Online Poker Journal

[Marmel]

The smaller the entry fee, the tighter I play. In a $3 sit and go I can fold 90% of my hands and still finish 3rd (at worst) just about everytime. I'll have 2 or 3 going at once, fold everything but the very best, only go in when I know I have the best and people still call. It is very slow going but easy profit while you play a regular cash game. If I have 2 sit and go's going it is almost a buffer against losing in the ring game...and if I am winning there, it is a nice profit for the day. I stay away from the turbo sit and go's, blinds go too fast and I feel I am pushing with less than desirable cards because of the blind structure.

[st.cronin]

This is a play I like to make in a cash game: I am dealt AK, both hearts. The blinds are 1 and 2 dollars, my stack is about 350. I raise it to 7, there are several callers. The flop is 2 3 5, 2 hearts. I am first to act, and push all-in. I get 1 caller, a guy with about 100 chips, who has KK. His Ks held up.

I like the play because with 4 hearts and 2 cards to come, its about 50-50 that I make my flush - as long as I stay in the hand for both the turn and the river (this is important - sometimes the pot odds will warrant a call on the flop, but not on the turn, so generally I think I need better than merely good odds on the flop to call). By going all in I ensure that I will see both cards, making the flush draw about 1 in 2, instead of 1 in 4. The result will either be a big win, a moderate win, or a big loss, and I think on balance its very much +ev. Didn't work out yesterday, though. (Harrington calls this play a semi-bluff, but I had worked out the play on my own before reading his book.)

I finished up 198.

[primelord]

Ignoring everything else in your last post for a moment. You need to spend a little more time on odds. You are not about a 50-50 chance to make your flush by the river. 2:1 against does not mean you will make it 1 out of 2 times.

[st.cronin]

Its less than 1 in 2, I realize that - about 2/5 (I think). I was guesstimating the total of my outs, which also included 4s and As.

[st.cronin]

dola, my thinking was actually cruder than that - it was something like "the only hand I'm a big underdog against is A4, which if somebody called a preflop raise with that, bravo to them."

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Its less than 1 in 2, I realize that - about 2/5 (I think). I was guesstimating the total of my outs, which also included 4s and As.

No it's not. Your problem was not your 2:1 against estimate. The 2:1 represents the 2 times you don't get there and the 1 time you do for a total of 3. So you will make your flush 1 out of 3 times, not 1 out of 2. That's obviously a big difference. I am not saying it should change the way you play that flop (I have other issues with that), but it will make a huge difference in other hands.

[st.cronin]

9/47 = @ 1/5

Drawing twice makes it 2 in 5, no?

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

9/47 = @ 1/5

Drawing twice makes it 2 in 5, no?

It's not quite that straight forward. In order to find the odds of something hitting with two cards to come you need to first find the odds of it hitting ont he turn (9/47), then the odds of it hitting on the river (38/47) * (9/46) and then add those together. in this case ~ 34%.

A much easier method though is the 2/4 rule. If you have two cards to come multiply your outs by 4 and if there is one card to come multiply by 2. In this case that would give you 36% which is clse enough when making a decision at the table. However that is a big difference from about 50-50.

[st.cronin]

One of Harrington's key concepts in his cash game book is that there are different strategies employed by big stacks vs. small stacks. Big stacks are able to see more flops cheaply, in the hope of taking down OTHER big stacks - the implied odds for a given hand are larger, so they can play more hands.

My observations of play in a 1-2 game suggest that people don't actually play that way, though. The bigger the stack, generally speaking, the tighter the play. This is probably simply Darwinian - tight play at these games will get you a big stack. I have not really found a way to make a loose aggressive strategy work, although I have experimented with it a little bit. While its true that at a loose table all your hands are better than you think, I'm just not really comfortable standing up to a big raise with something like two pair after the turn, so I end up bleeding a lot of chips seeing flops that I can't really play (or am not willing to play). Tighter is indeed righter at these tables.

Regarding the open-raising controversy, what I've observed is that many pots get raised pre-flop, which in my mind completely takes open-limping away as a strategy, except maybe occasionally with a monster hand like KK or AA. Tables that tend not to raise pre-flop also tend not to have a lot of limpers - at least, that's been my experience.

[st.cronin]

I have not been playing much online due to my houseguest, who is leaving Wednesday. I am spending a weekend in Vegas starting Thursday. I will be staying at the Orleans, which my understanding is their poker room is pretty tough.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by primelord

A much easier method though is the 2/4 rule. If you have two cards to come multiply your outs by 4 and if there is one card to come multiply by 2. In this case that would give you 36% which is clse enough when making a decision at the table. However that is a big difference from about 50-50.

This is the rule I use all the time. Very handy.

Great thread! Cronin, what got you into playing so often lately?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by mccollins

This is the rule I use all the time. Very handy.

Great thread! Cronin, what got you into playing so often lately?

This is a good question. It took a long time for me to overcome the learning curve, partly because I was reluctant to play with real money online. Lessons in a casino are expensive - the first couple of times I sat down, I was down 200 before I really knew what was going on. So for about a year or two after mastering the rules, I was very tentative about dipping my toes in any waters.

When I first had some success (at B&Ms), I had to brag about it, so I used the guise of asking for feedback on various hands and situations from some of the werewolf pokerstars - specifically hoopsguy, Lathum, Barkeep49. These conversations afforded me some clarity on strategic concepts that had been fuzzy to me before, and really inspired me to improve.

Also, once it was established that I can consistently beat the local games, my woman encouraged me to play more often - since almost every time I play she gets a pedicure or a lobster or something similar.

[st.cronin]

Vegas results, up about 1000 total over several days of play. Mini-reviews of the poker rooms I played in:

Orleans - big room with a casual feel, pretty tough players imo.
Imperial Palace - terrible room, slow game, annoying crowd.
O Sheas - they have poker tables right by the sidewalk, which is kind of a neat gimmick. Obviously not a very serious crowd, but I had fun.
Venetian - very nice, this is probably where I will play next time I am in Vegas. Good friendly crowd, not a real tough game, great service, very well run.
Caesar's Palace - cheapest game is 1/3. The Pussycat dolls are very hot. Very nice room, but I felt like the players were mostly better than me, so I didn't stick around.
Golden Nugget - small room, players were not as good as I feared. Had a terrible run in a tournament here: KK busted by JJ. AA, flopped a set, villain rivers a straight. Rebuy, AK, flop is AKx, I go all in against KK (limp preflop). 1st out. I suck at tournaments. I absolutely cleaned up in a cash game here, though, so this was actually my most profitable room, by a lot.
Paris - small room, they only had 1 game going when I got there. Harrah's properties have a very high rake.
Planet Hollywood - terrible, like IP, annoying crowd, indifferent staff, lousy setup

Overall I feel very good about my game after this trip. The tables were mostly harder than they are at my home casino, but I feel absolutely certain that at a random 1-2 game in Vegas I will be one of the better players at the table.

Edit:

One play I noticed lots of people using in Vegas is "check-in-the-dark." If you don't know what I mean by this, its when the player first to act in the next round "checks" before the cards are dealt. I am not sure I understand what is gained by this. My guess is that its an attempt to neutralize positional disadvantage, but I don't really see how much is gained by it.