This is a couple of stories from my own personal experience. The poker hand happened just a few days ago. Afterward, while analyzing the hand, I had a sense of Deja VU. I put both stories side by side to show the similarities. I think we have all been at both of these places.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Dancing In the Rain
Well, here is my first Blog entry. I really planned on it being something funny, considering the intro the Lorin gave me. But I have been drinking all night after running a Promo at my Bar and I got home at 4 in the morning and called Lorin to check on him. After a 45 minute conversation, I realised that there was something I should touch on, and that is weathering the storm....
Every player....and I mean EVERY player will have downswings......some so severe that they question how you play this game and even if you WANT to play this game ever again. That is the cruel bitch that we have married ourselves to. Deal with it. Lorin, our own "Short Stack Hero" is worried that he is only on pace to make $4,000 this month. He is pissed, he is angry and he is worried. All I can say is ..
"ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS???!!!"
A $4,000 win in a month at $1-$2 is a dream for most players not named "Durrrr" It is only cataclysmic for Lorin because of his own escalating results over the last several months. Well let me be the Buzzkill and break the illusion. NOBODY WILL EVER BEAT THERE OWN FOR RESULTS FOREVER. PERIOD. All streaks are made to be broken and all streaks come to an end.....that is why they are called "streaks".
This game, and Life in general for that matter, is made up of swings. Call them standard deviations from the norm, call them luck, call them whatever. But they are what they are. Part of being a PRO is dealing with this. It will be rarer for you to run a month with no deviation than it will for you to run a month with deviations from either the positive or the negative.
The thing that separates those that can stick with it, and those who can't is simple. Can you handle it?
This is the only thing that I would say to keep in mind.
LIFE IS NOT ABOUT WEATHERING THE STORM (any single minded retard can do that)
LIFE IS ABOUT LEARNING TO DANCE IN THE RAIN........
If you can take $4,000 from people that have been studying, conniving and scheming to take your money, you are doing pretty well. Especially if that only happens 1 or 2 months out of the year and the other 10 months, you average $8,000. I WISH I could show a $4,000 PROFIT for my WORST month. Hell, as far as cash games go I wish I could show that for my best month.....
Nobody plays this game well when discouraged or downtrodden. You almost have to play this game with arrogance and ignorance. Not to the point where you won't examine your results, but to the point where the results don't matter as long as you are sure that what you are doing is right. As Davy Crockett once said " First be sure you are right, then go ahead....."
Basically, as far as advice from somebody that has been on almost every side of every fence in this game goes, never stop listening, never stop learning, never stop analyzing, but be careful when starting to doubt. Make your game plan, make your play, but don't look at the results too quickly. Make sure that it makes sense to you, then go ahead......
And when the inevitable storm comes, don't focus so much on surviving the storm, take a moment to learn how to appreciate that $4,000 (as bad as that may seem )and dance in the rain......
Every player....and I mean EVERY player will have downswings......some so severe that they question how you play this game and even if you WANT to play this game ever again. That is the cruel bitch that we have married ourselves to. Deal with it. Lorin, our own "Short Stack Hero" is worried that he is only on pace to make $4,000 this month. He is pissed, he is angry and he is worried. All I can say is ..
"ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS???!!!"
A $4,000 win in a month at $1-$2 is a dream for most players not named "Durrrr" It is only cataclysmic for Lorin because of his own escalating results over the last several months. Well let me be the Buzzkill and break the illusion. NOBODY WILL EVER BEAT THERE OWN FOR RESULTS FOREVER. PERIOD. All streaks are made to be broken and all streaks come to an end.....that is why they are called "streaks".
This game, and Life in general for that matter, is made up of swings. Call them standard deviations from the norm, call them luck, call them whatever. But they are what they are. Part of being a PRO is dealing with this. It will be rarer for you to run a month with no deviation than it will for you to run a month with deviations from either the positive or the negative.
The thing that separates those that can stick with it, and those who can't is simple. Can you handle it?
This is the only thing that I would say to keep in mind.
LIFE IS NOT ABOUT WEATHERING THE STORM (any single minded retard can do that)
LIFE IS ABOUT LEARNING TO DANCE IN THE RAIN........
