There are so many surprising things about having a newborn around the place that it's hard to say any one of them tops the list. But a definite contender is the amazing array of noises that the little man produces. Sometimes he sounds like a goose, or a dog. Sometimes it sounds like he's talking. Sometimes he sounds like a crying cartoon baby. But my favorite has got to be his regular impression of a dragon. Normally around feeding time (which is, like, always).
Rachel and I look at each other, and one of us will say something like, "who let a dragon in here?" And then we'll laugh uproariously.
Okay, I made up the uproariously part. It's just normal laughing. But the rest of it was true.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Henry As Good Luck Charm
So the only tournament I've played since musing about whether my 'just try to survive and hope to get hit by the deck later' strategy was ultimately pointless (a blog or two ago), was a late night one a couple nights back. Henry has definitely turned things upside down around here (day is night, quite literally) so I grind the poker different times every day. I started this day around 10pm, had a bunch of cash games fired up and joined one tourney, one of the myriad Stars $33 ones.
A couple hours later Henry was quite fussy. Like most people, he often just wants to be held. He'll sleep in your arms, but if you put him down he's upset again within a minute or two. Even if you just fall asleep while holding him. I don't know how he knows, in his sleep, that you've drifted off. He's like a ninja.
Anyway, his poor mother was approaching a sleep deprivation breaking point, so I shut down all the cash games and held my son while the tourney went on. Thanks to auto hot key programs, it's pretty easy to hold a baby and play an online poker tournament, so we just sat in my office.
At the time we started, I was just about into the money, having followed my extremely tight/survival mode strategy from the original ~500 runners to inside 100. We crossed into the money at number 70 or so, and then the mythical 'hit by the deck' actually happened. There weren't very many suckouts or coolers, or much of interest at all really. I just kept getting good hands. Over and over and over. Actually, the only big suckout I rememberwas this guy in the BB had a VPIP of under 5, and I was in the SB and had been raising him every single time. And once he got under 7 or 8 bb's I just raised him all-in and he just kept folding. And the hand in question I open shipped Q20 and he woke up with KK. Flop comes Q-x-2, naturally.
So anyway, I hit the final table with about twice as many chips as second place. The only drawback to things was it was a double stack tournament, and it seemed the structure was kinda slow for a small entry online tourney too. So when we hit 4-handed it was 6am. That was not the plan!
I took the 5:55am break as a chance to give Henry back to his mother, and when play resumed I was from chip leader to busto in like five minutes. I blame the departure of my Good Luck charm for certain, although it could also have been that it was 6am and I was barely keeping my eyes open and couldn't summon enough concern for the $1500 jump from 4th to 1st. I would like to be able to start up again from 4-handed, but overall I'm stoked with the result and it definitely has me continuing to wonder if this tourney strategy is really not so bad.
Now I just gotta figure out how to smuggle Henry into live tourneys...
A couple hours later Henry was quite fussy. Like most people, he often just wants to be held. He'll sleep in your arms, but if you put him down he's upset again within a minute or two. Even if you just fall asleep while holding him. I don't know how he knows, in his sleep, that you've drifted off. He's like a ninja.
Anyway, his poor mother was approaching a sleep deprivation breaking point, so I shut down all the cash games and held my son while the tourney went on. Thanks to auto hot key programs, it's pretty easy to hold a baby and play an online poker tournament, so we just sat in my office.
At the time we started, I was just about into the money, having followed my extremely tight/survival mode strategy from the original ~500 runners to inside 100. We crossed into the money at number 70 or so, and then the mythical 'hit by the deck' actually happened. There weren't very many suckouts or coolers, or much of interest at all really. I just kept getting good hands. Over and over and over. Actually, the only big suckout I rememberwas this guy in the BB had a VPIP of under 5, and I was in the SB and had been raising him every single time. And once he got under 7 or 8 bb's I just raised him all-in and he just kept folding. And the hand in question I open shipped Q20 and he woke up with KK. Flop comes Q-x-2, naturally.
So anyway, I hit the final table with about twice as many chips as second place. The only drawback to things was it was a double stack tournament, and it seemed the structure was kinda slow for a small entry online tourney too. So when we hit 4-handed it was 6am. That was not the plan!
I took the 5:55am break as a chance to give Henry back to his mother, and when play resumed I was from chip leader to busto in like five minutes. I blame the departure of my Good Luck charm for certain, although it could also have been that it was 6am and I was barely keeping my eyes open and couldn't summon enough concern for the $1500 jump from 4th to 1st. I would like to be able to start up again from 4-handed, but overall I'm stoked with the result and it definitely has me continuing to wonder if this tourney strategy is really not so bad.
Now I just gotta figure out how to smuggle Henry into live tourneys...
Saturday, November 14, 2009
First Freeroll Cash
I sensed your expressions of chagrin as you read yesterday's blog, when I wrote I will be blogging less about poker. So to assuage your frustrations, I'll give you a recap of today's tourney min-cash. It was the Supernova Weekly Freeroll, where Stars puts up $75k and anyone who is supernova can enter for free (along with some Platinum and Gold players who enter qualifying tourneys with FPP's). They had 2200 runners today, with a first prize of around $11k.
