Archive for November, 2008

Noteworthy Opponents

Monday, November 24th, 2008

If not seeing your opponent’s face and body language is seen as the major disadvantage of online poker then there are other benefits to it that the live game can’t offer up. One of the best things about the internet option is the capacity to build up a database of notes on every person you’ve ever played. In a live card room you can only rely on memory, as scribbling down an array of notes would be seen as inappropriate at best. For one thing, constantly reaching for your pen would kind of draw attention to the fact that something has grabbed your interest. The art of subtle observation would be lost, but this isn’t a concern in the privacy of your own home, in front of a laptop. I make player notes constantly, with a facility provided by every major site, and yet it amazes me that so many people don’t seem to bother.

 

Ideally, I want to have some sort of comment on every player I’ve ever played. This can seem pointless if they have drifted along without doing anything remotely ‘noteworthy’, but that in itself can be useful information to have. If I play somebody for and hour and they do everything by the book then I will classify them as ‘textbook’, ‘ok’ or ‘solid’. It’s nothing groundbreaking, but with this status I will give them a certain level of credit and make certain assumptions until I see something that tells me to think otherwise. This way if I play the same individual again two weeks later and he goes all-in on the first hand I can probably assume he has a good hand. The rationale would be that if he hasn’t made an adventurous move or a bluff in the previous hour of play with me then he is unlikely to be doing so now. But had I left this same player’s notes blank following the previous encounter it’s likely that I simply wouldn’t remember ever playing him. Consequently, I might be far more suspicious and liable to judge him on the merits of this one hand only. I would rather base a big decision on whatever experience I can draw upon.

 

Of course the easiest players to make notes on are the loosest ones, as they are giving out the most information. In an average 10-seat SNG the people who are playing the most hands early on, with the widest range of start cards will stand out. As a general rule if you keep playing any two high cards to a raise at a full table tournament, you will get yourself into trouble eventually. So for example, a player who keeps entering pots, particularly out of position with the likes of A-10, will probably get noted down by me as ‘loose dodgy’. And to be honest I don’t even need to see their cards to draw conclusions 90% of the time. To be blunt, the vast majority of highly active players in the early stages of SNGs are on borrowed time.

 

But as the SNG advances so too does the criteria I look for, from a note-taking perspective. As we reach the ‘bubble’ period of the game I want to know how the different players react. The classic good practice in these events is to accelerate as the blinds rise and opponents drop out. If a rival does this well then I want ‘good aggression bubble,’ down in writing. If a player takes this approach to a ridiculous extreme then I want to remember that they start plunging with any two cards, far too much. These people are infuriating as they knock me out with trash hands a seemingly disproportionate amount of the time, but I guess that’s why they do it! Nonetheless I will be enlightened for our next meeting and know that I need to defend my big blind with a wider range of cards against these ‘bubble maniacs’. That way I should get my chips in ahead with the likes of A-3… even if I still get beaten by 10-3o. At such times the scholarly notes do tend to have the odd expletive creep in to the text. But that’s ok, these words are for my eyes only and getting down some angry thoughts can be quite therapeutic and preferable to going on tilt.

 

Then there are the tight players who just get tighter when things get crucial. Suffice to say, these are among my favourite opponents and my notes on them are likely to say something like ‘tight, weak, brilliant.’ I know that these are the guys who will unwittingly encourage me to attack their blinds. But the best player of all in a SNG will have the phrase ‘decelerates’ next to his name. This is the character who plays loosely early on and gives your big hands a great chance of pay-off and double-up. He then crumbles and weakens at the exact time when loose aggression becomes more appropriate. Perfect! But inscribers beware. Contrary to popular belief it is possible for even this chip donator to learn the error of his ways and play better. Rarely the notes have to be updated with that terrible word: ‘improving.’ 

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Notetaking | No Comments »

Multi-Tabling

Monday, November 17th, 2008

One of the key disciplines needed to become a profitable poker player is multi-gaming. This is an aspect unique to online play and is so significant that making good regular money without it maybe virtually impossible. It’s that important. By minimising screen sizes it is possible to play at least four games simultaneously on most monitors. This may sound very daunting to an inexperienced player but with gradual build-up from one game to two and so on, it is possible.