If you can take $4,000 from people that have been studying, conniving and scheming to take your money, you are doing pretty well. Especially if that only happens 1 or 2 months out of the year and the other 10 months, you average $8,000. I WISH I could show a $4,000 PROFIT for my WORST month. Hell, as far as cash games go I wish I could show that for my best month.....
Nobody plays this game well when discouraged or downtrodden. You almost have to play this game with arrogance and ignorance. Not to the point where you won't examine your results, but to the point where the results don't matter as long as you are sure that what you are doing is right. As Davy Crockett once said " First be sure you are right, then go ahead....."
Basically, as far as advice from somebody that has been on almost every side of every fence in this game goes, never stop listening, never stop learning, never stop analyzing, but be careful when starting to doubt. Make your game plan, make your play, but don't look at the results too quickly. Make sure that it makes sense to you, then go ahead......
And when the inevitable storm comes, don't focus so much on surviving the storm, take a moment to learn how to appreciate that $4,000 (as bad as that may seem )and dance in the rain......
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tim Wakefield and the Knuckleball: A Metaphor

Enough right now of the frivolities, it's time to get back down to work. For this next entry, I am going to present a metaphor for understanding my short stacking mindset. I used to be a left handed pitcher up until my junior year of college at Bellarmine University in Louisville, Kentucky. Being that this is the only sport I have played competitively, this is the one that I understand the best.
Tim Wakefield is a knuckleball pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. He has had an illustrious career with them all this time and is arguably neither a pitcher in the true sense, nor even a “real athlete.” His “fastball” is known never to exceed 75 mph, but it doesn't need to. He doesn't have a devastating curveball, slider, or changeup. He basically has two pitches: a knuckleball and a straight pitch (described as being too slow to call a fastball). The key here is that is all he needs. For those of you who might be unfamiliar with the term, a knuckleball is an extremely difficult pitch to throw that is designed to have no spin whatsoever, allowing the ball to drop and curve sharply at angles so severe and unpredictable that even the pitcher and catcher have no idea which way it is going. Picture it like throwing a beach ball into a headwind, except that the beach ball is the size of a baseball and is moving at 55-60 mph. Now try to hit that with a round bat after you have been practicing all week to hit a moving target at 93mph that is speeding in a straight line. Suppose even further that you are prepared to hit that tiny beach ball and you can guess one of three directions that it is going to move, but now all of a sudden a straight ball comes down the pike that is moving far faster, but you have already slowed down your motion in preparation for that beach ball, but by then it is too late and that ball has already slapped into the catcher's mitt. You are fully aware of the pitcher's game plan, but a slight variation in the strategy throws you off completely.
You see, Tim Wakefield was originally drafted to play professional baseball. He was a Double A first baseman with no exotic talents and very little hope of ever making the Big Leagues. One day he was fortunate that a scout was watching him during a pre-game warm up and mixing in a few vicious knuckleballs. The scout was so impressed that he had him throw some more and then it wasn't very long before he was owning batters left and right and had a permanent spot on a top billed Major League franchise. While he certainly has peers and opponents who don't consider him one of the guys or a true athlete, you simply can't deny that the man shows impressive results. He's not trying to be the next Nolan Ryan or Roger Clemens. He never can and he doesn't have to be. He simply found something that he was extraordinarily good at and worked it to perfection. Furthermore, his career is likely to out-perform all but the most genetically gifted and lucky players, due to the fraction of the strain that he puts on his muscles and tendons.
I consider the story of Tim Wakefield to be a great lesson in humility. While we all grew up with notions of the being the best at every facet of life, at some point in time we are either forced to accept our limitations or embrace them along with the strengths that we own. I believe it is fair for me to predict that no one who reads this will ever be a winning regular at Rail Heaven, ever win a gold bracelet at the World Series of Poker, or ever win a World Poker Tour title. But none of us need any of these things to be or feel successful at this game. Don't be afraid to try new or unpopular things and accept that you will not excel at everything you try. Challenge the conventional wisdom and re-define success as a personal venture. Take the unbeaten path.