I was strangely pumped about making it into the money, and considering that it was worth all of $52.50 (or, more accurately, $26.25 to me, $26.25 to the staker) I don't think it was really about the $. I guess just feeling like I'm getting value out of the whole Supernova thing, feeling like the freerolls aren't a waste of time (this was my third one, failed to cash the other two). Obviously the dream target is to make it into the top ten or so, get a decent payday and if you get hit by the deck maybe a five figure one. But the min cash makes for a decent hourly (and you can obviously grind cash games the whole time), so that's the realistic goal.
Anyway, I basically folded my way to the money. I was only all-in three times the whole tourney. First time was within about ten or fifteen minutes of start, I still had my t1500 starting stack. UTG opened, and I was UTG+1 with JJ. I actually wasn't sure what to do. I mean, it's a freeroll, who cares if you bust? But I had no read of note on UTG, and I wouldn't feel great about it getting in here. So I just called without a real plan (which is kinda the cardinal poker sin, you should always have a plan, but whatevs). Folded around to BB who shoved, UTG folded. BB had been incredibly active already, so it was a snap call for me. He tabled 22 and didn't improve, I doubled up.
Then spent about 90 minutes folding and stealing blinds, never deviating more than about 10% from the t3000 stack. Until suddenly blinds were high enough (it's not a real slow structure) that I was already in shove or fold mode preflop, and I shoved on the button with KJs. I got looked up by a tight player in the blinds, who I had barely covered, with K6o. Pretty bad call, if you ask me. He still had an M of like 6 or 7. Anyway, board ran out 10-10-4 x 4. At least a 6 didn't hit, I guess, but it was pretty annoying. I would have had a pretty healthy stack, just about average, but instead I was still grinding my short stack.
A lot more folding/bit more stealing and we were down to within about 20 of the money. I folded a whole orbit and a half with no attempts at stealing, bringing my stack all the way to like t1700. It's not like I wouldn't have gone with a decent hand, but I knew I could fold into the money so I wasn't going to take any unnecessary risks. (I mean, I wasn't going to fold QQ just to get my $52.50, but I wasn't going to steal with 76s either).
We hit the money with 396 left, and were almost instantly down to about 350 when a tight player open shoved. I had an M of about 1.25 and 66. Obviously not crazy about the spot, but I got close to the best I could hope for (obv 22-55 would have been better, but short of that) when he showed K6s. K in the window, game over.
So I got it in three times as a heavy favorite, and went 1-1-1. In general I have taken to playing tourneys very passively, sort of in survival mode, which is okay I guess but does end up in a lot of min-cashes. The logic is, the min-cashes pay for the entries, and if once every twenty times or something I get hit by the deck I can make a deeper run. But truthfully I probably need to get more aggressive. Most of the time I'm playing a lot of cash games at the same time and not really giving the tournament much attention, so I guess it will be different when I finally get back to live tourneys. Hoping to play the ME in 2010, should probably try to get some live tourney practice before then...
I was strangely pumped about making it into the money, and considering that it was worth all of $52.50 (or, more accurately, $26.25 to me, $26.25 to the staker) I don't think it was really about the $. I guess just feeling like I'm getting value out of the whole Supernova thing, feeling like the freerolls aren't a waste of time (this was my third one, failed to cash the other two). Obviously the dream target is to make it into the top ten or so, get a decent payday and if you get hit by the deck maybe a five figure one. But the min cash makes for a decent hourly (and you can obviously grind cash games the whole time), so that's the realistic goal.
Anyway, I basically folded my way to the money. I was only all-in three times the whole tourney. First time was within about ten or fifteen minutes of start, I still had my t1500 starting stack. UTG opened, and I was UTG+1 with JJ. I actually wasn't sure what to do. I mean, it's a freeroll, who cares if you bust? But I had no read of note on UTG, and I wouldn't feel great about it getting in here. So I just called without a real plan (which is kinda the cardinal poker sin, you should always have a plan, but whatevs). Folded around to BB who shoved, UTG folded. BB had been incredibly active already, so it was a snap call for me. He tabled 22 and didn't improve, I doubled up.
Then spent about 90 minutes folding and stealing blinds, never deviating more than about 10% from the t3000 stack. Until suddenly blinds were high enough (it's not a real slow structure) that I was already in shove or fold mode preflop, and I shoved on the button with KJs. I got looked up by a tight player in the blinds, who I had barely covered, with K6o. Pretty bad call, if you ask me. He still had an M of like 6 or 7. Anyway, board ran out 10-10-4 x 4. At least a 6 didn't hit, I guess, but it was pretty annoying. I would have had a pretty healthy stack, just about average, but instead I was still grinding my short stack.
A lot more folding/bit more stealing and we were down to within about 20 of the money. I folded a whole orbit and a half with no attempts at stealing, bringing my stack all the way to like t1700. It's not like I wouldn't have gone with a decent hand, but I knew I could fold into the money so I wasn't going to take any unnecessary risks. (I mean, I wasn't going to fold QQ just to get my $52.50, but I wasn't going to steal with 76s either).
We hit the money with 396 left, and were almost instantly down to about 350 when a tight player open shoved. I had an M of about 1.25 and 66. Obviously not crazy about the spot, but I got close to the best I could hope for (obv 22-55 would have been better, but short of that) when he showed K6s. K in the window, game over.
