Variance at Micro Limits

[Vex]

Last week I started my first ever attempt at logging 10,000 consecutive hands at the same stakes with the goal of showing a profit over the course of it. I've never gotten past 5,000 hands before, before getting sick of it and changing over to Omaha or playing some tournaments to break up the monotony.

This time I'm doing much better; in five days of $0.50/$1.00 Limit (full ring) I've logged 6740 hands and am tracking at +1.72 bb/100 hands. I am playing 6-8 tables at once -- I'm not going for finesse but rather being quick and consistent and automatic.

I'm doing this on Poker Stars, and I'd describe the games as almost always loose and passive. People are practically giving their money away; I can remember a dozen or more specific instances where people ran me down with draws and then didn't raise the river when they caught. I am playing with a pretty loose preflop selection of hands, and betting aggressively, either for value or to get free cards down the line. There are also a lot of big multiway pots and in those I often switch to passive play when I want to chase. So far I've done a pretty good job of getting the best of both worlds like that.

I started with a roll of $200, figuring that would be more than enough cushion against variance.

I'm posting because I want to compare experiences and ask advice. So far, I've spent 3412 hands, or about half my total play, in a long downswing. In three consecutive sessions of roughly 1100 hands each, I dropped 45 bets, then 20, then 5. Obviously my non-downswing sessions have been more than comparably good. It's also important to note that my bankroll has only dipped down about 30 bets, early on in my first session, and I've been up since then, even at the trough of my downswing (I had an incredibly lucky +78 bet, 598-hand session early, giving me a nice cushion).

So, I ask:

1> Is my variance way too high; is it similar to what others experience; or am I getting lucky and riding a smooth stretch of road?

2> After completing these 10K hands, I'm probably going to play another 10K before deciding to move up to $1/$2. Assuming I pull of 20K hands at >1 bb/100, then I move up, should I expect more or less variance?

3> With my poker tracker data, how can I estimate what my chances are of actually being >1 bb/100 at 10K hands? At 20K?

[ QUOTE ]
1> Is my variance way too high; is it similar to what others experience;

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance is a part of the game. I win at 1/2 3BB/100 over like 60K hands, and 50BB are quite common, and I've had at least 5-6 100BB downswings

[ QUOTE ]
am I getting lucky and riding a smooth stretch of road?

[/ QUOTE ]
You haven't played enough hands to really know

[ QUOTE ]
2> After completing these 10K hands, I'm probably going to play another 10K before deciding to move up to $1/$2. Assuming I pull of 20K hands at >1 bb/100, then I move up, should I expect more or less variance?

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand, your variance is generally the same and doesn't change that much with winrate. That being said, if you are not as big of a winner, you will have more losing downswings (If I win at 3BB/100, and you win at 1BB/100, over 5000 hands I make 100 more BB. So assuming our variance is the same, and we get the same cards, a 100BB downswing for me will be a 200BB downswing for you) Just an example, let me know if it doesn't make sense

[ QUOTE ]
3> With my poker tracker data, how can I estimate what my chances are of actually being >1 bb/100 at 10K hands? At 20K?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can probably search for better answers on this, but I think over 20K hands you will have a good idea if you are a winner at a limit or not, but can really only apporximate your winrate.

[deception5]

You should post your stats. I'm guessing based on your description you're playing too loose preflop - are you using a chart? You've read SSH I assume?

I would also say that you are probably a better player than your results are showing but that by playing 6-8 tables at once you are probably reducing your winrate. You might consider tighting up your game, playing fewer tables and focusing more on making correct decisions than on making automatic decisions which may or not be the best choice. This is going to be crucial if you are looking to move up.

[xenthebrain]

[ QUOTE ]
I win at 1/2 3BB/100 over like 60K hands

[/ QUOTE ]
Move up!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I win at 1/2 3BB/100 over like 60K hands

[/ QUOTE ]
Move up!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been trying and keep getting crushed. Need to learn how to play poker first /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ QUOTE ]

This time I'm doing much better; in five days of $0.50/$1.00 Limit (full ring) I've logged 6740 hands and am tracking at +1.72 bb/100 hands. I am playing 6-8 tables at once -- I'm not going for finesse but rather being quick and consistent and automatic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your sample size is way too small to tell what your longterm bb/100 is. For example, In the last 4 days of last month I played 6000 hands at 0.14BB/100 but this month I have played 20000 so far at just under 8bb/100.


