Today Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) is supposed to introduce a bill to congress to repeal the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act that was passed last fall. As a result of this bill, the ease of use of online gambling sites for your average Joe in America has been crushed and major sites have chosen to pull out of the US market all together. Frank, as I understand, is a pretty far left liberal who is primarily focused on Financial Services and personal freedoms. Basically now he's our only glimmer of hope that the games could return to their once prosperous state. (let's take a moment of silence in remembrance of Party Poker *sheds a tear*).
Anyhoo, here's a clip of Frank talking to Congress sometime in the past about how dumb UIGEA is:
Often people will send me a hand and say "what should I do here?" and usually the first response I'll have is "got any reads?" We all know why reads are important, but sometimes, especially those who play at stakes where the player pool is enormous, we encounter situations where it's simply impossible to know what type of player we're against. So the response I get back is "they're unknown."
My contention is that rarely is a player COMPLETELY unknown. There's information we have about everyone -- even if it's the first hand we've played with them. Some of this information might include their screen name, their picture or avatar (if the site has those), the current stakes we're playing, if they're on multiple tables, and more. By thinking outside the box a bit and by using our past experiences to our advantage, it's sometimes easier to get a leg up on the 'unknowns'.
What I'd like to talk about today is a collection of my experiences and the tendencies I've noticed regarding the basic information we have when encountering an otherwise unknown opponent.
Let's take the first and most obvious one, their screen name. I've noticed a lot of things about screen names in the past half million hands of poker I've played. Here are some basic attributes of screen names and what I've encountered. Keep in mind, none of these observations are fool proof or 100% accurate but the tendencies are there. For the sake of each attribute, I'll try to identify the players as generally "very good", "above average", "below average", or "they suck" when possessing each attribute.
"-ie" sounding names... jackie, willie, corey, eddie: Believe it or not, players whose screen names contain these types of names are below average. I'm not kidding. Generally they are happy-go-lucky and too loose preflop. It also suggests they are using their real first name in their screen name, which can also be a 'below average' sign....please note the latter tendency isn't nearly as strong as the former. Seriously, I'm not making this up.
"leet speak" names: Names that contain "lol", "lmao", "pwn", and similar. Names with this type of verbiage are typically used by people very familiar with the internet and technology. Those types of people are also typically the type that have spent enough time online to know where to find information they need and delve deep into it. Chances are if you're playing against someone with one of these names, they use poker forums or at least an IM service and probably talk about poker with their friends...which is a sign they are at least trying to think critically about the game. Generally "leet speak" players are better than average.
"kgb" names: a la the movie Rounders and Teddy KGB - the antagonist of the movie. Players with "kgb" in their screen name almost always suck. There is a very strong correlation here and one you should keep in mind. They probably watch poker movies/tv shows, think everyone they see on any TV tournament is a great player, and probably have very little idea of poker strategy in general -- but they are in tuned with meta-poker stuff...tv poker, movies, gossip...in terms of live poker, they probably love chip tricks and think that's a sign of an expert player.
"poker hands" names: Any screen name that has to do with a poker hand or a poker hand "slang" name. Big slick, AA, pawket rawkets. Someone with poker hand names in their screen name are nearly always in the "suck" category, or at best, at the bottom of the "below average" category. These players are trying to play the part of a poker player. They want to use these terms and have a screen name with them because they think those who use these terms are "in the know" as far as poker goes, and they want to be associated with it. Likely these are the same that won't go to the casino without their PartyPoker.com hat, reflector shades, and the ipod. Some actual screen names I know of in this category: BadCardsAA, dontplayacequeen, netwocards.
Star Wars names: That's right...I think it actually deserves it's own category. People with names related to Star Wars tend to be in a similar category as the "leet speak" players -- "above average". Typically those associating themselves with star wars are the 'gamer geek' types, who also tend to be well adapted to the Internet and finding information. You can lump these guys in with the leet speak players as they are more likely than your average player to seek out strategy forums and think critically. An example screen name in this category is JediPokerTrix on FTP. He's one of the best 5/10nl regulars there. Other examples exist, keep an eye out.
