The discussion came up last weekend about whether or not players should fold when there is no bet to them. My take on it is that it is a legal move but bad etiquette since it can affect the play of the hand. And when the game involves showing cards such as in Stud games or Pass the Trash then the potential effects of open folding are even more pronounced. As an example, let's assume that Player A has a Ten high mixed suit low. Everyone else at the table has paint showing except for Player B showing a Trey. The player who has the Ten high would almost certainly fold to a bet if he had to act before the Player B but if Player B open folds his hand before Player A acts then Player A knows he can for sure lock up the low and will seriously affect the play of the hand. Additionally, every card that the open folder turns over is potentially critical information since those cards cannot show up in other player's hands.
In PtT I don't feel that any significant information is given away by flipping cards over in a hand that one doesn't plan on playing. And I'd say that any modicum of information that is given away is far outweighed by the importance of protecting other players in the hand.
There is much discussion about the matter in this 2+2 thread.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Putting it all on black.
Jack Shedd is a developer and designer that I enjoy reading. Just so happened he blogged about blackjack card counting yesterday, and I found it an interesting read. Thought you might, too.
Now that’s a way to train yourself on something. Big Contrarian → Putting it all on black.
I built a quick simulator in Cocoa that dealt cards from a shuffled six-deck shoe. As each card was flipped over, slowly at first, the background of the application flashed either red, for -1, or green for +1. At random intervals, the application would stop and ask me whether I should bet low or high. If I was wrong, it flashed and beeped like a expensive car in a hail storm. If I was right, it kept going. Over time it randomized its speed, so I’d never fall into an easy rhythm.
Now that’s a way to train yourself on something. Big Contrarian → Putting it all on black.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
2009 HU tourney wrap up
Well, that's another heads up tourney in the books. Wanted to get feedback on the format.
Short story is that there was no "game money" this year, blind caps changed, payouts moved from 50/25/12.5/12.5 to 40/30/15/15, and the tie breaker system is new. Also wanted to ask about the duration since the first portion went from 7:30 to 10:30 and brackets finished about 1:50 versus a projected 1:00 finish. For more details see long story below (yeah I know it is squarely in TLDR territory, if you want to just jot your thoughts without reading below I don't blame you).
* No "game money" this year. Last year, every win in the first stage of the tourney would be worth a couple bucks. That ended up depleting the payouts for the top finishers and didn't add up to a substantial amount of money even if you won a lot of games. Based on feedback from last year it was dropped this time around. Turns out that it took a long while for someone to be so far behind that they couldn't qualify even if they won out.
* Changed blind caps for the bracket rounds. It was unfortunate that Marsh didn't make a run into the brackets because he was the one who felt that the blinds got too oppressive at the end of last year's tourney and once the blinds capped you really just couldn't fold. It would have been nice to get his perspective of the changes. The difference was this year, even with the BB at 20% of the average chip stack I did feel that one could fold when the blinds capped as I saw happen on multiple occasions.
=== Disclaimer === serious tournament math geek discussion below ===
* Different preliminary matchups. Last year we had fewer people and just did a true round robin. Since that would have been too many games for this year the tourney used pools of players instead. In a true round robin the player records are about as fair as you can get it. Ties were broken by head to head matchups. This year since not everyone played everyone else I went with the ranking system described below.
- Win/loss percentage
- Strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 counts marginally more than a win over a player who ended up 4-4)
- Secondary strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 with tougher opponents weighs in more than a win over a 6-2 player with victories over weaker opponents)
- Record within your pool
- Strength of your pool (if players are tied after all above tie breakers then a player who had to play two players from a stronger pool would be seeded higher than one from a weaker pool)
A couple of things came up while working on the format. At first I had it set up where everyone played all nine players from outside of their pool but changed that to help prevent tie deadlocks since two players could happen to beat the same players since each pool member played the exact same players as everyone else in the pool. The tie breaker system also ignored head to head records which would have changed things. Jeh, Drew, and Joe all had the same record and Drew beat both Joe and Jeh and was seeded highest of the three. But Joe was seeded below Jeh despite defeating him. I did consider using head to head record but didn't for two reasons 1) in simulations it was too easy for a three way circular tie to happen where A beat B beat C beat A and head to head wouldn't help and 2) I could tell it was going to be a total pain to write a formula for the spreadsheet that did that. As it turns out the difference was only in seeding and did not affect someone being bubbled out because of the ranking.
* The tourney ran late. We actually started pretty darn close to schedule which was great. We had a situation where one player was playing longer matches on average than other players. Not saying that's bad or anything. Just pointing out that despite the flexibility afforded by the format for the prelims we still were gated by one player before starting the bracket round. I was tinkering around with a format like ELO chess rankings which would allow any player to play any amount of games against any other player but it would have to provide incentive for players who went 4-0 to continue to play games at risk of breaking their win percentage yet guard against players having nothing to lose and playing recklessly. In the end I couldn't get a system figured out in time but I think that system has potential since it would let us just set a time limit for the first stage and we would be able to stay closer to schedule.
