Just to keep the pipes from freezing

I moved into the new house over the weekend. Photos when I manage to borrow a camera from someone. Still lots to organize, along with yet another brief trip to Australia at the end of this week. So, updates here will continue to be sporadic.

"It's an easy game" OR "44 is the new 55"

Playing .25/.50 NLHE, I have slightly more than my original $50. Over two limpers, the player two seats to my right bets pot. He's a solid, winning, player at these levels, and probably has AK or QQ+ (possibly KK+). I have 44.

Fuelishly I call (despite being short a spot). We wind up four ways to the flop, including the button, so I don't quite have position. On a flop of 442 it quickly becomes clear to me that position is not likely to be a factor. Original raiser bets pot, (I might have preferred a check from him, so that I could put in a probe sized bet trying to keep as many people as possible in the pot) I call, the other two fold. The pot and our stacks are now roughly equal. The turn is a J, so I figure that I'm not being runner-runner over-quadded (I know there's no such word, but I couldn't resist). The raiser now checks.

I make a small $15 bet, slightly under half the pot, in order that my push on the river (assuming he calls) will only be for 1/3 the pot. He calls, and calls the river (5) too, showing KK.

I think he could have gotten away from that, since he's beaten by all of 22, 44, JJ and AA (plus 55, but that would be inconsistent). Even JJ would be a little odd, except his pot sized bet at that point was with four in the pot, so could have been a strong continuation move with AK on what looked like a dry flop.

On the other hand it has to be said that, in the long run at these levels if you adopt a policy of never folding KK under any circumstances you will be well ahead of the game.

AAPP v.1 n.1: Abridged version

Cutoff flopped a king high flush and I flopped a set of 5's. Turn brought me DQB and I stacked his sorry donkey ass. BwaaaaHaaaHaaaHaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Editorial note
Submissions to the Annals of Anecdotal Poker Perusal are welcomed. Full paper submissions, with or without abridged versions, are preferred. However, an abridged submission may be considered, and expanded to a full version by the editors, if it is of sufficiently general interest.

Apologies
The editors would like to apologize for the inclusion of the final sentence in the Introduction and Methods sections of the full version of this paper. This was undoubtedly someone elses fault.

Annals of Anecdotal Poker Perusal (v1.n1)

Concerning the vulnerability of strong hands post flop.

Abstract
We investigate the proposition that certain very strong hands post flop are, contrary to popular belief, in fact quite vulnerable. Results are presented and discussed.

Introduction
Other authors have previously observed that flopped straights, an apparently strong hand, are in fact quite vulnerable. This observation has been referred to variously as “Rule 45” or “Flopped straights always lose.” The intention of this study was to investigate whether or not this proposition also applied to stronger flopped hands.

A controlled experiment was carried out and all the relevant data recorded. Owing to various circumstances beyond the author's control (see Methods), only one hand met the criteria to be included in this study. This did however support the position that strong flopped hands (in this case, a king high flush) may in fact be more vulnerable than heretofore believed. While the statistical significance of these observations is problematic, the outcome is so surprising and of potential importance for the community of poker players and researchers, that we felt early publication was in order. Besides that, we have a promotion case coming up, and needed some new publications.

Methods
The investigators three-tabled at NLHE .10/.25 on the PokerStars site. The limits were chosen to ensure that the study remained within budget, although in fact the research resulted in a profit of $45. A total of N=317 hands were recorded, and for exactly Q=1 could it be determined that one of the players had flopped a flush or better. This hand is discussed in detail below. Pressures to publish, and threatened onset of insanity from playing at these limits on this site precluded further data collection.

Results
Eight handed, we were on the button with 5♥5♣.UTG limped, UTG+1 min raised, and all but one MP player and the blinds saw the flop of Q♦5♦7♦. A MP player bet $0.50 into a pot of $2.85, raised to $1 by the cutoff. With our set, we reraised to $2. MP folded and the cutoff called. The turn was the 5♣. The cutoff bet $2 of his remaining $7.50 into the $7.35 pot. We simply called, and then reraised the $2.50 river bet to put him all in. He had flopped a flush with K♦T♦.

Discussion and conclusions
As noted above, our data are somewhat limited, so it would be somewhat premature to draw any strong conclusions. In particular, another author has proposed that 55, also called Presto, is a hand of special signficance in that it wins with improbable frequency against apparently stronger hands. A check of our database (which we could not report in the body of the article, because the data was not gathered under controlled conditions) shows that on one other occasion 55 overcame a flopped top full house (JJ on a J55 flop), but it is unclear whether or not this would fit the parameters of the study in any case, as the JJ hand was already behind on the flop. Arguably, to support our tentative conclusions, a further J would have had to arrive on the turn or river.

Nonetheless, it seems that a trend is emerging, in which very strong flopped hands frequently lose. This was first observed concerning straights (and perhaps also by the previously mentioned author and ourselves concerning top two pair, though again this situation was discussed in the context of being behind already on the flop). If indeed it is the case that stronger and stronger hands are being run down, to use the vernacular parlance, then this may be an effect analogous to that by which industrial contaminants work their way upwards through the food chain, and is certainly of great significance.

Pollyanna poker

It's always nice to have a Pollyanna or two at the cash table with you.