So I got it in three times as a heavy favorite, and went 1-1-1. In general I have taken to playing tourneys very passively, sort of in survival mode, which is okay I guess but does end up in a lot of min-cashes. The logic is, the min-cashes pay for the entries, and if once every twenty times or something I get hit by the deck I can make a deeper run. But truthfully I probably need to get more aggressive. Most of the time I'm playing a lot of cash games at the same time and not really giving the tournament much attention, so I guess it will be different when I finally get back to live tourneys. Hoping to play the ME in 2010, should probably try to get some live tourney practice before then...
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Staked!
So it's official. For the first time ever, I'm playing teh pokerz on someone else's dime. It's kinda weird cause I'm not busto, I don't need the stake in terms of $, so I'm sure it doesn't make sense to some people. But at the end of the day it felt like a no-brainer. It's mainly, for me, about the coaching/mentoring/whatever, and the more we talked the better I felt about it. The only nagging thing in the back of my head is I've been on such a terrible run of luck that I wonder a bit if I would have felt quite differently about things a couple months ago. And truthfully, I'm sure it would have been a tougher decision. But I still think I would have done it.
I won't get into a lot of details, in part because I actually signed a confidentiality agreement with my staker. I'm the first person he's staked and he's giving me a ton of information (makes it seem, at least, like a lot of those video training coaches and whatnot do hold stuff back). But it's a standard staking agreement (he takes all the financial risk, we split proceeds 50/50) and it's tied to volume (as opposed to $ or time). So how long it lasts totally depends on how much I play.
Anyway, because I'm gonna be working closely with him, and because he wants me to keep a lot of the concepts on the down low, I won't have as much poker content in the blog. It won't be none, but I was pretty tired of my whining anyway, so it'll definitely be less. Sorry for any disappointment caused.
I won't get into a lot of details, in part because I actually signed a confidentiality agreement with my staker. I'm the first person he's staked and he's giving me a ton of information (makes it seem, at least, like a lot of those video training coaches and whatnot do hold stuff back). But it's a standard staking agreement (he takes all the financial risk, we split proceeds 50/50) and it's tied to volume (as opposed to $ or time). So how long it lasts totally depends on how much I play.
Anyway, because I'm gonna be working closely with him, and because he wants me to keep a lot of the concepts on the down low, I won't have as much poker content in the blog. It won't be none, but I was pretty tired of my whining anyway, so it'll definitely be less. Sorry for any disappointment caused.
Friday, November 6, 2009
It Might Get Loud
Have been looking forward to seeing this movie since I saw the scintillating trailer a few months ago. Not surprisingly, it didn't get a wide release. But it is showing once a day, at 2:30pm, at something called the Denman Discount Theater.
So the basic premise is Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White get together and talk shop, jam a little, whatever. On paper I thought it was an inspired choice, as they're all great guitar players with unique styles (distinct voices, in the parlance they would undoubtedly prefer). But in the end, it was the casting that undid the film.
Even though (maybe because) he generally carries himself like he's doing an impression of Johnny Depp acting as Jack White, White is arguably the star of the movie (the filmmakers would probably argue that the guitar is the film's true star, but they'd be deluded). He comes across as almost an idiot savant, making fierce and inspired music when he's not spouting inanities. Like, how he likes his guitars to be out of tune, so he has to 'conquer' them. In his quest to illustrate how he challenges himself to create, he gives the example (this is a paraphrase): "if it's three steps over to the organ to play a part in a song, what if i move it farther away so it's four steps away, so I have to rush over"? He doesn't answer his rhetorical question (which he manages to pose straight-faced). But one's still left to wonder what fresh genius might ensue if the roadie were to take that organ all the way up to five steps away. It's a positively Spinal Tap-esque moment, which brings to mind another scene.
The Edge is talking about when U2 were starting out, and how what they did (and what others were doing at the time) was in part a reaction to the self-indulgence of 70's rock. He cites 15 minute drum and guitar solos as basically atrocities, and while he is talking we're shown images from This Is Spinal Tap. It could have just as easily been Led Zeppelin footage, of course. The Edge then continues, "When I saw Spinal Tap, I didn't laugh. I wept. Cause it was that close to the truth". I mean, if you're Jimmy Page watching this, how do you not say "ouch". The irony is driven home (presumably unintentionally) later when Jimmy displays his famous double-neck guitar, and The Edge smiles wanly in deference to the most iconic of instruments of an era he so thoroughly dismissed a few scenes previous.
The Edge doesn't just give it, tho, he catches some too. After long and loving scenes of The Edge detailing and displaying his extensive collection of effects and processors, White goes off on a mini-tangent about how technology is the enemy of creativity. Ouch again.
To be clear, these disses are not intentional. At least not from the artists, who make their statements during extensive interviews in their homes obviously not thinking about their co-stars specifically. And probably not from the filmmakers, as it definitely does not build excitement for the 'summit', where the three greats meet, axes a-blazing, for a chat and shred session. Not that it matters in the end, cause the summit positively fizzles.
