Friday, August 11th: Higher Stakes gone wrong...
OK, after a couple lifestyle/philosophical posts, back to talking about some poker. So back in early July I proclaimed that I'd grown weary of the 20/40 and 30/60 "microlimits", and vowed to step it up to even higher stakes. After all, I thought, I often see games just as juicy as the ones I play all the way up to $100/$200, and it's the exact same game with the same rules, just with different color chips...and it had sure paid off when I jumped from 3/6 to 15/30, and again when I made the move up to the 20/40 and 30/60 games. So I dove in full speed...not adding one or two tables at a time or anything, I was 4- to 6-tabling 50/100 + and $5,000 NL.
Ouch. Yes, I believe that's the word that best describes my higher-stakes experiment. I think I can best illustrate the results graphically: in a somewhat cruel twist, I've managed to sustain a 3+ BB/100 LHE winrate since my early-June proclamation (same as before)...except those BB's have simply come in the 'wrong' games. Here's 2 charts (in dollars) breaking down my results since June 1st, the first showing the game selection that I was previously most comfortoable with -- 20/40, 30/60, and $1,000NL -- and the latter showing my results from the higher-stakes games I had vowed would be my new stomping ground: 50/100 through 100/200, and 2,000 through 5,000NL. I think those results speak for themselves. So I retreat now to the friendly confines of 30/60, which I hope will welcome me back with open arms.
LOWER STAKES
HIGHER STAKES
P.S. that precipitious drop was the result of getting stacked for $5,500 at a $25/$50NL table...funny, I don't even remember what the hand was...but it's obviously officially the most I've ever lost in a single hand.
So just what went wrong? Hmmm...well, don't really know -- really wish I could point to one thing that was responsible besides running unspeakably bad. Here's one thing that I think might have played a role, although it's a bit of speculation on my part. I never really used to pay attention to how good the good players were at a table I sat down at...the only thing I really cared about was finding tables with a sufficient number of donators -- typically my standards are 2 fish for a 6-max table, or 3 for a 10-max. But in reflecting on my higher-stakes experiences, I realize that I should also be taking a hard look at who the other sharks are at my table...it struck me that a SH table of 1 huge fish, 3 mediocre players and 1 above-average opponent is an entirely different beast than one with 2 big fish and 3 very skilled players...and that's exactly the makeup of the tables I typically found myself at when playing 50/100 and up. There were still the same huge fish (still haven't figured out where they get all their money), but the caliber of non-fish opponent was much higher, and I don't think I properly adjusted to that. The fact of the matter is that as good as a limit player as I think i am, the edge I have over other expert players is really miniscule (that is, if I even have an edge at all). Limit hold'em is just so mechanical, that there simply aren't many decisions to be made; raise, fold, call, or check. That's it. That's the whole game. So I found myself sitting at tables with 4 above-average to expert players, all trying to extract money from the same fish or two, and I don't think I properly adjusted to playing other experts...fact of the matter is that I simply don't get much opportunity to do so, because I have been so judicious about my table-selection at the lower limits...playing at a table with 3 other very skilled players is simply not something I've had much experience doing, because even at stakes as high as 20/40 and 30/60, the "good" players are indeed quite good, but I don't think approach the caliber of players that dominate the highest-stakes games.
That's all that's going on on the poker front for now...I'm living a pretty carefree existence. Taking 3 relatively easy classes, trying to improve my golf game on the nice course right behind my apartment...it's mostly par 3s and 1 par four, although far better maintained than your average pitch-and-put, and I'm shooting mostly 4s and 5s, which -- while it may not sound like much -- is pretty good for me. Taking Muay Thai kickboxing classes, which is making me realize that while I'm pretty strong, my overall fitness leaves a lot to be desired....hmmmm...ordered myself a kettlebell, which I'm pretty excited about, as I hear those things kick absolute ass. Funny thing about being down here too: I don't think I've mentioned poker to a single person. Being transplanted to an entirely new location, where I didn't know anybody, has esentially forced me to go back to Square-1 regarding meeting people and and doing the whole introductory song-and-dance: sharing what you do for fun, work, etc. It's really made me realize what a deviant lifestyle I live. Actually, I shouldn't say that I haven't mentioned poker to anyone...my next-door neighbor is a cool guy from the US who is down here investment banking and I forget how we started talking about poker, but I actually let him watch me play for a half hour or so -- I didn't dare play above 20/40, because I could tell that even a guy who made as much money as he did from work was pretty amazed at how cavalierly (sp?) people won and lost $800 pots online...and I realized that in my life I don't think I'd ever let anyone watch me play -- and I remembered why...I got really self-conscious and (despite winning a tidy $500 in front of him) wondered if he now thought I was some trust fund baby who didn't think twice about winning/losing 4-figures within 20 minutes. For whatever reason, I have a complex about making sure that people understand that I DO value money, and understand that I'm in a very fortunate position to be skilled at something that generates good money with relatively little effort. But somoene who doesn't know that I grinded my way up from the 2/4 and 3/6 tables less than 2 years ago, and just sees me plunk down $1,000 to play 20/40 might think that I really am that capricious with money...which I always thought was a quite negative quality. I've actually got much more to say about this, but I feel like I'm rambling now, so I'll end this post now and pick up in a couple days.
Ouch. Yes, I believe that's the word that best describes my higher-stakes experiment. I think I can best illustrate the results graphically: in a somewhat cruel twist, I've managed to sustain a 3+ BB/100 LHE winrate since my early-June proclamation (same as before)...except those BB's have simply come in the 'wrong' games. Here's 2 charts (in dollars) breaking down my results since June 1st, the first showing the game selection that I was previously most comfortoable with -- 20/40, 30/60, and $1,000NL -- and the latter showing my results from the higher-stakes games I had vowed would be my new stomping ground: 50/100 through 100/200, and 2,000 through 5,000NL. I think those results speak for themselves. So I retreat now to the friendly confines of 30/60, which I hope will welcome me back with open arms.
