I haven’t felt like playing cash poker for a while now, which is why I haven’t been posting much.

But this morning, after reading a post by SteveDaRake on EMS, I thought it would be fun to learn how to play shortstack poker.

It was Ratattack who pointed me at Pokerstrategy.com as somewhere to learn the basics. So I had a look, did the quiz and settled down to 4-tabling on PokerStars.

The basic idea is simple: It is very difficult, maybe even impossible, for a big stack to simultaneously play correctly against shortstacks and other big stacks.  So, the shortstack at a table full of big stacks can have an advantage, because it makes sense for the big stacks to play the other big stacks and try to ignore the shortie.

The recommended style is to play very very tight ABC TAG poker.

So tight that you get to play about 4% of hands, which is why I had to multi-table so as not to tilt. In fact the style is very easy to multi-table because it is pretty much a one-street game.

I chose $50NL at PokerStars for this, buying in for $10, topping up if I dropped below $8 and leaving if I got above $13. This is what happened:

So as far as I can tell it’s a breakeven way of playing.

Frankly that’s a whole lot more profitable than my usual short-handed full-stack strategy, but I think I would go mad if I had to play this tight all the time.

I stuck faithfully to the recommended strategy throughout, even though I’m pretty sure I could have adjusted it to make it more profitable on the Stars tables. Still, I’m surprised at how well it worked, even against some reasonably savvy players who often wouldn’t pay me off in full.

The PokerStrategy site reckons this is a good style for beginners. I have to agree up to a point. The downside is, it isn’t really poker. Still, I’m glad I tried it; it will hep me against shortstackers who come to my cash table when I’m playing a more grown-up game!

Yesterday I was reading Bas’s write-up of a recent live tournament on EMS.

The article made me realise yet another similarity between my two favourite card games, bridge and poker. That is, the key difference between ordinary players and really good ones (such as Bas) is the clarity and simplicity of their thought processes. It is given away by comments like

I fake dwell and show my jacks, I was always folding, cos I know his range there is QQ-AA, if he had AK he’d have raised bigger.

Like all good players, Bas is constantly refining his estimate of the range of hands his opponent is playing as the hand progresses. Simultaneously he will be refining his estimate of what the opponent thinks HE has. This is the foundation for all good poker play, because without it there is no way of judging your equity in the hand.

Personally I too often make the mistake of playing on autopilot and only stopping late on in the hand to try and replay in my head exactly what has happened and what it means. Too often this means I either run out of time or just give up with an expensive “sod it, I call”. But by doing it as a matter of routine as the hand progresses the decisions become so much easier.

I have the same problem at bridge. Sometimes I get late on in a hand and have to reconstruct the hand by trying to remember what cards each of the opponents have played and then deduce what they have left. Often getting it wrong, because it’s quite difficult to do. But when I used to play bridge a lot I found on good days I could keep track as a hand progressed. Then when it got to trick 10 I would know without conscious thought that the last three cards of the man on my left were (say) two small diamonds and the king of Spades.

The fascinating thing, though, is how easy both games become when you use the right thought processes. And how hard when you use bad ones!

Walking to the office this morning, I took one of my favourite slight detours: the Thames Path between London Bridge and Tower Millennium Pier. I like to look at the tide and count the cormorants.

But this morning, I was forced to take a detour: they have removed a small flight of steps on the Path and are in process of putting in a ramp instead.

Actually, they have been at it for a couple of months now, which has given me plenty of time to ponder its significance.

Ramps have been springing up all over the place for some years now. It’s not just London, but everywhere you go in Britain they are putting the things in and making routes more circuitous for everyone with two working legs.

I’m sure you all agree with me that the stated motive for this - accessibility for the less mobile - is a worthy aim. But it occurred to me recently…

WHAT IF IT’S ALL A COVER-UP?

What if Davros is controlling the minds of staff in the Mayor’s Office? What if, right now, there is a Dalek ship in orbit around the moon, waiting for the right moment to land and annihiliate all humans?

I know that Daleks have levitational powers nowadays, but it surely must burn a whole lot of energy to keep a Dalek aloft. Even Daleks must be subject to the second law of thermodynamics, so the ubiquitous ramps will make their victory simple and certain.

Ever since this occurred to me I’ve been carrying a packet of blu-tak in my pocket just in case I need it to blind a Dalek invader or two.

I suggest you do the same. Watch the skies, people, watch the skies!!!

p.s. normal poker commentary will resume soon once the work-life balance is reinstated. In the meantime I have no time available to play so my reader will just have to wait a little longer.

I’m off for a few days late summer sunshine with my regular reader, funded by my internet poker winnings. As a result there will (probably) be no new blog updates until next weekend.

It will be strange to be away from poker; it’s many months since I’ve not played a game for three consecutive days! Still, I expect to come back refreshed and ready to recommence the cash tables grind.

I’ll see how I feel, but right now I’m thinking I need a new approach whereby instead of hunting for increasingly scarce fish I should be chasing the weaker regulars.