[ QUOTE ]

So, I ask:

1> Is my variance way too high; is it similar to what others experience; or am I getting lucky and riding a smooth stretch of road?


[/ QUOTE ]
It looks fine. If you get to a point where you are over 100bb down I'd recommend stopping and doing some reading, also look over spacific situations that you are unsure about. When I moved from 4 to 8 tables it took me a small time to adjust, also from 8 to 12. Make sure you're not playing too many tables.
[ QUOTE ]

2> After completing these 10K hands, I'm probably going to play another 10K before deciding to move up to $1/$2. Assuming I pull of 20K hands at >1 bb/100, then I move up, should I expect more or less variance?


[/ QUOTE ]

More. I wouldnt recommend moving up if you're only on 1bb/100.

[ QUOTE ]

3> With my poker tracker data, how can I estimate what my chances are of actually being >1 bb/100 at 10K hands? At 20K?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant. Take the time. Play the hands. Then see how good you are. I'd recommend at least 50k.

[WalkAmongUs]

I recently moved up to 2/4 from 1/2 and my first 10k hands have been rather annoying. I'm at 0BB/100 exactly. Every other night I win about 40BB then lose 40 the next night.

I'm positive its just a long break even stretch because I play a pretty controlled game of poker and I've gotten some pretty nasty beats lately.

StatKing says my standard deviation is like $35/hour and that its too high for 2/4. $35/hour doesn't seem too bad. I'm not sure what a good standard deviation is for this level though.

Lookin forward to the upswing!!

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
You've read SSH I assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing for three years; I started at $0.10/$0.25 games and paid a "tuition" of about $1000 before I started winning. I've got a few hundred hours of live ring game and tournament play under my belt. Over the past year I've made a few significant (i.e. multiple $1000) wins in multi-table online tournaments, plus a couple nice live wins as well. My ring game play has been off and on and I haven't kept good track of it. I do know that over all I'm about $2,000 in the black. I've read a few books including both the Super/System ones, a couple Sklansky titles, and one that specifically covered online tournaments.

This 10K hand thing is more about forcing myself to track results and proving to myself that I can play ring game poker profitably. It's about developing responsibility. I should know exactly how much I am in the black over all, but I don't. I should know what stakes I can comfortably play live and online, but I don't.

[ QUOTE ]

I would also say that you are probably a better player than your results are showing but that by playing 6-8 tables at once you are probably reducing your winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Historically, I've jumped around in stakes in response to bankroll swings, been too quick to get bored and switch games, and not stopped myself when I've gone on tilt and blew through two or three session buyins.

That is why I'm asking about variance today; lately I've become aware of how much of a factor luck actually is, and I want to compare notes. Information is the bane of misguided emotion.

I am playing as many tables as I comfortably can, and I'm playing at stakes I am nearly certain I can beat over a large sampling of hands. If I'm down at two tables, I'm up at three more, so I don't get so upset when the unexpected happens. The law of averages makes swings on individual tables easy to stomach. Since I won't be put out if I lose my entire starting 200 bets, the swings won't bother me as much as they might.

[ QUOTE ]

You might consider tighting up your game, playing fewer tables and focusing more on making correct decisions than on making automatic decisions which may or not be the best choice. This is going to be crucial if you are looking to move up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I do intend to work on that -- I'll probably make it my goal for my second 10K hands at these stakes. But, for me, it can't just be trying to follow a set of rules. Poker Tracker's default rules consistently auto-rate me as a semi-loose aggressive passive, and I'm so comfortable playing that way that trying to change it always fails and causes me to have losing sessions. I can't just tighten up without being aware of the full impact of that change on my whole game.

I have hand data on a dozen other players who've played 500 or more hands against me in the last week; PT's default rules call ALL of them some form of aggressive. Many of them are TAPs, there is one TAA, two other SLAPs, and one maniacal anomaly who apparently just loooooves to gamble.

Is tightening up something I'll just have to bite the bullet and do, taking a hit in my roll until I adjust?

[deception5]

Good post, this clears up a log of questions. You still might consider checking out SSH, it will undoubtedly help you out in these games (4-5BB/100 winrates are not uncommon for that limit).

