Recovery Plan

Monday, September 24, 2007

This is likely to be a fairly lengthy update so you might want to look out a cup of tea and a biscuit or perhaps a beer or scotch depending on your persuasion.

To start I'll briefly recap on where I'm at up until this point. Having started to play for a living at the beginning of August this year I've turned around 40,000 hands at NL$200 and have lost circa $2500 with the big drop coming right at the end. I'd been yo-yoing between -$500 and +$500 for the bulk of those hands, unable to string two good days together. I would certainly not claim to have played my a-game the whole of that time - 40k hands was definitely my biggest test in terms of running even or bad and it got me tilted at points. However, I also knew that I was getting a raw deal from variance with many showdowns being lost when I was a big favourite and also a lot of horrible cooler situations that usually occurred in the massive pots (150bb+ effective stacks). The last post on the blog was written at the end of the final drop and a week has passed since then.

At this point I'd like to take the opportunity to thank JJ for his post in comments that directed me to a 2+2 thread about a program called PokerEV. PokerEV was the first step to recovery as it allowed me to confirm that I wasn't totally imagining things and had been running very bad. The program can filter your pokertracker database to identify a lot potential problems within your game and is probably the most useful analysis tool I've come across to date - the filters are far more useful than those in pokertracker itself. Over and above the filters it has a tab called 'Luck Graph' which basically assesses your performance at showdown when either or both players are all in. Since at least one player is all in the pot, and therefore the maths, become locked and a simple calculation of expectation can be undertaken. If you were anal enough you could undertake this manually every time you were involved in an all in pot. The program plotted my expectation line which was rising nicely save for a downward kick at the end (tilt+coolers). This demonstrated that, in general, when I put my money in and go to showdown I have a nice positive expectation - a good start. However, the results line was markedly different and tracked considerably below the expectation line with a difference of $2221 by the end. I can take some comfort from the fact that I'm $2221 down on my expectation in these showdown pots. Factor in some tilt (that shouldn't have happened) and considerable misfortune in non-AI showdown pots and it's likely I'm still a winning player in the region of 1.5-2.5ptbb/100.

A win rate of 2ptbb/100 would actually be enough for me to make a comfortable living at NL$200 given that I play 4-6 tables at a time. However, I felt it was time to start to identify why I'm not achieving the 5-8ptbb/100 you might expect of more solid winning players. To do that my brother (Malcy) and I dedicated last week to studying poker and particularly a number of Card Runners videos I had downloaded. Malcy stayed with us for a few days and our methodology was to watch each video pausing at any point of action to decide upon what we believed would be the correct move and, where applicable, what would be the correct bet/raise amount. We were both amazed at how in nearly every single case the video author took the exact line we agreed on and usually bet with 5-10% of what we predicted. In fact, the only two lines that were totally disagreed with were where the author went on to get stacked when he was clearly beat on the flop. It was certainly a mistake on the author's part as opposed to us not understanding the play and I put it down to them over crediting NL$200 players for playing in a logical manner (the authors also criticised their play in retrospect).

As we watched the videos we'd note down anything the author did different from ourselves - no matter how small - and at the end would summarize the key difference between their game and our own. The videos were the biggest boost of confidence I've ever had to my poker game in that they confirmed that my core game is 99% a solid game. I think a lot of the reason for my lack of success is that I didn't actually know that - I assumed that these 5+ptbb/100 players were regularly making big bluffs to win without a showdown or crazy reads that 2nd pair no kicker was good in a massive pot or otherwise somehow sniffing out a set on the flop even though all villain has done is c-bet as normal. This simply was not the case, these guys bluffed less, made hero calls less and folded more. Their play was actually how I instinctually want to play at the tables but the reason I haven't been is because I just couldn't see how that could be right as I had this underlying belief that these strong winning players were making near super-human plays nearly all of the time. In fact, their play was really straightforward most of the time with only the occasional flash of brilliance in the form of a specific 'read' on a situation (reads that both Malcy and I, as experience poker players, also picked up on).

We did pick up some small differences that we can incorporate into our own games however. In all cases each author was more willing to value bet then we were and also more disciplined in their folding. These are two adaptations I believe I can quickly get to grips with and, I believe, are both crucial mistakes I've been making. An example of these mistakes would be:

I raise K10 preflop and against one caller (BB) take a flop of K,10,7 with two to a flush. He checks, I bet 2/3rd pot and he calls. The turn is a blank and the action is the same (check, bet, call). At this point I'd put villain on a draw, Kx, possibly JJ and maybe a conservatively played 107. Now the river comes a 6 and completes the flush draw. Villain checks and, for the sake of argument we'll say the pot is $120.