This is the approach taken by online player Boywonder and documented eloquently in this thread on the 2+2 forum. Worth a read I think, the methodical and zen-like approach has worked really well for this guy. He plays a couple of levels higher than I do, where the fish stocks are quite likely even more depleted, but it’s only a matter of time before microstakes is just as bad. It’s entirely logical, too - if there are no fish to feed on you have to become a bigger shark that feeds off the weaker sharks.

I’m not sure what the endgame looks like; does it play out with end with just a small number of very big sharks who instantly eat up any new players that dip a toe into the world of online poker? Or is there a more optimistic ending? Maybe I’ll think about this while I’m away from the tables. Or maybe I won’t!

Missing you already!!

I read an article the other day about dealing with loose aggressive opponents. Basically the advice was to make your decision early, pre-flop or at the latest flop, then grit your teeth and go with it.

I’m glad I remembered that when this hand came up today (a change of site and I have to type out the hand history):

NLHE Cash, $0.25/$0.50
Hero $103.65
MP $52.28
CO $50.00
Button $82.66
Villain $63.14
BB $48.00
Villain posts small blind $0.25
BB posts big blind  $0.50

This table has two sides: BB, Hero and MP have been fairly tight while CO, button and Villain have been getting busy with many more hands.

Villain has been playing a variety of hands, usually calling raises and getting tricky post-flop. It’s been working pretty well for him over the last half an hour.

The stage is set…

Hero is dealt K♠K♣

Crumble raises to $1.50
MP folds
CO folds
Button folds
Villain raises to $2.50
BB folds
Hero raises to $8.50
Villain raises to $14.50

Blimey. Two minraises? What’s this guy up to? He’s been loose and tricky but he hasn’t played a hand this way before. Could he actually have a decent hand this time? Maybe I should stop raising…

Crumble calls $6.00
Dealing flop: 5♦4♠3♠
Villain bets $48.64 and is all in

Well it sure looks like a monster from here. He pretty much knows I have QQ or KK. Can I call? What can I beat?

Frankly I have no idea what he has, it just looks like he has it. But I’m not good enough to fold here…

Hero calls $48.64
Dealing turn: 6♣
Dealing river: 9♦
Hero shows K♠K♣
Villain shows A♥J♠

Say what???

Hero wins pot $122.78

Mustn’t grumble I suppose, but I do hate being forced to make wild guesses by the lagtards. Can’t we play poker instead of this wild gambling?

What a great medal haul for GB in the Olympics! Maybe the cycle is turning again at last.

When I was at school we were taught the importance of competition, of trying as hard as you can to win within the rules. This rubbed off on me even though I am rubbish at sports - the Baglady tells me I am a bad loser and a worse winner.

But by the time my kids went to school, the playing fields had mostly gone and instead of sports days the schools held “afternoons of non-competitive activities”. I don’t believe it is coincidence that GB’s performance in sport has, overall, been pretty rubbish for a generation.

A striking image of the Olympics this year, for me, was of four British rowing ladies after the final, in tears, having only won the silver medal again. This shows us all how much winning really meant to them.

Roll on 2012, it’s going to be fantastic!

These musings were brought on by my winning the EMS league game last night. I could be wrong, but I think this is actually my first league win ever. I’ll be on a high now until next week, especially since I’ll be top of the table until next Sunday!

Anyway, here’s the screenie for posterity…

It’s not really about the money, is it. Winning is everything.

Here’s a plug for the financial journalist Bill Bonner, one of my favourite bloggers.

Bill is also one of the gloomiest economic commentators you will ever read.

Here he is writing this month about the forthcoming US Depression:

One of the surest ways to make money in the last 10 years was to buy a house. The baby-boomers, especially, saw home ownership as equivalent to saving for retirement. Houses always went up in price; everyone knew that. If you had enough houses you didn’t need any money in the bank. A popular retirement planning technique was to buy a second house at the beach in your 40s or 50s. And then, when you were ready to retire, you could sell the main house.

But this is where the Next Big Trend comes in. The baby boomers are suddenly realizing that houses are not the same as savings. And they’re suddenly facing up to the idea of financing their retirements in a world of declining house prices…and rising costs.

What will they do? First, they will be forced to go back to saving. They won’t like it. But they will have no choice. They need money for their retirements. And the only way they can get it is by reducing their spending and saving more.

The US economy of the last 20 years was built on excess consumer spending. Savings rates went from around 9% of GDP down to zero. Now, if they go in the opposite direction – and they must, in our opinion – the drop in consumer spending will cause the worst recession since the ‘30s. We’re not just saying that to be provocative. We can add two and two. Subtract 9% from an economy that is growing at, maybe, 2%. Do that over a period of 10 years (the boomers don’t have to save just one year…they have to save every year). Of course, it isn’t quite that simple. When money is saved it doesn’t disappear. Some of it is re-invested in the real economy, leading to more jobs…more output…and growth. But it takes time to convert a consumer economy into a more balanced economy. And it takes time to pay off debts…and write-off mistakes. In the meantime, you have an economy walking backwards for a long time.