The first playing they do together has The Edge showing the other two the changes to 'I Will Follow'. They pick it up, they play it for about 15 seconds, and that's it. What? Really? Okay, just a teaser. It's gonna get cooking soon, right? Wrong. I guess it does pick up a little. During 'In My Time Of Dying', it at least seems like everybody's trying (although it plays much less to The Edge's strengths than the other's, and he kinda looks like he knows it). But it never gets anything close to inspired, and the closing "The Weight" is definitely no better than anything that happened at Trevor's bachelor party. The multiple clips of all three guys playing with the bands that made them famous are all more invigorating than the summit, and it's not even close.
Still, for all this complaining, if they came out with a ten-hour DVD version of this thing, I'd definitely buy it. Watching supremely talented and accomplished musicians talk about their craft, show their tricks, relive their paths to success, doesn't really get old. To be sure, much of "It Might Get Loud" is pure gold.
But the main hook, the Meeting Of The Masters, as it were, fails pretty much completely.
So the basic premise is Jimmy Page, The Edge, and Jack White get together and talk shop, jam a little, whatever. On paper I thought it was an inspired choice, as they're all great guitar players with unique styles (distinct voices, in the parlance they would undoubtedly prefer). But in the end, it was the casting that undid the film.
Even though (maybe because) he generally carries himself like he's doing an impression of Johnny Depp acting as Jack White, White is arguably the star of the movie (the filmmakers would probably argue that the guitar is the film's true star, but they'd be deluded). He comes across as almost an idiot savant, making fierce and inspired music when he's not spouting inanities. Like, how he likes his guitars to be out of tune, so he has to 'conquer' them. In his quest to illustrate how he challenges himself to create, he gives the example (this is a paraphrase): "if it's three steps over to the organ to play a part in a song, what if i move it farther away so it's four steps away, so I have to rush over"? He doesn't answer his rhetorical question (which he manages to pose straight-faced). But one's still left to wonder what fresh genius might ensue if the roadie were to take that organ all the way up to five steps away. It's a positively Spinal Tap-esque moment, which brings to mind another scene.
The Edge is talking about when U2 were starting out, and how what they did (and what others were doing at the time) was in part a reaction to the self-indulgence of 70's rock. He cites 15 minute drum and guitar solos as basically atrocities, and while he is talking we're shown images from This Is Spinal Tap. It could have just as easily been Led Zeppelin footage, of course. The Edge then continues, "When I saw Spinal Tap, I didn't laugh. I wept. Cause it was that close to the truth". I mean, if you're Jimmy Page watching this, how do you not say "ouch". The irony is driven home (presumably unintentionally) later when Jimmy displays his famous double-neck guitar, and The Edge smiles wanly in deference to the most iconic of instruments of an era he so thoroughly dismissed a few scenes previous.
The Edge doesn't just give it, tho, he catches some too. After long and loving scenes of The Edge detailing and displaying his extensive collection of effects and processors, White goes off on a mini-tangent about how technology is the enemy of creativity. Ouch again.
To be clear, these disses are not intentional. At least not from the artists, who make their statements during extensive interviews in their homes obviously not thinking about their co-stars specifically. And probably not from the filmmakers, as it definitely does not build excitement for the 'summit', where the three greats meet, axes a-blazing, for a chat and shred session. Not that it matters in the end, cause the summit positively fizzles.
The first playing they do together has The Edge showing the other two the changes to 'I Will Follow'. They pick it up, they play it for about 15 seconds, and that's it. What? Really? Okay, just a teaser. It's gonna get cooking soon, right? Wrong. I guess it does pick up a little. During 'In My Time Of Dying', it at least seems like everybody's trying (although it plays much less to The Edge's strengths than the other's, and he kinda looks like he knows it). But it never gets anything close to inspired, and the closing "The Weight" is definitely no better than anything that happened at Trevor's bachelor party. The multiple clips of all three guys playing with the bands that made them famous are all more invigorating than the summit, and it's not even close.
Still, for all this complaining, if they came out with a ten-hour DVD version of this thing, I'd definitely buy it. Watching supremely talented and accomplished musicians talk about their craft, show their tricks, relive their paths to success, doesn't really get old. To be sure, much of "It Might Get Loud" is pure gold.
But the main hook, the Meeting Of The Masters, as it were, fails pretty much completely.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Good Game
Went to the hockey game with my Old Man tonight. Because my dad has been in the hospital, we haven't been able to take Henry to see him. So Rachel walked down with me to GM Place tonight and the little guy finally got to meet his Grandpa, and my Dad finally got to meet his namesake (Henry's middle name, Lawrence, is my Dad's name).
Whatever you think about the fisticuffs in hockey, it's hard to argue that they weren't good for the game tonight. First two periods were pretty boring, then early in the third a major scrum broke out. It happened during a line change, so there were ten guys on the ice for each team, and it got crazy heated. I mean, a lot of those hockey fights are kinda posturing, guys 'doing their jobs' and they pat each other on the ass when it's over. This was not that. These guys were pissed at each other, and it threatened to spiral out of control like in the olden days. Broad Street Bullies and all that. When it finally subsided, it was an entirely different game. Both teams, and the crowd, were totally energized. Playoff-type hockey. Plus, the beloved home team prevailed 4-1. Everyone went home happy. Except the grumpy Glen Sather I walked past on the way home, either coming or going from a town car (I couldn't tell) and fully ignoring myriad autograph seekers (to be fair, I was just walking by, he may well have signed before or after).
