Archive for October, 2008

Turbo Selector

Monday, October 27th, 2008

One odd thing about playing poker seriously is that I have lots of friends who play socially. This is a weird dynamic that most people don’t experience. Doctors, for example, don’t generally go out with people on a Friday night who dabble in a bit of heart surgery. Instead they have to contend with people constantly asking what they can do about the crick in their neck. My occupational hazard is that everybody who’s won a few pounds off their friends thinks they do what I do. But the house games that I play are not poker as I know it. Effectively they are turbo competitions where the edge of the best players is negligible to non-existent. The emphasis of the evening is, quite rightly, on a few drinks, a bit of banter and not taking anything too seriously. Effort is also made to keep everyone involved so the best way to do that is to play about three games in the course of about four hours. This is all well and good but I only ever go there for a good time, not to make money. Friends of mine would point out that this is just as well as I rarely leave with any.

Good players should always be looking to invest their money in a game where they have an edge. It’s no good being the best player at the table if the format precludes you from demonstrating that fact. Accomplished players are drawn to events that offer them a deep stack and a ‘good clock’. In plain English this means that you get a lot of chips to begin with and that the blinds levels rise slowly, giving you time to play. If you begin with a short stack and blinds rise quickly then you’ll have to gamble early on and get lucky quickly if you want to stay in the tournament. As skill goes largely out the window, so that elusive edge disappears and you might as well be playing roulette or bingo. There certainly is a case for playing turbo tournaments online when you can multi-game and the sheer volume of games you can get through counters some loss of edge. But that is a discussion for another day. If you’re looking to make money in a live tournament, and multi-gaming isn’t a consideration, then the smart move is to find a game with a good format.

However, the other day I went to a venue that I enjoy socially and decided to play their Friday early evening rebuy tournament. I was unsure of what the exact structure would be but had classified this evening as a social night not a work night in my head. This is an important distinction for me to make. If it’s a work night then I must play tournaments that give me the best chance of success. On a social night I let my hair down a bit, don’t worry so much about the format and view any monetary success as a bonus. (I might add that I do occasionally have social nights that don’t involve poker of any description. Honest).

As it turned out the structure of this rebuy event was lousy even by my ‘social’ standards, but it did demonstrate the problems of turbo poker. Firstly we all began with a meagre 1000 chips for £23 and all rebuys and add-ons would be £20 for a further 1000 chips. The event was self-dealt which meant that play was painfully slow in that first 45 minute period, particularly with all the novice players in attendance. This was frustrating, not least because the hand per hour rate was pitiful, while the blinds rose every 15 minutes. Then when the rebuy period ended, to my horror, the blinds levels were set to increase every 10 minutes. Even worse. It quickly became clear that if you didn’t double-up virtually every 20 minutes you were going out.

The carnage was never ending. There was absolutely no chance of seeing a flop cheaply. It was all-in or fold poker for everyone. This is the single biggest difference between social poker and real poker. ‘Push or fold’ poker involves skill only so far as picking the right start cards to shove at the right moment. This should only be a tiny facet of the game, not the whole caboodle. The subtleties of finessing a flop, making great folds and adventurous bluffs are fine arts that are completely lost in a turbo crapshoot. At one point I ‘played’ an entire blind level without being dealt a hand after being moved around tables faster than one of Gordon Ramsey’s waiters. That’s what happens when players crash out every two minutes.

Remarkably, due to being luckier than most people, I managed to finish 4th out of the 59 who started out on this madcap adventure. I only mention that because my friends think I’m bitter when I go crashing out of our turbo house games. But now they can see that I even moan about the format when I do win money! My pursuit of pure poker with a deep stack and a good clock is never ending. Anything else is just a bit of fun and a good night out.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Rounders….A Token Effort Part 2

Monday, October 20th, 2008

As I suggested last week ‘Rounders’, on the Microgaming network, provides a rare opportunity to win money with minimal risk through the process of token building. The best players reach the point where they may never lose any actual money in this format; surely a unique boast to be able to make in a game with the variance of poker. Of course the variance still exists, but the impact of it is absorbed by the token count not the bank balance. The Rounders ‘pros’ will simply play a few Round 5s a week or month after reaching their personal token targets courtesy of the lower levels. This way they effectively freeroll at games that can reap them $3000 on a regular basis. So how do they do it?