[ QUOTE ]
Is tightening up something I'll just have to bite the bullet and do, taking a hit in my roll until I adjust?

[/ QUOTE ]

Make sure you aren't confusing tightening up with playing weaker postflop. Most winning players are tight aggressive - your aggression is a good thing. All that I would recommend is to remove some hands you are playing which are going to be marginally profitable or even slight losers. These will get you into a lot of trouble as you will often be dominated. Usually this is going to be the case with hands like 87o, J7s, Q4s, A6o, etc. Hands that look like they will show a profit but end up losing to better kickers or flop marginal draws too often. Also make sure you are rarely if ever cold calling raises preflop as this will again get you in a lot of trouble.

[Weatherhead03]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand, your variance is generally the same and doesn't change that much with winrate. That being said, if you are not as big of a winner, you will have more losing downswings (If I win at 3BB/100, and you win at 1BB/100, over 5000 hands I make 100 more BB. So assuming our variance is the same, and we get the same cards, a 100BB downswing for me will be a 200BB downswing for you) Just an example, let me know if it doesn't make sense

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are a 1bb/100 player you will have a lot more varience than a 3bb/100 player. I believe that if you are a 1bb/100 player you have somewhere in the ballpark of a 15% chance of having a 75BB downswing at the start of every session.

[VoraciousReader]

I don't want to offend you but this:

[ QUOTE ]
I've been playing for three years; I started at $0.10/$0.25 games and paid a "tuition" of about $1000 before I started winning. I've got a few hundred hours of live ring game and tournament play under my belt...I've read a few books including both the Super/System ones, a couple Sklansky titles, and one that specifically covered online tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

made me want to cry. A thousand dollars down and you haven't spent 25 dollars and a few hours of your life to read Small Stakes Hold Em? (Actually it's more than a few hours, since I review and study it....but anyway...)

We can't all be MilesDyson. I think you are doing yourself a huge injustice if you don't immediately buy this and read it.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
Usually this is going to be the case with hands like 87o, J7s, Q4s, A6o, etc. Hands that look like they will show a profit but end up losing to better kickers or flop marginal draws too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

From memory (I'm posing a bit over lunch at work and don't have my database handy) my VP$IP is around 24%. Most of my loose plays are not hand selection problems but position problems; for example, I know that I try to steal the blinds with any two far too often -- to the point that a few perceptive opponents have twigged to it and will reraise with any two, usually resulting in me tucking tail and mucking after the flop completely misses me. And, if I find that a dry run of cards has me sitting idle for too long, I'll sometimes throw in a raise with two trash cards from under the gun, or limping in out of position with a small suited connector. Those boredom plays don't pay off enough for it to be worthwhile. I need more patience. At least I have an idea of what my problem is.

I would like to discuss blind stealing, blind defense more as well, and later I can dig up stats and post them.

[ QUOTE ]

Also make sure you are rarely if ever cold calling raises preflop as this will again get you in a lot of trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PFR stat is >10%, which is significantly higher than all of the guys I've logged with 500 or more hands. I open-raise a lot. I also limp in with family pots.

I think I probably do call a bit too often in raised pots, but usually I'm the fourth or more in.

What's really been costing me is limping in in late position behind three or four other players with hands that need good implied odds, then either the button or the blinds raise it up. I think I'm playing it right when it goes unraised, but it's being raised far more often than I expect it to. I'm not sure what exactly is wrong there, but I think that the preflop raise actually decreases the implied odds. The way people play in these games, they almost always call the raise, then are too eager to fold postflop. So, the pot odds go up but the implied odds go down. Eh, maybe I'll figure it out in the next 2000 hands.

[deception5]

Ahh, that makes sense. If you're limping hands like JTo in early position you are going to be slowly bleeding chips away. Yes you need to have patience - I'm surprised you get bored playing that many tables.

