forward to this coming Thursday because it's another step to being a better poker player.
Looking forward to this coming Thursday because it's another step to being a better poker player.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Please send PPA letter to the President, your Senator and local Rep
Got the links from Btimm and LuckySOB. Please take the time and send the PPA letter to President Obama, your Senators and local Rep. It takes one minute and it will make a big difference. Poker is a skill game and it needs to be regulated in USA.
PPA letter to our Prez.... http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alertid=12601836&type=PR
PPA letter to your Senators and Local Rep...... http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alertid=11248186
PPA letter to our Prez.... http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alertid=12601836&type=PR
PPA letter to your Senators and Local Rep...... http://capwiz.com/pokerplayersalliance/issues/alert/?alertid=11248186
Monday, February 2, 2009
35k Hand Breakeven Stretch
I mixed up my play this month 16 and 6 tabling, thus the lower volume. When I play 6 tables, I'm able to pick up player tendencies that I wouldn't be able to pick up 16 tabling. I"m able to see how fast they act, how many big pots they've been involved in etc. However, it's more mentally challenging playing 6 tables than it is 16 tabling. I don't want that sort of mental drain so I also play 16 tables. I think it's a nice mix to keep the game fresh.
I'm basically breakeven this month with rakeback over 35k hands. I played a mix of $50 and $100 nlhe FR. Eric (Damn Ringer) has been awesome. We've had 3 sessions so far, and he has been able to plug a few looks. I knew what my leaks were but he was able to give me practical advice to plug them. I was probably too loose on the CO/BTN and didn't double barrel enough in certain spots. I was able to tighten up in Late Position when I knew the blinds would 3 bet me. I'm also double barreling more on scare cards on the turn and river when I suspect villain can find the fold button. My total aggro factor was around 2.5, but it is now it's around 3 or higher. I also had some betsizing issues where I was either betting too small or too big. I need to really think what I want villain to do and fire the correct betsize out with player tendency, position, board texture, and history in mind etc. Basically making my postflop decisions easier where I don't have to guess as much if I'm getting bluffed or not because I love to hero call.
My review of my last 127k hands is taking longer than I thought. I'm about 1/2 way done and I'm noticing alot of leaks in my game. I hope to finish reviewing the other half within a week or so. I do find reviewing hand histories boring, so it's taking me longer than it should.
I'll post a graph when I reach another 100k hands.
I'm basically breakeven this month with rakeback over 35k hands. I played a mix of $50 and $100 nlhe FR. Eric (Damn Ringer) has been awesome. We've had 3 sessions so far, and he has been able to plug a few looks. I knew what my leaks were but he was able to give me practical advice to plug them. I was probably too loose on the CO/BTN and didn't double barrel enough in certain spots. I was able to tighten up in Late Position when I knew the blinds would 3 bet me. I'm also double barreling more on scare cards on the turn and river when I suspect villain can find the fold button. My total aggro factor was around 2.5, but it is now it's around 3 or higher. I also had some betsizing issues where I was either betting too small or too big. I need to really think what I want villain to do and fire the correct betsize out with player tendency, position, board texture, and history in mind etc. Basically making my postflop decisions easier where I don't have to guess as much if I'm getting bluffed or not because I love to hero call.
My review of my last 127k hands is taking longer than I thought. I'm about 1/2 way done and I'm noticing alot of leaks in my game. I hope to finish reviewing the other half within a week or so. I do find reviewing hand histories boring, so it's taking me longer than it should.
I'll post a graph when I reach another 100k hands.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Regulate Online Poker. Please Vote
Let's Regulate Online Poker. Please vote and be heard. This is very important because it's so hard to get cash online to play poker. It only takes one minute of your time to register and vote. Please do it right now, don't wait to do it later.
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewI...
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewI...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Bad Beat Jackpot?