Numbers in the screen name: Have you ever looked at a screen name that has numbers prepended or appended to a word, and wondered what these numbers mean? Sometimes you can figure out it's a year, or a birthdate, or sometimes they appear random. There's also the ever-so-popular "69" you'll see appended to many-a-donk. I don't have a blanket thought about those with numbers in their screen name, becaues it's too wide spread, but there are tendencies related to these numbers. I can say with confidence that just about anyone I've encountered that has '69' in their screen name is terrible. You can take that one to the bank. I've also noticed that those who have more than 3 digits appended to the end of their screen name are in the 'below average' category. I'm not sure why that is, but it seems to hold true for the most part. I've noticed no correlation with simply a single, double, or triple digit number, aside from the previously mentioned 69.
"badbeat" screen names: Anything having to do with "sucking out" or putting a "bad beat" on you is a clear sign of suckage. I'd say the correlation is very strong in this category. I_badbeat_U and the similar are almost always a sign of someone who attributes all their results with luck (or un-luck), and similarly they aim to play hands in which they can put a "bad beat" on someone. There's at least one screen name I can think of that is the direct opposite of my contention here, but the vast majority follow suit with being either 'below average' or 'sucking'.
Names in all capital letters: I don't know why, but throughout my poker career, those who have all caps in their name tend to be below average players. This is a weaker correlation than some of the other categories, but I felt like it was worth mentioning. Certainly you can think of counter examples, as can I, but for unknowns I think there's enough of a correlation for it to be mentioned here.
Next, I'd like to focus on another piece of information we have on otherwise unknown players: The avatar. On sites like pokerstars, players can choose their own custom image to use as an avatar, or have none at all. There's a lot of information to be extracted based on what a person chooses for their custom picture -- and knowledge is power. Here are a few categories to look for:
Dog, Girlfriend, Child: You might have heard me talk about this in the video I posted a couple months ago, but it is almost an infallible, tell tale sign of a donkey. Take it to the bank. Dog, Girlfriend, or Child (in order from weakest to strongest correlation) almost always means donator. The strongest being their child. If you see a baby or junior decked out in his little league uniform, then prepare to cancel your dinner plans because you need to stay at the table until he leaves or is broke.
Rapper or Super hero: Typically these players are almost always 'above average' or 'good'. In the case of the rappers, often these players buy into the whole "straight ballin'" line of over the top internet poker players. They want to associate themselves with flashy things or they possess the over the top confidence that every rapper has. Similarly with the super hero, they want to be associated with those who have super human powers, as they believe they have on the poker table. In either case, the player's confidence is high and there's typically a reason for that -- continued sucecss.
No avatar at all: If a player doesn't have an avatar, there could be a few reasons. a) perhaps he doesn't want one because he doesn't want his opponents to link his play style with a visual image. It's a very good reason and a sign of a thinking player. b) perhaps he's just new to the site. Newer players tend to be less skilled on average, since most regular players on the big sites have accounts on all the major sites. I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion by the lack of avatar, but if I was forced to choose, I'd say no avatar would lean slightly towards the 'below average' camp, simply because new players want to play asap, not worry about avatars.
The other side of that coin is that if an unknown player does have an avatar, at least you know he's been around long enough to get it all set up, so at the very least his bankroll has survived at least week or so (it takes time for some sites to approve your custom avatar). I can't put everyone with an avatar into one of my predetermined categories for obvious reasons, but it's at least something to consider that although the player is unknown, he's not completely foreign to the poker site.
Picture of money: It's all about the benjamins, baby -- except not for these players. Believe it or not, most of the people I see with an avatar that contains dollar bills fall into the 'suck' category. My theory is that it's part of their way of reinforcing the lies they tell themselves. They tell themselves they are winning players, they want others to also think that, and by showing a picture of money, you're supposed to associate money/winning with the player. Don't be fooled, it's almost always the exact opposite. This correlation is one of the stronger ones, in my experience.
