Posts
New and creative ways to lose pots:
1/2 NLHE
Pot #1: Limp in from the SB with 5,5 (4 other limpers already). BB raises to $15. UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, other 2 callers call and I call. 6 players. Flop is K,5,2 rainbow - pretty ideal for my hand because I think anyone with a king will want to end the pot on the flop. As I'm first to act, however, I don't want to risk it being checked around if no one has a king and then have someone pick up a draw on the turn. I bet $37 into the $90 pot, figuring any king will call or better yet, raise. I have $77 behind after this bet. UTG+1 calls and everyone else folds. No way he has AA or KK because he would have re-raised the $15 preflop at a minimum. Turn is an A, still no flush draw. I forget the exact action here but it all goes in for both of us and he has me covered. I have a set, he has 3.4 off...wheel straight. River bricks and I'm felted. In retrospect I made his odds but I never suspected that he could be playing 3,4 and calling the $15 UTG+2. If I bet 80 and leave myself $33 behind I probably fail to extract any value in the event that someone does have a king and being that he was a gambling sort, I'm pretty sure he calls open-ended and hits to felt me anyway.
Pot #2: I have K,10 off. I'm again in SB in a limped pot with 2 other players, including the Brazilian guy to my immediate left. Flop is K,x,x rainbow. I lead the flop for $8 into $6. He calls, other player folds. Turn is an 8. I lead the pot for $15 into $22. He calls. River is a 4. I lead the pot for $25 and he calls and flips over 8,4 of diamonds. I'm flabbergasted and as he rakes in the pot I do what I never do, which is question his play. I ask him why he called the flop. His answer? I had a diamond draw. He had 3 diamonds to the flush, that is.
Pot #3: I have A,6 and again in a 3 way limped pot, this time in position. Flop comes A,Q,x. Other 2 players check to me, I bet $10. One girl calls other player folds. Turn is a brick. She checks. I bet something like $22. She calls. River is an 8. Before acting, she checks her hole cards, then checks. I check behind because of her peek and she has Q,8, rivered 2 pair.
Pot #4: UTG raises to $10 preflop, I call from mid-position with 10,10, someone else calls and the guy from the BB shoves for 42, initial raiser folds, I call, other caller folds. He has J,10. Guy to my right immediately says "I folded a 10" at which point I know I'm f'd. I am already only hoping for a 4 card flush to get on board because I know he's going to hit a J and any straight I can make, he makes one better (except if J,Q,K,A hits the board).
J on the flop, no flush draw, drawing dead.
Good times, good times.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Hit and Run
A quick hand in which I was recently involved:
1/2 Cash game, with a definitive end time. Ten minutes prior to the end of the game I have KQ and open to $11 from position. I get called from one of the blinds, who has me covered. We are the two biggest stacks at the table. Flop comes Q,8,x and he checks to me and I continue for $15, fully expecting to take the pot right then and there. He surprisingly calls. Turn is a jack (2nd heart on board) and he again checks and I again bet, now $25. This time he raises me to $75 and I instantly call. River is another J. His action and he looks down at his stack and shoves out three stacks of red, $300.
I tank and mull my position.
Some additional tidbits about my opponent:
-He is quite drunk.
-He has, not five hands previously, felted a player when he made a river call of an all-in with top pair, 3 kicker on a paired board that had both straight and flush possibilities.
-He is a pretty well-off guy.
If I call and am wrong, I take a $110 loss on the night. If I call and win, I take a $700 win from the game. If I fold, I take a $200 win from the game.
What do I do? What would you do?
1/2 Cash game, with a definitive end time. Ten minutes prior to the end of the game I have KQ and open to $11 from position. I get called from one of the blinds, who has me covered. We are the two biggest stacks at the table. Flop comes Q,8,x and he checks to me and I continue for $15, fully expecting to take the pot right then and there. He surprisingly calls. Turn is a jack (2nd heart on board) and he again checks and I again bet, now $25. This time he raises me to $75 and I instantly call. River is another J. His action and he looks down at his stack and shoves out three stacks of red, $300.
I tank and mull my position.
Some additional tidbits about my opponent:
-He is quite drunk.
-He has, not five hands previously, felted a player when he made a river call of an all-in with top pair, 3 kicker on a paired board that had both straight and flush possibilities.
-He is a pretty well-off guy.
If I call and am wrong, I take a $110 loss on the night. If I call and win, I take a $700 win from the game. If I fold, I take a $200 win from the game.
What do I do? What would you do?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Grinding?
From Malcolm Gladwell, who retells an experiment documented in a book by Kahneman and Tversky:
"...a group of people were told to imagine that they had $300. They were then given a choice between (a) receiving another $100 or (b) tossing a coin, where if they won they got $200 and if they lost they got nothing." (Note: by nothing, he means nothing additional. They don't lose any money by losing the coin flip, they just don't get any more than their $300.)
He continues:
"Most of us, it turns out, prefer (a) to (b). But then Kahneman and Tversky did a second experiment. They told people to imagine that they had $500 and then asked them if the would rather (c) give up $100 or (d) toss a coin and pay $200 if they lost and nothing at all if they won. Most of us now prefer (d) to (c)."
Why this example? I think it relates pretty well with a lot of the poker play I've witnessed in the past year or so. How many times have you seen people willing to gamble their entire stack from behind on some ugly draw and chalk a loss up to the cards but those same players missing a value bet when playing from in front. The rationale is that they are always just happy to take down a pot and win one, never minding that the win was modest.
It's a vital flaw in thinking, in my opinion, and one that can ultimately separate winning from losing long-term.
Get back to the choices above (a-d). Which side of each choice did you fall on? Think about why.
As Gladwell (and I assume Kahneman and Tversky) points out, "What is interesting about those four choices is that, from a probabilistic standpoint, they are identical. Nonetheless, we have strong preferences among them. Why? Because we're more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but are risk averse when it comes to our gains."
It sounds familiar, no?
"...a group of people were told to imagine that they had $300. They were then given a choice between (a) receiving another $100 or (b) tossing a coin, where if they won they got $200 and if they lost they got nothing." (Note: by nothing, he means nothing additional. They don't lose any money by losing the coin flip, they just don't get any more than their $300.)
He continues:
"Most of us, it turns out, prefer (a) to (b). But then Kahneman and Tversky did a second experiment. They told people to imagine that they had $500 and then asked them if the would rather (c) give up $100 or (d) toss a coin and pay $200 if they lost and nothing at all if they won. Most of us now prefer (d) to (c)."
Why this example? I think it relates pretty well with a lot of the poker play I've witnessed in the past year or so. How many times have you seen people willing to gamble their entire stack from behind on some ugly draw and chalk a loss up to the cards but those same players missing a value bet when playing from in front. The rationale is that they are always just happy to take down a pot and win one, never minding that the win was modest.
It's a vital flaw in thinking, in my opinion, and one that can ultimately separate winning from losing long-term.
Get back to the choices above (a-d). Which side of each choice did you fall on? Think about why.
As Gladwell (and I assume Kahneman and Tversky) points out, "What is interesting about those four choices is that, from a probabilistic standpoint, they are identical. Nonetheless, we have strong preferences among them. Why? Because we're more willing to gamble when it comes to losses, but are risk averse when it comes to our gains."
It sounds familiar, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)