One of the books I thought I needed to read upon deciding to become a professional gambler was Gambling Theory and Other Topics by Mason Malmuth. After all, I wanted to become a serious gambler, and it says right on the cover that it is "Absolutely MUST Reading for All Serious Gamblers." With a title like "Gambling Theory," I was expecting the book to be a technical exposition aspects of game theory that are useful to gambling. As it turns out, the nebulous idea of "other topics" comprises about 90% of the text. To be fair, most of these "other topics" concern gambling and are reasonably insightful. Sometimes, even entertaining.
Several times in his 300+ page book, Malmuth mentions that the idea of "non-self-weighting strategies" is the over-arching theme that holds all topics in the book together. This is the idea that in order to overcome the negative expectation of a negative-sum game, one must be able weight his bets himself (that is, the game cannot be "self-weighting"). For instance, in order to overcome the rake in poker, you need to be able to choose which hands to put your money into. To this I say: no shit. You mean I can't expect to win by just calling down every hand, regardless of my cards? Malmuth is right to consider this idea central to a winning gambling strategy; that he considers this topic to be profound is somewhat ridiculous. Also troubling is that he applies this idea to situtations that can be seen as positive-sum games, such as investing in the stock market. He extends to many extreme lengths. For example, Malmuth says that in life, introverted people are living a self-weighting strategy by only speaking when they have something useful to say, and this is why most successful gamblers are introverts. Hmmmm.... if you say so. I would have guessed it's because we tend to be kind of nerdy, thinking a lot about numbers and probabilities.
There is a section on "tournament strategy" that suggests doing all you can to conserve your chips when you are short-stacked. He has a list of 18 concepts about tournament strategy that can help you follow this suggestion. Number 11 is "Don't go out with a bang..." He says that you should "try to make those few remaining chips last as long as possible." This goes along with concept number 15: "Steal less late in a tournament if low on chips." As far as I can tell, these two ideas fly in the face of the advice in Harrington on Holdem, Volume II, which suggests become more and more aggressive as your M gets low. (M is a measure of chip count compared to the blinds.) Both books are published by Malmuth's and Sklansky's 2+2 publishing. So which is it, 2+2? Aggressive or passive when short-stacked? I'll have to reread Harrington's and Malmuth's justification on this topic. As I recall, Harrington gives vague justification, saying "you don't have time to sit around and wait for a good hand," but Malmuth's justification is more mathemeatical.
I found the section on "Calculating your Standard Deviation" to be particularly useful and probably could be correctly billed as "must reading for all serious gamblers." Before reading this section, I wasn't sure how to calculate my standard deviation correctly, and I was thinking I would have to derive the formula myself. Anyway, if you gamble for a living, read this section at least. However, be aware that there is a typo in the formula: in the places where you see "N," replace it with "N-1" (thanks to my dad for pointing this out). If you play a lot, this fix does not make much difference.
That is a problem I have with the entire line of 2+2 publishing's publications. These books sell like hotcakes (even better, maybe), and new editions come out every year. Despite this, almost every page has either a typo or grammatical error of the sort I would be ashamed to have left in an 5-page essay that I wrote in two hours. I usually have a typo or two in my posts on this blog, but I go and change them when I realize it. How do the errors in 2+2 persist, edition after edition? This is an enigma that haunts me like the missing license plates in Las Vegas. Why are these glaringly obvious transgressions allowed to persist? Usually the typos and grammatical errors don't make a big difference, but come on, why not try to get it right? Even if they usually don't matter much, they do sometimes make a difference, like when numbers or formulas are involved.
Overall, I recommend skipping this book except for some of the sections in the first half of Part Two: Theory in Practice. The sections entitiled "How much do I need?" and "Calculating your standard deviation" are particularly useful. Some other sections convered topics I found painfully obvious, but maybe some professional gamblers could benefit. For instance, Part Three: Pseudo Theory Exposed. For more advanced analysis, you may want to check out The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic by Richard Epstein, although it is $50 on Amazon. I haven't read it yet, but it looks promising. Anybody have any other suggested reading?
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Monday, March 13, 2006
14th place
After five and a half hours of play, I was knocked out in 14th place (top 10 were paid).
For lack of anything interesting to discuss (that is, I don't feel like putting in the effort at the moment), here is the hand I was knocked out on.
Blinds are 500-1000 with antes at 200. There are seven players, and I am in the big blind with about 8000 left. The pot contains 3900 pre-flop, so my M is a meager 2. The second player limps in for 1000, everyone folds except the small blind, who calls. The small blind is also short stacked, with about 10,000 left, and the limper has about 15,000. I have 96o. At this point, going all-in is an option, but I had been quite aggressive recently and I think I would have gotten called. Anyway, I just check.
Flop: 9s 7d 3h. A very good-looking flop for my hand, as I now have top pair. The small blind checks, I check, the limper bets 2000, and the small blind folds This is just about exactly what I wanted to happen when I checked on the flop. There is now 7400 in the pot, and I have 6000 left. I go all-in with my top pair. Unfortunately, the limper has a set of threes and calls immediately. No help from the turn or river means I am out of chips.
For lack of anything interesting to discuss (that is, I don't feel like putting in the effort at the moment), here is the hand I was knocked out on.
Blinds are 500-1000 with antes at 200. There are seven players, and I am in the big blind with about 8000 left. The pot contains 3900 pre-flop, so my M is a meager 2. The second player limps in for 1000, everyone folds except the small blind, who calls. The small blind is also short stacked, with about 10,000 left, and the limper has about 15,000. I have 96o. At this point, going all-in is an option, but I had been quite aggressive recently and I think I would have gotten called. Anyway, I just check.
Flop: 9s 7d 3h. A very good-looking flop for my hand, as I now have top pair. The small blind checks, I check, the limper bets 2000, and the small blind folds This is just about exactly what I wanted to happen when I checked on the flop. There is now 7400 in the pot, and I have 6000 left. I go all-in with my top pair. Unfortunately, the limper has a set of threes and calls immediately. No help from the turn or river means I am out of chips.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
WSOP Freeroll Tonight
The freeroll is at the Rio tonight at 7 PM, just a couple hours from now. There are 40 players, I think, and $17500 paid out to the top ten.
Oh, and by the way, Friday night I hit two "jackpot" hands (quads or better), after not hitting any in January or February. Each jackpot hand pays out from $40 to $599... My two hands totalled $110. Oh well. I'll take it. (The hands were quad 3's and quad 7's.)
Oh, and by the way, Friday night I hit two "jackpot" hands (quads or better), after not hitting any in January or February. Each jackpot hand pays out from $40 to $599... My two hands totalled $110. Oh well. I'll take it. (The hands were quad 3's and quad 7's.)