Labels:
knuckleball,
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
Tim Wakefield,
Travis Rose
Monday, April 13, 2009
How We Are Deceived by Our Own Miscalculations of the Future
While not made for poker directly, I believe that this discussion has some very important concepts for understanding other players and our own misconceptions about future probability. For those of you who may have already read the works of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, you will quickly be able to appreciate and enjoy this highly entertaining (at least for us dorks!) talk by Dan Gilbert.
For those who do not see how this applies to the game, I would like to add a disclaimer that I believe long-term success at the game requires melding different disciplines to understanding the game in all its facets. And to people like Microstakes Bankroll Builder, yes, this also includes understanding the mindset and goals of short stackers rather than quickly casting judgment.
A person who seeks long term profit from poker isn't really all that different than someone who pursues art or music for the same reasons. Being able to draw or write a great song does not in any way guarantee you success. You have to understand the rules and regulations of your industry, understand and interpret the impact of the conventional wisdom on your field, understand the desires and needs of your audience, etc.
I hope you all find this both entertaining and enlightening.
Labels:
Dan Gilbert,
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TED Conference,
Travis Rose
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Introducing Travis "TheDirrty" Rose

Travis will be a contributing blogger on The Short Stack Hero from now on. Although he has nothing important to say, this will give him an outlet to spout some worthless, although some might say "humorous" material while filling in the gaps while I ponder more important issues. So without further ado, please welcome Travis to his new home!
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Next Stop: Hollywood
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Reflections on March Short Stacking Results and "Proper Play Theory"

Winnings: $6,564
Rakeback: $2,249
Bonus from RaketheRake: $600
Total: $9,413
This month has taught me several things. The first is that you can be surprised just how long you can run good, and like it or not, no graph or EV calculator can actually sum up how good you are running. The second is that it can be very easy to forget just how long you can run bad- including 30k hand stretches. The third is that the strategy I have created is not sufficient to beat the $2/4 FR games and up at Full Tilt. The reason being is that these games are incredibly nitty and require more pre-flop stealing and re-stealing for finer edges, as these games are populated by very wary regulars and a generally more skilled breed of short-stacker.
The good news in this category is two-fold, in that it presents a new challenge to overcome (which keeps my mind fresh and interested) and that I have a team of 3 other Short Stack Soldiers working to crack it. Code name: Jon XYZ is on the Delta Force Squad and he is currently penetrating the upper limits to clear the brush so that we can infiltrate its depths. The outlook is hopeful that by the end of the year we will have ventured out into mid-stakes NL 6-max games as well as pot limit omaha, as the future action at any one game type and format is not guaranteed.
And now for the introduction of Proper Play Theory.*
*Bear in mind that this is nothing groundbreaking here. In fact, many of you will simply chortle to yourselves and think this is retardedly obvious...which it is. It is no more obvious than 2 + 2 = 4, but as simple as that equation is, it is the foundation for algebra and other advanced math. So with no further ado...
Proper Play Theory is the assumption that you are playing against a sane opponent who is attempting to both 1) win money and 2) avoid losses. He has at least a basic knowledge of the game that includes the ability to identify the intrinsic and relative value of his own holding, identify the nuts, and has a working knowledge of pot odds, position, aggression, etc.
Notice that we make most of our money from players who fall outside these parameters, those of course being loose-passive fish and maniacs. Also notice that some of this information was not true 4 years ago when the poker boom was in its relative infancy. For the rest of the competition that falls within these guidelines we employ a different strategy, and the strategy that I personally use to beat such players is highly dependent upon the Range Map. Now that I have laid the foundation, I can then introduce the Range Map in my next post, and you will see how this "retardedly obvious" information suddenly becomes relevant.
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Reflection on March Results and "Proper Play Theory"
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
Proper Play Theory,
Range Map,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Monday, March 23, 2009
Week 2 With No HUD....Another $3,000

There are two brand new things to note about this week's results. The first is that I had a brief and unsuccessful venture in $2/4 where everything possible went wrong. Surprisingly, not once did I get in pre-flop less than a coin flip. Being that I have been short stack crushing $1/2 so hard and getting comfortable doing so, I decided that making the instant jump was adding on a level of stress that was not necessary at this point, so I have decided to just sprinkle in a few good $2/4 games here and there until I make the total transition.