The secret of success is to never move up a level until you’ve given yourself a buffer of tokens to protect against a bad losing run. This way, if you are losing, you take the time to rebuild the token count while the bank balance remains the same. Psychologically, this is a huge morale-boost. Furthermore, you’ve almost inadvertently created good financial practice for your poker bankroll!

Another important benefit of this approach is that you’re not heading back to square one every time you have some bad luck. Many players come to Rounders for the first time and have three good games to race them through Rounds 1-3. They then go to Round 4 full of hope and expectation as the prospect of turning a small initial investment into a big cash prize looms large. One bad beat later and they are out with nothing to show for their efforts after three good games out of four. From excited, they become instantly demoralised and decide that Rounders are a waste of time, vowing never to play them again. This is a shame, but with their logic, quite understandable. Of course it’s unrealistic to assume you will have five good games in a row without bad luck destroying you at some point. But the canny players have taken the time and shown the discipline to ensure that they never have to play the lowest levels again.

Here is a token-building strategy that I would suggest, beginning on Round 2, where the entry fee is $27.5. (See last week’s blog for the full Rounders structure). As I’ve outlined already a novice will probably take the 124 tokens earnt by way of a top 2 finish and head for Round 3. Instead, resist the temptation and re-invest in Round 2. In the long term, given the relatively poor standard of opposition at this level, a good player could hope to finish in the top 2 once every three games on average. (Note that a 3rd place finish redeems your tokens for another shot at Round 2 and therefore doesn’t count as a loss in this calculation.) So for every 72.5 tokens invested a return of 124 seems possible. If this did occur then the token count would be progressed from 124 to 175.5. At this rate of accumulation it would be realistic to play 14 or 15 Round 2 games to reach a token count somewhere in the region of 372. What’s the significance of 372 tokens? That’s the amount required to buy into three Round 3 tournaments.

At this point I would consider moving up to playing Round 3, although this decision is very arbitrary. I know for a fact that some cautious fellows would want quite a few more tokens before make the step up. I would argue that a good player wants to spend as little time as he can get away with at the less productive levels where his skills are being under-utilised. That said, I allow for the possibility of dropping back to Round 2 if the first couple of games go badly. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from becoming impatient at this stage. If I lose the first two Round 3s then I can return to the previous level with 124 chips (or more if I’ve finished 5th in either) and all is not lost. But hopefully this will not happen.

The beauty of Round 3 is that if you win one (top 4) and lose 1 (6th or lower) you don’t just break even, you come out 55 tokens up (82.5 tokens up if you finish 5th in the ‘losing’ game). So put simply, a player who can finish in the top 4 out of 10 half the time will accumulate tokens quickly. For example, let’s say with the acquired 372 tokens I finish top 4 in the first but get unlucky and end 6th in the second game. That’s ok; I now have 427 tokens. If I hit the top four 50% of the time after 22/23 games I’ll hit the magic mark of 1000 tokens. Note that it only requires 605 tokens to play Round 5 but we’re looking for the best way to play lots of those with minimal risk. Consider also that a player with a 50% success rate on Round 3 will prosper even faster if he ‘bubbles’ in 5th position very often at all. The booby prize of 27.5 chips seems irrelevant and disappointing when you just miss out on 300, but these consolation prizes still add up over time.

On Round 4 five out of ten players can earn the 605 credits that represent a Round 5 entry. This is my favourite level in many regards as the realisation that finishing 5th out of 10 equals mission accomplished seems encouraging. A good player may realistically aspire to progress about 66% of the time or twice in every three games now. At this rate of success I would miraculously turn my 1000 tokens into more than 3100 in just 21 further games. That’s enough for five cracks at the big money of Round 5 there and then.