When I got home my wife and son were sound asleep. They normally fall asleep before I do, and they look so impossibly cute sleeping side by side. It's tough to decide of which one am I most jealous.
Whatever you think about the fisticuffs in hockey, it's hard to argue that they weren't good for the game tonight. First two periods were pretty boring, then early in the third a major scrum broke out. It happened during a line change, so there were ten guys on the ice for each team, and it got crazy heated. I mean, a lot of those hockey fights are kinda posturing, guys 'doing their jobs' and they pat each other on the ass when it's over. This was not that. These guys were pissed at each other, and it threatened to spiral out of control like in the olden days. Broad Street Bullies and all that. When it finally subsided, it was an entirely different game. Both teams, and the crowd, were totally energized. Playoff-type hockey. Plus, the beloved home team prevailed 4-1. Everyone went home happy. Except the grumpy Glen Sather I walked past on the way home, either coming or going from a town car (I couldn't tell) and fully ignoring myriad autograph seekers (to be fair, I was just walking by, he may well have signed before or after).
When I got home my wife and son were sound asleep. They normally fall asleep before I do, and they look so impossibly cute sleeping side by side. It's tough to decide of which one am I most jealous.
Preview Review II (Family Film Edition)
We went to see Where The Wild Things Are. It's debatable if it's suitable as a kid's movie, but any question of what the studio thinks was most definitely answered in the previews. It was decidedly family friendly fare. A quick revision to the scoring system. Trailers get scored out of ten for their ability to not given away the entire movie (Secret Score, or SS) and for how good the movie looks like it's going to be (Upside Score, or US).
Despicable Me -- The preview is mainly just one long scene. At first I actually thought it was maybe a short feature they were showing. Hadn't heard of this movie, but the voice cast is pretty impressive (in terms of people I find funny). The preview itself was kinda boring tho. SS: 8. Gave away very little. US: 5. Definitely could be good, but not much of a spark in the trailer. Would score lower if not for the cast.
Fantastic Mr Fox -- An even more impressive voice cast, a little heavier on thespians as opposed to comedians, but some pretty funny people in there too. SS: 5. Fair amount of plot given away, but nothing too major. US: 6. Looks kinda good, but it's hard to get excited about animated movies.
The Blind Side -- Did you know Sandra Bullock is 45? Someone just told me that. She doesn't seem 45. SS: 2. Most of the movie is given away in the preview, and for the parts that aren't? While, you can pick about a half-dozen cliched plot twists from movies of this ilk and presume this movie will utilize three or four of them. Sure, there might be a twist in there. But it'll be a familiar twist. US: 7. I dunno. I know it'll be cheesy, but I still think this will be good.
A Christmas Carol -- Robert Zemeckis gives the Scrooge story the Polar Express treatment, with a sure to be over-the-top star turn from Jim Carrey. Peter Travers or somebody will undoubtedly call this "visually stunning", a quote you'll see on the TV ads, and in the print ads, and in the ads for the DVD. SS: 1. It's a Christmas Carol, only done different. They show you how it's done in the preview, and we already know the story. What's left? US: 2. Bah humbug, indeed. Why this was made, and why anyone would care to see it, are both beyond me.
Despicable Me -- The preview is mainly just one long scene. At first I actually thought it was maybe a short feature they were showing. Hadn't heard of this movie, but the voice cast is pretty impressive (in terms of people I find funny). The preview itself was kinda boring tho. SS: 8. Gave away very little. US: 5. Definitely could be good, but not much of a spark in the trailer. Would score lower if not for the cast.
Fantastic Mr Fox -- An even more impressive voice cast, a little heavier on thespians as opposed to comedians, but some pretty funny people in there too. SS: 5. Fair amount of plot given away, but nothing too major. US: 6. Looks kinda good, but it's hard to get excited about animated movies.
The Blind Side -- Did you know Sandra Bullock is 45? Someone just told me that. She doesn't seem 45. SS: 2. Most of the movie is given away in the preview, and for the parts that aren't? While, you can pick about a half-dozen cliched plot twists from movies of this ilk and presume this movie will utilize three or four of them. Sure, there might be a twist in there. But it'll be a familiar twist. US: 7. I dunno. I know it'll be cheesy, but I still think this will be good.
A Christmas Carol -- Robert Zemeckis gives the Scrooge story the Polar Express treatment, with a sure to be over-the-top star turn from Jim Carrey. Peter Travers or somebody will undoubtedly call this "visually stunning", a quote you'll see on the TV ads, and in the print ads, and in the ads for the DVD. SS: 1. It's a Christmas Carol, only done different. They show you how it's done in the preview, and we already know the story. What's left? US: 2. Bah humbug, indeed. Why this was made, and why anyone would care to see it, are both beyond me.
(Way) Beyond Frustrated
WARNING: MORE WHINING ABOUT POKER CONTAINED HEREIN
I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a crazy person. I don't believe individuals are in possession of some definable amount of luckiness, like there's a luck gene. I just mean over the course of my poker career, I felt like I had been more helped than hindered, results-wise, by variance. I was often to the good in terms of all-in EV, and even according to my selective memory (which many people say will emphasize the times we got unlucky) I seemed to run good.