The second point is that you will notice that I have decided that I will not be covering up my pre-flop stats anymore, for two good reasons. The first is that I want to shock and appall everyone with how tight I am yet still able to win at the rate of a strong, successful full stacker. In fact, Poker Listings currently has me ranked as the 50th tightest player in the world, a badge that I wear with honor.
The second reason I do this is because I am no longer concerned that anyone can read these stats and steal my game plan. Great short stack play is not a pre-flop shoving contest. It is about staying ahead of your opponents' ranges, finding +EV spots and risking your buy-in to grab them, and making the optimal plays post-flop.
In my next post, I will be introducing a revolutionary concept called the "Range Map" and how that ties in with what I call "Proper Play Theory." The range map is a term I am coining that allows me to consistently beat completely unknown players without the use of any prior statistics or knowledge of them. This is a concept that applies to both live and online play and is adaptable to changes in the future flow of the game and will thus always be relevant.
Labels:
Heads Up Display,
HUD,
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Triple Lindy Magic Insult Hand

By keeping the chat off, I entertain myself by imagining what they are thinking.
Pre-flop
"I'm ahead! Just don't throw that ace!"
The Flop
"Ah fuck! Well, I still have a shot here..."
The Turn
"Shit! I'm dead to a chop..."
The River
"Ah, come on now! Was that shit really necessary?!"
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
royal flush,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Friday, March 20, 2009
Implied Odds in a Short Stacker/Full Stacker Scenario
This next entry is something that I had written in response to a post about short stack theory that I was reading on another player's blog. Even though it may be the height of egotism to quote myself, I thought that this concept was far too important not to mention here.
I wrote the following response at Poker Anon where the blog author (as a part time short stacker, mind you) recommended making an overcall vs. a shortstacker early open raise and nitty full stacker flat call with 44. Here is my take on the matter:
This is kind of a conundrum. I like the way in which you analyze hands and play, but your short stack theories are wildly inaccurate. I think this mainly comes from a misunderstanding of implied odds and how this applies to full stack play. I consider the concept of implied odds to be the greatest con ever pulled on the poker community at large.
I noticed that you said if you buy in full and a SSer raises 4x and a tight big stack calls, you should call with 44 to bust the big stack. Where to begin here?
The SS range up front is very tight, typically TT+, AQ-AK, and sometimes tighter (like myself). The nitty full stack is almost always re-raising the hands you are likely to bust him with, namely QQ-AA. However, look even further here. He is only likely to stack off with QQ and KK IF no ace hits the board. And given the effects of card removal because of the short stack, he is more likely to contain hands like AQ, AJs, 77-TT. The only way that these hands are likely to stack away against another full stack acting behind him is when he either flops 2 pair (still has 4 outs), pair + nut draw, nut straights, and bigger sets.
And now back to the (very) optimistic scenario that this guy was actually smart enough to cold call with QQ-AA. These hands are just as likely to flop a set as you and if they are going to stack away every time here, guess what? You are right back to being a 4:1 dog with your 44. And that doesn’t even factor in when the board comes really bad and you happen to get bluffed off your set.
In addition, the concept of flopping big and stacking someone is simply the wrong way of looking at things. If you assume that you play your 44 perfectly, you still need to look at what your AVERAGE profit for this scenario is. In a $1/2 game, I would say it would be VERY optimistic to assume that this situation will even net you $3 on average, but the variance you will be taking on to win this $3 is enormous. And yet again, it also ignores the negative psychological effects of missing your set an inordinate amount of time, flopping it and getting nothing in return, flopping it and losing to a higher set, flopping it and getting little because of scary boards, and the worst of all, flopping it, building a large pot and then getting bluffed off it.
As a foot note to my response, given the negative scenarios that can result even after flopping your set, the potential ensuing tilt probably makes this play neutral EV at best. In a round about way, what I am really trying to say here is that set mining in general is a bad policy and goes against basic good play which requires that YOU be the aggressor.