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Venetian Poker Room
For several months now, rumors have been circulating about the Venetian opening a poker room. First, I heard it was supposed to open in December 2005. This date came and went without any new poker room at the Venetian (perhaps people got it confused with Caesars, which did open its poker room that month). Then I heard it would open in February. Still, no. Anyway, last night I had a chance encounter with a dealer I know from the Rio and then Caesars. I saw her in the parking lot last night outside a local grocery store, and she told me she took a job at the Venetian's new poker room- which opens April 2. I just checked their website, which confirms this date. Judging by the website (and the dealer's description), it should be nice. Maybe I'll stop by the Venetian this week and see if I can get a peek at the new room.
As a side note, I have heard that Caesars' poker room, which supposedly cost $13 million (not sure what cost so much), has not been doing so well. I still haven't been back there since making this post about why I didn't like playing there.
As a side note, I have heard that Caesars' poker room, which supposedly cost $13 million (not sure what cost so much), has not been doing so well. I still haven't been back there since making this post about why I didn't like playing there.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Rio WSOP Freeroll - I'm In!
Well, it's semi-official. I convinced one of the floormen at the Rio to tell me whether I had over 80 hours in February, and he looked at the computer and said I was well over 80, probably over 95 (by my count I only played there 84:15, but who's counting? Oh, right...)
As I understand it, the freeroll tournament is March 11 at 7 pm. Supposedly there will be about 40 players. First place gets a seat into the main event of the 2006 WSOP. Second through tenth places receive percentage payouts from a pool of about $7500. If this is accurate, the average player will win $17500/40 = $437.50.
The money for the freeroll tournament all comes directly from the players: $1 is taken from every pot. This money also funds the high-hand jackpots, which pay out from $40 to $599 if you get four-of-a-kind or a straight flush. ($599 because, at $600, more paperwork is required.) I don't particularly like the jackpots because it compromises the purity of the game, but it does encourage worse play from my opponents at times. For example, one woman twice stood up and looked at the front board in the middle of a hand, clearly checking the jackpot sizes... and both times she indeed had a high hand. She just couldn't wait for the hand to be over to see how much she had won! That's a pretty ridiculous tell. On the second of these two hands, this tell allowed me to just call on the river - instead of raising - with a full house (it was a limit game and I couldn't bring myself to fold it).
Over the course of the month, I think I saw at least 30 of these jackpot hands get paid out to people at my tables. Assuming an average of 8 players at my table at any given time, and assuming that I play the same number of potential jackpot hands as the average players, we can calculate the probability that none of these 30 jackpot hands were won by yours truly. It's simply (7/8)^30, which comes to .0182, according to Google's calculator. I bring this up, of course, because this is exactly what happened.
As I understand it, the freeroll tournament is March 11 at 7 pm. Supposedly there will be about 40 players. First place gets a seat into the main event of the 2006 WSOP. Second through tenth places receive percentage payouts from a pool of about $7500. If this is accurate, the average player will win $17500/40 = $437.50.
The money for the freeroll tournament all comes directly from the players: $1 is taken from every pot. This money also funds the high-hand jackpots, which pay out from $40 to $599 if you get four-of-a-kind or a straight flush. ($599 because, at $600, more paperwork is required.) I don't particularly like the jackpots because it compromises the purity of the game, but it does encourage worse play from my opponents at times. For example, one woman twice stood up and looked at the front board in the middle of a hand, clearly checking the jackpot sizes... and both times she indeed had a high hand. She just couldn't wait for the hand to be over to see how much she had won! That's a pretty ridiculous tell. On the second of these two hands, this tell allowed me to just call on the river - instead of raising - with a full house (it was a limit game and I couldn't bring myself to fold it).
Over the course of the month, I think I saw at least 30 of these jackpot hands get paid out to people at my tables. Assuming an average of 8 players at my table at any given time, and assuming that I play the same number of potential jackpot hands as the average players, we can calculate the probability that none of these 30 jackpot hands were won by yours truly. It's simply (7/8)^30, which comes to .0182, according to Google's calculator. I bring this up, of course, because this is exactly what happened.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Variance
In gambling, as in the stock market, you must consider two things when determining whether a game or portfolio is worthwhile: volatility and expected return. In gambling, these things are usually measured in hourly rate. Most gamblers underestimate the former and overestimate the latter. In fact, most gamblers I know probably have little concept of what volatility even is. According to Malmuth in Gambling Theory and Other Topics, an expert player may have to play over 4000 hours before he can be voer 99.8% sure to be above even (based on a standard devation of $650 and a win rate of $30). That's two full years of full-time playing before you can be assured of being in the black! How many pros would have the bankroll, patience, and psychological fortitude to play that long before throwing in the towel?
Volatility is a measure of the riskiness inherent in a game. The most common and useful measure is the standard deviation. If my standard deviation in a game were $300/hour and my expected return were $0/hour, then 68% I can expect to be within one standard deviation (-$300 to $300) after one hour of play. 95% of the time I can expect to be within 2 standard deviations (-$600 to $600).
Keeping these number in mind, I've found, is very useful for two reasons. First, it keeps me humble and prevents me from putting my bankroll at great risk. Usually, doubling stakes means more than doubling standard deviation, because competition tends to be better. Also expected return will be less than double for the same reason. Thus, if I were to move up from my usual $2-5NL game to the $5-10NL game, as I planned to do in January, I would have to accept a doubling of my standard deviation, while less than doubling my expected return.
Second, knowing about these standard deviation helps keep losses in perspective. A common question gamblers ask themselves (and others) when they are running badly is "Am I playing badly or am I just unlucky recently?" If you know your standard deviation, you can at least give yourself some idea by answering the question: "If I were playing as well as I normally do, what is the likelihood that I would have lost as much as I have over the past X hours?" Usually the number will be higher than you would have expected. This doesn't quite give you the answer you were looking for ("Bad or unlucky?"), but it does give you some perspective on how much luck really does play into results. For me, this can help me to regain my confidence during a losing streak.
Most people tend to attribute their good results to skill and their bad results to bad luck. I am just the opposite. In fact this post was inspired by a statistically unlikely session I had last night, where I came out almost 4 standard devation ABOVE my mean over the course of 7 hours. Boy, was I ever lucky!
By the way, the Rio games got good again and I'm going to qualify for the WSOP freeroll tournament. I sure hope volatility is on my side again that day.
Volatility is a measure of the riskiness inherent in a game. The most common and useful measure is the standard deviation. If my standard deviation in a game were $300/hour and my expected return were $0/hour, then 68% I can expect to be within one standard deviation (-$300 to $300) after one hour of play. 95% of the time I can expect to be within 2 standard deviations (-$600 to $600).
Keeping these number in mind, I've found, is very useful for two reasons. First, it keeps me humble and prevents me from putting my bankroll at great risk. Usually, doubling stakes means more than doubling standard deviation, because competition tends to be better. Also expected return will be less than double for the same reason. Thus, if I were to move up from my usual $2-5NL game to the $5-10NL game, as I planned to do in January, I would have to accept a doubling of my standard deviation, while less than doubling my expected return.
