Decided to start coaching.
I'm winning NL100 player and winning LHE 3/6 player. I believe there's a lot I can teach aspiring beginners.
Here's the deal:
- unlike 'conventional' coaches I do not charge per hour
- I will take serious student, preferably beginner and guide him from scratch
- we will agree about so called 'milestone points' - you play untill you reach say $500 and then out of that 500 you give me 100 (number are negotiatable)
- then the coaching continues till another 'milestone point' ...
- Methods of payments are what we can agree on like: player2player transfer, money bookers (soon I'll add Epassporte) ...
Please do not reply here.
Soon I'll publish deatails of where and how to reach me.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Just hit VS already made
I've just noticed something interesting: player is more likely to stack off with hand that just hit on, say, turn then the one he flopped and facing increased pressure. Assuming non-donk, of course.
Ex.: you've been aggressive, stole a couple of pots or more from your opponent and even though he's careful there is sort of urge to fight back ...
1) you raise - he calls and the flop comes A high, you cbet - he calls, you fire second barrel - he thinks and folds. What has just happened is that your careful opponent has just hit his pair of aces but after the second barrel he started to think about 2p, set, kicker problem and figured out there'll be a better opportunity.
2) you raise - he calls and flop comes all rags, you cbet - he thinks long and calls, turn: A - you fire second barrel - he calls ... now there is the great chance that he was sick of you bulling him, made dubious call with AK, AQ ... and once he hit his ace on turn, he is ready to back it with his whole stack.
For some (psychological) reason 'just hit' types of hands are more likely to turn nit into a calling station; and another good example would be low 2pairs. If you happen to have top2+ don't be shy of overbetting (AI) the river (provided no obvious draws hit) - he is not folding this time.
Ex.: you've been aggressive, stole a couple of pots or more from your opponent and even though he's careful there is sort of urge to fight back ...
1) you raise - he calls and the flop comes A high, you cbet - he calls, you fire second barrel - he thinks and folds. What has just happened is that your careful opponent has just hit his pair of aces but after the second barrel he started to think about 2p, set, kicker problem and figured out there'll be a better opportunity.
2) you raise - he calls and flop comes all rags, you cbet - he thinks long and calls, turn: A - you fire second barrel - he calls ... now there is the great chance that he was sick of you bulling him, made dubious call with AK, AQ ... and once he hit his ace on turn, he is ready to back it with his whole stack.
For some (psychological) reason 'just hit' types of hands are more likely to turn nit into a calling station; and another good example would be low 2pairs. If you happen to have top2+ don't be shy of overbetting (AI) the river (provided no obvious draws hit) - he is not folding this time.
Monday, February 12, 2007
My wife finally appreciates my play!
LOL after more than 1.5 year THE DAY has come. When I started online poker my wife, just like EVERY other wife, saw it as wasting time, losing money, ignoring family and 'ruining marriage'. It was really hard to fight two simultaneous battles and God knows how I managed to find time to play undisturbed, putting aside all life issues for the moment and playing 'A' game the best I could. But, just recently I withdrew a little (needed money for the expenses) and then a little more when she finally realized I'm serious. Also, these days I wasn't playing at all but toying with some new utility software, fixing windows, reading forums etc. And lo and behold listen to conversation we had few moments ago:
she> you aren't playing poker these days?
me> nah, I'm all in new software and reading about poker - forums etc.
she> will you continue playing?
me> Yep! I'm just taking deep breath before going back to the arena.
she> well common, play, we need money for ... (won't bother you with the list)
Amazing! :)
Amazing! :)
Monday, January 29, 2007
p-bm-p and analysis
[UPDATE]
Battlefield: NL$10 6max
Position: 2 buy-ins down & onslaught
Variance: crazy
Suckouts: unbelievable
Attitude: back to solid
Goal: A game
Enough said.
[/UPDATE]
After crazy night of amazing suckouts, I've just did what most usually do when [censored] like that happens - questioning myself and my play. Yes, there were lots of bad beats; it's not the first time; had them before. I know that my job is to play A game all the time and the results will follow, mastered this concept already. And to be honest there was some tilt play too that made me drop down 2 BI instead of only 1. But during thinking, when faced with lots of interfering ideas, all of a sudden I remembered something lots of good players were talking about and I failed (too lazy) to even try: analyzing your game after the session is over.