I wrote the following response at Poker Anon where the blog author (as a part time short stacker, mind you) recommended making an overcall vs. a shortstacker early open raise and nitty full stacker flat call with 44. Here is my take on the matter:
This is kind of a conundrum. I like the way in which you analyze hands and play, but your short stack theories are wildly inaccurate. I think this mainly comes from a misunderstanding of implied odds and how this applies to full stack play. I consider the concept of implied odds to be the greatest con ever pulled on the poker community at large.
I noticed that you said if you buy in full and a SSer raises 4x and a tight big stack calls, you should call with 44 to bust the big stack. Where to begin here?
The SS range up front is very tight, typically TT+, AQ-AK, and sometimes tighter (like myself). The nitty full stack is almost always re-raising the hands you are likely to bust him with, namely QQ-AA. However, look even further here. He is only likely to stack off with QQ and KK IF no ace hits the board. And given the effects of card removal because of the short stack, he is more likely to contain hands like AQ, AJs, 77-TT. The only way that these hands are likely to stack away against another full stack acting behind him is when he either flops 2 pair (still has 4 outs), pair + nut draw, nut straights, and bigger sets.
And now back to the (very) optimistic scenario that this guy was actually smart enough to cold call with QQ-AA. These hands are just as likely to flop a set as you and if they are going to stack away every time here, guess what? You are right back to being a 4:1 dog with your 44. And that doesn’t even factor in when the board comes really bad and you happen to get bluffed off your set.
In addition, the concept of flopping big and stacking someone is simply the wrong way of looking at things. If you assume that you play your 44 perfectly, you still need to look at what your AVERAGE profit for this scenario is. In a $1/2 game, I would say it would be VERY optimistic to assume that this situation will even net you $3 on average, but the variance you will be taking on to win this $3 is enormous. And yet again, it also ignores the negative psychological effects of missing your set an inordinate amount of time, flopping it and getting nothing in return, flopping it and losing to a higher set, flopping it and getting little because of scary boards, and the worst of all, flopping it, building a large pot and then getting bluffed off it.
As a foot note to my response, given the negative scenarios that can result even after flopping your set, the potential ensuing tilt probably makes this play neutral EV at best. In a round about way, what I am really trying to say here is that set mining in general is a bad policy and goes against basic good play which requires that YOU be the aggressor.
Labels:
Implied Odds,
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A Quick Quiz...
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Monday, March 16, 2009
My First Week Without the HUD

Although I am not afraid to admit when I am running good, it is simply hard to imagine how my results could have been any better with some shitty device telling me that I can not trust my own observations....
Labels:
Heads Up Display,
HUD,
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Sunday, March 15, 2009
My Case Aginst Using a HUD
As of this past Sunday, after much self-deliberation, I have decided to fully abandon my HUD permanently. Although I do not doubt that there are a few select players out there who can actually put these things to work, my final analysis is that they do far more harm than good for the vast majority of online grinders. Here is my case against it.
First of all, it is important to acknowledge why we actually use a HUD. Here is why: to inform us to make decisions by the use of past player statistics that we would not otherwise make were that information not available. In this regard, it is like a live tell. After all, a tell is only significant when it causes us to take an action that we were not otherwise going to do had we not seen it.
So now that I have defined what a HUD does, let's examine the underlying logic here. In the course of my career, I have played roughly 2,000,000 hands of online poker. Although the overall quality of play has certainly increased in this time frame, one major truth has emerged: most players generally adapt to each other and take on the same tendencies. In other words, if one player open raises by mashing the pot button with his decent hands in early position, most others will be doing the same thing. Likewise, if one player is min-raise opening his marginal hands in late position, I can expect that others who are opening for the minimum in late position are also doing it with marginal hands. And one more, if one person is limp-reraising only premium hands from early position, it is pretty safe to say that others are doing the same thing, a.k.a., they are NOT doing this with hands like 66.
While I could go on and on with a plethora of examples, I would say that the concept is clear here: I don't need stats on players in order to decipher these basic meanings, and reading stats to try and get deeper here could only accomplish one possible thing- to obscure what is already obvious. Be these extreme examples as they may be, most everything else follows suit to some degree or another. Observation is the key. A 6x open raise from early position is virtually always a premium hand, whether it is coming from a 9/6 or 30/20. Period.