Second, knowing about these standard deviation helps keep losses in perspective. A common question gamblers ask themselves (and others) when they are running badly is "Am I playing badly or am I just unlucky recently?" If you know your standard deviation, you can at least give yourself some idea by answering the question: "If I were playing as well as I normally do, what is the likelihood that I would have lost as much as I have over the past X hours?" Usually the number will be higher than you would have expected. This doesn't quite give you the answer you were looking for ("Bad or unlucky?"), but it does give you some perspective on how much luck really does play into results. For me, this can help me to regain my confidence during a losing streak.
Most people tend to attribute their good results to skill and their bad results to bad luck. I am just the opposite. In fact this post was inspired by a statistically unlikely session I had last night, where I came out almost 4 standard devation ABOVE my mean over the course of 7 hours. Boy, was I ever lucky!
By the way, the Rio games got good again and I'm going to qualify for the WSOP freeroll tournament. I sure hope volatility is on my side again that day.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Commerce Casino
I was in LA with Brigid this weekend, and on our way back to Vegas we stopped to check out the Commerce Casino. There's a chance I'll move to LA at some point, so I wanted to see what the poker options there are. I've read quite a bit about the differences between Vegas and LA for poker (most recentlyin Malmuth's Gambling Theory and Other Topics), but I wanted to see first hand. I've heard the Commerce has the largest poker room in the world (by number of tables). Actually, it's two rooms - one high limit and one low limit. Both are bigger than any room in Vegas, with the low limit room somewhat larger.
Since I stopped playing at the Bellagio, seeing the big name poker stars isn't as routine for me as before, so it was fun to see all the recognizable faces at the Commerce. The first star I noticed was Gus Hansen, Brigid's favorite player for obvious reasons. At his table were Phil Ivey, David Benyamine, Lyle Berman, Eli Elezra, and a couple others I don't remember now. Todd Brunson at David Williams were playing nearby, too. Unlike at the Bellagio, where there is a semi-private room for the "big game," the big games at the Commerce are right on the floor with all the other tables, which is pretty cool.
Except for some inconvenience getting to the Commerce (lots of traffic in LA), it seems like a viable poker option. Next time I go I'll check out the Bicycle. Any other good poker rooms in LA?
Since I stopped playing at the Bellagio, seeing the big name poker stars isn't as routine for me as before, so it was fun to see all the recognizable faces at the Commerce. The first star I noticed was Gus Hansen, Brigid's favorite player for obvious reasons. At his table were Phil Ivey, David Benyamine, Lyle Berman, Eli Elezra, and a couple others I don't remember now. Todd Brunson at David Williams were playing nearby, too. Unlike at the Bellagio, where there is a semi-private room for the "big game," the big games at the Commerce are right on the floor with all the other tables, which is pretty cool.
Except for some inconvenience getting to the Commerce (lots of traffic in LA), it seems like a viable poker option. Next time I go I'll check out the Bicycle. Any other good poker rooms in LA?
Monday, February 13, 2006
Rio WSOP Freeroll Update
As I described in my last post, I'm considering trying to qualify for the freeroll WSOP satellite tournament at the Rio by playing 80 hours in February. The qualifiers from January played their tournament Sunday night. There were 18 qualifiers, 16 of whom showed up for the freeroll. I recognized about half of them, and they were all decent players, as expected.
There are a few new important factors for me to consider. First is that 2nd-10th place were also paid, a total of just under $3000. So the total value of the tournament is now about $12,000. Unfortunately, word has gotten out about this promotion, and a lot more players will probably be qualifying in February. In my previous post, I had guessed that there would be 24 players - now I think there will be over 35. I'll guess 40. Qualification is now worth only about $400 to me (previously approximated at $560).
Another problem is that the influx of new players who are serious about poker has made the Rio games much, much tougher than usual. About 80% of my opponents the past few days have been competent professional players. I'm used to maybe 40%. Aside from the promotion, continuing to play in these games would be an example of terrible game selection, .
On the other hand, I have already racked up about 43 hours this month, so I only have 37 more to go in the span of 15 days. If it weren't for this promotion, I would probably play at the Rio 0-10 more hours this month, so I would have to play about 32 extra hours there to qualify. Since qualifying is worth $400 to me, this amounts to $12.50 an hour.
Would my win rate at the Mirage (or some other casino) be at least $12.50/hour more than what I expect to win in the very tough games at the Rio? This seems very likely. If that's the case, it no longer makes much sense for me to pursue the goal of playing 80 hours. On the other hand... my girlfriend is coming to town this weekend and I could play 4-8 limit with her at the Rio and avoid the sharks. The 4-8 Rio game is certainly not $12.50/hour worse than any other 4-8 game in town. I don't know what to do.
There are a few new important factors for me to consider. First is that 2nd-10th place were also paid, a total of just under $3000. So the total value of the tournament is now about $12,000. Unfortunately, word has gotten out about this promotion, and a lot more players will probably be qualifying in February. In my previous post, I had guessed that there would be 24 players - now I think there will be over 35. I'll guess 40. Qualification is now worth only about $400 to me (previously approximated at $560).
Another problem is that the influx of new players who are serious about poker has made the Rio games much, much tougher than usual. About 80% of my opponents the past few days have been competent professional players. I'm used to maybe 40%. Aside from the promotion, continuing to play in these games would be an example of terrible game selection, .
On the other hand, I have already racked up about 43 hours this month, so I only have 37 more to go in the span of 15 days. If it weren't for this promotion, I would probably play at the Rio 0-10 more hours this month, so I would have to play about 32 extra hours there to qualify. Since qualifying is worth $400 to me, this amounts to $12.50 an hour.
Would my win rate at the Mirage (or some other casino) be at least $12.50/hour more than what I expect to win in the very tough games at the Rio? This seems very likely. If that's the case, it no longer makes much sense for me to pursue the goal of playing 80 hours. On the other hand... my girlfriend is coming to town this weekend and I could play 4-8 limit with her at the Rio and avoid the sharks. The 4-8 Rio game is certainly not $12.50/hour worse than any other 4-8 game in town. I don't know what to do.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
80 hours at the Rio
This week I found out the Rio has been running a promotion where you get to play in a freeroll satellite tournament for the main event of the WSOP. All you have to do is play 80 hours in a calendar month, or win two of their daily tournaments in a month. I had heard rumors about this for a while, but nobody seemed to know quite what was going on, even the dealers and floorment. Despite this, there were supposedly 17 people who qualified back in December, and they played their freeroll on January. I don't see how this is possible, since in mid-January, the poker room staff still couldn't give me any information about what the promotion was, and their rewards card swipers weren't even working, meaning they must have kept hand records of everyone's hours. Never did the rumors include mention of the WSOP, only that there might be some sort of freeroll for players who log a lot of hours. Suffice it to say that there was a lot of confusion and hearsay surrounding the situation until last week.
Now, the situation is much clearer. They have the rules posted on the wall, and the comp card swipers are working again. I play a lot at the Rio, but also a lot at other places, so I'm trying to determine whether it's worth trying to reach 80 hours. Here are some factors that will weigh in the decision.