A picture of themselves with sunglasses on: Of course you can never know for sure that the person behind the keyboard is the same as the one in the pic, but it's pretty easy to assume, especially if said player is at a poker table with a stern poker face and the donned sunglasses. Take this one to the bank, they suck. They might not be super loose, but invariably they aren't strong players. Again, it's not an absolute, it's a tendency, but this trend is strongly correlated to my assessment of suckage.
Power Ranger avatar: I saved this one for last, because it's the strongest of them all. If you see a player who has an avatar of a Power Ranger -- prepare to get stacked.
That's all I've got in terms of avatars, but there are some other tendencies I'd like to talk about. A pretty strong tendency of an unknown is how much they buy in for. Let's say we're playing my main game right now - 5/10nl game, buyin is $1000. Different sites have different default buyins. I believe Pokerstars has a default buyin of $600 for this game. Full Tilt is $400 I believe. In any case, if you see a player sitting with the default amount or an amount less than the maximum, you can infer he's a weaker opponent. An example would be someone who is playing on a short roll and doesn't want to buy in full. For obvious reasons, they tend to be weaker competition (why do they have a short roll in the first place, why are they playing games they aren't rolled for, etc etc). Perhaps they are used to 3/6nl and they aren't comfortable risking the full buyin for the higher stakes. There's nothing wrong with that, but they typically will be weaker players.
Another example of a buy-in tell is if they buy in for a really odd amount, say they sit at a 5/10 game with $863.72. That's a pretty tell tale sign that they're sitting with their whole bankroll on the line, looking to take a shot and get lucky. In cases such as these, 9 times out of 10 they are VERY weak players. These odd buyin sizes are nearly always a sign of a player that just wants to gamble it up and double or go broke (and they often go broke very easily). It's worth noting that these players are also the ones who are most likely to "hit-n-run" and insta-leave if they do double up.
Going in a different direction, if you play in games such as 5/10nl+, the player pool shrinks quite noticably with each step up in stakes you make. You really become familiar with almost all of the players because there just arent that many. When you encounter a new player at the higher stakes, especially up at 25/50+, I'm told by those who play there that unknowns are almost always pussies. They are playing on scared money, they are often underrolled, and they can be pushed around. I dont believe you find this much at 10/20nl and below, but it's worth pointing out as something to think about. There's no way any generalization can be made like this at lower stakes because the player pool is so huge.
When evaluating an unknown, it should go without saying that you have to consider the stakes you're playing. An unknown at 25/50nl is quite different than an unknown at 0.25/0.50nl. You can expect the unknown player, and even the poor players, to be quite a bit better at 25/50nl when compared to someone at 0.25/0.50nl. When you're faced with a decision, you have to ask yourself what a TYPICAL player would do in a certain situation at the given stakes, not necessarily what YOU would do.
Additionally, you have information as to how many other tables a given player is on. You can either quickly glance in the lobby, or some sites even offer you the ability to search for a player by their name. It's usually worth keeping a tab who is multitabling and who isn't. You'll be able to pull more moves against those who are multitabling and it also tells you that they probably have at least some idea as to what they're doing because if they didn't they'd go broke much quicker seeing so many more hands.
I think I've outlined some pretty good points in this blog. What other tendencies have you noticed? Did I leave anything big out? Leave me a comment with the tendency, how strong the correlation is, and what category you place the player in (good/above average/below average/suck) and if it makes sense I'll edit this entry and stick your contribution in. Also let me know if you think I'm way off base in any of these categories. I put a lot of thought into this entry since it's been something I had been thinking about for quite a while.
I think these ideas are examples of things that most players don't really consider. You should be using all the information you have at your disposal to formulate the correct action to take on a hand. When you get into a marginal situation against a player you just aren't sure about, and there are multiple viable options, you should be using these generalizations to help tip the scale to the most correct action. You may be surprised how often these stereotypes ring true.
The picture says it all. Things haven't gotten any better for me today. I was really feeling good today and ready to pwn some donkeys. Unfortunately it didnt happen that way.