Like, this one time I was playing in an online donkament, I think it was like $20 entry, big field, and I took it down for like $2500. And the winning hand, I had a huge chip lead and got it in with A7 against QQ. And the flop came 777. Now, of course I would have taken it down with just a single ace, or even just two 7's. And of course I had a big chip lead so may well (probably) would have taken it down anyway. But for whatever reason, I would remember that hand and think about how lucky I seem to be, as opposed to thinking about all the countless times I got it in good and was busted out of tourneys.
So, yeah, I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. I do not think of myself that way anymore.
As of the session I just wrapped up, I am now down 40 buy-ins in all-in EV over my last 60k hands. I think that works out to 6.66b/100, but whatever it is, it is not something I am able to overcome through my mad poker skills. I'm happy if I post a 2bb/100 winrate while grinding out volume, so obviously the all-in EV massacre is devastating.
For those not that into the pokerz, all-in EV is simply a measurement of what your results would be if you had exactly neutral luck from the moment you got all-in during a hand. It's unpopular in some circles, because it tends to be given too much credit (there are many other ways to have good or back luck in poker than just what happens after you're all-in), and because there's not a thing you can do about what happens after you're all-in, so why pay it any heed.
But there are two things about all-in EV that make it relevant to this discussion. First of all, it's the most easily measured form of poker luck. True, I could go through my database and find out exactly how many times I got AA v KK, as opposed to vice versa, but the different ways you can run good or bad before it gets all-in are practically infinite. It's not feasible to get a meaningful measurement. So all-in EV is the only easily obtained statistic we have that reflects how we're running. As our selective memories can't be trusted (and believe me, my selective memory is telling me I'm getting pummeled by variance way beyond just all-in EV -- if one more fish rivers two pair against my TPTK and then minraises my river bet I'm gonna punch Danlim in the face), all-in EV is kinda all we got.
The second reason it's relevant, is I straight up cannot win at poker if I'm 40 buy-ins below over 60k hands.
Man, downswings are lonely. You can sort of commiserate with other poker players, but you don't really wanna be a downer. And the fact that we all go through these swings makes you feel kinda stupid for being surprised by them. I keep coming across blogs where the author really believes he's going through a downswing unlike anything his readers have experienced. And honestly, I kinda feel that way right now too. So while we can talk about the swings and give each other generic encouragement, fact is we feel we're going through something unique. In fact, accepting that what we are going through is something that happens once in a while to most grinders kinda sucks, cause we want to believe this is like a once-a-century run of shitty luck we're going through. So basically we don't really want to think other people get it, cause we don't like the implications of that.
It's just hard to know where to go from here. There's an argument for just keeping on doing what I'm doing, because the results are not bad if you factor out the all-in EV. I do have a sense, tho, that if I were more +EV in the games I'm playing, I could whether these storms a bit more. Which makes me want to look for a different approach. At the same time, I know my confidence is rocked by this run, which I know means I can't be playing as well as I am able. And I've felt a little scrambly at times, trying different styles and approaches, and have felt some old leaks coming on (in some cases pretty strong). Clicking that call button way too much again. So it seems like I should wait till I don't feel I'm in the worst run of my poker career before making any decisions.
Yet at the same time, how long do I wait? I know my luck today has no bearing on my luck tomorrow, but that cuts both ways. I'm not doomed to bad luck, but I'm not 'due' for good luck either. And I don't want to have to redeposit on the sites. This is supposed to be a profitable undertaking!
So every option is on the table. Going back to live poker. Playing just a couple tables at a time online. Just keeping on with what I've been doing (which is 6-10ish tables). Learning Sit & Go's or grinding tourneys. Mass-tabling as a shortstacker (no, I don't share the hatred of short stacking that many 2+2ers have). I mean, some are more likely than others, but I'm open to most any approach. I love playing poker, but at the end of the day it's about making money. If I can get a clear sense of what path would be most profitable, that would definitely be the one I take at the expense of pretty much any other factors.
Happily, this staking agreement still looks like it's gonna happen (we've agreed on terms, just choosing a start date). Couldn't come at a better time, because I really need somebody's objective input. The fact that he's a great poker mind with a direct investment in my results obviously makes him uniquely suited to weigh in on this stuff.
But if for some reason the staking doesn't happen, I'll still work it out. Notwithstanding all this ranting, I still understand this is part of the game. And I still believe that as long as I don't get lazy (or give up during the bad runs), I can grind a good living out of poker. It's just variance has been a relentless motherfucker the last while, and I needed to bitch about it for a while.
I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a crazy person. I don't believe individuals are in possession of some definable amount of luckiness, like there's a luck gene. I just mean over the course of my poker career, I felt like I had been more helped than hindered, results-wise, by variance. I was often to the good in terms of all-in EV, and even according to my selective memory (which many people say will emphasize the times we got unlucky) I seemed to run good.
Like, this one time I was playing in an online donkament, I think it was like $20 entry, big field, and I took it down for like $2500. And the winning hand, I had a huge chip lead and got it in with A7 against QQ. And the flop came 777. Now, of course I would have taken it down with just a single ace, or even just two 7's. And of course I had a big chip lead so may well (probably) would have taken it down anyway. But for whatever reason, I would remember that hand and think about how lucky I seem to be, as opposed to thinking about all the countless times I got it in good and was busted out of tourneys.