So now that I have established that certain tendencies are visible through lone observation, we must now address the logic of using a device over our own observations. Exactly how does this make sense? We are using stats that are, at best, only 30 days old or less. These stats do not capture a person's mood or whether or not they are adjusting to current table conditions or following the meta-game. Ask yourself this: is a player with an “Attempt to Steal” stat of 60% who was just 3-bet off his hand three times in a row still just a 60% ATS guy this time around, or an angry or clever player holding QQ and now HOPING he will get 3-bet again?
By attempting to use these stats rather than our own good judgment, these little nuances are missed. Is the player who runs a 30/20 a real maniac, or is he just some min-betting fool looking to take the initiative in a lot of cheap flops? This information is not clear on its own, but with good observation and note taking skills should be readily apparent.
So I know what you must be thinking. “I am playing so many tables that I just don't have the chance to get this information on my own.” Here is my retort: how can it possibly be beneficial to be piling on more and more tables in exchange for lousy or non-existent information? And that is only assuming that the information that we are getting is accurate! I still have not even addressed the most dangerous aspect of using a HUD. When the information initially loads up, often times it is not correctly lined up with the appropriate player and you are looking at stats that could belong to another player. Further into your session, you will also find that sometimes a player leaves or goes busto and another player promptly sits down and “inherits” the first player's stats. Even though this can be avoided by making sure the names line up, a single slip up has a high price. And how much “good” information is necessary to make up for that single time you stacked away on one bad misread?
First of all, it is important to acknowledge why we actually use a HUD. Here is why: to inform us to make decisions by the use of past player statistics that we would not otherwise make were that information not available. In this regard, it is like a live tell. After all, a tell is only significant when it causes us to take an action that we were not otherwise going to do had we not seen it.
So now that I have defined what a HUD does, let's examine the underlying logic here. In the course of my career, I have played roughly 2,000,000 hands of online poker. Although the overall quality of play has certainly increased in this time frame, one major truth has emerged: most players generally adapt to each other and take on the same tendencies. In other words, if one player open raises by mashing the pot button with his decent hands in early position, most others will be doing the same thing. Likewise, if one player is min-raise opening his marginal hands in late position, I can expect that others who are opening for the minimum in late position are also doing it with marginal hands. And one more, if one person is limp-reraising only premium hands from early position, it is pretty safe to say that others are doing the same thing, a.k.a., they are NOT doing this with hands like 66.
While I could go on and on with a plethora of examples, I would say that the concept is clear here: I don't need stats on players in order to decipher these basic meanings, and reading stats to try and get deeper here could only accomplish one possible thing- to obscure what is already obvious. Be these extreme examples as they may be, most everything else follows suit to some degree or another. Observation is the key. A 6x open raise from early position is virtually always a premium hand, whether it is coming from a 9/6 or 30/20. Period.
So now that I have established that certain tendencies are visible through lone observation, we must now address the logic of using a device over our own observations. Exactly how does this make sense? We are using stats that are, at best, only 30 days old or less. These stats do not capture a person's mood or whether or not they are adjusting to current table conditions or following the meta-game. Ask yourself this: is a player with an “Attempt to Steal” stat of 60% who was just 3-bet off his hand three times in a row still just a 60% ATS guy this time around, or an angry or clever player holding QQ and now HOPING he will get 3-bet again?
By attempting to use these stats rather than our own good judgment, these little nuances are missed. Is the player who runs a 30/20 a real maniac, or is he just some min-betting fool looking to take the initiative in a lot of cheap flops? This information is not clear on its own, but with good observation and note taking skills should be readily apparent.
So I know what you must be thinking. “I am playing so many tables that I just don't have the chance to get this information on my own.” Here is my retort: how can it possibly be beneficial to be piling on more and more tables in exchange for lousy or non-existent information? And that is only assuming that the information that we are getting is accurate! I still have not even addressed the most dangerous aspect of using a HUD. When the information initially loads up, often times it is not correctly lined up with the appropriate player and you are looking at stats that could belong to another player. Further into your session, you will also find that sometimes a player leaves or goes busto and another player promptly sits down and “inherits” the first player's stats. Even though this can be avoided by making sure the names line up, a single slip up has a high price. And how much “good” information is necessary to make up for that single time you stacked away on one bad misread?