I don't usually like to do this but I just got to get it off my chest. Here are all the hands where I lost about $500 or more today (yea, all these were this afternoon, heh). If you want to see the gorey details, just click the links.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983158 -- 3 outed Edit: reminded by a commenter that it wasn't truly a "3 outer" because he had some board-pairing outs to win...because we all know I'm definitely getting my stack in if a 7 or K rolls off.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983161 -- 3 outed Edit: again, reminded by a commenter that it wasn't really a 3 outer because hell, he could hit a 9 and win...and naturally, i won't let a counterfeiting turn card from stop me from slinging my stack into the middle!
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983163 -- full house under full house -- some of you might think the river push is bad, but this guy is a fucking clown shoe and he was on mega tilt today making retard call after retard call. I expect to get called by any flush, any J, or the straight
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983171 -- 3 barrel bluffed a stack here... didn't really have any reads on this guy so i should have check/folded the turn probably, but I just felt given the preflop action and the board texture, he couldnt stand the heat. I was wrong he made a "good" play.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983172 -- full house under full house -- again vs the clown shoe. I nearly folded both the turn and river, but I just couldnt bring myself to do it against him. Vs other players i'd get away.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983177 -- AA no good in RR pot. This guy is a good LAG player, he's just gonna get my stack in this spot... there are too many worse hands that call my CRAI on the flop to get away.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983184 -- Here I got my money in bad with JJ preflop vs the clown. I had reasons for it, based on recent history of him catching me bluffing and the fact that I felt like he could be in there with a lot of trash re-stealing. This one is probably the most debatable.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?983191 -- set under set in reraised pot. I wanted to see a non-spade on the turn before getting it in, in this case it didnt matter.
Since I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll be getting back on some tables in a bit. I took an hour break and gonna play a wsop sat and more cash games later.
To say this month isn't going according to plan would basically be the understatement of the year. I've already put in over 26,000 hands and I'm in the red to the tune of about $7000. It seems like everytime I turn around I'm creating a blog entry about how badly I run, and I'm really getting sick of it. I'm sick of hearing myself bitch, I'm sick of hearing myself complain, sick of sending the latest bad beat hand history to friends on instant messenger, sick of making mistakes, sick of letting my failures at the poker table spill into my personal life... but how can it not?
I've set out to become the best poker player I can be. I feel like I've done all the things necessary to become successful at this game yet it seems to always be just out of reach. I've always said that I've worked way harder at poker than I ever did at programming...and I don't regret it. The upward potential of poker, at this stage of my life, is way higher than it is being a code monkey. Why is it that I'm not able to transform this hard work and dedication into the profits I feel like I deserve?
Funny thing, that word 'potential'. My dad being a college football coach hates the word 'potential' and has a classic quote in the newspaper about it. Dad said, "And potential... I hate potential. Potential is unused production. We need to produce."
I'm trying like hell to produce, but in for the past several weeks I can't seem to do anything but get sucked out on or get setup. Of course I've misplayed some hands, and I send nearly all of my questionable hands to someone else to get their opinions. This is the point in the "i run bad" blog where I try to figure out what I do next in order to make it better. I'm all out of ideas. Sure I can go back to the well to try suggestions I give others, or I've given myself, but ultimately I truly believe it just boils down to starting to run better and having my hands hold up...
But if I may do some self reflection and analysis, I truly believe one of the reasons my bad run has persisted as long as it has is because I've tightened up. Many offer tightening up as a good solution to slow the bleeding, but I feel like I've tightened up too much postflop. I'm not pulling the trigger when I sense weakness like I used to...at least not with the same frequency. I don't think I'm stealing enough pots and those stolen pots are often what helps to slow the bleeding (or loss of a limb, as the case may be) from the latest beat or setup. It's tough though. It's tough to pull the trigger when the last two times you've shoved in a stack on a bluff you run into the nuts...and at the time you need it most, it's tough to separate the results of a hand from the long run EV.
