Tuesday 28 August 2007

Winning is the nuts

So I am enjoying poker at the moment, probably for two reasons. First, I haven't been playing all that much, and second, I'm winning what I do play. This is not a proud boast, because I've been playing very small games, just for fun.

In mid-July, I had the flu, and took a break from poker for a couple of weeks. Since then, I have been beating the $5 SNGs very nicely but have only been playing on average a couple a day. I'm confident that my stats are converging on my true win rate now. Opinions differ on how many games are enough. Some think you need to play thousands to be sure; but I read something in 2+2 magazine that suggested that, if your win rate is high enough, a few hundred games are enough. I have records for about 420 games, and I'm beating them pretty well. My plan remains to play a thousand and move up if I'm still beating them.

But at the moment, for fun I'm playing the turbo $1.50 HORSE SNGs on Stars. I've started crushing them, which is a sure sign my poker has improved, because, say six months ago, I was better than average but not running anything like as well as I am now. I'm probably running a bit hot, winning those close calls that so often crop up in turbo SNGs, but I feel I'm playing them well.

My opponents make lots of mistakes, the most painful being that they play far too many hands and then chase what are fundamentally bad draws. The way they play razz is simply hilarious. You are on fifth street, showing three babies, and they call your bet with paired kings and a baby. Now sometimes they are going to make their runner-runner low, but these guys will be drawing to an 8! Occasionally, they beat you because your much better draw doesn't come in and you can't beat an 8, but that's rare enough that they are not ever going to be winners at razz.

It's one of my better games at this level, simply because I'll play reasonably soundly and they won't. I realise, of course, that most players at the bottom do not know how to play razz, and don't care. If they mostly folded, that would probably be okay. Playing tight, in any form of poker, is usually going to be correct (at the earlier levels; some make the corresponding mistake of playing too tightly when very shorthanded).

I have an even bigger edge in holdem, and if we happen to be on holdem when fivehanded with high blinds, I like my chances. This is simply because I am good enough to beat microlimit holdem, and most of my opponents only play NL and have no idea how to adjust.

Omaha8 is tougher, because it is better for the fish, but playing for low is enough to see you through. It's difficult to play at this level because other players will have all sorts of hands, and you can't count too much out, so not having the nuts can kill you. For instance, I played a hand today in the BB, where I held 55xx. The flop came 995, giving me a full house. I'm almost certainly ahead on the flop, of course (because only 95xx and 99xx beat me, and they're pretty unlikely to be out), so I bet and get called in three places. Given that there's no low draw on the board, you just know that at least a couple of those guys have pairs and are drawing to their two outers. So, naturally, a guy turns his 7 and makes a bigger full house. Unfortunately, the 7 also made a flush, and some idiot bet that, so it cost me three bets to show down. I could and probably should have folded, but it was just about possible on that board that I'm against a low draw, a 9 and a flush, these players are so bad.

The stud games I'm improving at. Hi/lo is easier because players will so obviously be drawing for half the pot that you can often get half uncontested. I'm not very sound in stud, but I can hold my own. I've learned a few concepts recently that have helped (obvious things like this: before now, I might have folded mid pairs for a raise; now I will sometimes call if they are live because playing too tight is a mistake in stud -- same with draws: I'll call sometimes so long as my draw is very live and has other possibilities).

I've also had three goes at triple draw. And frankly, I rock. I've won two out of three. I read the Negreanu chapter in SuperSystem 2, and although his advice is for slower tournaments, what I remember of it works pretty well in an SNG. In tougher games, I'd need to pay more attention to pot odds and play more accurately, but at this level, there's no need at all. This is why. Threehanded, some guy limps and I raise with 732xx. I change two and he changes four. I am not kidding. I pick up a 4. I bet, he calls. I change one and miss. He changes three. I bet, he raises, I threebet the monster draw, he calls. I change one, and pick up the 5 to make the nuts. He stands pat. I bet, he calls and shows a 9-8-7. Well, maybe I'm bluffing on the end, and he has to call, but his play just sucks throughout. This is one of the better opponents. Others draw two to 9s, call raises and then show down hands that do not feature 2s or even 3s, refuse to call on the end when the pot is huge or call with pairs or very high lows in smallish pots. One gave me a lecture for folding for one more on the end. To be fair, the pot was reasonably big, but I had made a straight. The chances that the other guy had a hand I could beat were tiny. I said, I had a straight. He said, you are a idiot. I said, well, one of us is. Maybe he thought a straight was a winning hand.

1 comment:

DMW said...

Neat. These HORSE sngs can be fun since many players at the lowest buy-ins (myself included) don't have clue what to do during O-S-E.

I actually have a miniscule win which would vanish if I ever moved up. Good luck mastering all of the games.