Breaking my duck
(Readers who find the headline more than usually obscure will find an explanation at the end of the post.)
It was an odd weekend. Some sort of bizarre connectivity problem with my ISP meant that, while I was able to play online poker, I did not have access to the international web. So, no blogging, nor reading of blogs. I was dreading the accumulation on my bloglines this morning, but it turned out not to be as bad as I'd feared, I guess the American set were too overstuffed with turkey to have the mental energy to blog. More charitably, perhaps they were spending time with family. Anyhow ...
I've written before about my frustration with the $4.40/180 seat SNG's on PokerStars. I'd found the level of play there to be truly abysmal, but this didn't seem to be of any actual practical significance, since I didn't seem to be able to cash either. I almost decided to give them up entirely, but with the new tournament schedule having many fewer micro buy in MTT's, and with my lack of web connection ruling out the normally highly profitable single table SNG's, I put my name down for one again.
You claim to have spotted a non sequitur there? What does my lack of web connection have to do with not playing single table SNG's? I thought you'd never ask. I don't like to multitable when I'm playing a non-turbo SNG. On the other hand, I need some distraction, and my habit (which I now realise has become a prerequisite) is to listen to Internet radio, usually "listen again" broadcasts from BBC Radio 4, 5, or 7. By the way, if you have any interest in UK sport, and any sense of humour whatsoever, Fighting Talk is not to be missed. Ergo, lack of web connection means no single table sit and go's.
Well, the result was ... not so bad.
I had a feeling that it might be my day, when on the very first hand, I limped from MP with J♣8♣ (non standard for me later, but partly for image building reasons early), amazingly playing the hand only against the blinds. The flop of A♣Q♣9♣ was a thing of beauty, and when the SB completed his two pair with a 3♦ turn, I came out of the hand up 500 chips. If I'd known he had two pair, I would have bet more -- as it was I raised his river bet of 100 to only 300, which he called.
Then, in the same position in the second orbit, I picked up J♠8♠. Now, whether you believe in such things or not, it can't possibly be a good idea to spit an omen in the face, so I limped again, this time over two limpers in front, and again the blinds came along. Now the flop came 7♦9♥T♦. A limper in front of me bet 240, I raised to 600, and both blinds went all in. The limper dropped out, and I called expecting to see a set and a diamond draw, or perhaps pair plus open ended straight draw, but in fact found two diamond draws, A♦8♦ and Q♦T♦. No more diamonds or jacks arrived and I had essentially tripled up. I just checked this on PokerStove and am amazed that my equity was actually as high as 62% on the flop.
At the 50/100 level I think I played an AA hand too fast. UTG went all in for 500, which the cutoff(4500) called. I(4500) was on the button and pushed, losing the cutoff. It's a hand with some similarities to the one of Iakaris's that I discussed in "could do better". In retrospect I think that a smooth call, or min raise was in order, probably the latter for, while I'm happy to have the cutoff tag along, I don't really want the blinds to get the idea of making a relatively cheap call into a biggish pot.
All was not beer and skittles though, as I found myself short stacked twice in the "middle game" (from five tables, down to the paying two tables). In each case I wound up sucking out when my all in was called by a dominating hand. I didn't feel too badly about it, both because that kind of thing just has to happen, and also because the reason that I found myself short stacked in each case was due to similar hands going the other way. When the money bubble burst I was about 15th of 18 remaining. From there I had a pretty nice run of cards, flops hitting not so great cards, and (he modestly added) I think I outplayed my opponents.
The tournament ended after only a few hands of heads up play (three handed went on for ages). Blinds were at 2K/4K, and I was very slightly ahead in chips. In the BB I was dealt A♥K♠. My opponent min raised, and I simply called. The flop came A♠7♠4♠. I checked and my opponent bet the 16K pot. I read this as an ace, so unless he had two pair, I was ahead, and had the flush draw to fall back on. So I called. Turn was 3♣, I checked, and my opponent bet 40K. At this point I went all in, and he called with A6. No disaster on the river, and my duck was well and truly broken.
Breaking ones duck In cricket, if a batsman is out without having scored any runs he is said to have "made a duck" (or "scored a duck"), which is actually a contraction of "duck's egg" -- and hence if he gets out on the very first ball it's called a "golden duck". This is a rather embarrassing thing to have happen to a recognised batsman, as a decent batsman will average at least 30 runs per innings. Anyhow, as a result, when a batsman first scores any runs he is said to have "broken his duck". By extension, the expression now refers to obtaining some positive return for the first time from an endeavour, particularly if preceded by a period of frustration.