The financial benefits of being able to play several games at once to a similar standard are striking. Let’s say that somebody can make an average of $5/game at medium stakes. If this is typically an hour long game and you only play one game at a time then you make $5 in an hour. However, if you play four games at once to that same standard then a typical hour will reap $20. If we take things a step further, imagine a game format that normally lasts 45 minutes (instead of an hour) that you can still make an average of $5 from. This time-game ratio improvement might simply involve a shift from 10-seat games to 6-seaters. If this works then the profitability per hour improves in another way. Then if you can move up to higher stakes with similar success then the poker world will be your oyster.

So if it’s that simple then why don’t we all just hook up multi-monitor systems and play about 12 games at once? Well, first of all, some people do just that. I don’t really understand how anybody can play 12 simultaneous games to any sort of standard so I won’t try to explain how on that one. What I would say though is that people doing this must surely be cash-game players or out of their minds. The dynamic of tournaments means that you inevitably have to play more and more hands as opponents crash out. That individual game will therefore demand more and more of your time and attention as it progresses. Imagine trying to play heads-up poker in 12 games at once! For one thing it would be a miracle to get in that position and secondly it would result in chaotic farce. Contrastingly in cash games the structure stays largely the same, regardless of time and major incidents. If one player loses all his cash at the table then he is likely to reload or be replaced immediately. With that structure in place it is possible for a multi-gamer to function as a rock who is simply very selective about his start cards.

The issue of hand selection and playing tight is key to this whole concept, even for tournament players. When unfamiliar with multi-gaming it’s imperative to keep things simple. Trying to limp in all over the place with mid-suited connectors will really complicate things when you suddenly get dealt big hands in three other games at once. Time is of the essence and suited connectors will often put you in borderline predicaments that naturally need more consideration to be played properly. Compare that to small pocket pairs; after the flop they will typically be folded or raised strongly depending on the arrival of a set or not. It’s much more cut and dry.

It’s not hard for me to spot the other multi-gamers, who tend to be more serious players. For one thing, to state the obvious they appear in several of the games I’m playing at the same time. For another, they tend to play a small range of hands until the bubble phase of the game. Chat is a real giveaway though. Anybody who takes the time to critique everybody else’s performance with play-by-play analysis is not only a moron but most likely to be in a solitary game. It’s always these impatient people who start typing ‘zzzzz’ whenever an opponent fails to act in a split second. These childish antics always alert me to the presence of a player with a short attention span. This will almost always be reflected in their card play as well. Occasionally, you will see a player who has tightened up immeasurably following a previous wild session against you. This tends to suggest one of two things to me. Either two very different players both share the same username, or they have discovered the world of multi-gaming. Be warned though; for many losing players out there this is simply a way of losing money at a faster rate than before.

Being in your preferred number of games at once isn’t always as easy as you would think though. Sometimes your preferred tournament takes an absurd length of time just to complete registration. One thing you can actually do to help is – and yes this is patronising – actually sign up yourself! Who would have thought it? Remarkably, there are countless players out there who are reluctant to sign up until the registration is almost full. Of course when enough players think like that then nothing happens. But perhaps this reluctance stems from bitter past experience signing up to too many slow-starting games at once and then forgetting about them. When you see that one player list isn’t filling up you then register somewhere else as well. Suddenly there’s a surge of new interest across the board and before you know it you’re in six games. Worse still, you forget to unregister for a game that never starts during your session. Some time later when you are logged off and out in the real world, money is very slowly drifting out of your account – blind by blind.

Simon Ballou writes for Oddschecker Poker

Posted in Multi-tabling | No Comments »

Borderline Plays

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

Flopping a set with your pocket pair is almost the holy grail of tournament play such are the lucrative possibilities this creates. But the odds of this occurring are only about 7:1 meaning that most of the time the true strength of your holdings is minimal, or at least much harder to judge. With a low pocket pair there won’t be many flops that seduce you without the 3-of-a-kind, which at least makes it an easy hand to fold. High pocket pairs will often still play as overpairs and thus still have alluring value without a set on board. However, the toughest hands to play involve the middle pairs on flops where you could be in front or behind, but it’s incredibly hard to say. Let’s examine some of the different ways in which the common middle-pair dilemma can play out.