Notwithstanding villains check I'd usually check behind here fearing that I was facing the 89 straight or the flush and also believing that I'd never get paid much if villain doesn't have those cards since he'd equally fear them. On those times that I did have the balls to value bet I'd probably have fired in the region of $70 at the pot.

I believe checking this river and betting $70 are both wrong. Firstly, by checking to me villain has confirmed that his hand is usually behind mine or he's trying to check-raise in which case he'll nearly always (if not always) have K10 beat. If he has the QJ draw then there is no value to be hand and similarly he's unlikely to call any size of bet with 10x. However, there is value to be had from 107, JJ (the less likely QQ) and Kx, but these hands are unlikely to pay out much. This is the mistake in betting $70 as really only AK+ or KQ could consider calling that. I believe the correct bet here would be in the region of $30-40 as it is likely to be called by all those hands that have showdown value against me but trail my top-two pair. If I had a specific read that villain holds 107 then I could push for more but I'm unlikely to have such clear resolution of villains hand so a value bet in the range specified is likely to be successful.

Now we reach my second mistake: let's assume I bet $35 for value and villain makes it $100 to go. The pot now stands at $255 and its $75 for me to call so I'm getting just about 3.5-to-1 on my money with top two pair. I've seen myself cry and call here at that sort of price in the past but in these circumstances I believe it's a fairly easy fold as it's very unlikely villain check-raised to that price with less than K10.

That is an example of perhaps the key difference we noticed between our game and the Card Runners guys. They were far more willing to value bet light on the river with a 'pitch' it mentality if raised. It really showed me that if there was any value to be had in a hand you really must strive to get it but must also be disciplined to fold when you are clearly beat even at a price that begs a call.

Another difference we observed was a willingness to make small 'feeler' or 'information' bets/raises. This is something I used to have in my game but had beaten out by reading 2+2 where it seems that you can only ever bet for value or bluff. This is something I've thought of a lot as often it goes against Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker (FTOP). I'll use a practical example:

The game is NL$100 and we raise to $4 preflop on the BTN with Ah8d finding a caller in the SB.

The flop comes K,8,2 rainbow, the pot is $9 and villain bets $5 into us. A donkbet like that can be many things but with 2nd pair here we can't just auto-fold on account of there being an over-card or else we become too exploitable. The problem is that according to the FTOP we want to fold if villain has TP or better or 99+ and call/raise if he has 8x or lower or a bluff. We certainly don't want to drive out Q8 if we can get value from it or AJ, QJ, 55, etc if we think villain will continue to bluff with it. However, the FTOP is about our actions if the hands were played face up and that isn't the case - we work with very limited information.

Let's consider that we call the $5 bet and the turn bricks us and villains range. What if he bets again? It is entirely plausible he'd continue a bluff since we've not shown considerable strength ourselves and it's also the case he'd continue to value bet good hands. At what point and what price do we finally drop out and give up our 2nd pair?

I believe there is merit in making a feeler raise on this flop to perhaps $18-20 to avoid this difficult situation. Yes it is true we'll sometimes push off 8x or 2x or a pure bluff but it is also the case we'll often get 99-QQ to fold and possibly even weak-kicker kings. If called or raised we can shut down entirely clear in the knowledge that our hand is nearly always beat. With so much uncertainty in cards I favour this line to outright folding (although that will be correct against some opponents) or trying to call down. However, if you think about it the small raise line will nearly always conflict with the FTOP as we'll usually be putting our money in with the worse hand or forcing hands with at best 6 outs to fold when otherwise they might have bet or called bets. I'm of the opinion that the FTOP is just that, theory. In the real world poker isn't so cut and dry and a small raise that will work as a bluff a reasonable proportion of the time and, at the very least, always accurately define the strength of your hand is no bad play here. It is also a play I observed being made a few times in the videos.

Other things we noted from the videos was subtle game tweaks relating to managing the pot size and also image control with the later being something I've been guilty of not paying enough attention to. I think all in all the study session will improve my game but perhaps more than anything it'll improve my confidence that my first instincts in poker are usually correct. My only closing comment on the videos is that they were at least a year old and the general play at the tables was quite different to the play today. There was not anywhere near the level of 3-betting preflop that exists in NL$200 games today and it may be the case that I'll have to download more recent videos to see how the Card Runners guys are adapting to these more aggressive pre-flop games.

My recovery plan is therefore to get playing again but also to drop down to NL$100 until I start to make some forward progress. I also plan to move my core playing hours from mid-afternoon (UK time) to 630am (UK time) in order to get the bulk of my poker over and done with by lunchtime, and to hopefully catch American players that are tired or drunk playing late at night.

Finally, I'd just like to say thanks for the support and encouragement I've had - hopefully I'll be able to improve as a player and start to make more positive and enlightening posts for you.

To read more or to leave comments click [Splats Poker Blog]