It was an odd weekend. Some sort of bizarre connectivity problem with my ISP meant that, while I was able to play online poker, I did not have access to the international web. So, no blogging, nor reading of blogs. I was dreading the accumulation on my bloglines this morning, but it turned out not to be as bad as I'd feared, I guess the American set were too overstuffed with turkey to have the mental energy to blog. More charitably, perhaps they were spending time with family. Anyhow ...
I've written before about my frustration with the $4.40/180 seat SNG's on PokerStars. I'd found the level of play there to be truly abysmal, but this didn't seem to be of any actual practical significance, since I didn't seem to be able to cash either. I almost decided to give them up entirely, but with the new tournament schedule having many fewer micro buy in MTT's, and with my lack of web connection ruling out the normally highly profitable single table SNG's, I put my name down for one again.
You claim to have spotted a non sequitur there? What does my lack of web connection have to do with not playing single table SNG's? I thought you'd never ask. I don't like to multitable when I'm playing a non-turbo SNG. On the other hand, I need some distraction, and my habit (which I now realise has become a prerequisite) is to listen to Internet radio, usually "listen again" broadcasts from BBC Radio 4, 5, or 7. By the way, if you have any interest in UK sport, and any sense of humour whatsoever, Fighting Talk is not to be missed. Ergo, lack of web connection means no single table sit and go's.
Well, the result was ... not so bad.
I had a feeling that it might be my day, when on the very first hand, I limped from MP with J♣8♣ (non standard for me later, but partly for image building reasons early), amazingly playing the hand only against the blinds. The flop of A♣Q♣9♣ was a thing of beauty, and when the SB completed his two pair with a 3♦ turn, I came out of the hand up 500 chips. If I'd known he had two pair, I would have bet more -- as it was I raised his river bet of 100 to only 300, which he called.
Then, in the same position in the second orbit, I picked up J♠8♠. Now, whether you believe in such things or not, it can't possibly be a good idea to spit an omen in the face, so I limped again, this time over two limpers in front, and again the blinds came along. Now the flop came 7♦9♥T♦. A limper in front of me bet 240, I raised to 600, and both blinds went all in. The limper dropped out, and I called expecting to see a set and a diamond draw, or perhaps pair plus open ended straight draw, but in fact found two diamond draws, A♦8♦ and Q♦T♦. No more diamonds or jacks arrived and I had essentially tripled up. I just checked this on PokerStove and am amazed that my equity was actually as high as 62% on the flop.
At the 50/100 level I think I played an AA hand too fast. UTG went all in for 500, which the cutoff(4500) called. I(4500) was on the button and pushed, losing the cutoff. It's a hand with some similarities to the one of Iakaris's that I discussed in "could do better". In retrospect I think that a smooth call, or min raise was in order, probably the latter for, while I'm happy to have the cutoff tag along, I don't really want the blinds to get the idea of making a relatively cheap call into a biggish pot.
All was not beer and skittles though, as I found myself short stacked twice in the "middle game" (from five tables, down to the paying two tables). In each case I wound up sucking out when my all in was called by a dominating hand. I didn't feel too badly about it, both because that kind of thing just has to happen, and also because the reason that I found myself short stacked in each case was due to similar hands going the other way. When the money bubble burst I was about 15th of 18 remaining. From there I had a pretty nice run of cards, flops hitting not so great cards, and (he modestly added) I think I outplayed my opponents.
The tournament ended after only a few hands of heads up play (three handed went on for ages). Blinds were at 2K/4K, and I was very slightly ahead in chips. In the BB I was dealt A♥K♠. My opponent min raised, and I simply called. The flop came A♠7♠4♠. I checked and my opponent bet the 16K pot. I read this as an ace, so unless he had two pair, I was ahead, and had the flush draw to fall back on. So I called. Turn was 3♣, I checked, and my opponent bet 40K. At this point I went all in, and he called with A6. No disaster on the river, and my duck was well and truly broken.
Breaking ones duck In cricket, if a batsman is out without having scored any runs he is said to have "made a duck" (or "scored a duck"), which is actually a contraction of "duck's egg" -- and hence if he gets out on the very first ball it's called a "golden duck". This is a rather embarrassing thing to have happen to a recognised batsman, as a decent batsman will average at least 30 runs per innings. Anyhow, as a result, when a batsman first scores any runs he is said to have "broken his duck". By extension, the expression now refers to obtaining some positive return for the first time from an endeavour, particularly if preceded by a period of frustration.
posted by Michael Albert at 9:34 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home