As far as limping in late position after and it getting raised behind you - as long as you didn't know that player was going to raise this is ok. Call and hope to flop a monster /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand, your variance is generally the same and doesn't change that much with winrate. That being said, if you are not as big of a winner, you will have more losing downswings (If I win at 3BB/100, and you win at 1BB/100, over 5000 hands I make 100 more BB. So assuming our variance is the same, and we get the same cards, a 100BB downswing for me will be a 200BB downswing for you) Just an example, let me know if it doesn't make sense

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are a 1bb/100 player you will have a lot more varience than a 3bb/100 player. I believe that if you are a 1bb/100 player you have somewhere in the ballpark of a 15% chance of having a 75BB downswing at the start of every session.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only partially correct. Your variance, which is the square of your standard deviation/100 is largely independent of win rate. However, a player with a true 3 BB/100 win rate is going to experience fewer and and smaller downswings than a 1 BB/100 winner if they have the same variance.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as limping in late position after and it getting raised behind you - as long as you didn't know that player was going to raise this is ok. Call and hope to flop a monster /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the problem. I don't know they're going to raise it, but they do it surprisingly often. Either I'm expecting them to play passively much more than they actually do, or people are raising too often in those situations. One way, I am leaking; the other way, I am failing to exploit suboptimal play by others.

I can't put my finger on which it is; all I know is, it doesn't feel right.

By playing so many tables at once, I can't play the player so much; I have to play the table.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As far as limping in late position after and it getting raised behind you - as long as you didn't know that player was going to raise this is ok. Call and hope to flop a monster /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's the problem. I don't know they're going to raise it, but they do it surprisingly often. Either I'm expecting them to play passively much more than they actually do, or people are raising too often in those situations. One way, I am leaking; the other way, I am failing to exploit suboptimal play by others.

I can't put my finger on which it is; all I know is, it doesn't feel right.

By playing so many tables at once, I can't play the player so much; I have to play the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really suggest dropping down to 3-4 tables and really working on your reads. Especially as you move up I think that being able to successfully play more than that is really the exception. I think your win rate will improve dramatically, and you will be able to really think about your decisions and actions. It's fine if you need to clear a bonus or something but overall I think it will help your game a lot.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]

I would really suggest dropping down to 3-4 tables and really working on your reads. Especially as you move up I think that being able to successfully play more than that is really the exception. I think your win rate will improve dramatically, and you will be able to really think about your decisions and actions. It's fine if you need to clear a bonus or something but overall I think it will help your game a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we're getting sidetracked a bit -- it's not about getting the best possible bb/100 right now; it's about finishing 10K hands with an overall profit; next step is to repeat with a higher bar. I'm challenging myself but I've set the bar low. Like a game of Limbo, the plan is to increase the challenge until I find my optimal level of stakes, speed of play, and so forth to see what I can do in terms of dollars per hour. I know I'm not playing my best; the important thing to me is that I'm utilizing discipline, playing every day, logging my results, being honest with myself, and above all being consistent.

To bring things back on track -- if I halve my table count, I'd need to double my bb/100 to have the same $/hr. But, how doable is that, really? I'll assume that it is very doable if I'm actually profitable for only 1 bb/100 playing like this. But if I'm actually good for 2 bb/100, doubling that would be much more difficult. Probably the best approach there is to slow down and work for a 50% increase, then move up in stakes.

What are your thoughts on downswings, with respect to multi-tabling? Given that playing fewer tables will increase bb/100, and others have said that higher bb/100 equates to downswings that don't dip so far down, would one still expect swings of 40-60 bets regularly but a more steep upward trend -- or would you expect that playing for quality instead of quantity might also squelch the amplitude of the swings themselves?

[ QUOTE ]
Well, we're getting sidetracked a bit -- it's not about getting the best possible bb/100 right now; it's about finishing 10K hands with an overall profit; next step is to repeat with a higher bar. I'm challenging myself but I've set the bar low. Like a game of Limbo, the plan is to increase the challenge until I find my optimal level of stakes, speed of play, and so forth to see what I can do in terms of dollars per hour. I know I'm not playing my best; the important thing to me is that I'm utilizing discipline, playing every day, logging my results, being honest with myself, and above all being consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it all depends on what your ultimate goals are. You seem like a winner at the .5/1 doing what you're doing, but the question is how big of a winner, which I think is what you want to figure out. But I think if you take a step back, and really learn how to beat the games for a better winrate you will be able to 1) Move up to higher limits or 2) Make a higher winrate when you go back to 8 tabling. I guess you will know sooner what your winrate is, but my guess is that if you can't beat .5/1 for more than 2BB/100, you will have a very hard time moving up in stakes. Maybe it is b/c your poker skills are not good enough, maybe it is b/c you are n ot able to get the reads that you require whne playing eight tables.