Reading back through this article on my pop, I came across another one of his quotes that I think applies to poker as well. Hell, he even 'sounds' like a coach based on his choice of words:
"You've got to have great physical and mental toughness. You can't be broken. You've got to have great brains. You've got to have brains enough to recognize in certain formations only certain things can happen to you."
It's true in poker too. Of course without the physical part, but the rest definitely applies. The part about mental toughness and not being broken goes without saying. It's easy to see how this applies. Honestly I feel like I'm being broken with every misplayed hand or bad beat, and that's certainly part of the problem. Great brains. No shit. This isn't a game where joe shit the rag man can sit down and hang with the students of the game. It's a battle of wits. "You've got to have brains enough to recognize in certain formations only certain things can happen to you." Sound familiar? It's the culimation of all things poker. The board texture, the preflop and postflop actions, the information you have about this player. It's the story they're telling and it's forming into a range of hands and you have to be able to recognize it and know how to respond accordingly.
It's pretty amazing that after 26 years, from across the country, through an article written over a year ago, on a blog he doesn't even know exists - my dad has been able to teach me something about a game he's never even played.
Basically that sums it up. Since I've been running so poorly online, I decided to change things up with a trip to the local Harrah's here in Kansas City to play their 2-5 blind $500max NL game. As most of you know, a typical live player is much worse than a player at equal stakes online, and certainly my trip there was no different. There was only one, maybe 2 players who were totally spewing chips, but the rest of the table was entirely exploitable. Some mix between weak/loose and weak/tight in their preflop and postflop games. No one would ever stab at pots, bluff raise, etc. It was basically everyone limps in preflop and whoever flopped the best hand would bet, and someone else would call down if they had anything reasonable.
Instead of describing the entire experience again, I'm going to copy and paste my AIM conversation with my buddy Kyle, who actually prefers live poker to online. I don't hold it against him too much since he's my friend, but I do like sticking a few "lol live poker" barbs in every once in a while ;-)
[22:30] Kyle: so I am curious as to how the live play went [22:30] WiltOnTilt: boring [22:30] Kyle: They don't let you play 5 tables at a time? [22:30] WiltOnTilt: all those donkeys play with their hands face up [22:30] WiltOnTilt: so it's pretty easy [22:30] Kyle: So you won a ton then [22:31] WiltOnTilt: no [22:31] WiltOnTilt: i won 150 or so [22:31] Kyle: LOL welcome to my world [22:31] WiltOnTilt: i was the only one who would bet without the nuts [22:31] WiltOnTilt: ppl are so weak [22:31] WiltOnTilt: they would get crushed in the games i play online [22:31] Kyle: where did you go? [22:31] WiltOnTilt: harrahs [22:32] WiltOnTilt: there was one ultrafish [22:32] WiltOnTilt: the rest were basically some variety of weak/loose or weak/tight [22:32] Kyle: Even I had some good luck beating Harrahs NL [22:32] WiltOnTilt: their hands are never good enough to bet with, but by golly they sure know how to call lol [22:32] Kyle: oh lord yes...they won't bet, but have no problem calling off 100 - 300 at a time, at least was my experience [22:33] WiltOnTilt: yep [22:33] Kyle: unless they nutted you...then it was all in time [22:33] WiltOnTilt: everyone thought i was totally nuts [22:33] WiltOnTilt: i raised 4 out of my first 5 hands [22:33] WiltOnTilt: and the groans were coming [22:33] WiltOnTilt: one guy was like [22:33] WiltOnTilt: "have you