Over one limper, I completed the SB with A♣9♣ and the BB checked his option. The flop was not unattractive: T♣J♠Q♣ leaving open the possibility of the six card royal (granted, I'd need runner-runner for that, but still ...). I bet $1 into the $1.50 pot. The BB folded, but the limper called.

Turn was the K♠ giving me the (possibly split) nuts, with redraws to the nuts (but also to a spade flush which would be sad). So, I bet $2 into the $3.50 pot. The limper called.

The river was a small club. So, ... I bet $3 into the $7.50 pot (I couldn't resist the 1-2-3 sequence). The limper called, on a board showing four to broadway and a three flush, with ... wait for it ... K♦7♠ i.e. top pair with the board as kicker.

Abdication of the kings

Just to finish the story from yesterday. Both private and public comments seem to agree with my fold (if you're new to this one, I have black kings and have led pre-flop, and into two opponents on the flop and turn. The board is 2357 with two each of the red suits. Over my 3/4 pot sized bet of $10 on the turn, one player has raised to $23 and the next all in to $26, I folded).

So imagine my surprise, as they say, after a black ten on the river, when:

• Mr “Definitely on Tilt” the original raiser, turns over A♦2♠ for bottom pair, gutshot, and an over card
• Mr “Normal until Now” BB, turns over 4♥4♠ for underpair, open ended straight draw.

My jaw dropped ...

I guess, when you play with the donkeys you've got to expect the occasional kick to the shins (or other, more sensitive, parts of the anatomy).

Will I fold next time? I don't know. In any reasonable construction I'm massively behind chasing zero (made straight), one (made set, flush draw for the other) or two outs (two made sets?) If I allow for optimism and just put both players on flush draws, with some straight possibilities, I'm certainly ahead, but not massively so.

More cash game fun

I managed a series of profitable short sessions at the cash tables today, thanks largely to a few big hands (I know, it's taken me this long to learn that's how you make money at low stakes no limit hold'em ...)

But here's one where I decided that discretion was the better part of valour. Was I right? I'll leave you to think about it.

In EP, I ($90) pick up K♠K♣. I raise to $1.50, called by the player two to my left ($70) who may be tilt-calling me. Early in the session I doubled against him holding TT to his JJ on a QT9 flop, and ever since it seems that he's in every pot I am. The BB ($28) who has not previously done anything remarkable also calls.

The flop is 2♦5♥7♦. The BB checks, and I bet $3 into the $4.75 pot. This again is called around. The turn is the 3♥. The BB checks again, I bet $10 into the $13.75 (minus rake) pot. Mr Maybe-Tilt raises to $23. I am planning to push over this (I think), but the BB now goes all in for about $3 more. So, $16 for me to call, about $69 in the pot, and my neighbour still has about $40 behind.

Oh my fur and whiskers ...

I fold. What say you?

Gloat while the gloating is good

I've been playing some poker while on holiday. Not a lot, and not in long sessions, so I've been concentrating on the continued development of my cash game. My current level of choice is two-tabling .25/.50 NLHE on UltimateBet.

I was having one of those sessions -- if my first card was paint, my second was a deuce, three or four of the opposite colour. If I got a monster hand like 88, the flop would come AKT all of one suit. I was in serious risk of going on card dead tilt as the blinds, occasional limp, and occasional raise dribbled away. It didn't help that the previous session had been much the same, nor that the blinds from whom I was most likely to steal were calling stations of the highest order.

So, when I picked up AJ suited in the hijack seat with no action in front of me, it certainly looked like a monster, and I put in my normal 3BB raise. This was called only by the SB, a player on the maniacal (and losing) end of loose aggressive, on whom I also had the cryptic note: "bluffed with a min raise of a continuation sized bet".

The flop came KQx, with one card of my suit, and he bet $1 into the $3.50 pot. That seemed rather suspicious to me and so, for various reasons, I raised to $3. First of all, he might well be full of fecal matter, and this would take the pot down. Secondly, he might well have an underpair (my image at this point would have been very weak tight, so this would not have been such a ridiculous move), leaving me with lots of outs (or taking the pot down). Thirdly he might have a K or a Q, call, and I'd probably be able to get a free card. So my main hope was that he would fold, but if he called I wasn't too upset. Call he did.

The turn was another blank (not in my suit) and he checked, so I simply checked behind. The river was a glorious ten, giving me the nuts. To make it even better, he now bet $5. I raised to $10 (putting my note to good work -- if he used the min raise as a bluff, he might read min raises as bluffs), he reraised to $30 and I re-reraised all in (for not a whole lot more, having started with $49). I did contemplate just calling, trying to avoid paying extra rake on what I anticipated would be a split pot, but in the end decided there was enough chance that I was actually good that I might as well go for the throat.

He called, and showed QQ.

Now boys and girls your homework for today is to suggest at just how many different places in this hand he should have done better.

Apologies

To my two loyal, and three disloyal, readers for the recent lack of activity in this corner of the blogiverse. No exciting excuses, just a lack of inspiration/material. I'm off on holiday for a couple of weeks, but may well be playing a reasonable amount of poker this time 'round, so we'll see whether the muse returns.

If not, I trust that you're using some form of RSS feed and not bothering to check in directly.