Sure it's not hard to do. I already have Poker Tracker and it just takes to select the last few sessions and replay. The only problem is ... how to overcome laziness. So I thought hard and came to (possible) solution: p-bm-p !!! Performance - in Big and Medium sized - Pots !!! First of all, one of key aspects of winning at no-limit poker is playing good in big (and medium) pots. Second, by measuring these occurrences and giving 'points' to how I played it, laziness is quite easily suppressed. So p-bm-p is expressed in a form of good plays/bad plays with one point given for each and occasional half point if (more) good or (more) bad are mixed in the same hand. Big and medium pots should be something about 20BB+ or so. After gathering some decent sample size there sure will be a room for statistics. And even psychologically it should be interesting to see it's effects on 'in-game' decisions, given that I'll know there is evaluation to come.
Having said all that, this time I wasn't lazy and went through my last two days and here are my good vs bad decisions in >20BB pots:
p-bm-p 42.5 : 20 or (68%)
So more than two thirds of my 'big' decisions were good which is not bad at all. Now monitoring has started and let's see if I can move this % closer to 100.
Battlefield: NL$10 6max
Position: 2 buy-ins down & onslaught
Variance: crazy
Suckouts: unbelievable
Attitude: back to solid
Goal: A game
Enough said.
[/UPDATE]
After crazy night of amazing suckouts, I've just did what most usually do when [censored] like that happens - questioning myself and my play. Yes, there were lots of bad beats; it's not the first time; had them before. I know that my job is to play A game all the time and the results will follow, mastered this concept already. And to be honest there was some tilt play too that made me drop down 2 BI instead of only 1. But during thinking, when faced with lots of interfering ideas, all of a sudden I remembered something lots of good players were talking about and I failed (too lazy) to even try: analyzing your game after the session is over.
Sure it's not hard to do. I already have Poker Tracker and it just takes to select the last few sessions and replay. The only problem is ... how to overcome laziness. So I thought hard and came to (possible) solution: p-bm-p !!! Performance - in Big and Medium sized - Pots !!! First of all, one of key aspects of winning at no-limit poker is playing good in big (and medium) pots. Second, by measuring these occurrences and giving 'points' to how I played it, laziness is quite easily suppressed. So p-bm-p is expressed in a form of good plays/bad plays with one point given for each and occasional half point if (more) good or (more) bad are mixed in the same hand. Big and medium pots should be something about 20BB+ or so. After gathering some decent sample size there sure will be a room for statistics. And even psychologically it should be interesting to see it's effects on 'in-game' decisions, given that I'll know there is evaluation to come.
Having said all that, this time I wasn't lazy and went through my last two days and here are my good vs bad decisions in >20BB pots:
p-bm-p 42.5 : 20 or (68%)
So more than two thirds of my 'big' decisions were good which is not bad at all. Now monitoring has started and let's see if I can move this % closer to 100.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
100 matches checkpoint
Last month or so I was constantly switching between the games. Some of 6 max - that is beatable if you lower your VP$IP, open for a raise and cbet - but at a low-ish winning rate (and low variance FWIW) and then some of HU cash with OK play and only obstacle being rake, which is horrible @ HU - how FAST it's eating both of you and finally little of HU SNGs.
As for the latter, I caught a sick cooler, never in my life did my made hands ended with a fold due to 4-flush community cards - Pacific lives up to it's reputation. It went like:
HU SNG 5$ + 0.3$:
+ + + -
HU SNG 10$ + 0.5$:
+ - + + + - + - + - - + + - - + - - -
HU SNG 5$ + 0.3$:
+ + +
HU SNG 10$ + 0.5$:
- + + - - -
HU SNG 5$ + 0.3$:
+ - + + - + + - - - + + + + - + - - + + + - + + +
Looking at this someone might not get the idea of how really bad it was, but it was.
So, finally get to reach 100 matches played and this is probably a good moment to step aside and see where I'm now and what to expect:
100 HU SNGs
won:lost 61:39 i.e. 61%
Not bad. It's a small sample size, still not good enough to figure my true rate, but given that the minimum win % is 52.5 (due to rake) and that typical win rates of OK players are in the 60%-66% range I guess I should be satisfied.
As for my rapid gamb00ling idea, it was instructive enough to make me realize that '6 buy-ins then jump' is not very good idea and now that I think of it, it should be definitely bigger - at least 8 buy-ins. Variance is hard to live with. I know, I know 'The nature of the beast' ...
As for the latter, I caught a sick cooler, never in my life did my made hands ended with a fold due to 4-flush community cards - Pacific lives up to it's reputation. It went like:
HU SNG 5$ + 0.3$:
+ + + -
HU SNG 10$ + 0.5$:
+ - + + + - + - + - - + + - - + - - -
HU SNG 5$ + 0.3$:
+ + +
HU SNG 10$ + 0.5$:
- + + - - -
HU SNG 5$ + 0.3$:
+ - + + - + + - - - + + + + - + - - + + + - + + +
Looking at this someone might not get the idea of how really bad it was, but it was.