As I say, gloomy. But always readable, always provocative.

I just hope he’s wrong. What happens in the US happens here later.

You can read his essays here.

I thought I’d invest some of my Reefer Poker freeroll winnings to try out the $50 NL cash tables on the Merge Network (where Reefer is).

The first few sessions I played my normal break-even game like on Virgin. Then one Sunday morning I was up early - couldn’t sleep - and logged in to have a look. And there it was, a sight for tired eyes: Americans going to bed late and leaving money on the table.

I’ve since been back a few times first thing on Saturday & Sunday mornings and it’s been much the same. Maybe it’s partly because PokerTracker doesn’t support the Merge network, but the play there is definitely sloppy at that time of day.

See if you can spot the point at which I made this discovery from the home-made graph below:

I really could do with discovering the right time of day to play on Virgin Poker so that I can get my 2008 Challenge back on track. But in the meantime I’ll be back to Reefer any time I’m up early!

Remember that Caribbean Cruise I won at a Reefer Poker tournament back in July?
A couple of weeks ago I reported that they had finally got in touch with me.

However, time continues to pass and they seem no nearer to coming good on their promise.

I did get this “update” from them last Sunday:

I will be contacting our cruise representative tomorrow to start ironing out the details of your prize, and will be in touch with you as soon as I hear from him. Just wanted to touch base and give you an update.

But nothing since then.

Maybe the cruise representative is off on his hols (on a cruise, maybe)?

I’ve asked them if there’s a cash alternative since the advertised prize is obviously too much trouble for them to sort out!

It looks like the freeroll I won for the PokerFreeRollWorld guys is going the same way, i.e. on a cruise to nowhere.

Not impressed. Still, we’ll see what happens.

[edit: the freeroll was being set up while I was posting this, and it’s now on for 29th August. So maybe there’s hope yet!]

This is a hand I played on Saturday afternoon while watching the Ladies Open Golf.

It features a very loose, aggressive villain of a type I struggle to play well against. I posted the hand on EMS for discussion but thought this was a good place to consolidate my thoughts and their comments.

As BlackShuck pointed out, with stats of 67/24/3, Villain isn’t really a Lagtard - more an aggressive fish - but I just love the word. Lagtard. As for me, I was my usual 24/14/4 or thereabouts.

The first decision was whether to play a bad hand out of position against this villain…

BossMedia Game #1182680801: Table Table TH 21 - $0.25/$0.50 - No Limit Hold’em
Seat 1: Button ($14.45)
Seat 2: Crumble ($93.46)
Seat 3: BB ($49.96)
Seat 5: Villain ($57.65)
Crumble posts the small blind of $0.25
BB posts the big blind of $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Crumble K♥J♠
Villain raises $1.50
Button folds
Crumble calls $1.50
BB folds

Well yes, I could have folded as Niggy suggested on EMS. But we are 4-handed and this guy plays a lot of stuff in position. I suppose I could have raised as Benji suggests, but I don’t really want to build a big pot with this junk. That leaves the call.

*** FLOP *** 4♥K♣6♦
Crumble checks
Villain bets $3.00
Crumble raises $9.00
Villain calls $9.00

Well I was hoping to take it down now, but no such luck. I don’t know what to make of his call, after all I’ve shown a strong hand here.

BlackShuck, Benji and Fluence all prefer a flat call to the raise. My thought at the time was that I’m ahead and it’s potentially quite a draw-y board for this guy so I’m happy to represent a monster and take it down here and now, but in retrospect they are probably right.

*** TURN *** 5♥
Crumble bets $12.00
Villain raises $24.00
Crumble calls $24.00

I really really hate that minraise. Villain seems to believe he has the best hand here. I could even be drawing dead. The only reason to call is to protect against villain being so bad he has a hand worse than mine that he thinks is best.

In retrospect I think my call was bad: I should either push all-in or fold as suggested by Zitty. Chairman wants to fold; against a normal player I’d strongly consider it but not against this donk.

*** RIVER *** 2♥
Crumble checks
Villain goes all-in with $23.15

Heck. Can I fold? Like heck I can. The consensus is that I’ve put too much money in and because I’m getting at least four to one I have to call even though I’m not sure what big hand he’s representing. A set of 5s maybe?

Crumble calls $23.15
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $112.80 | Rake $3.00
Board: 4♥K♣6♦5♥2♥
Crumble won ($112.80), showed K♥J♠
Villain won ($0.00), showed A♠4♦

Hmm. So that’s what he’d hit: bottom pair with top kicker. Nice outcome for me. Sometimes you can play bad but take it down from someone who plays even worse. But I’m going to have to start playing better, I lost control of this hand and ended up guessing. I’m not sure my nerves can take it!