How much of a commitment would this be? I didn't start playing at the Rio this month until Friday, Feb 3 because I didn't know about this promotion and I'd been playing at the Mirage insted. Since Friday I have 18 hours logged at the Rio. February is 1/4 over, so my 18 hours are behind pace - I need 62 more in 3 weeks. Without trying, I would probably play 20-35 more hours there this month anyway. So the opportunity cost is about 35 hours during which I would be doing something else. For instance, I recently found out that the Mirage gives a $15 food comp just for playing. The 2-5 Mirage games are pretty good, but not quite as good as the Rio. The Mirage also has good 10-20 and 20-40 limit games, and a lower rake than the Rio.
How many players would I be going up against? Supposedly there are about 18 qualifiers from January, and they'll be playing on Sunday. So far this month, the Rio has been much more crowded than in January. Although I suspect this is mostly because of the Super Bowl, it's also possible that now that the rules are posted, more people are attempting to qualify for the tournament. The shortness of the month compensates for this somewhat. I approximate 24 other qualifiers for February.
How tough would my competition be? There are two players at the Rio who are probably better than I am, but they don't play there every day, so I doubt they'll qualify. The regulars at the Rio are decent, but not great. The real problem here is that there will be no fish - against a normal tournament field, at least 20% of the players are terrible. This won't be the case. I have relatively solid tournament skills, so I'd say that against a field of 24 solid players, I have about a 1/16 chance to win. If I knew the tournament structure, I could make a better approximation.
How much is the prize worth to me? Well, the prize is entry into the $10,000 WSOP main event. Although I could afford it, I would not put up the $10K entry fee on my own, so clearly it is worth less than that to me. How much would I be willing to pay to enter the tournament? $9000? Probably. Close enough.
What is my equity? $9000/16 = $562.50. So, I'm spending about 35 extra hours at the Rio over the course of 3 weeks for an expected extra $560, or about $16 an hour (neglecting the length of the freeroll tournament itself). Is that worth it? Probably - $16 is still a significant boost to my win rate.
I'll try to keep myself on pace, and then check out the freeroll on Sunday to see who shows up, what the structure is, and how many players there are.
Now, the situation is much clearer. They have the rules posted on the wall, and the comp card swipers are working again. I play a lot at the Rio, but also a lot at other places, so I'm trying to determine whether it's worth trying to reach 80 hours. Here are some factors that will weigh in the decision.
How much of a commitment would this be? I didn't start playing at the Rio this month until Friday, Feb 3 because I didn't know about this promotion and I'd been playing at the Mirage insted. Since Friday I have 18 hours logged at the Rio. February is 1/4 over, so my 18 hours are behind pace - I need 62 more in 3 weeks. Without trying, I would probably play 20-35 more hours there this month anyway. So the opportunity cost is about 35 hours during which I would be doing something else. For instance, I recently found out that the Mirage gives a $15 food comp just for playing. The 2-5 Mirage games are pretty good, but not quite as good as the Rio. The Mirage also has good 10-20 and 20-40 limit games, and a lower rake than the Rio.
How many players would I be going up against? Supposedly there are about 18 qualifiers from January, and they'll be playing on Sunday. So far this month, the Rio has been much more crowded than in January. Although I suspect this is mostly because of the Super Bowl, it's also possible that now that the rules are posted, more people are attempting to qualify for the tournament. The shortness of the month compensates for this somewhat. I approximate 24 other qualifiers for February.
How tough would my competition be? There are two players at the Rio who are probably better than I am, but they don't play there every day, so I doubt they'll qualify. The regulars at the Rio are decent, but not great. The real problem here is that there will be no fish - against a normal tournament field, at least 20% of the players are terrible. This won't be the case. I have relatively solid tournament skills, so I'd say that against a field of 24 solid players, I have about a 1/16 chance to win. If I knew the tournament structure, I could make a better approximation.
How much is the prize worth to me? Well, the prize is entry into the $10,000 WSOP main event. Although I could afford it, I would not put up the $10K entry fee on my own, so clearly it is worth less than that to me. How much would I be willing to pay to enter the tournament? $9000? Probably. Close enough.
What is my equity? $9000/16 = $562.50. So, I'm spending about 35 extra hours at the Rio over the course of 3 weeks for an expected extra $560, or about $16 an hour (neglecting the length of the freeroll tournament itself). Is that worth it? Probably - $16 is still a significant boost to my win rate.
I'll try to keep myself on pace, and then check out the freeroll on Sunday to see who shows up, what the structure is, and how many players there are.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Caesars
As I mentioned before, Caesars has a new poker room. It opened mid-December. The room is very large and has state of the art technology. It's located in its own alcove right between the sportsbook and Pure (supposedly the most popular nightclub in the world right now). I've played there several times and the games are reasonably good. However, I don't plan on going back anytime soon for the following reasons...
1. Unreasonable rules. The MGM room had this same problem when they opened up. The people in charge want to make strict rules to try to eliminate any gray area when disputes arise. This is understandable - advisable even. The problem is that players and dealers are used to a certain set of rules, written and unwritten, that are used in all the other poker rooms in town. When you make new rules and tell neither the players nor the dealers, it is unreasonable, and will only cause more disputes. The solution is probably to have strict rules that conform to the current customs of play in poker rooms around Vegas. A good example of this is "cutting your stack" when betting. If you want to bet $70 and you bring out a stack of sixteen $5 chips, most casinos allow you to count out these chips and then bring two back, as long as you leave your hand on them. At Caesars, this is an $80 bet unless you verbally declare "$70". This rule alone makes me very unlikely to want to play at Caesars again, unless they change it.
2. Poor service. I wanted to get some food and another player told me they will bring food to the table, and all I had to do was ask for a menu. This is a nice feature that some, but not all, casinos offer. I got my menu and the floorperson asked me for my ID so I could get a comp card. All I had to do was give the waitress my card when I ordered. Well, four hours, $17, and one cheeseburger later, I still didn't have my comp card or any discount, and I was out of my seat asking the floorperson where I could get my card. She said I should go to the front desk. The front desk told me I had to go out into the casino, past the deli to the rewards center to get it. So I searched the casino for a few minutes, found the rewards center, got my card, and went home. The next time I went to Caesars I had been playing for about 6 hours when I decided to order some food. Suffice it to say that an hour and a half later, after they had finally gotten around to asking me for my order, I was ready to leave. And not come back. Now, I realize getting food brought to me at the table is a luxury, but expecting the casino to follow through on their offer of it should not be to much to ask.
3. Inadaquate restrooms. The restroom has just a few urinals and is located just outside the poker room, to be shared with sportsbook patrons and nightclub goers. This means lines are common, especially when the nightclub is hopping. On the plus side, it makes for an amusing social scene as the world of the drunken nightclub people collides with the world of the poker players.
All of these problems, particularly the first two, can be fixed rather easily. In fact, I expect them to be fixed within a month or two. Until then, Las Vegas has plenty of other more worthy options.