So, yeah, I used to think of myself as a lucky poker player. I do not think of myself that way anymore.
As of the session I just wrapped up, I am now down 40 buy-ins in all-in EV over my last 60k hands. I think that works out to 6.66b/100, but whatever it is, it is not something I am able to overcome through my mad poker skills. I'm happy if I post a 2bb/100 winrate while grinding out volume, so obviously the all-in EV massacre is devastating.
For those not that into the pokerz, all-in EV is simply a measurement of what your results would be if you had exactly neutral luck from the moment you got all-in during a hand. It's unpopular in some circles, because it tends to be given too much credit (there are many other ways to have good or back luck in poker than just what happens after you're all-in), and because there's not a thing you can do about what happens after you're all-in, so why pay it any heed.
But there are two things about all-in EV that make it relevant to this discussion. First of all, it's the most easily measured form of poker luck. True, I could go through my database and find out exactly how many times I got AA v KK, as opposed to vice versa, but the different ways you can run good or bad before it gets all-in are practically infinite. It's not feasible to get a meaningful measurement. So all-in EV is the only easily obtained statistic we have that reflects how we're running. As our selective memories can't be trusted (and believe me, my selective memory is telling me I'm getting pummeled by variance way beyond just all-in EV -- if one more fish rivers two pair against my TPTK and then minraises my river bet I'm gonna punch Danlim in the face), all-in EV is kinda all we got.
The second reason it's relevant, is I straight up cannot win at poker if I'm 40 buy-ins below over 60k hands.
Man, downswings are lonely. You can sort of commiserate with other poker players, but you don't really wanna be a downer. And the fact that we all go through these swings makes you feel kinda stupid for being surprised by them. I keep coming across blogs where the author really believes he's going through a downswing unlike anything his readers have experienced. And honestly, I kinda feel that way right now too. So while we can talk about the swings and give each other generic encouragement, fact is we feel we're going through something unique. In fact, accepting that what we are going through is something that happens once in a while to most grinders kinda sucks, cause we want to believe this is like a once-a-century run of shitty luck we're going through. So basically we don't really want to think other people get it, cause we don't like the implications of that.
It's just hard to know where to go from here. There's an argument for just keeping on doing what I'm doing, because the results are not bad if you factor out the all-in EV. I do have a sense, tho, that if I were more +EV in the games I'm playing, I could whether these storms a bit more. Which makes me want to look for a different approach. At the same time, I know my confidence is rocked by this run, which I know means I can't be playing as well as I am able. And I've felt a little scrambly at times, trying different styles and approaches, and have felt some old leaks coming on (in some cases pretty strong). Clicking that call button way too much again. So it seems like I should wait till I don't feel I'm in the worst run of my poker career before making any decisions.
Yet at the same time, how long do I wait? I know my luck today has no bearing on my luck tomorrow, but that cuts both ways. I'm not doomed to bad luck, but I'm not 'due' for good luck either. And I don't want to have to redeposit on the sites. This is supposed to be a profitable undertaking!
So every option is on the table. Going back to live poker. Playing just a couple tables at a time online. Just keeping on with what I've been doing (which is 6-10ish tables). Learning Sit & Go's or grinding tourneys. Mass-tabling as a shortstacker (no, I don't share the hatred of short stacking that many 2+2ers have). I mean, some are more likely than others, but I'm open to most any approach. I love playing poker, but at the end of the day it's about making money. If I can get a clear sense of what path would be most profitable, that would definitely be the one I take at the expense of pretty much any other factors.
Happily, this staking agreement still looks like it's gonna happen (we've agreed on terms, just choosing a start date). Couldn't come at a better time, because I really need somebody's objective input. The fact that he's a great poker mind with a direct investment in my results obviously makes him uniquely suited to weigh in on this stuff.
But if for some reason the staking doesn't happen, I'll still work it out. Notwithstanding all this ranting, I still understand this is part of the game. And I still believe that as long as I don't get lazy (or give up during the bad runs), I can grind a good living out of poker. It's just variance has been a relentless motherfucker the last while, and I needed to bitch about it for a while.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
An Important Comeback (and some whining)
I came to terms tonight with something I kinda already knew but wasn't fully admitting to myself: my poker confidence is shot. I realized it when I decided to 6-table 100NL, and I felt like I was playing nosebleed stakes. So much aggression! Which is totally ridiculous, cause not very long ago I played 100NL when I needed to step down for a bit.
I don't want to sit here and whine, but I've been running like ass for about three months straight. If you don't think it can happen, well, you're misinformed. Don't get me wrong. I still could have had way better results by just playing better, and who knows where the line blurs between running bad leading to worse play or vice versa. But I can say with a fair degree of confidence that this fall has been by far the worst case of run bad I've ever had. Not even close. Just in October I'm about 30 buy-ins to the bad in all-in EV. I know, I know, that's just one type of luck. But if I had run neutral in just that one department I'd have had a marginally profitable month instead of the abomination I had. It's funny, cause I'm doing all this mass-tabling, and people are telling me I'm crazy, and I'm thinking I should reconsider, etc etc. But if I had run even just okay, I'd be feeling like I was on my way with it, SuperNova Elite here I come...