But having put in all this hard work to set-up this position it would be almost criminal to play five big games in a row and return to 0 tokens. My suggestion would be to only play the money level when you hit your target buffer level – for me that’s 3100 tokens (more than 5 buy-ins). After playing that first Round 5 I’ll be down to 2500 chips, regardless of the outcome. Hopefully I’ll have another $3k in the bank but no matter I want to return to 3100 tokens before I play that level again. At this stage I may opt to only play Round 4s in the interim, and this target may be reached again in just a few games. So my reward for all that slog and patience is that I can now be regularly playing Round 5s, effectively as freerolls, for the foreseeable future. You can’t argue with that.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Satellites | No Comments »

Rounders…A Whole New Ball Game

Monday, October 13th, 2008

A poker grinder doesn’t just think about how he can win the most money. He has to take the pragmatic view of things as well; how does he lose the least money on a bad run? It’s with this in mind that token-based poker comes into its own. I’m going to discuss the merits of a Sit and Go (SNG) format called Rounders found on the Microgaming network. There are similar structures available on other sites such as PartyPoker’s ‘Steps’ and Ladbrokes’ ‘Ladders’ that operate with the same premise. The basic idea of all these is that you can buy in at a low level for a small fee and win entries to the higher, more lucrative stages. A small initial investment can lead to a massive eventual prize.

The Rounders 10-seat structure is as follows: ($ can also be the equivalent amount in tokens)

Round 1: Buy-in: $5.50 (house fee inc). Finish Top 2 to win entry into R2.

Round 2: Buy-in: $27.50. Finish Top 2 to win R3 entry. Finish 3rd to replay a R2.

Round 3: Buy-in: $123.75. Finish Top 4 to win R4 entry. Finish 5th to replay any R2.

Round 4: Buy-in: $302.50. Finish Top 5 to win R5 entry.

Round 5: Buy-in: $605. 1st: $3000, 2nd: $1200, 3rd: $800, 4th: $500.

So there we have it. The opportunity exists to turn $5.50 into $3000 over the course of five SNGs. Not only that, but it’s possible to do that by finishing sequentially 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th and then 1st. That sounds even more achievable.

But the real attraction of Rounders is much more subtle than that and can even be missed altogether by many of the players who stumble upon the format. Firstly, you don’t have to play each round sequentially and can buy-in at whatever stage you like. Furthermore, and most crucially, each level can be replayed as many times as you like allowing for the possibility to STOCK-PILE TOKENS. Theoretically, this makes it possible to win money steadily over time without ever putting money in again after an initial investment.

To put this into basic practice a new player could buy-into Round 3 for the fee of $123.75. If he finishes in the top 4 places out of 10 he earns $302.50 worth of tokens – effectively a Round 4 buy-in. But he then DOESN’T play Round 4. Instead he re-invests that sum into another Round 3. If he achieves another top 4 finish then his token count will then be up to 481.25. There is nothing to stop the player attacking Round 3s exclusively for as long as he sees fit. Even better news is that if Round 3 success (defined as a top 4 finish) is achieved 50% of the time then it is profitable. For every ‘success’ the net token gain is 179 where as every ‘failure’ (except 5th place) loses just under 124 chips. Therefore, a 50% record sees your token stack rise by about 55 for every two games played. With this and much more in mind, I will outline my advanced rounder bankroll strategy next week.

As for the feel of the games, I find them to be the tightest SNGs going. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising as the format is incredibly appealing for the ultimate grinder. For the guys who spend their days playing nothing but Round 3s and 4s the mentality is ingrained deep within to just get through. The notions of chip building and bubble aggression are often ignored or deemed irrelevant. Consequently you often find that you’ve played for an hour, only two players have gone out and you’re surrounded by the proverbial rocks. This can be very off-putting and the danger is that you just become another player who plays too tight. But this has to be avoided, because your edge depends on aggression against weakness.

The realisation that first place is no better than 4th (in Round 3) or 5th (in Round 4) is not lost on many of these players, which is in itself to their credit. However, the reality of this is that so many players at the table are playing for 4th or 5th that nobody ever seems to go out! This means that the comfortable looking stack when the blinds are 50-100 has become a major concern when they hit 200-400.