1. Unreasonable rules. The MGM room had this same problem when they opened up. The people in charge want to make strict rules to try to eliminate any gray area when disputes arise. This is understandable - advisable even. The problem is that players and dealers are used to a certain set of rules, written and unwritten, that are used in all the other poker rooms in town. When you make new rules and tell neither the players nor the dealers, it is unreasonable, and will only cause more disputes. The solution is probably to have strict rules that conform to the current customs of play in poker rooms around Vegas. A good example of this is "cutting your stack" when betting. If you want to bet $70 and you bring out a stack of sixteen $5 chips, most casinos allow you to count out these chips and then bring two back, as long as you leave your hand on them. At Caesars, this is an $80 bet unless you verbally declare "$70". This rule alone makes me very unlikely to want to play at Caesars again, unless they change it.
2. Poor service. I wanted to get some food and another player told me they will bring food to the table, and all I had to do was ask for a menu. This is a nice feature that some, but not all, casinos offer. I got my menu and the floorperson asked me for my ID so I could get a comp card. All I had to do was give the waitress my card when I ordered. Well, four hours, $17, and one cheeseburger later, I still didn't have my comp card or any discount, and I was out of my seat asking the floorperson where I could get my card. She said I should go to the front desk. The front desk told me I had to go out into the casino, past the deli to the rewards center to get it. So I searched the casino for a few minutes, found the rewards center, got my card, and went home. The next time I went to Caesars I had been playing for about 6 hours when I decided to order some food. Suffice it to say that an hour and a half later, after they had finally gotten around to asking me for my order, I was ready to leave. And not come back. Now, I realize getting food brought to me at the table is a luxury, but expecting the casino to follow through on their offer of it should not be to much to ask.
3. Inadaquate restrooms. The restroom has just a few urinals and is located just outside the poker room, to be shared with sportsbook patrons and nightclub goers. This means lines are common, especially when the nightclub is hopping. On the plus side, it makes for an amusing social scene as the world of the drunken nightclub people collides with the world of the poker players.
All of these problems, particularly the first two, can be fixed rather easily. In fact, I expect them to be fixed within a month or two. Until then, Las Vegas has plenty of other more worthy options.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Wynn Tournament and 5/10NL
My sleeping schedule is now such that I am awake at noon and can play in the acclaimed Wynn tournament. The tournament is $330, and you start out with an M of 40. M, named after backgammon and poker theorist Paul Magriel, is the ratio of the size of your stack to the size of the pot before the flop. A higher M generally means that more skill is involved. A lower M implies a lot of all-in bets, eliminating most post-flop skill. Thus, most good players prefer tournaments where you have a high M for most of the tournament. This happens when the stacks start out big and the blinds move up slowly - at the Wynn they move up every 45 minutes. For comparison, the Mirage tournaments on Tuesday and Wednesday start with an M of 15 an the blinds move up every 30 minutes.
Anyway, I played in the Wynn tournament for the first time yesterday. It attracted 88 players, for a pretty substantial prize pool. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the players were pretty good, due probably to the structure attracting better players. I was doing well until I got a little too excited with 55 in the big blind and reraised what I percieved to be a steal from the button, and ran into QQ. This took out half my stack, and I couldn't get anything going after that.
Later, I went to play the 5-10 NL game. This game is entirely beatable, although I failed to beat it yesterday. The game was looser than the average 2-5 NL game, which is saying something. I hope yesterday was representative of what can be expected at that level. If so, I'll be playing there more often in the coming months. For now, I'll be playing a mix of that and 2-5 NL.
Anyway, I played in the Wynn tournament for the first time yesterday. It attracted 88 players, for a pretty substantial prize pool. Unfortunately, a high percentage of the players were pretty good, due probably to the structure attracting better players. I was doing well until I got a little too excited with 55 in the big blind and reraised what I percieved to be a steal from the button, and ran into QQ. This took out half my stack, and I couldn't get anything going after that.
Later, I went to play the 5-10 NL game. This game is entirely beatable, although I failed to beat it yesterday. The game was looser than the average 2-5 NL game, which is saying something. I hope yesterday was representative of what can be expected at that level. If so, I'll be playing there more often in the coming months. For now, I'll be playing a mix of that and 2-5 NL.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Folding KK
The conventional wisdom is that, in a cash game (as opposed to a tournament), KK should practically never be folded before the flop. In Harrington on Holdem Volume I, Dan Harrington describes a time that he almost folded them, but then decided to call anyway. He claims to have never folded KK before the flop.
I've folded KK before the flop once in my life, back in college against my old roommate Ben. I now think it was a bad decision, although Ben insists that he did, indeed, have AA (I'm not entirely sure he's telling me the truth, though). Anyway, I almost folded KK again yesterday at the Rio, and after analyzing the situation more closely, I'm still not sure what I should have done.
Here's the situation. Playing 2-5 NL, I was in the small blind with about $800. The under-the-gun player, who had exactly $332 left, raised to $25. He was tight and rather passive, an I hadn't seen him do anything out of line in the couple of hours we had been there. So already I knew he had to have a premium hand.
The next player had over $1000 behind. He was loose and aggressive, and raised to $100. I figured him for AQ or better, TT or better. Everyone folded to me, and I looked down at KK. I decided that I very likely had the best hand, but that the UTG player also had to have an excellent hand, and was likely to put in the rest of his money if I just called. This was my best chance of getting the loose-aggressive player's money into the pot. So, instead of reraising, which is the usual play, I just cold-called the $100. The big blind folded, and, as expected, the UTG player went all-in for his last $232. He did this so confidently and uncaringly that I felt he very likely had AA.
The loose aggressive player spent a minute or so considering his play, and made the comment "I'm either going all-in or folding," essentially eliminating the chance he had AA... so at this point I was really hoping he pushes all-in. Alas, he folded, accidentally flashing two face cards that I thought were JJ (he confirmed this after the hand). In any case, he certainly was not holding an ace.
Now the action was back to me. I am reasonably confident the UTG player has AA, but can I really lay down KK? I was being offered 232 to 533 odds. This means I need to think I have about a 30% chance to win the hand to make calling correct. If he has AA I am only about 18 or 19% to win the hand. In my mind at the time, I was thinking that if he didn't have AA, I was about 80% to win. After further analysis, I think that if he didn't have AA, I was really only about 75% to win, but I was pretty close. (The 75% statistics was calculated with pokerstove, assuming the other possible hands he could have were 88-KK, ATs+, KQs, or AKo. Adding in a few hands like 78s doesn't change things much.) I decided to call, but expected to see him turn over AA... which is exactly what happened.
Anyway, doing the math shows that I needed to be 79% confident that my opponent was holding AA to make folding correct. Was I that confident? Uh... I dunno, I've always found it hard to put numbers on these things. I actually think I was about 80% sure he had AA. So, maybe folding would have been correct after all.
I've folded KK before the flop once in my life, back in college against my old roommate Ben. I now think it was a bad decision, although Ben insists that he did, indeed, have AA (I'm not entirely sure he's telling me the truth, though). Anyway, I almost folded KK again yesterday at the Rio, and after analyzing the situation more closely, I'm still not sure what I should have done.