[ QUOTE ]
What are your thoughts on downswings, with respect to multi-tabling? Given that playing fewer tables will increase bb/100, and others have said that higher bb/100 equates to downswings that don't dip so far down, would one still expect swings of 40-60 bets regularly but a more steep upward trend -- or would you expect that playing for quality instead of quantity might also squelch the amplitude of the swings themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as your winrate increases you will not have as big of downswings. They will still occur though, as a big component of short term results is just luck of the cards.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
You should post your stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Whaddya think?

player_name OurHero
site_abbrev
game_level
num_sessions 47
won_amt 107.5
hands_played 6258
hours_played 112.3333
bb_100_sum 1.7178
vpip_sum 25.5673
pfr_sum 10.2269
wsd_sum 53.7801
vpip_sb 37.3494
sf_all 29.5781
sf_no_blind 22.6766
fold_sb_steal 73.3333
fold_bb_steal 73.6842
fold_bb_steal_hu 76.1905
sb_defended 12
sb_def_fold 50
sb_def_won_no_sd 16.6667
sb_def_wsd 33.3333
sb_def_won_wsd 100
bb_defended 15
bb_def_fold 46.6667
bb_def_won_no_sd 40
bb_def_wsd 13.3333
bb_def_won_wsd 50
steal_att 32.9787
sa_no_flop 29.0323
sa_fold 24.7312
sa_won_no_sd 48.3871
sa_wsd 26.8817
sa_won_wsd 48
won_wsf 30.6861
amt_won 107.5
wr_100 1.7178
wr_bb 1.7178
wsd 31.4425
won_wsd 53.7801
pfr 10.2269
lcpf 0.0479
fa_raise 4.8438
fa_bet 43.5938
fa_call 10.1563
fa_check 22.8125
fa_cr 0
fa_fold 3.5937
fa_no_flop 15
p_actions 6524
p_raise 10.1778
p_call 18.4243
p_check 5.5334
p_fold 65.8645
p_af 0.5524
f_actions 2487
f_raise 6.5541
f_bet 21.6727
f_call 19.2199
f_check 30.3579
f_fold 22.1954
f_af 1.4686
t_actions 1541
t_raise 7.2031
t_bet 24.6593
t_call 16.8073
t_check 30.889
t_fold 20.4413
t_af 1.8958
r_actions 933
r_raise 6.4309
r_bet 27.3312
r_call 17.7921
r_check 32.5831
r_fold 15.8628
r_af 1.8976
tot_actions 11485
tot_raise 8.6896
tot_bet 10.222
tot_call 18.3283
tot_check 16.5085
tot_fold 46.2516
tot_af 1.67
pfr_won_no_sd 33.4375
pfr_fold_no_sd 27.8125
pfr_wsd 38.75
pfr_won_wsd 55.6452
fbet_won_no_sd 30.5164
fbet_fold_no_sd 16.7449
fbet_wsd 52.7387
fbet_won_wsd 54.5994
tbet_won_no_sd 28.1938
tbet_fold_no_sd 4.8458
tbet_wsd 66.9604
tbet_won_wsd 56.25
rbet_won_no_sd 19.398
rbet_fold_no_sd 2.0067
rbet_wsd 78.5953
rbet_won_wsd 77.4468
pfc_won_no_sd 10.625
pfc_fold_no_sd 63.0208
pfc_wsd 26.3542
pfc_won_wsd 54.1502
fcall_won_no_sd 7.9096
fcall_fold_no_sd 53.9548
fcall_wsd 38.1356
fcall_won_wsd 60.7407
tcall_won_no_sd 3.0928
tcall_fold_no_sd 30.9278
tcall_wsd 65.9794
tcall_won_wsd 47.6563
rcall_won_no_sd 0
rcall_fold_no_sd 0.7143
rcall_wsd 99.2857
rcall_won_wsd 26.6187
fold_to_rb 50
wf_no_fold 15.1167
wf_pf 68.6641
wf_flop 8.8207
wf_turn 5.0336
wf_river 2.365
cr_times 16
cr_pct_act 0.3225
cr_flop 0
cr_turn 100
cr_river 0

[Felipe]

ewww

[NateDog]

Variance is just that, variance. Example - 45K hands at a particular level for me, and I am running thru a 1K hand 100+BB downswing. Sounds horrible right? It is. BUT, I came off a 10K hand 4.1BB/100 upswing. Could I have predicted either? No. Is my downsing going to end tomorrow? I don't know. What am I doing to try and end it? Cutting down my tables from 4 to 3, and playing a little tighter in EP. Will this work? Maybe. It could be that I am not a winning player and have just ran well for a while. Type +the +long +run into the search function box for the last month or so, and read what some of the experienced guys around here say is the long run (100K? nope, 200K nope, it's a long time).