Not that I'm done with SNE. My potential staker (it really looks like it's going to happen now, btw, but I'll be sure to let my faithful readers know once it's for sure one way or the other) is a SNE, and he wants me to hit that milestone in 2010. Just with a modified plan from how I've been approaching it so far.
But anyway, I've digressed a lot already. So I played a 12-table session this evening at 50, ran six buy-ins below EV to book a five buy-in loss. Typical. But I wasn't feeling too bad about it, cause I was in that right head space of accepting that I can't control the luck, and I think I did play okay.
So I was gonna go to bed, but I decided to first play an hour of 6-tabling 100NL. Within 10 minutes I was down four buy-ins. First I lost a couple flips. Then my QQ < JJ AIPF when a jack spiked on the turn. And the worst one, my AA < JJ, with it getting in on the turn and the third J hitting the river. So I was down $400 and my all-in EV was saying I should be up like $180 or thereabouts (can't remember exactly, there were a few small hands in there too).
I fully accept beats as part of poker, and I even accept that the run of luck I've been experiencing, while probably in the top percentile of bad runs, is likely not near as rare as it feels it must be. I still feel like in the long run skill will win out over luck most of the time (and it's only 'most' of the time cause we might not make it far enough into the long run to make it 'all' of the time).
But man, it's wearing me down, and I really need to find a way to reset my expectations so that hopefully my confidence will follow. I mean, today at 50 I got it in with KK against a guy's J9o. 125 BB's deep, and he had a PFR of 5. WTF? He flopped the straight. Honestly, you wonder if he knew what was coming somehow, cause it just makes no sense otherwise. But when I saw what he had I literally cringed, waiting to see how I was gonna get screwed. Even though that attitude obviously doesn't influence the cards, I just can't imagine it doesn't bleed over into my play in big and small ways.
The silver lining in all this is that I did grind back to make the 100 session basically even. Maybe the most satisfying break even session of the year, and important too, cause 100 suddenly looked like the cuddle-bear soft game it is and hopefully I can bring that feeling to my next session. The thing of it is, when I was down four buy-ins and the game seemed so tough, I actually had gotten my money in even or very good each time. So why did it seem tough? Shot confidence.
I don't want to sit here and whine, but I've been running like ass for about three months straight. If you don't think it can happen, well, you're misinformed. Don't get me wrong. I still could have had way better results by just playing better, and who knows where the line blurs between running bad leading to worse play or vice versa. But I can say with a fair degree of confidence that this fall has been by far the worst case of run bad I've ever had. Not even close. Just in October I'm about 30 buy-ins to the bad in all-in EV. I know, I know, that's just one type of luck. But if I had run neutral in just that one department I'd have had a marginally profitable month instead of the abomination I had. It's funny, cause I'm doing all this mass-tabling, and people are telling me I'm crazy, and I'm thinking I should reconsider, etc etc. But if I had run even just okay, I'd be feeling like I was on my way with it, SuperNova Elite here I come...
Not that I'm done with SNE. My potential staker (it really looks like it's going to happen now, btw, but I'll be sure to let my faithful readers know once it's for sure one way or the other) is a SNE, and he wants me to hit that milestone in 2010. Just with a modified plan from how I've been approaching it so far.
But anyway, I've digressed a lot already. So I played a 12-table session this evening at 50, ran six buy-ins below EV to book a five buy-in loss. Typical. But I wasn't feeling too bad about it, cause I was in that right head space of accepting that I can't control the luck, and I think I did play okay.
So I was gonna go to bed, but I decided to first play an hour of 6-tabling 100NL. Within 10 minutes I was down four buy-ins. First I lost a couple flips. Then my QQ < JJ AIPF when a jack spiked on the turn. And the worst one, my AA < JJ, with it getting in on the turn and the third J hitting the river. So I was down $400 and my all-in EV was saying I should be up like $180 or thereabouts (can't remember exactly, there were a few small hands in there too).
I fully accept beats as part of poker, and I even accept that the run of luck I've been experiencing, while probably in the top percentile of bad runs, is likely not near as rare as it feels it must be. I still feel like in the long run skill will win out over luck most of the time (and it's only 'most' of the time cause we might not make it far enough into the long run to make it 'all' of the time).
But man, it's wearing me down, and I really need to find a way to reset my expectations so that hopefully my confidence will follow. I mean, today at 50 I got it in with KK against a guy's J9o. 125 BB's deep, and he had a PFR of 5. WTF? He flopped the straight. Honestly, you wonder if he knew what was coming somehow, cause it just makes no sense otherwise. But when I saw what he had I literally cringed, waiting to see how I was gonna get screwed. Even though that attitude obviously doesn't influence the cards, I just can't imagine it doesn't bleed over into my play in big and small ways.
The silver lining in all this is that I did grind back to make the 100 session basically even. Maybe the most satisfying break even session of the year, and important too, cause 100 suddenly looked like the cuddle-bear soft game it is and hopefully I can bring that feeling to my next session. The thing of it is, when I was down four buy-ins and the game seemed so tough, I actually had gotten my money in even or very good each time. So why did it seem tough? Shot confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)