Here's the situation. Playing 2-5 NL, I was in the small blind with about $800. The under-the-gun player, who had exactly $332 left, raised to $25. He was tight and rather passive, an I hadn't seen him do anything out of line in the couple of hours we had been there. So already I knew he had to have a premium hand.
The next player had over $1000 behind. He was loose and aggressive, and raised to $100. I figured him for AQ or better, TT or better. Everyone folded to me, and I looked down at KK. I decided that I very likely had the best hand, but that the UTG player also had to have an excellent hand, and was likely to put in the rest of his money if I just called. This was my best chance of getting the loose-aggressive player's money into the pot. So, instead of reraising, which is the usual play, I just cold-called the $100. The big blind folded, and, as expected, the UTG player went all-in for his last $232. He did this so confidently and uncaringly that I felt he very likely had AA.
The loose aggressive player spent a minute or so considering his play, and made the comment "I'm either going all-in or folding," essentially eliminating the chance he had AA... so at this point I was really hoping he pushes all-in. Alas, he folded, accidentally flashing two face cards that I thought were JJ (he confirmed this after the hand). In any case, he certainly was not holding an ace.
Now the action was back to me. I am reasonably confident the UTG player has AA, but can I really lay down KK? I was being offered 232 to 533 odds. This means I need to think I have about a 30% chance to win the hand to make calling correct. If he has AA I am only about 18 or 19% to win the hand. In my mind at the time, I was thinking that if he didn't have AA, I was about 80% to win. After further analysis, I think that if he didn't have AA, I was really only about 75% to win, but I was pretty close. (The 75% statistics was calculated with pokerstove, assuming the other possible hands he could have were 88-KK, ATs+, KQs, or AKo. Adding in a few hands like 78s doesn't change things much.) I decided to call, but expected to see him turn over AA... which is exactly what happened.
Anyway, doing the math shows that I needed to be 79% confident that my opponent was holding AA to make folding correct. Was I that confident? Uh... I dunno, I've always found it hard to put numbers on these things. I actually think I was about 80% sure he had AA. So, maybe folding would have been correct after all.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Is This Bad?
While playing at the Rio last night, I ordered I coke. When I was just finishing it off, I felt something strange in my mouth. What I removed was a tiny piece of broken glass - in fact, it pricked my finger, causing it to bleed for a few minutes. I wonder how long will it take me to notice if I swallowed any similar fragments.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Quick Update
Since the last time you heard from me, I've had a terrible losing streak (actually the 15-30 game at the Wynn was in the midst of this) and then a complete turnaround, getting me back into the black for the month.
Sorry to my loyal readers for not posting for a week. I've been working on a couple of other projects, and not much interesting has happened. Here's the best I can do to try to interest you:
- In the lobby at the Mirage this past weekend there was an enormous crowd for the new Jet nightclub. Nearly naked models painted with the Jet logo sprawled on sofas on a stage and also stood on platforms amid the crowd, which included photographers and celebrities, of whom I could only recognize Shannon Elizabeth (who, by the way, is a very good poker player - I learned today that she won the "Nicky Hilton New Year's Eve Poker Tournament" at Caesars. Hey Nicky, why wasn't I invited to play in this??)
- Luck in the Mirage tournaments has been eluding me recently, as has wakefulness during the noon Wynn tournaments, which are supposedly the best under $1000 tournaments in town. I swear I'll get up in time for one at some point.
- The Rio still has the best 2-5 NL game in town, as far as I can tell. However, most of their card shufflers have broken, their comp system makes no sense, and they persist in using cards so old that they have worn out splotches on the back. "They're not marked if they're all like that!" Um... right. I'm not going to complain too much as long as their poker room continues to attract drunken tourists.
Sorry to my loyal readers for not posting for a week. I've been working on a couple of other projects, and not much interesting has happened. Here's the best I can do to try to interest you:
- In the lobby at the Mirage this past weekend there was an enormous crowd for the new Jet nightclub. Nearly naked models painted with the Jet logo sprawled on sofas on a stage and also stood on platforms amid the crowd, which included photographers and celebrities, of whom I could only recognize Shannon Elizabeth (who, by the way, is a very good poker player - I learned today that she won the "Nicky Hilton New Year's Eve Poker Tournament" at Caesars. Hey Nicky, why wasn't I invited to play in this??)
- Luck in the Mirage tournaments has been eluding me recently, as has wakefulness during the noon Wynn tournaments, which are supposedly the best under $1000 tournaments in town. I swear I'll get up in time for one at some point.
- The Rio still has the best 2-5 NL game in town, as far as I can tell. However, most of their card shufflers have broken, their comp system makes no sense, and they persist in using cards so old that they have worn out splotches on the back. "They're not marked if they're all like that!" Um... right. I'm not going to complain too much as long as their poker room continues to attract drunken tourists.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
15-30 holdem at the Wynn
On the strength of my strong showing at the limit tournament earlier this week and the suggestion of FJDelgado when he was here a few weeks ago, I decided to play some limit holdem at the Wynn. I'd played the 15-30 game there a few times before (while waiting for a no-limit seat to open up), and done pretty well. I decided to watch the game while waiting for my seat to open up. One guy in his late twenties was talking about how he comes to the poker room to drink, not really to play cards. Supposedly, he drinks every day, and he said that he had taken two days off and he couldn't digest his food and that he basically needs to drink just to get through the day. He was the flashy, talkative type of drunkard, and among the wildest players I've ever seen, and that includes many hours of 2-4, 3-6, 4-8 and 8-16 games. He was playing more than 50% of his hands and winning a lot of pots on miracle turn and river cards.
Things got even more ridiculous once I got my seat. The flashy drunkard started putting in his $30 for a raise every hand before the cards were even dealt. While he was not required to leave the money out there (he could have taken it back before the action got around to him), he was quite faithful in leaving it there, except sometimes putting in another $15 if someone had raised in front of him. Obviously, this made for a strange but profitable game for the rest of the players. It also meant that the game demanded an unorthodox approach. Playing "by the book" in this situation was clearly not the optimal strategy. This made it all the more interesting that Mason Malmuth, one of the well known authors of "the book" was sitting at the table at the time.
Malmuth, author of Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players, and many other books on gambling and poker, is notorious for being a very tight and inflexible player. He sat down just a minute after I did. A somewhat tall and chubby guy, he, like his collaborator David Sklansky, looks like a computer scientist from the 1970's, the type who only went outside 2 or 3 times a month to buy more chocolate bars so they wouldn't starve to death. When I looked at him I thought "hey, that guy looks a lot like Mason Mulmuth." Then I saw that his shirt said "Two plus Two Publishing," which is the company he owns with Sklansky. A minute later "Mason" was called for the 5-10 NL game, and he looked around for a few seconds, so at that point I was pretty certain it was him. I thought it was kind of cool to be playing with him, as this was the first time I'd ever actually played with a well-known poker player. Because of his reputation of "playing by the book," I was very curious to see how he would react to the unusual circumstances caused by the maniac at the table. For instance, if he had AA or KK, would he raise, as the book suggests, or would he just limp in and then reraise when the bet came around to him again?