been getting hot cards or are you one of those players" [22:33] WiltOnTilt: that was on my 3rd raise [22:33] WiltOnTilt: i'm like [22:34] WiltOnTilt: "well i guess you'll have to wait and see" [22:34] Kyle: i just can't stomach to play there [22:34] WiltOnTilt: haha [22:34] WiltOnTilt: its so profitable but [22:34] WiltOnTilt: jesus [22:34] WiltOnTilt: so boring [22:34] WiltOnTilt: i was definitely splashing around a lot [22:34] WiltOnTilt: but get this [22:34] Kyle: see, I am just an Ameristar guy [22:34] WiltOnTilt: i was there for roughly 5 hours [22:35] WiltOnTilt: in that time, aside from a short stack pushing all in, there was exactly ONE reraise preflop [22:35] WiltOnTilt: ONE [22:35] Kyle: AA? [22:35] WiltOnTilt: the original raiser folded haha [22:35] WiltOnTilt: just shows how awful they are [22:35] WiltOnTilt: its like the two players were $600 deep or so [22:35] WiltOnTilt: one guy opens to $25 [22:35] WiltOnTilt: the other guy makes it $50 [22:35] WiltOnTilt: the first guy folds [22:35] WiltOnTilt: like [22:35] WiltOnTilt: LOL [22:35] WiltOnTilt: obviously, the reraiser has aces, or maybe kings [22:36] WiltOnTilt: why are you folding ANYTHING for $25 more when you're so deep ??? [22:36] Kyle: of course [22:36] WiltOnTilt: ppl just dont understand how NL hold'em works [22:36] Kyle: give them a break...few people obsess as much as you about it...they just don't know [22:36] WiltOnTilt: yea i know [22:36] WiltOnTilt: but its just so funny [22:38] Kyle: You would probably have to say the same stuff about the way I play I am sure [22:38] WiltOnTilt: well if you play that way in NL i might! lol [22:38] Kyle: every poker decision I have to make, I always try to think about what aaron wilt would do [22:38] WiltOnTilt: lol yea right [22:38] WiltOnTilt: but if you did, that would be cool! [22:39] WiltOnTilt: i had one hand i misplayed [22:39] Kyle: don't flatter yourself [22:39] WiltOnTilt: it was like my 7th hand at the table, i had raised 4 or 5 hands previously, had KJs in mid/late position. couple ppl limped in, i thought about raising, but decided to limp [22:40] WiltOnTilt: some clown in a cabella's hat limped after me, i'd seen him before, from what i remembered he was tight/cally, but it had been 8 months or so [22:40] WiltOnTilt: blinds come along [22:40] WiltOnTilt: flop Ah Kh Jd [22:40] WiltOnTilt: prob about $40 in the pot [22:41] WiltOnTilt: so one the blinds lead out for $25 [22:41] WiltOnTilt: gets to me i make it 130 [22:41] WiltOnTilt: guy who limped behind me cold calls [22:41] WiltOnTilt: blind folds [22:41] Kyle: lol [22:41] WiltOnTilt: so turn is 5o [22:42] WiltOnTilt: i decide that its better to control the size of the pot and check, because wtf is he cold calling me with. [22:42] Kyle: QT [22:42] WiltOnTilt: so the pot is like 300, he bets 175 [22:43] WiltOnTilt: ofc i dont think he has any idea of how much is in the pot [22:43] WiltOnTilt: i call [22:43] WiltOnTilt: here i should have folded [22:43] WiltOnTilt: of course [22:43] WiltOnTilt: but i didnt [22:43] WiltOnTilt: so the river is another blank [22:43] WiltOnTilt: i check he bets $250, and finally i'm like, well I guess it's AJ or QT [22:43] WiltOnTilt: so i fold [22:43] WiltOnTilt: he mucks [22:43] Kyle: yeah, it had to be the nuts [22:43] WiltOnTilt: i'm like what'd you have [22:43] WiltOnTilt: he's like [22:43] WiltOnTilt: a set [22:44] Kyle: what? [22:44] WiltOnTilt: i'm like no way, you don't raise JJ KK or AA preflop ? [22:44] WiltOnTilt: i'm like its hard to have JJ or KK because only one combination of each hand out there [22:44] WiltOnTilt: he's like [22:44] WiltOnTilt: "i didnt have a set of jacks or kings" [22:44] WiltOnTilt: then my head explodes [22:44] WiltOnTilt: because it does not compute [22:44] WiltOnTilt: lol [22:44] WiltOnTilt: so i'm like ok nice hand [22:44] WiltOnTilt: so then i was trying to figure out [22:45] WiltOnTilt: ok, we know