Well, clearing my bonus and turning 100$ into 500$ playing .25/.50 was remarkably easy once I set my mind to it. I deposited 100$ on Saturday the 25th and by Monday the 27th I had cleared my bonus and there was just over 500$ in my account. Here's how I did it:

It turns out that the .25/.50 stake on Eurolinx is generally populated by loose-passive players. Early on, I believed the correct strategy for beating Eurolinx was to engage in "nut peddling". Effectively, this entails playing very tight, betting your hands and never bluffing. I quickly realized that at the tables I was playing, my opponents were making all of their decisions based solely on the perceived strength of their own hand. They never considered what I might have (beyond thinking that any preflop raise means AK). They also paid no attention to table image and did not adjust their game to counteract any particular opponent's style or strategy. This lead me to the conclusion that the proper strategy to beat these games was to simply raise and c-bet as often as possible.

In position, I would make it 4 units to go with any two cards. If I got heads up to the flop, I would c-bet 6 units and usually take it down. If I got to the flop with 2 other players, my c-bet would change to 8 units. If I got involved with more than two opponents on the flop, I would not c-bet unless I had a legitimately strong hand. Generally speaking if and when anyone played back at me, I would fold. This worked well and I found myself winning a whole lot of small pots.

The other major attribute about many Eurolinx opponents is that they tend to perceive strong draws as really valuable hands. This fact, seems to have contributed to my past failures on the site. So I spent a lot of time thinking about and experimenting with good counter strategies for this. What I came up with is one of the keys to beating Eurolinx, at least from my perspective. Here are the basic principles:

• I want to encourage my opponent to draw with bad, yet seemingly attractive pot odds when I feel I have them beat.


• Just because I know my opponent is on a draw and misses the turn, it doesn't mean that I can bet him off his hand. In his mind he still has a shot.


• Sometimes my opponent is not on a draw, even though I may believe s/he is.


• Even when an opponents intended draw misses, they may still hit a card and make a pair that beats you.

These principles lead me to the following conclusion:

It is wrong to bluff into a perceived draw on the turn when your opponent has apparently missed.

It feels weird to check behind on the turn when I think my opponent is on a draw and missed. But if I myself have not made any kind of hand, there is no point in betting since my fold equity is generally non-existent at this point. When my opponent misses the river, I will be in a position to make a reasonably sized bet (relative to the pot) without committing too many chips and since there are no more cards coming, my opponent can not call. If my opponent hits his draw on the river I can simply fold and by not betting on the turn, I've saved some money. Also, when I have position, my opponent will generally bet into me if he stumbled onto a pair on the river by accident at which point I can also fold and lose minimum.

Of course, if I have a strong hand and I believe my opponent is drawing, I MUST bet the turn. This builds the pot for me and creates value for when my opponent misses the river (which he will more often than not).

So, armed with this strategy, I made short work of my first objective and I have started playing .50/1.00. After a good session tonight, my account is up to just over 750$.

Labels: Eurolinx, Eurolinx Challenge, Online Poker, Poker Strategy

I played a 50+5 90 man SnG on Stars tonight and here is the hand I went out on in 31st place.

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t100/t200
(Ante: t25)
7 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: t1590
UTG+1: t12250
MP1: t3525
CO: t12848
Button: t6710
SB: t3035
Bill Sparks: t2545

Pre-flop: (7 players) Bill Sparks is BB with
4 folds, Button raises to t600, SB folds, Bill Sparks raises all-in t2520, Button calls t1920 (pot was t3395).

Flop: (t5315, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: t5315)

Turn: (t5315, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: t5315)

River: (t5315, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: t5315)

Results:
Final pot: t5315
Bill Sparks showed
Button showed

I couldn't believe I got called in that spot with A4 suited. I was thrilled that my read was bang on and that I was a favourite to double through and get back in the race to take this puppy down. When the ace hit the flop and I didn't improve, I was so mad I wanted to throw my monitor out the window. My first reaction was to blame the donkey for calling me with ace rag, then I realized I like the call. If people only called my pushes with premium hands, I'd have a hard time doubling up in a tournament when I need to. Then I got mad at the cards for coming out the way they did and causing me to lose. Then I took a moment to appreciate how we are always willing to blame everything and everyone but ourseleves when we fail. Blaming my opponent or the cards really isn't going to help me improve my game and if that's the goal then I need to do some objective analysis, so here goes:

In general I don't like to be all-in preflop with pocket Jacks. Often times that leads to a race situation and I belive anytime your tournament life hinges on a 50/50 proposition you remove the edge that superior skill should provide you in this game. Having said that, given the circumstances, I believe pushing here was the correct play. My "M" was just over 8 so I really had no choice. In other words, I feel that this last play was correct. So, I need to look beyond this play in order find where I might have gone wrong.

Greg Raymer said that a poker tournament is a great example of "The Butterfly Effect" which is a concept that is part of a branch of physics known as Chaos Theory (which actually originated in meteorology for those of you who care). If you're not familiar with the butterfly effect here is how Wikipedia describes it:

... a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system...

The phrase refers to the idea that [the flap of] a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing).