Well, Malmuth basically just folded every hand, looking somewhat perturbed. I couldn't tell if he was annoyed about the maniac at the table, but I got the sense that he was just normally nervous and fidgety, and it probably had nothing to do with the maniac (who, by the way, caught an incredible run of cards and won several hundred dollars while I was there). Malmuth got into a discussion with me and some of the players around me about how badly run some of the cardrooms in Vegas were, especially criticizing the new Caesars room for being put completely out of the way (I'll give my own opinion of Caesars in a future post). Then he abruptly stopped himself, saying, "I used to care about this stuff, but not any more. I actually used to do some consulting on poker room management, but nobody ever listened to me."
Malmuth only played one hand that I can remember, and his straightforward style made his hand extremely readable. I hesitate to describe the hand because I didn't play it well myself, but this is what happened... An early position player raised and I cold-called from middle position with 77 (probably should fold here, right?). Malmuth, two to my left, reraised in late position. The only hands I think he would do this with are AA, KK, QQ and AK, maybe AQs. Folds to the EP raiser, who reraised again. I coldcalled again (probably should have folded again here due to the high likelihood Malmuth has AA or KK and will re-raise), and Malmuth just called. This call pretty much eliminated the chance Malmuth has AA, as he would reraise with that hand. Probably also KK. Now the most likely hands he can have are QQ, AK, JJ, KK, or maybe AQs or AA. The flop came KK4. EP player checked, I checked, Malmuth bet, EP raised, I folded, and Malmuth just called. At this point, it's still tough to say which hand Malmuth is holding, but I would still guess QQ. Turn was a blank, EP bet and Malmuth just called. At this point, he almost certainly had QQ. He would have raised with any hand that had a K. He might have AA or JJ, but those hands were unlikely to begin with. The river was another blank, EP bet again, and Malmuth called again. Sure enough, Malmuth turned over QQ, while EP had only JJ. My guess is that EP had no idea who he was going up against, as there was almost no way he had the best hand on the river.
Incidentally, the maniac drunkard caught two huge hands against me and I lost several hundred dollars. Limit poker isn't as easy as I was led to believe.
Things got even more ridiculous once I got my seat. The flashy drunkard started putting in his $30 for a raise every hand before the cards were even dealt. While he was not required to leave the money out there (he could have taken it back before the action got around to him), he was quite faithful in leaving it there, except sometimes putting in another $15 if someone had raised in front of him. Obviously, this made for a strange but profitable game for the rest of the players. It also meant that the game demanded an unorthodox approach. Playing "by the book" in this situation was clearly not the optimal strategy. This made it all the more interesting that Mason Malmuth, one of the well known authors of "the book" was sitting at the table at the time.
Malmuth, author of Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Hold'Em Poker for Advanced Players, and many other books on gambling and poker, is notorious for being a very tight and inflexible player. He sat down just a minute after I did. A somewhat tall and chubby guy, he, like his collaborator David Sklansky, looks like a computer scientist from the 1970's, the type who only went outside 2 or 3 times a month to buy more chocolate bars so they wouldn't starve to death. When I looked at him I thought "hey, that guy looks a lot like Mason Mulmuth." Then I saw that his shirt said "Two plus Two Publishing," which is the company he owns with Sklansky. A minute later "Mason" was called for the 5-10 NL game, and he looked around for a few seconds, so at that point I was pretty certain it was him. I thought it was kind of cool to be playing with him, as this was the first time I'd ever actually played with a well-known poker player. Because of his reputation of "playing by the book," I was very curious to see how he would react to the unusual circumstances caused by the maniac at the table. For instance, if he had AA or KK, would he raise, as the book suggests, or would he just limp in and then reraise when the bet came around to him again?
Well, Malmuth basically just folded every hand, looking somewhat perturbed. I couldn't tell if he was annoyed about the maniac at the table, but I got the sense that he was just normally nervous and fidgety, and it probably had nothing to do with the maniac (who, by the way, caught an incredible run of cards and won several hundred dollars while I was there). Malmuth got into a discussion with me and some of the players around me about how badly run some of the cardrooms in Vegas were, especially criticizing the new Caesars room for being put completely out of the way (I'll give my own opinion of Caesars in a future post). Then he abruptly stopped himself, saying, "I used to care about this stuff, but not any more. I actually used to do some consulting on poker room management, but nobody ever listened to me."
Malmuth only played one hand that I can remember, and his straightforward style made his hand extremely readable. I hesitate to describe the hand because I didn't play it well myself, but this is what happened... An early position player raised and I cold-called from middle position with 77 (probably should fold here, right?). Malmuth, two to my left, reraised in late position. The only hands I think he would do this with are AA, KK, QQ and AK, maybe AQs. Folds to the EP raiser, who reraised again. I coldcalled again (probably should have folded again here due to the high likelihood Malmuth has AA or KK and will re-raise), and Malmuth just called. This call pretty much eliminated the chance Malmuth has AA, as he would reraise with that hand. Probably also KK. Now the most likely hands he can have are QQ, AK, JJ, KK, or maybe AQs or AA. The flop came KK4. EP player checked, I checked, Malmuth bet, EP raised, I folded, and Malmuth just called. At this point, it's still tough to say which hand Malmuth is holding, but I would still guess QQ. Turn was a blank, EP bet and Malmuth just called. At this point, he almost certainly had QQ. He would have raised with any hand that had a K. He might have AA or JJ, but those hands were unlikely to begin with. The river was another blank, EP bet again, and Malmuth called again. Sure enough, Malmuth turned over QQ, while EP had only JJ. My guess is that EP had no idea who he was going up against, as there was almost no way he had the best hand on the river.
Incidentally, the maniac drunkard caught two huge hands against me and I lost several hundred dollars. Limit poker isn't as easy as I was led to believe.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Limit Tournament
As I've mentioned before, I like to play occassionally in the 7pm weekday tournaments at the Mirage. On Tuesday and Wednesday it's a $130 no-limit holdem tournament with unlimited $100 rebuys. Thursday, it's $230 plus a single $200 rebuy (which I won a few weeks ago). I had never played their Monday tournament before, and as it turns out, it's a limit holdem tournament. Although I've never played in a live limit tournament before (I've played a few online), I figured I would play in it anyway.
I know for a fact that young people play limit holdem, but it seems that they do not play limit holdem tournaments. The median age at the final table other than me was probably 55; there was only one other player under 30 and nobody looked like he was between 30 and 45. I don't know why this is. I guess the young players who play limit don't waste their time on small tournaments like this one.
Anyway, I came in 4th and cashed for a few hundred dollars. This was the second time since my big win a few weeks ago that I just barely clawed my way into the money in a tournament. The other time was in the 2am tournament at Binions when Aaron and Joe were here. In that tournament, I knocked out Aaron with my KK after having advised him to play more aggressively, and Joe bubbled out one hand before me. Sorry guys.
Bobby and others tell me that the $300 noon tournament at the Wynn on weekdays is the best tournament in town. If I ever get up early enough I'll probably try it out.