That's it for the wrap. Let me know if you have any comments on any part of the tourney.
Short story is that there was no "game money" this year, blind caps changed, payouts moved from 50/25/12.5/12.5 to 40/30/15/15, and the tie breaker system is new. Also wanted to ask about the duration since the first portion went from 7:30 to 10:30 and brackets finished about 1:50 versus a projected 1:00 finish. For more details see long story below (yeah I know it is squarely in TLDR territory, if you want to just jot your thoughts without reading below I don't blame you).
* No "game money" this year. Last year, every win in the first stage of the tourney would be worth a couple bucks. That ended up depleting the payouts for the top finishers and didn't add up to a substantial amount of money even if you won a lot of games. Based on feedback from last year it was dropped this time around. Turns out that it took a long while for someone to be so far behind that they couldn't qualify even if they won out.
* Changed blind caps for the bracket rounds. It was unfortunate that Marsh didn't make a run into the brackets because he was the one who felt that the blinds got too oppressive at the end of last year's tourney and once the blinds capped you really just couldn't fold. It would have been nice to get his perspective of the changes. The difference was this year, even with the BB at 20% of the average chip stack I did feel that one could fold when the blinds capped as I saw happen on multiple occasions.
=== Disclaimer === serious tournament math geek discussion below ===
* Different preliminary matchups. Last year we had fewer people and just did a true round robin. Since that would have been too many games for this year the tourney used pools of players instead. In a true round robin the player records are about as fair as you can get it. Ties were broken by head to head matchups. This year since not everyone played everyone else I went with the ranking system described below.
- Win/loss percentage
- Strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 counts marginally more than a win over a player who ended up 4-4)
- Secondary strength of schedule (a win over a player who ended up 6-2 with tougher opponents weighs in more than a win over a 6-2 player with victories over weaker opponents)
- Record within your pool
- Strength of your pool (if players are tied after all above tie breakers then a player who had to play two players from a stronger pool would be seeded higher than one from a weaker pool)
A couple of things came up while working on the format. At first I had it set up where everyone played all nine players from outside of their pool but changed that to help prevent tie deadlocks since two players could happen to beat the same players since each pool member played the exact same players as everyone else in the pool. The tie breaker system also ignored head to head records which would have changed things. Jeh, Drew, and Joe all had the same record and Drew beat both Joe and Jeh and was seeded highest of the three. But Joe was seeded below Jeh despite defeating him. I did consider using head to head record but didn't for two reasons 1) in simulations it was too easy for a three way circular tie to happen where A beat B beat C beat A and head to head wouldn't help and 2) I could tell it was going to be a total pain to write a formula for the spreadsheet that did that. As it turns out the difference was only in seeding and did not affect someone being bubbled out because of the ranking.
* The tourney ran late. We actually started pretty darn close to schedule which was great. We had a situation where one player was playing longer matches on average than other players. Not saying that's bad or anything. Just pointing out that despite the flexibility afforded by the format for the prelims we still were gated by one player before starting the bracket round. I was tinkering around with a format like ELO chess rankings which would allow any player to play any amount of games against any other player but it would have to provide incentive for players who went 4-0 to continue to play games at risk of breaking their win percentage yet guard against players having nothing to lose and playing recklessly. In the end I couldn't get a system figured out in time but I think that system has potential since it would let us just set a time limit for the first stage and we would be able to stay closer to schedule.
That's it for the wrap. Let me know if you have any comments on any part of the tourney.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Really Cold Deck
It is hard to lose this many coin flips and take as many bad beats as I did in a 2 day span. Somehow I still have half of my roll in tact and hope to grind my way back up. I don't think I tilted too much though I did play a few more hands than usual to try to get unstuck. I believe I lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 all ins, the 15 recorded here, a cooler, and 1 hand I put in chips drawing dead. I think I won about 5 all ins.
I am going to have to drop down in stakes but can still comfortably play $2/$4 PLO and PLO8. Long way from Durr land though.
If anyone can survive this session, there is little chance it could get worse.
Here are the 15 all in losses I recorded.
Flopped Nuts then hit a bad turn
One of the 6 outs on a 3 way all in hits
Lose a Coin Flip I am slightly ahead
Bad River Way ahead when Money goes in
Lose on Pot Committed Aces
Way Ahead then a Bad River
Better Wrap with Bigger Flush Draw Does Not Work Out
Aces against 2588 single suited all in Preflop Bad Result
Lose a Flip Slightly Behind
Lose another Flip Slightly Behind
Bad River ahead when Money Goes In
Ahead on Coin Flip Bad Result
Brutal 2 Outer on the River
Flopped Nuts Can't Hold Up
Coin Flip Slightly Behind
As bad as this run was at least I was not one outed. Look at this poor soul, though I am not in this hand.