If winning every session is the most important thing to you, play ABC WLLH style poker at .5/1, as many tables as your monitors can handle, and it should be a piece of cake. If you want to improve your game, read, post, think, analyze, and learn the game. The results (and money) will follow naturally.

Good luck.

Nate

[Weatherhead03]

Thanks. I remembered someone saying something about this before (maybe you) and I just tried to remember it as clear as I could.

[SomethingClever]

You can run good or bad for 50, 60, even 70,000 hands.

Just focus on your game and the results will come.

Wait, who am I kidding? You should run good all the time!

http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/5382/rungood7bn.jpg

[ QUOTE ]

vpip_sum 25.5673
pfr_sum 10.2269


[/ QUOTE ]

What is the average %flop of the tables you play on. You are almost certainly playing too many hands and/or raising too much. Your vpip is too high for a tight table and your pfr if too high for a loose table.

[ QUOTE ]

fa_raise 4.8438
fa_bet 43.5938


[/ QUOTE ]
What are you scared of? These are pretty passive numbers for first action on the flop after a pfr.

[ QUOTE ]

cr_pct_act 0.3225
cr_flop 0
cr_turn 100
cr_river 0


[/ QUOTE ]

why are you only check raising the turn?

[POKhER]

I really think you should spend 1hour(Be it a day, or a week) 1Tabling. Playing your standard game but taking reads on opponents.

I set myself this task(I usually 4xtable at 1/2). Had so much more fun.... You know when you see opponents making errors(One guy constantly folded to a raise on the turn) you can abuse it and when it pays off you feel so dam proud.

I had more fun in the 1hr one tabling session than i have 4xtabling and taking down pots here and there but relying on PT for reads(and the occasional showdown when im not in a hand).

Improving your reads IMO, will improve your win rate(Thats if your preflop, Post flop is ok/good).

Maybe you can do it for half an hour? You dont want to get bored and spew chips... That is very bad.

if you spew 2BB... and you run at 1bb/100 you realise that may make up for 200hands break even? Ouch.

Good luck, and $1000 "tuition" sounds painfull. I hope you've won enough and cashed back all the cash you put into poker? With the remains go and buy SSH.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]


What is the average %flop of the tables you play on. You are almost certainly playing too many hands and/or raising too much. Your vpip is too high for a tight table and your pfr if too high for a loose table.


[/ QUOTE ]

These tables are not tight at all. Loose and passive describes them best. Unfortunately I can't get at my data right now, but later I can look up the averages.

I do know my pfr is way too high; it's almost twice as high as the average and the only ones higher I see in my data have too few hands logged to paint an accurate picture.

So -- I should raise preflop less. I'd like to know more about the whys and wherefores of this. Can you explain it some? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

What are you scared of? These are pretty passive numbers for first action on the flop after a pfr.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are, aren't they? I noticed last night that I do have a tendency to not bet when the flop misses me, even if I'm sitting on two overcards.

[ QUOTE ]
why are you only check raising the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed that after I posted it, and made a deliberate effort to change that behavior in last night's session.

Generally, these are checkraises for value against opponents who simply don't know what hit them. Usually, I'm out of position, bet a strong hand on the flop, get raised, and just flat call. If the turn is a brick, I checkraise. Almost every single time they call the checkraise and then call my river bet with TPTK. I feel like I'm extracting an extra bet from them by doing this; if I three-bet the flop they'll slow down, and if I call and bet out again they'll slow down.

Last night I checkraised the flop twice just to get a feel for what its effects are. I think that in these games it might be a great tool for getting a free turn card. It seems to me that in these games, a checkraise is such a rare play that it almost always means true strength. I've used the play a lot more often than it has been used against me, and when it is used against me the alarm bells ring.