I know for a fact that young people play limit holdem, but it seems that they do not play limit holdem tournaments. The median age at the final table other than me was probably 55; there was only one other player under 30 and nobody looked like he was between 30 and 45. I don't know why this is. I guess the young players who play limit don't waste their time on small tournaments like this one.
Anyway, I came in 4th and cashed for a few hundred dollars. This was the second time since my big win a few weeks ago that I just barely clawed my way into the money in a tournament. The other time was in the 2am tournament at Binions when Aaron and Joe were here. In that tournament, I knocked out Aaron with my KK after having advised him to play more aggressively, and Joe bubbled out one hand before me. Sorry guys.
Bobby and others tell me that the $300 noon tournament at the Wynn on weekdays is the best tournament in town. If I ever get up early enough I'll probably try it out.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Back to the "Routine"
My brother and girlfriend left town Wednesday night. Lots of low-limit holdem, as expected, and also two trips two Red Rock Canyon and one to Valley of Fire. We also saw Munich.
Before I went home for the holidays, my friends Aaron and Joe were in town. When I got back, I had my girlfriend and brother in town. So, it's been a couple of weeks since I've lived in my normal lifestyle. What is "normal"? I'm not quite sure, since I don't really have any sort of routine. Basically, I try to exercise and get one or two other things done each day, as well as playing at least a few hours of poker. Besides that it's pretty much just watching tv, playing video games, reading (mostly online news or books about poker), writing occasionally in this blog, and sleeping. The best part is that I rarely ever have to do anything on any given day if I don't want to, so I rarely have anything really to worry about. It also means that I have to be self-disciplined, something which I am not particularly good at, but I could be a lot worse (eg Aaron). My efforts to become more self-disciplined have been quite valuable to me personally. Up until my move to Vegas I had always been in school or had a job (like almost everyone else in the world), and my free time was generally geared towards trying to de-stress. Now that all of my time is essentially "free time," I am forced to evaluate what my personal priorities and try to set goals for myself - all those things that in the past had essentially been decided for me. I recently heard a quote from TomMcEvoy where he said he considers pro poker players to be "the last of the true free spirits." I don't know exactly what he means by that and it's almost certainly not quite true, but somehow that quote fits what I am trying to say here. Pro poker players truly are free-spirits; we have chosen an unorthodox means of supporting ourselves and we need not answer to anyone.
Observing what one chooses to do with one's time when one has no responsibilities is very revealing. Regardless of what I may be doing a year from now or ten years from now, I feel like this time is extremely valuable for purposes of self reflection... something that is probably particularly valuable for someone who found a normal 9-5 office job intolerable, despite the fact that it involved almost precisely his chosen field of study, and thus should presumably have been a satisfying career.
Other lifestyle improvements that have occured since my move to Vegas include flossing, exercising a bit more, drinking much less, and sleeping much better. Also, I'm better at poker now.
Before I went home for the holidays, my friends Aaron and Joe were in town. When I got back, I had my girlfriend and brother in town. So, it's been a couple of weeks since I've lived in my normal lifestyle. What is "normal"? I'm not quite sure, since I don't really have any sort of routine. Basically, I try to exercise and get one or two other things done each day, as well as playing at least a few hours of poker. Besides that it's pretty much just watching tv, playing video games, reading (mostly online news or books about poker), writing occasionally in this blog, and sleeping. The best part is that I rarely ever have to do anything on any given day if I don't want to, so I rarely have anything really to worry about. It also means that I have to be self-disciplined, something which I am not particularly good at, but I could be a lot worse (eg Aaron). My efforts to become more self-disciplined have been quite valuable to me personally. Up until my move to Vegas I had always been in school or had a job (like almost everyone else in the world), and my free time was generally geared towards trying to de-stress. Now that all of my time is essentially "free time," I am forced to evaluate what my personal priorities and try to set goals for myself - all those things that in the past had essentially been decided for me. I recently heard a quote from TomMcEvoy where he said he considers pro poker players to be "the last of the true free spirits." I don't know exactly what he means by that and it's almost certainly not quite true, but somehow that quote fits what I am trying to say here. Pro poker players truly are free-spirits; we have chosen an unorthodox means of supporting ourselves and we need not answer to anyone.
Observing what one chooses to do with one's time when one has no responsibilities is very revealing. Regardless of what I may be doing a year from now or ten years from now, I feel like this time is extremely valuable for purposes of self reflection... something that is probably particularly valuable for someone who found a normal 9-5 office job intolerable, despite the fact that it involved almost precisely his chosen field of study, and thus should presumably have been a satisfying career.
Other lifestyle improvements that have occured since my move to Vegas include flossing, exercising a bit more, drinking much less, and sleeping much better. Also, I'm better at poker now.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Low-Limit Again
I'm back in Las Vegas after a nice, relaxing week back in Massachusetts with the family. With me are my girlfriend Brigid and my brother Max. Brigid is now a casino poker veteran, but this will be the first time for Max, so we'll probably be starting at 2-4, maybe 3-6. In any case, this means a lot of low-limit holdem for me this week. Since I haven't played any form of poker for over a week, it should be a nice way for me to ease back into the Vegas poker scene.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Happy Holidays
After a great (and quite profitable) weekend meeting FJDelgado and hanging out with Joe and Aaron, I'm back home for the holidays until New Year's. It's always a nice change of pace, hanging out with the family and old friends and going for walks out in the frigid air. Happy Holidays everyone... unless you are one of the minority (I hope) of Christians who are offended by the phrase "Happy Holidays" like Bill O'Reilly is. In that case, Screw You.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Visitors
When I moved to Las Vegas, I thought I'd be getting a visitor at least every two weeks or so. After all, when I told my friends I'd be living here, the most common response I got was "Great! I'll definitely come visit you." The fact that most of these very same people had made a trip to Vegas in the six months before telling me that, made me think they actually would come visit. Somehow, this isn't the way it has worked out at all. My only visitors so far have been my girlfriend and my mother. Oh, and my friend Joe, but that doesn't really count since he lives here anyway and was only in town because he had been displaced from his med school for a month after Katrina.
This weekend, however, that is all about to change. I will finally have an actual visitor, my college friend Aaron. Also, Joe will be in town, and so will FJDelgado, who I'll be meeting for the first time. All of us play poker, although at somewhat different levels. If necessary, we could probably all agree to play 15-30 limit, but more likely, I think we'll just have a drink at the bar. In any case, I'm looking forward to finally having some different people around. Then I head back home for Christmas, and then back to Vegas with Brigid and my brother.
This weekend, however, that is all about to change. I will finally have an actual visitor, my college friend Aaron. Also, Joe will be in town, and so will FJDelgado, who I'll be meeting for the first time. All of us play poker, although at somewhat different levels. If necessary, we could probably all agree to play 15-30 limit, but more likely, I think we'll just have a drink at the bar. In any case, I'm looking forward to finally having some different people around. Then I head back home for Christmas, and then back to Vegas with Brigid and my brother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)