LOWER STAKES
HIGHER STAKES
P.S. that precipitious drop was the result of getting stacked for $5,500 at a $25/$50NL table...funny, I don't even remember what the hand was...but it's obviously officially the most I've ever lost in a single hand.
So just what went wrong? Hmmm...well, don't really know -- really wish I could point to one thing that was responsible besides running unspeakably bad. Here's one thing that I think might have played a role, although it's a bit of speculation on my part. I never really used to pay attention to how good the good players were at a table I sat down at...the only thing I really cared about was finding tables with a sufficient number of donators -- typically my standards are 2 fish for a 6-max table, or 3 for a 10-max. But in reflecting on my higher-stakes experiences, I realize that I should also be taking a hard look at who the other sharks are at my table...it struck me that a SH table of 1 huge fish, 3 mediocre players and 1 above-average opponent is an entirely different beast than one with 2 big fish and 3 very skilled players...and that's exactly the makeup of the tables I typically found myself at when playing 50/100 and up. There were still the same huge fish (still haven't figured out where they get all their money), but the caliber of non-fish opponent was much higher, and I don't think I properly adjusted to that. The fact of the matter is that as good as a limit player as I think i am, the edge I have over other expert players is really miniscule (that is, if I even have an edge at all). Limit hold'em is just so mechanical, that there simply aren't many decisions to be made; raise, fold, call, or check. That's it. That's the whole game. So I found myself sitting at tables with 4 above-average to expert players, all trying to extract money from the same fish or two, and I don't think I properly adjusted to playing other experts...fact of the matter is that I simply don't get much opportunity to do so, because I have been so judicious about my table-selection at the lower limits...playing at a table with 3 other very skilled players is simply not something I've had much experience doing, because even at stakes as high as 20/40 and 30/60, the "good" players are indeed quite good, but I don't think approach the caliber of players that dominate the highest-stakes games.
That's all that's going on on the poker front for now...I'm living a pretty carefree existence. Taking 3 relatively easy classes, trying to improve my golf game on the nice course right behind my apartment...it's mostly par 3s and 1 par four, although far better maintained than your average pitch-and-put, and I'm shooting mostly 4s and 5s, which -- while it may not sound like much -- is pretty good for me. Taking Muay Thai kickboxing classes, which is making me realize that while I'm pretty strong, my overall fitness leaves a lot to be desired....hmmmm...ordered myself a kettlebell, which I'm pretty excited about, as I hear those things kick absolute ass. Funny thing about being down here too: I don't think I've mentioned poker to a single person. Being transplanted to an entirely new location, where I didn't know anybody, has esentially forced me to go back to Square-1 regarding meeting people and and doing the whole introductory song-and-dance: sharing what you do for fun, work, etc. It's really made me realize what a deviant lifestyle I live. Actually, I shouldn't say that I haven't mentioned poker to anyone...my next-door neighbor is a cool guy from the US who is down here investment banking and I forget how we started talking about poker, but I actually let him watch me play for a half hour or so -- I didn't dare play above 20/40, because I could tell that even a guy who made as much money as he did from work was pretty amazed at how cavalierly (sp?) people won and lost $800 pots online...and I realized that in my life I don't think I'd ever let anyone watch me play -- and I remembered why...I got really self-conscious and (despite winning a tidy $500 in front of him) wondered if he now thought I was some trust fund baby who didn't think twice about winning/losing 4-figures within 20 minutes. For whatever reason, I have a complex about making sure that people understand that I DO value money, and understand that I'm in a very fortunate position to be skilled at something that generates good money with relatively little effort. But somoene who doesn't know that I grinded my way up from the 2/4 and 3/6 tables less than 2 years ago, and just sees me plunk down $1,000 to play 20/40 might think that I really am that capricious with money...which I always thought was a quite negative quality. I've actually got much more to say about this, but I feel like I'm rambling now, so I'll end this post now and pick up in a couple days.
posted by Blog Administrator at 2:22 AM
6 Comments:
It makes me sad, the idea of you in ditches grinding out $400/hr. ;)
I think that's the best explanation of the difference between mid level and mid high level games I've read. It really makes sense.
Have you considered using someone like stoxtrader as a coach?
Sorry for the slide. Having said that, in the significant slides I've seen (had), often digging deeper led to finding some specific leaks and changes that had occurred in my play. Hope things turn around.
last year I lived in a halls of residence at uni and people would come by to my room all the time. obviously I was usually playing poker and so they'd stop by and watch me play.
I was only playing NL25/NL50 at the time so no one was blown away by the money but playing 4-6 tables did blow their minds for some reason.
Now people are asking to watch me play but I still only play NL25 or something because I feel really self conscious too when someones watching me
sorry for the slide man. i have read a lot of your posts. i really get your perception of winning so many BB/hr in the limit varieties -- after all, limit sucess is rewarded by being able to exploit slim margins in odds. I don't understand why you worry about this in no-limit. After all, no limit is a game that is about consuming other peoples chip stacks and since most of the time people have nothing, really expoliting position with traps and substantial reraises. I think you will do just fine at this limit if you can handle getting cold decked for 1 hour and not worry about the blinds and set yourself up to take down 1 or two big pots. cheers!
I've been reading your blog for some time. You may want to seperate your NL high stakes ambitions from your limit ambitions. It seems to me that you haven't been playing NL that long and that your NL game might be behind your limit.
Consider stepping up in limit games before NL.
Good luck...
The slides Ive had like this always seem to help me find a leak in my game. Best of luck.
Post a Comment
<< Home