this guy is dumb -- no question there, so the question is, in what way is he dumb? [22:45] WiltOnTilt: its either a) he's dumb because he overlimped in the CO with AA after 3 limpers [22:45] WiltOnTilt: or its b) he's dumb because he thinks the way he played his hand is consistent with AA and therefore I folded KJ fearing AA [22:45] WiltOnTilt: the jury is still out [22:46] Kyle: that set story is hard to believe [22:46] WiltOnTilt: agree [22:46] WiltOnTilt: i think b) is much more likely [22:46] WiltOnTilt: i dont think he's capable of bluffing something like Q9hh or that missed [22:46] Kyle: Yeah, no way to ever know [22:47] WiltOnTilt: so his final hand at the table, he limped utg with 77, a total donkey on the button raised it up, folds to the guy utg, and he was mulling over what to do [22:47] WiltOnTilt: finally he said "i dont want to call because then my stacks of red wont be even, so i'll just muck" [22:47] WiltOnTilt: loooooooooooooooool [22:48] Kyle: Yeah, I have actually read about that in a book [22:48] WiltOnTilt: oh really ?? [22:48] WiltOnTilt: does caro say something about that ? [22:48] WiltOnTilt: he had like 1200 infront of him (somehow) [22:48] Kyle: Oh yes, one author says to attack a guy who has put his chips in a rack because more than likely he won't want to break the rack if he is leaving, so you can force him out more easily [22:48] WiltOnTilt: so i imagine a good chunk of it is profit [22:48] WiltOnTilt: well they werent in a rack yet [22:48] WiltOnTilt: but [22:48] WiltOnTilt: i think he was ready to go [22:48] WiltOnTilt: so same concept [22:49] Kyle: Yeah, I see that a lot in limit games, of course. a lot of folks would rather fold than break the rack [22:49] WiltOnTilt: haha [22:49] WiltOnTilt: so awesome [22:49] WiltOnTilt: live poker is just .... lol [22:49] WiltOnTilt: theres no better way to describe it [22:49] WiltOnTilt: than [22:49] WiltOnTilt: l [22:49] WiltOnTilt: o [22:49] WiltOnTilt: l [22:49] Kyle: Oh, you are a stuck up SOB, aren't you? [22:49] WiltOnTilt: ahhahahaha [22:49] WiltOnTilt: in this case, yes i am [22:49] WiltOnTilt: i cant help myself [22:50] Kyle: I hope your pride gets you someday [22:50] WiltOnTilt: a day like today is exactly what i needed though [22:50] WiltOnTilt: so i dont care about being prideful [22:50] WiltOnTilt: just something to boost the confidence a bit [22:52] Kyle: well don't let your hubris cause you to get spanked tonight online [22:52] WiltOnTilt: i'll try not to [22:53] Kyle: LOL [22:53] WiltOnTilt: i prob will get spanked online [22:53] WiltOnTilt: since thats been the name of the game for the past week [22:54] WiltOnTilt: alright man i'm going to get in the shower (all smokey from the casino), and then put in a late session online tonight [22:54] WiltOnTilt: so i'll holler at ya later [22:55] Kyle: Uh huh...don't slip in the shower...Karma is a bitch [22:55] WiltOnTilt: sorry i'm such a stuck up SOB when it comes to low stakes live poker [22:55] Kyle: Don't apologize to me man [22:55] WiltOnTilt: after all, i'm going there for entertainment value right ? [22:56] Kyle: sounds like you were entertained [22:56] WiltOnTilt: i was
So I have to admit, I've been dreading the idea of making this latest entry. The end of march was a pretty big disappointment for me. On the final day I had one of the single biggest (if not the biggest?) losing days I've ever had, and April hasn't become any better. I also had to pull some extra money out for taxes, which still aren't done. I hired a CPA that told me I should be able to file as a pro last year, which will help me with deducting a lot of things such as my cardrunners membership, coaching sessions I had with Jay, Internet access, and perhaps some other things too. The bad thing is I'll have to pay self employment tax and all that other BS that goes along with being self employed. We'll see how it goes. Ugh. Stupid taxes.