Top Boat No Good
So I temporarily have an enforced no online poker rule. MB changed my password. Still not twitching though I am getting close.
I am going to have to drop down in stakes but can still comfortably play $2/$4 PLO and PLO8. Long way from Durr land though.
If anyone can survive this session, there is little chance it could get worse.
Here are the 15 all in losses I recorded.
Flopped Nuts then hit a bad turn
One of the 6 outs on a 3 way all in hits
Lose a Coin Flip I am slightly ahead
Bad River Way ahead when Money goes in
Lose on Pot Committed Aces
Way Ahead then a Bad River
Better Wrap with Bigger Flush Draw Does Not Work Out
Aces against 2588 single suited all in Preflop Bad Result
Lose a Flip Slightly Behind
Lose another Flip Slightly Behind
Bad River ahead when Money Goes In
Ahead on Coin Flip Bad Result
Brutal 2 Outer on the River
Flopped Nuts Can't Hold Up
Coin Flip Slightly Behind
As bad as this run was at least I was not one outed. Look at this poor soul, though I am not in this hand.
Top Boat No Good
So I temporarily have an enforced no online poker rule. MB changed my password. Still not twitching though I am getting close.
My Son's Gamble
An interesting article about a mother’s struggle with her son’s perceived gambling addiction. It all works out pretty well for all parties. A good read: My Son's Gamble - NYTimes.com.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
How to deal with the odd man out
Time for some more discussion folks. Since we no longer have access to the room we had been using we are going to be moving the game around on a rotating basis. The question becomes how to determine who gets seats when there is more demand than supply. Fortunately, we will only have to do this some of the time since Adam has generously offered up his place which has plenty of capacity and Ryan is willing to try two tables by converting his game room to hold a second table. However, we are not always going to have access to high capacity venues. We may be limited to 10, 9, or even 8 seats.
There are many different factors which could be used to decide who gets priority. They include but are not limited to the following:
* "Seniority" as in the people who have been playing mid-week poker the longest. Should people who have been with the group longest get priority?
* Attendance - people who have shown up the most regularly over the past few months. Does it make sense that the players who always show up get spots over those who show up periodically?
* Duration - players who show up and play the longest each night. Should a person who plays from 7pm until the game breaks trump a player who shows up late and/or leaves early?
* Hosts - people who have offered their place to play. Clearly anyone hosting would play while hosting. But do people who host get priority over people who don't host
when playing at a third party location?
* First come first served? - True casino style would be that those who show up first get seats and after the table is full they can either wait or leave. RSVP order to the email invite could conceivably be used but I don't think that would be a good solution.
* Rotation - everyone would take a turn sitting out. Does it make sense for everyone to have to skip a week every so often when the seating is limited?
* Other? I'm sure there are other ways we can determine who gets a seat and who doesn't which are not listed above.
Also, as a sidebar, I want to know what people's opinions are about player versus shuffler. I am working on a way to get the shuffler to take up less rail space, ideally the solution would take zero rail space. But if the choice had to be made between having the shuffler or having people shuffle the cards but squeezing in an extra person, what would people prefer?
Please comment on what you think would be the best method for distributing limited seats. I'd like to get this resolved so that we can have the procedure in place for next week's game. Thanks!
There are many different factors which could be used to decide who gets priority. They include but are not limited to the following:
* "Seniority" as in the people who have been playing mid-week poker the longest. Should people who have been with the group longest get priority?
* Attendance - people who have shown up the most regularly over the past few months. Does it make sense that the players who always show up get spots over those who show up periodically?
* Duration - players who show up and play the longest each night. Should a person who plays from 7pm until the game breaks trump a player who shows up late and/or leaves early?
* Hosts - people who have offered their place to play. Clearly anyone hosting would play while hosting. But do people who host get priority over people who don't host
when playing at a third party location?
* First come first served? - True casino style would be that those who show up first get seats and after the table is full they can either wait or leave. RSVP order to the email invite could conceivably be used but I don't think that would be a good solution.
* Rotation - everyone would take a turn sitting out. Does it make sense for everyone to have to skip a week every so often when the seating is limited?
* Other? I'm sure there are other ways we can determine who gets a seat and who doesn't which are not listed above.
Also, as a sidebar, I want to know what people's opinions are about player versus shuffler. I am working on a way to get the shuffler to take up less rail space, ideally the solution would take zero rail space. But if the choice had to be made between having the shuffler or having people shuffle the cards but squeezing in an extra person, what would people prefer?
Please comment on what you think would be the best method for distributing limited seats. I'd like to get this resolved so that we can have the procedure in place for next week's game. Thanks!