So, finally get to reach 100 matches played and this is probably a good moment to step aside and see where I'm now and what to expect:
100 HU SNGs
won:lost 61:39 i.e. 61%
Not bad. It's a small sample size, still not good enough to figure my true rate, but given that the minimum win % is 52.5 (due to rake) and that typical win rates of OK players are in the 60%-66% range I guess I should be satisfied.
As for my rapid gamb00ling idea, it was instructive enough to make me realize that '6 buy-ins then jump' is not very good idea and now that I think of it, it should be definitely bigger - at least 8 buy-ins. Variance is hard to live with. I know, I know 'The nature of the beast' ...
Saturday, January 20, 2007
HU cash is brutal game
These days I play HU NL$10 cash games on Everest. Mostly bad players, lots of short-stackers and occasional guy who understands the concept of controlled aggression. Vast majority of players there do not have the idea of when and how to bluff and they do bluff a lot and chase a lot. The most frustrating are the moments when a donk all of a sudden makes a big bluff, after being cute most of the time. It is this and some similar plays that really increase variance. I've noticed that almost everyone there is avid i.e. quite unwilling to let medium sized pot go after investing more than 10BB in it. HU cash is BRUTAL game for light headed and impatient ... and gold mine for patient and cold-blooded one. And I should also add something that's apparently taking place - HU is really sharpening my skills: hand reading, playing position, bluffing, etc. The more I play, the more it is evident.
Tonight's sessions (different opponents) went like win 3$, win 7$, lose 20$, win 6$, win 20$ (crazy game, eh?) for a total profit of ~ $16.
Tonight's sessions (different opponents) went like win 3$, win 7$, lose 20$, win 6$, win 20$ (crazy game, eh?) for a total profit of ~ $16.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
'Super System' revisited
I've almost forgot how FR 10 man table looks like. These days, aside from having internet connection problems (courtesy of my cable provider) for several days, I've played some HU SNG and cash and some 6max for a moderate but decent profit. Low level donks are bad as ever. Beating them is just a matter of time, mixed with a little patience. The most annoying issue I found is the rake. For example: HU Cash, NL10, villain has 7.7$, I sit and buy-in full 10$. It quickly turns out that villain is a maniac type. Due to ugly suck-out I loose first buy-in and reload. Eventually I stack him and only then realize that about 3$+ was eaten. Rake on lower levels is the ultimate profit killer.
During those 'disconnected' days I went to re-examine my poker literature and found a book I've almost forgot about: "Super System" (Hold'em NL chapter) by Doyle Brunson. While reading it for the first time about a year ago, I just wasn't advanced and open-minded enough to really appreciate this masterpiece of one of the best NL hold'em players ever. There is a reason they call it 'Poker Bible' and even after decades it's still a must read for any and every aspiring player. The book is so packed with instructions of what to consider, what to look for and how to think during the hand that reading it for several times is barely enough. There are so many thinking lines and so much 'between the lines' stuff that I have no doubts this is the book one must read lots of times to understand all advanced concepts. And the most interesting thing I found was that, during my evolution as a player I've adopted exactly the same plays for exactly the same reasons as Doyle advocates. How did I miss it the first time LOL. Nowadays you might hear some smart[censored] talking about SS being some obsolete book, not suitable anymore and [censored] like that, which simply is not true. 'Super System' is the complex, all-rounded thinking model of a serious, winning poker player. Can't wait to get some spare time and read it again.
During those 'disconnected' days I went to re-examine my poker literature and found a book I've almost forgot about: "Super System" (Hold'em NL chapter) by Doyle Brunson. While reading it for the first time about a year ago, I just wasn't advanced and open-minded enough to really appreciate this masterpiece of one of the best NL hold'em players ever. There is a reason they call it 'Poker Bible' and even after decades it's still a must read for any and every aspiring player. The book is so packed with instructions of what to consider, what to look for and how to think during the hand that reading it for several times is barely enough. There are so many thinking lines and so much 'between the lines' stuff that I have no doubts this is the book one must read lots of times to understand all advanced concepts. And the most interesting thing I found was that, during my evolution as a player I've adopted exactly the same plays for exactly the same reasons as Doyle advocates. How did I miss it the first time LOL. Nowadays you might hear some smart[censored] talking about SS being some obsolete book, not suitable anymore and [censored] like that, which simply is not true. 'Super System' is the complex, all-rounded thinking model of a serious, winning poker player. Can't wait to get some spare time and read it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