So, where is "the flap" that caused my eventual demise. I searched through my memory and the hand history and I believe this is it:

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Tournament
Blinds: t75/t150
8 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: t3815
UTG+1: t1375
MP1: t4480
MP2: t2675
CO: t2280
Button: t2860
SB: t5315
Bill Sparks: t5200

Pre-flop: (8 players) Bill Sparks is BB with
4 folds, CO raises to t450, 2 folds, Bill Sparks raises all-in t5200, CO calls all-in t1830.
Uncalled bets: t2920 returned to Bill Sparks.

Flop: (t2430, 0 player + 2 all-in - Main pot: t4635)


Turn: (t2430, 0 player + 2 all-in - Main pot: t4635)


River: (t2430, 0 player + 2 all-in - Main pot: t4635)


Results:
Final pot: t4635
CO showed
Bill Sparks showed

At the time when this hand occurred I had a decent amount of chips and there was really no need for me to push. I should have called and then folded when I missed my set on the flop. That would have left me with t4750 which is still a reasonable stack that allows me to play some poker. Instead, I was left with under 3k in chips which lead to my eventual push with JJ.

So, my conclusion is that just because the cards don't go your way on the last hand of a tourney, you may still be responsible for the loss. Learn from your mistakes instead of blaming them on others.

Labels: Hand Histories, Poker Stars, Poker Strategy, Tournaments

Imagine the following scene. A relatively good, well-read poker player, Mr. G sits across the felt from a known calling station, Mr. C. They have played together several times and are both aware of each other's playing style. An hour or two into a session of 1/2 NL Holdem the following hand comes up.

Mr. C is in middle position with about 300$
Mr. G is on the button with 115$
6 players including Mr. G and Mr. C limp into the pot.
The flop comes:
It gets checked around to Mr. G on the button who bets 10$ into the 12$ pot.
Mr. C calls and everyone else folds.
The turn brings a
Mr. C bets 25$ into the 32$ pot.
Mr. G raises 77$ to 102$ and is all-in.
Mr. C calls and shows:
Mr. G shows

I think most of us can agree that both of these players played the hand like world-class donkeys. Why on earth would anyone limp on the button with Q2? And how the hell can A7 call that raise on the turn? But who's the bigger donkey?

After giving this some thought, I believe the most agriegous error is not in any one particular play. The mistake here is at the "macro level" not at the "micro level"*. At the macro level it should be understood that making big bluffs against a calling station is a losing proposition. Therefore Mr. G is far and away the bigger donkey in this scenario.

Sadly, I too often find myself being a Mr. G. So, I've come up with a slightly unorthodox way of attempting to curb this behaviour. I've started playing $0.02/0.05$ NL holdem online. That's right boys and girls, you can now find me on the 2 cent/5 cent circuit on PokerStars and/or PartyPoker.

These games are filled with passive-ass calling stations. They will call you down with ANYTHING. So, by playing these games seriously (which belive me was hard to do at first) you are forced to take big bluffs out of your game completely. Even if you are certain your opponent has nothing more than bottom pair, you can be equally certain that he WILL call you down.

So, what are the secrets for crushing the 2 cent/5 cent game?

• Play your position
• Value bet your hands
• Only draw when you have the correct odds (direct or implied)
• Don't pay off players who draw out against you
• Never make any big bluffs

Interestingly enough, I believe this exact strategy can and should be applied to most of the players I meet across the felt in our local 1$/2$ game. I have enough experience to know which players can lay down a hand and which players can not and there is no excuse for letting my pride in the knowledge that they are weak allow me to play badly by bluffing at these idiots. Because at the end of the day I am the idiot.

* for more on macro vs. micro see this article.

Labels: Poker Strategy

Thank goodness I use Poker Tracker so that I can be reminded just how much money playing on tilt really costs me. Here is an example which I am posting publicly as a further reminder to stop hemmorhaging money like a fuckin' idiot!

The hand that causes the tilt:

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $34
UTG+1: $274
Bill Sparks: $46.40
Button: $241.15
SB: $52.30
BB: $151.85

Pre-flop: (6 players) Bill Sparks is CO with
2 folds, Bill Sparks raises to $6, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: ($18, 3 players)
SB bets $10, BB folds, Bill Sparks raises all-in $40.4, SB calls.

Turn: ($98.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $98.8)


River: ($98.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $98.8)


Results:
Final pot: $98.8
SB showed
Bill Sparks mucks

And a few minutes later the result of playing on tilt:

Poker Stars
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $212.45
UTG+1: $82.80
CO: $56.45
Button: $331.90
Bill Sparks: $108.40
BB: $202.90

Pre-flop: (6 players) Bill Sparks is SB with
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, CO folds, Button raises to $8, Bill Sparks calls, BB folds, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: ($26, 3 players)
Bill Sparks checks, UTG+1 checks, Button bets $19, Bill Sparks raises all-in $100.4, UTG+1 olds, Button calls.

Turn: ($226.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $226.8)

River: ($226.8, 1 player + 1 all-in - Main pot: $226.8)

Results:
Final pot: $226.8
Bill Sparks showed
Button showed

Labels: Poker Strategy