$0.25/$0.5 No Limit Holdem
8 players
Converted at weaktight.com
Stacks:
Pre-flop: ($0.75, 8 players) Hero is SB
4 folds, Hakimakli raises to $1.75, call in 33 goes all-in $6.95, Hero calls $6.70, 1 fold, Hakimakli calls $5.20
Flop:
($21.35, 3 players)
Hero checks, Hakimakli checks
Turn:
($21.35, 3 players)
Hero checks, Hakimakli bets $6.50, Hero raises to $13, Hakimakli calls $6.50
River:
($47.35, 3 players)
Hero goes all-in $30.05, Hakimakli calls $30.05, Hakimakli says "wow"
Final Pot: $107.45
Hero shows:
Hakimakli shows:
call in 33 shows:
Hakimakli wins $104.45 ( won +$54.45 )
Hero lost -$50
call in 33 lost -$6.95
Double bad beat. There is no bad beat jackpot at FTP. This hand would of qualified if there was one.
So far this month, I'm a small loser over 27k hands. I'm running terrible but it's nothing new. I just gotta keep on grinding and my hands will eventually hold up. Half the hands were at $100 nlhe FR and the other half is at $50 nlhe FR. I dropped back down to $50 nlhe FR to regain confidence. I also hired a FR coach. His name is Eric (Damn Ringer) and is a FR Pro playing at Cake and FTP $200 and $400 nlhe FR. I found him off of the CR Coaching Forum. My first coaching session will be this coming Thursday. I'm really looking forward to it.
I plan to take this month slow and really analyze my poker game. I'm in the process of reviewing my last 127k hands and will probably make a post about it. I think it's a good time to do that because I'm not running so well and don't want to put in too many hours when my confidence is low.
My poker goal this year is to be able to beat $200 nlhe FR. Mark that down, no more silly shots at higher stakes. Just a slow grind up to that level because with rakeback/bonuses, it's dame hard to lose at this game when playing your A game.
Good Luck
8 players
Converted at weaktight.com
Stacks:
| UTG | Herbstwald | ($48.25) | |
| UTG+1 | tripsntraps | ($17.70) | |
| MP1 | pfletch49 | ($40.20) | |
| MP2 | Superdave1974 | ($28.60) | |
| CO | Hakimakli | ($56.30) | |
| BTN | call in 33 | ($6.95) | |
| SB | Hero | ($50.00) | |
| BB | lany89 | ($38.85) |
Pre-flop: ($0.75, 8 players) Hero is SB
4 folds, Hakimakli raises to $1.75, call in 33 goes all-in $6.95, Hero calls $6.70, 1 fold, Hakimakli calls $5.20
Flop:
($21.35, 3 players)Hero checks, Hakimakli checks
Turn:
($21.35, 3 players)Hero checks, Hakimakli bets $6.50, Hero raises to $13, Hakimakli calls $6.50
River:
($47.35, 3 players)Hero goes all-in $30.05, Hakimakli calls $30.05, Hakimakli says "wow"
Final Pot: $107.45
Hero shows:
Hakimakli shows:
call in 33 shows:
Hakimakli wins $104.45 ( won +$54.45 )
Hero lost -$50
call in 33 lost -$6.95
Double bad beat. There is no bad beat jackpot at FTP. This hand would of qualified if there was one.
So far this month, I'm a small loser over 27k hands. I'm running terrible but it's nothing new. I just gotta keep on grinding and my hands will eventually hold up. Half the hands were at $100 nlhe FR and the other half is at $50 nlhe FR. I dropped back down to $50 nlhe FR to regain confidence. I also hired a FR coach. His name is Eric (Damn Ringer) and is a FR Pro playing at Cake and FTP $200 and $400 nlhe FR. I found him off of the CR Coaching Forum. My first coaching session will be this coming Thursday. I'm really looking forward to it.
I plan to take this month slow and really analyze my poker game. I'm in the process of reviewing my last 127k hands and will probably make a post about it. I think it's a good time to do that because I'm not running so well and don't want to put in too many hours when my confidence is low.
My poker goal this year is to be able to beat $200 nlhe FR. Mark that down, no more silly shots at higher stakes. Just a slow grind up to that level because with rakeback/bonuses, it's dame hard to lose at this game when playing your A game.
Good Luck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)