I meant to post a nice little guide (obv didnt get around to it) for extracting your sessions from pokertracker such that it lumps all your wins/losses for a given day into 1 session. That can be really helpful for those filing as a hobbyist. If you're interested in this, I can help you get it set up. Send me an email... aaron AT plusevpoker DOT com.
So anyway, back to the March recap, it was a double edged sword... on one hand, I was very close to having my first losing month. I made a late month rally only to explode on March 31st for basically a -$14,000 single day loss. Needless to say, it was ridiculously brutal. After looking back through the hands, there was basically one hand that I lost where I shouldn't have lost my entire stack (just part of it) and another where I could have played slightly better, but beyond that if I had to replay all of the big losing hands, I wouldn't have done anything different (well, maybe I would have prayed harder to the poker gods that my 92% chance of winning was enough...).
Here's my final March graph. I think it's been a while since I've done a graph. There are about 18,000 hands not recorded on this graph, played on another site, but I was only up like $2,000 there month...until the last day where it was erased.
So as you can see, a pretty much disaster month where I played a shit ton of hands with very little to show for it. Yea yea I know, How can you complain about making $10,000 in a month?? That's more than I make at my job! Yea, I understand, there aren't any tears being shed for my crappy results, but just understand that when you put 8-14k in play all day everyday at 5/10nl, and you play 60kish hands, and you're good, you should be making way more than $10k profit...
So why have my results been so poor? Well for one I believe I've been receiving way more negative variance these last 120,000 hands or so than I deserve. Like WAY more...Constantly getting these setup hands and coolers such that there's nothing I can do except lose my stack and if the deck isn't cold, then it's me getting it in with the best of it only to be outdrawn. It just really seems like I should be "due" for a huge upswing in the near future...
In truth though, part of my lackluster results have to be attributed to the fact that I'm trying to make a push up in stakes...to 10/20nl. The increased stakes are definitely hard to get used to, and I'm playing noticeably more timid than I would at the 5/10 games. That said, playing an extra cautious style should lead to fewer swings, not more/deeper swings -- as the case has been.
Take today for example, it was another day of poor results, like 3,000 hands and nearly -$10k (um, yea, that great profit from last month doesn't look quite as large anymore does it?). 2 outers here, failed coinflips there, big draws miss, theirs hit... before you know it I'm in the red 5 figures.
The final straw was this hand, which sort of spells out why it can be hard to move up in stakes, especially when my recent results haven't been all that great... Top 2 loses to big draw. By all accounts this is a fairly standard hand. On the flop we're basically 50/50, and on the turn I'm a solid 2:1 favorite but when I push he's getting pot odds to call, so he does and of course he hits. All fairly standard stuff, except for the fact that we're $3000 deep, which in my typical game is 3 buyins (at 10/20 of course, it's only 1.5 buyins for the math-impaired) so it definitely stings a little bit. This hand happened after I was already "stuck" about $7k so it prompted me to just get off all my tables before starting to tilt.
So here's my current month of April:
So yea, in case you're wondering, my previous entry on self control has been haunting me ever since my brutal final day of March, but I guess it was a good reminder to help keep me mostly tiltless.
In other big news, I've got my WSOP schedule pretty much set in stone. I'm planning to be there from June 8th to June 25th, and I'll be playing in some of the NL Hold'em events between those dates. I haven't finalized which ones yet. I still haven't won a seat into the Main Event yet, but I'd like to get that done this month. After the wedding on June 30th, Missy and I will be going back out to Vegas for the Main event which starts on the 6th of July.
April Goals:
Break my February Record of 80,000 hands -- hopefully over 90,000.
Break my January Record of $40,000 profit (fat chance with how awful I'm running, heh)
Win a seat in the WSOP Main Event
Add good 10/20 games into my regular playing schedule
Try and make Supernova on PokerStars (current 36,000 FPPs to go, this will be tough to accomplish)