The other interesting aspect to Rounders concerns the money level itself, Round 5. The grinders who have accumulated chips successfully are not always so adept at playing to win when it really counts. Furthermore, a number of high-stakes cash players seem to like buying in for the full amount, without any tokens, at the top level. With all respect to cash players, many of these guys should perhaps stick to the format where they made their money. Although if they want to win at cash and lose on SNGs that’s fine by me. All and all, I would say that Rounders are well worth a punt.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Cash Play

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Last week I grabbed a rare opportunity to hone my cash game skills when I joined a £1/£3 game back at The Empire casino. Actually, that’s misleading; the opportunities are always there but I rarely choose to grab them. As stated on many occasions before, I regard myself as a tournament player, whether single or multi-table, and I’ve become rather set in my ways. Going back a few years I played a great deal of cash games, but at the time, I favoured the fixed limit variation. I regard myself as relatively inexperienced as a no-limit cash player and consequently felt like I was jumping in at the deep end a few days ago. It was a paradox that I may well have played more hands of poker than everybody else at the table yet was still rusty in cash terms.

The first re-adjustment I had to make was to the dynamic of the game itself. In tournaments all players start equal, at least in monetary terms. You pay an entry fee and purchase an exact number of chips in return. In cash games there is typically a minimum and a maximum buy-in determined by the stakes and each participant can choose what level to come in at. On this occasion the minimum buy-in was £100 and the maximum £500. I bought in cautiously with the minimum, a decision that many cash experts would perceive as putting me at a disadvantage. The reasons for this are quite obvious. Firstly, I denied myself the opportunity to get maximum value from my best hands. An early double-up from £100 to £200 is obviously less lucrative than the same percentage shift from £500 to £1000. Secondly, it’s much easier for a short-stack to get pot-committed or pushed out when simply wanting to see a flop. Thirdly, if you lose a couple of hands before you win one then it’s time to reload or leave. Fourthly, and somewhat because of the previous reasons, I was likely to be perceived as weak and therefore a good target to be bullied.

I would suggest that many of these disadvantages can be countered or at least minimised. First of all, the double-up argument can obviously be flipped over. It stands to reason that if you can win twice as much on a single hand by buying in higher, then you can also lose twice as much. Not exactly rocket science I know, but worthwhile to remember nonetheless. Secondly, if you can get yourself pot-committed with a short stack then you can also trap bigger stacks into being ‘priced in’ to pay you off. The fact that you need to win one of the first hands you commit to is a genuine problem but hardly unique to the short stack. In this instance the difference between me and the guy who bought in for £500 would only be money on the table when all said and done. Hypothetically, I’ve probably lost less but he’s still in the game.

My game at The Empire was phenomenally lively. In the tournaments I tend to play the early stages are typically cagey while the blinds are small and irrelevant. That brings me to the other major difference in format. In cash games the blinds stay the same throughout so there is no sense of acceleration as time goes by. For some cash players this clearly seems to negate any perceived need to start cautiously. The pace was frenetic from the outset and as I looked round the table it was clear that there were about 7 ‘wild men’ out of the 10 of us. This told me a few things. If I was dealt some good start cards I needed to play them hard and fast to reduce the field. It seemed very unlikely that I wouldn’t get paid off if my best hands held up. Conventional wisdom suggests that you should play in the opposite style to the majority of the table. So at a tight table you play looser and at this table you most definitely needed to get tighter. With my limited stack there was no way that I was going to be allowed to sneak into many pots on the cheap.

The tone of the evening was set early on when four players saw a flop for £35 (more than 10 times the big blind) without a premium hand anywhere in sight. The massive pot was captured by one of the biggest buy-ins who was in there with 6-5o to see the flop of 2-3-4. This gave me food for thought. I’m pretty sure I’ve never flat called for 10 times the big blind with 6-5o and I would have remembered seeing a flop like that if I had done! Cash games are clearly another world entirely. So much for conventional wisdom.

That said I stuck to my plan. I played tight, more so than I intended if I’m honest, before playing 8-8 very hard from under the gun. I doubled up after receiving all the action I could have wished for from A-2o out of position, from a new player at the table. He clearly wasn’t going to calm things down! I then waited another hour to hit top two pair with K-Q after paying far more than I liked to see a flop. That secured me a small profit for the session having won two of the big three pots I had committed to. It was a satisfactory outcome and a break from the norm but I looked forward to returning to my comfort zone.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Cash Games | No Comments »