A classic awkward scenario you will find yourself facing is a pocket pair of eights and a flop of Q-7-3. Of course we all think of this spot in broadly the same way – ‘if nobody has a queen then I’m probably winning here’. Of course this is too simplistic, given the numerous factors we must consider. Firstly, how many players have seen the flop and what was the pre-flop activity? Obviously the more players that have seen the flop, the less likely it is that your pair of eights is ahead. If more than two of you have reached this point then it would be wishful thinking to stay involved in the pot after any flop betting. That said if you have position, and play is checked to you on this board then a value bet would certainly seem worthwhile. Then if anybody plays back at you it would be best to shut down. Yes, it is acceptable to just give up in this situation! Even against a loose aggressive player who calls every hand it isn’t that far-fetched to think he could have a queen in his hand. You will surely find a tighter spot than this to take on a bully. Furthermore, if he’s check-raising then his play looks much stronger.

It’s dangerous to convince yourself that that you’re definitely winning in this situation. One reason for this is that you’re hand is very unlikely to improve after the flop. The probability of another eight coming on the turn or river is 10:1. Let’s speculate that an aggressive opponent bluff re-raises you with nothing but a couple of high cards like K-J. If you simply call the re-raise bluff then he has many more outs that he can still hit to make a genuine hand and beat you – in this case eight. It is therefore imperative to either re-raise again, which is very high risk, or more pragmatically fold. In a SNG or any smaller stacked competition you will be wary of risking most or all of your chips on this play.

If we examine this situation as a 2-way pot in the early stages of a tournament then we must try and put our opponent on a hand range. Many tight players will only raise with high pairs and A-K from an early seat. From later positions these same players may open the betting with any middle pair or A-Q as well. Looser players may raise any pair from any seat as well as any two high cards, particularly when first in. It’s vital to know which of these two types you’re up against. If we figure first of all that a tight player has raised us from a late seat then our pair of eights is beaten by everything in our perceived range other than A-K, and that’s on any flop without an eight. It’s wishful thinking to put him on the one hand out of about six that you can beat – so fold.

However, if a really loose player is thinking ‘if I play it, I raise it’ then aggression should often be the order of the day. For one thing 8-8 becomes a very reasonable hand to re-raise with pre-flop. But having elected to call and seen a board of Q-7-3 you must think your chances are promising. The next dilemma is how to win the hand quickly, as we’ve discussed the threat of seeing further cards. This is where knowing your opponent comes into play again. Many loose players will see a first bet off the flop from you as a challenge and instinctively re-raise regardless of what they have, almost as a reflex action. With this in mind a strong check-raise appears a much safer option with 8-8 on this board. It will take a brave or stupid individual to play back at you with a worse hand at this point. But then there is still clearly the genuine possibility that you are behind. So which is it? At least bet-sizing has given you a little more information to work with. At this point you must rely upon instinct and judgement; it’s time to move all-in or fold.

Up to now I’ve only referred generically to the flop of Q-7-3. Of course if two or three of these share the same suit then that changes things considerably. People will routinely bet out and re-raise all-in on flush draws. This is a further complication to an already tricky spot. And it can get even worse. Consider holding pocket J-J on a board of 9c-10c-Kh. We have flush draws, straight draws, two pair and set possibilities everywhere we look. Yet we can’t help thinking that our well disguised 2nd pair and gutshot draw could be in good shape, especially against one dubious opponent.

These are the borderline plays that can make or break you in Texas Holdem. Sets and the highest pocket pairs will often play themselves but it’s the pesky mid-pocket pairs that often make you work for your chips. This is one area where the great folds save money as often as the great calls make it.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Roll Deep

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

Having discussed the limitations of turbo tournaments last week I’ve found a great format, at the other end of the spectrum, with the main Saturday night event on the Microgaming network. The $50k Deep Stack has a buy-in of $110, with satellites enabling you to qualify for $11. You begin with 10,000 chips and with blinds starting low and rising every 20 minutes it really is a dream structure for a decent online multi-tabler. It is a surprisingly rare treat to be able to buy-in at this relatively affordable level, have a reasonably good guaranteed prize pool and have time to play. Furthermore, the game seems to attract around 300 runners, a number I like. So often you have to beat thousands to scoop a truly big prize on the internet.