Labels:
Heads Up Display,
HUD,
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
29 Days of Shortstack Madness
And the results have finally arrived! I decided to take it from the beginning of February until now because I was forced to take the first two days of last month off due to a vicious ice storm that terrorized all of Kentucky. However, I did get in 148 hours of play in since then and about 111,000 hands. The pictures from my data base can be found below.


In sum, in just under 148 hours of 12-tabling NL200 and a little NL400:
$4,932 in straight winnings
$2,353 in rakeback
$800 bonus for placing 14th in the raketherake rake race.
$56.60/hr
Total: $8,085.....$40 at a time!
So now to all the naysayers I simply ask, "how much did YOU make last month?" ;)


In sum, in just under 148 hours of 12-tabling NL200 and a little NL400:
$4,932 in straight winnings
$2,353 in rakeback
$800 bonus for placing 14th in the raketherake rake race.
$56.60/hr
Total: $8,085.....$40 at a time!
So now to all the naysayers I simply ask, "how much did YOU make last month?" ;)
Labels:
Lorin Yelle,
Short Stack Hero,
short stacker,
short stacking,
Small Stakes Hero,
TheDirrty,
Travis Rose
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
No Seriously, Turn That Shit Off!
The chat function. It is that tiny box in the bottom left hand corner of your screen that spouts worthless blather from bitter and low-minded opponents. Although some people leave it on for entertainment, or "tilt tells," I am about to list the reasons why any busy multi-tabler should leave it off, at all times.
The basic reasoning here is that it is an unnecessary distraction. Any casual observation should reveal that this is obvious. However, most competent poker players feel that this type of advice only applies to others and not themselves. Here is my list of reasons for leaving it on and my objections to these reasons:
Reason: The chat they provide gives me good information.
Objection: This happens only rarely. When players banter back and forth about who was holding what, they will almost always tell you whatever best serves their agenda. Cowardly little poker players hiding behind their monitors and anonymity feel they can be whatever and whoever they want to be. Don't let them. Their play alone and how they deviate from it will let you know more accurately if they are on tilt or not.
Reason: I never participate, but I still want whatever extra information they give out.
Objection: This is what I would sometimes do. The problem here is that even if you are made of steel, at some point in time someone will say something that draws you into a conversation for some reason or another. Specifically to me, I get a lot of shit for short-stacking. I go busto many times over the course of the day but my detractors don't really understand that this is normal and doesn't particularly bother me. Naturally, the dumber the comment, the more likely I am to say something, if nothing more than to make them feel stupid. That might be okay if it just ended there but I have this personality defect that compels me to always seek the last word. I suspect than many of you have this same defect. If the conversation goes on long enough, pretty soon the cards will speak and one of you will do something to look stupid and will now feel the need to justify the play or call, furthering you down the spiral of tilt.
Reason: I find it entertaining.
Objection: This goes straight back to the last point. Eventually it will bring out the brat in all of us and we will feel compelled to needle someone. Often times, someone else will jump to the defense of the needled one and now you are battling your ego against two or more foes, which further distracts you from what you are here to do: make money.
My friend Travis leaves it on for this very reason and I am urging him to turn it off because nothing good ever comes from it and just the fact that he won't do it, tilts me! Even though in the outside world, he is far more level-headed than myself, there comes a time every so often where he tells me what some idiot said to needle him and how it managed to bother him for ahwile, sometimes well into the next day. If this ever happens to you, you have been manipulated!!
Players will often try and tilt you by saying something completely assinine. The will claim up and down about how awful and lucky you are because you hit some 12 out draw where you had more than enough odds to play it out. Often times, these players are perfectly aware that you did nothing wrong, but if they can manage to make you believe that they believe this nonsense, it is liable to piss you off anyway, and if they do piss you off, they have won.
Reason: I want to chat with my friends.