Maybe I should try the value checkraise on the river a couple times instead of always "springing the trap" on the turn. Maybe I should try checkraising the river on a pure bluff a few times.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think you should spend 1hour(Be it a day, or a week) 1Tabling. Playing your standard game but taking reads on opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm playing completely without reads. I do make and use reads. I had one particularly nice hand in last night's session where I twigged to a guy seeing way too many flops, and I actually made a value bet on the river (after a check-check turn) with nut no-pair, which he called -- with KJ. I actually put him AJ-A9 or so, and the river card was a brick; I was reasonably certain I was ahead when I bet the river.

In another hand, I had KK in early position, raised preflop, got one caller, bet out on an A-high ragged flop, and got flatcalled. I bet the turn for information, and mucked to the raise. The villain had one bet left; I could have reraised and not worried about having to pay another bet, but that would have just been stupid. The villain didn't have enough chips left to be threatening and the turn raise was clearly for value.

[ QUOTE ]

Good luck, and $1000 "tuition" sounds painfull. I hope you've won enough and cashed back all the cash you put into poker? With the remains go and buy SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not particularly, considering I put it $50 at a time over a number of months, playing for entertainment and later getting more serious about it. It was all paid back in full when I won my first $30+3 multi-table NL tourney on Ultimate Bet, paying me $3300. I cashed out $3000 of it. Over time I've put some back in at various sites and cashed out a couple times. The fact that I'm in the black over all is due to nice tournament wins, and I have no way to know right now whether that's just luck or if I'm a decent tournament player.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are, aren't they? I noticed last night that I do have a tendency to not bet when the flop misses me, even if I'm sitting on two overcards.


[/ QUOTE ]

Be very careful to count all your outs when the flop misses you with two big cards. I wouldnt avocate bluffing into 4 or more players, but a semi bluff when the flop misses you if you have 6-9 outs to top pair or better is fine. It conceals your hand a lot better than calling, rather than hitting raise when an ace comes. Keep in mind you may still have the best hand with just the overcards. They cant fold if you arent betting....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why are you only check raising the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I noticed that after I posted it, and made a deliberate effort to change that behavior in last night's session.

Generally, these are checkraises for value against opponents who simply don't know what hit them. Usually, I'm out of position, bet a strong hand on the flop, get raised, and just flat call. If the turn is a brick, I checkraise. Almost every single time they call the checkraise and then call my river bet with TPTK. I feel like I'm extracting an extra bet from them by doing this; if I three-bet the flop they'll slow down, and if I call and bet out again they'll slow down.


[/ QUOTE ]

Having no check raises on the flop tells me that you might not be protecting your vulnerable made hands enough. It also shows you might be missing a lot of bets. If the field is reasonably large and the pot is OK get the bets in the best way you can, unless you have a monster.


[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I should try checkraising the river on a pure bluff a few times.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are playing in loose games against guys making constant mistakes you dont need to try and buy pots you dont deserve. It might work now and again, but before you know it it could turn into a huge leak. Be very careful with this. Beginners think this is a really clever poker play. Its not.

[ QUOTE ]

In another hand, I had KK in early position, raised preflop, got one caller, bet out on an A-high ragged flop, and got flatcalled. I bet the turn for information, and mucked to the raise. The villain had one bet left; I could have reraised and not worried about having to pay another bet, but that would have just been stupid. The villain didn't have enough chips left to be threatening and the turn raise was clearly for value.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have stacked him.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In another hand, I had KK in early position, raised preflop, got one caller, bet out on an A-high ragged flop, and got flatcalled. I bet the turn for information, and mucked to the raise. The villain had one bet left; I could have reraised and not worried about having to pay another bet, but that would have just been stupid. The villain didn't have enough chips left to be threatening and the turn raise was clearly for value.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have stacked him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably would have done that automatically and not given the hand a second thought if he had raised the flop. I'd have thought he was just getting his last few chips in with any of a broad range of hands.

The cold call got my attention, made me suspicious.

I'm not in the habit of letting KK go too easily, but I truly was utterly convinced I was on a two-outer in that hand.

[ QUOTE ]
I probably would have done that automatically and not given the hand a second thought if he had raised the flop. I'd have thought he was just getting his last few chips in with any of a broad range of hands.

The cold call got my attention, made me suspicious.

I'm not in the habit of letting KK go too easily, but I truly was utterly convinced I was on a two-outer in that hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you folded you were getting 6-1 to see his cards. I recokon he'd have the ace less than one in 6.