The first thought that crossed my mind was that I didn’t need to take unnecessary risks in the first hour or two with such a good chip/clock ratio. The second realisation was that I must not let that mindset make me too cautious. I remembered that when I first played deep stacks I was reluctant to play non-premium hands because I had the time and the chips to wait for the big guns. This was a mistake. If you have 10,000 chips and you can see some cheap flops with borderline start cards then do so. If you don’t connect well with the board then you can get away with little harm done. However, if you flop two pair or better then that is a big chance to build your stack up early on.

Remember that many of the worst players in the tournament may not be around very long and you want to be the one to get their chips. This won’t happen unless you play some pots against them. The irony is that the bad players will be doing what I’m advocating for good players; namely seeing a lot of flops from the outset. The difference all lies in that phrase ‘taking unnecessary risks’. You can play lots of hands if you are aware of the potential weakness of your holdings and the possible strength of your opponent. The worst players won’t be able to do that. For example there is nothing wrong with seeing a cheap flop with 7-8 suited so long as you don’t risk your whole tournament when the flop comes 8 high. There is some chance you are ahead in this situation but don’t go crazy. You’re much better off waiting for the time when your 7-8 suited becomes two pair, a straight or a flush. This is when your opponent with A-A could end up in big trouble. With all this in mind I endeavoured to strike a balance between aggression and caution. In the first couple of hours very little happened as I lost a few small pots and won a few small pots. I was treading water until I flopped a set of sevens and made my first significant chip gain.

Soon afterwards I was dealt QQ in early position but was faced with a large raise from a tight player under the gun (the first seat). I just called and everybody else folded. The flop came an appealing looking 10-6-3 with three different suits. My opponent made a standard continuation bet, I re-raised, before he promptly pushed the rest of his stack all-in. This put me in a difficult spot, not least because he held the chip advantage so it was my tournament future on the line. He had been quiet previously and had now played this hand with aggression and seeming confidence from a seat where few make outrageous moves. Given that I had no more information, I credited him with possessing a big hand as well. When I thought about where that left me I didn’t relish my predicament. Of the premium hands he would have likely raised with A-K could surely now be discounted. If he had AA, KK or even 10-10 I was beaten. Q-Q gave me a split. J-J was the only hand I could realistically be beating. If I folded I was left with 13,000 chips with the blinds at 400-800. That would be a playable stack, and with that in mind I did just that. I never discovered if I had made a great fold or not but the significant point was that that this tournament gave me the opportunity to get away from that tough situation and live to fight another battle. In a shallower tournament I would have had to call by that stage.

The next battle was not long in coming. I picked up QQ again and was first in with a raise. This time I was confronted with the dreaded bump re-raise that so often represents A-A or K-K. I couldn’t be that unlucky again could I? I called the small bet and prayed for a dream flop which duly arrived K-Q-3. I checked, as did my opponent. Immediately, and instinctively my heart sank. If he had A-A or A-K or even J-J I thought he would have bet that flop. The turn seemed to change nothing so I bet my three queens, to which I was re-raised. Now, I really did fear that he had the one hand that could beat me – the three kings. I called and then checked the river rag. I still had the second nuts so felt compelled to call the inevitable bet on the end. Yes he had K-K-K.

I had been destroyed by being dealt QQ twice in quick succession. Maybe I had got the fold wrong on the first occasion? It was impossible to say. One thing I was delighted with though was my read on the second scenario. I felt sure that most players would have re-raised with their three queens and gone bust. Yet somehow, due to my pessimistic and accurate instinct I had managed to save myself a few thousand chips. I quickly threw those all-in and doubled-up against – you guessed it – QQ. It was enough to ultimately squeeze me in to the money places for which I was very grateful. A tournament where you can lose two big, tough pots and still somehow survive is one I want to play in.

Posted in Deepstack | No Comments »