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Donks are Back
For a few months it seems like I was just eeking out small wins as the players just seemed to keep getting better and better. I sat down at a $5/$10 table, only to find Mesorucky and Waterpologuy, two really good players who I really can't figure out how to beat. Mesorucky said something interesting in the chat, he said the fish are back, something to do with cake's affiliation with the sport book site. He claimed to be up $100K, playing $25/50 PLO. Since then, I have been on a major heater and have found a few fish along the way.
Here are 3 bad beats I took yesterday and I still came out ahead for the day.
Nut Flush on Turn Cracked
In PLO8, I have the nut flush on the turn and check raise all in. Not a horrible bad beat as villain has 4 outs for the boat and 2 outs for the straight flush, plus he has a low, albeit a terrible one. Villain hits the boat.
Terrible call against obvious AAxx Hand
I am screaming here that I have AAxx hand and would expect a call from a run or a double suited hand like 789T double suited. Instead I get a call from A358, single suited which is going to match up terribly against an AAxx hand. Villain then hits bottom pair and figures he is priced in at 3.5:1 to call my all in bet. He hits trip 5's on the river.
2 Outed on the River
This dude figures I must have a super draw as he shoves all in with top 2 and a gutter to the bottom end of the straight draw. There was no way I was going to give a free card here so I bet out with a pot size bet into the original raiser. Pocket T's would be a bummer but the chances are so remote with 2 people checking and the original raiser is highly unlikely to raise with a TTxx hand. He hits his 2 outer.
Even with these beats, I can still come out ahead with donks like this one who can't figure out that I would only be raising with the nuts as there are zero combo draws on a rainbow, straighty board.
Second Nuts is No Good
Deep stacked all in push with non nuts
Generally not a good idea to go on a boat draw deep stacked. I Push U Pay is normally a very good player so I don't know what happens here.
Another Bad Beat 2 outer
Tony is uber aggressive so I decide to go with my top 2, only to be rewarded with a brutal 2 outer hit on the river by villain.
4 Outer Here
Nut flushes on the turn have a tough time holding up.
So there you have it, even with all these donks hitting imagine all the other hands I had where villains put there money in way behind and missed. Fish are swimming, time for the sharks to come out.
Here are 3 bad beats I took yesterday and I still came out ahead for the day.
Nut Flush on Turn Cracked
In PLO8, I have the nut flush on the turn and check raise all in. Not a horrible bad beat as villain has 4 outs for the boat and 2 outs for the straight flush, plus he has a low, albeit a terrible one. Villain hits the boat.
Terrible call against obvious AAxx Hand
I am screaming here that I have AAxx hand and would expect a call from a run or a double suited hand like 789T double suited. Instead I get a call from A358, single suited which is going to match up terribly against an AAxx hand. Villain then hits bottom pair and figures he is priced in at 3.5:1 to call my all in bet. He hits trip 5's on the river.
2 Outed on the River
This dude figures I must have a super draw as he shoves all in with top 2 and a gutter to the bottom end of the straight draw. There was no way I was going to give a free card here so I bet out with a pot size bet into the original raiser. Pocket T's would be a bummer but the chances are so remote with 2 people checking and the original raiser is highly unlikely to raise with a TTxx hand. He hits his 2 outer.
Even with these beats, I can still come out ahead with donks like this one who can't figure out that I would only be raising with the nuts as there are zero combo draws on a rainbow, straighty board.
Second Nuts is No Good
Deep stacked all in push with non nuts
Generally not a good idea to go on a boat draw deep stacked. I Push U Pay is normally a very good player so I don't know what happens here.
Another Bad Beat 2 outer
Tony is uber aggressive so I decide to go with my top 2, only to be rewarded with a brutal 2 outer hit on the river by villain.
4 Outer Here
Nut flushes on the turn have a tough time holding up.
So there you have it, even with all these donks hitting imagine all the other hands I had where villains put there money in way behind and missed. Fish are swimming, time for the sharks to come out.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Marsh's Kings
Below is Marsh's hand history of the hand that busted him out of Event 9:
Blinds were still 25-50. I had about 3000. Table was 5 handed at this point. I raise utg with KK after being active early, but missing all flops and now in drum mode. I make it 200 straight. Folds to SB who flats. He is my target at the table so I am pretty happy. Flop is J 9 4r. He donk bets into me for 300, I raise him to 1300, he tank-flats. Turn is a 6, he checks, I ship the rest and he calls. We roll over KK vs 69o, river is an 8.
Blinds were still 25-50. I had about 3000. Table was 5 handed at this point. I raise utg with KK after being active early, but missing all flops and now in drum mode. I make it 200 straight. Folds to SB who flats. He is my target at the table so I am pretty happy. Flop is J 9 4r. He donk bets into me for 300, I raise him to 1300, he tank-flats. Turn is a 6, he checks, I ship the rest and he calls. We roll over KK vs 69o, river is an 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)