Objection: These whiny, miserable little shits are NOT your friends. You are trying to take each other's money and they can turn on you faster than a $500 a night hooker as soon as you crack their aces with A5s.
So what is the value of that extra attention worth anyway? After all, it only takes a few seconds to read it, so how important could it really be anyway? Well, just earlier today Travis was shorting some NL100 and had managed to double his stack. He was dealt K8o in the SB while talking with his son (in person). He meant to fold but somehow open shoved it over the BB! 95% of the time they would just fold here but the guy happened to wake up with pocket kings! It had a happy ending though, as Travis managed to catch runner-runner straight.
Point taken!
The basic reasoning here is that it is an unnecessary distraction. Any casual observation should reveal that this is obvious. However, most competent poker players feel that this type of advice only applies to others and not themselves. Here is my list of reasons for leaving it on and my objections to these reasons:
Reason: The chat they provide gives me good information.
Objection: This happens only rarely. When players banter back and forth about who was holding what, they will almost always tell you whatever best serves their agenda. Cowardly little poker players hiding behind their monitors and anonymity feel they can be whatever and whoever they want to be. Don't let them. Their play alone and how they deviate from it will let you know more accurately if they are on tilt or not.
Reason: I never participate, but I still want whatever extra information they give out.
Objection: This is what I would sometimes do. The problem here is that even if you are made of steel, at some point in time someone will say something that draws you into a conversation for some reason or another. Specifically to me, I get a lot of shit for short-stacking. I go busto many times over the course of the day but my detractors don't really understand that this is normal and doesn't particularly bother me. Naturally, the dumber the comment, the more likely I am to say something, if nothing more than to make them feel stupid. That might be okay if it just ended there but I have this personality defect that compels me to always seek the last word. I suspect than many of you have this same defect. If the conversation goes on long enough, pretty soon the cards will speak and one of you will do something to look stupid and will now feel the need to justify the play or call, furthering you down the spiral of tilt.
Reason: I find it entertaining.
Objection: This goes straight back to the last point. Eventually it will bring out the brat in all of us and we will feel compelled to needle someone. Often times, someone else will jump to the defense of the needled one and now you are battling your ego against two or more foes, which further distracts you from what you are here to do: make money.
My friend Travis leaves it on for this very reason and I am urging him to turn it off because nothing good ever comes from it and just the fact that he won't do it, tilts me! Even though in the outside world, he is far more level-headed than myself, there comes a time every so often where he tells me what some idiot said to needle him and how it managed to bother him for ahwile, sometimes well into the next day. If this ever happens to you, you have been manipulated!!
Players will often try and tilt you by saying something completely assinine. The will claim up and down about how awful and lucky you are because you hit some 12 out draw where you had more than enough odds to play it out. Often times, these players are perfectly aware that you did nothing wrong, but if they can manage to make you believe that they believe this nonsense, it is liable to piss you off anyway, and if they do piss you off, they have won.
Reason: I want to chat with my friends.
Objection: These whiny, miserable little shits are NOT your friends. You are trying to take each other's money and they can turn on you faster than a $500 a night hooker as soon as you crack their aces with A5s.
So what is the value of that extra attention worth anyway? After all, it only takes a few seconds to read it, so how important could it really be anyway? Well, just earlier today Travis was shorting some NL100 and had managed to double his stack. He was dealt K8o in the SB while talking with his son (in person). He meant to fold but somehow open shoved it over the BB! 95% of the time they would just fold here but the guy happened to wake up with pocket kings! It had a happy ending though, as Travis managed to catch runner-runner straight.
Point taken!
Friday, February 20, 2009
Money and the Limits of Happiness
In reading MyTurn2Raise's “Shortstacker Illuminati” thread on 2+2, he lays down some certain strategy points for short-stacking. He also has to field the typical complaints of short-stacker etiquette (some of which I have already addressed) and also the common sense approach as to why he was engaging in it. When someone had piped in the quip that anyone knowledgeable and skillful enough to show a large profit short-stacking should be buying full anyway, his response was even more illuminating than the advice he gave. In a nutshell, he said that playing poker for a living was never really about the money, but rather about not having to get a traditional job out in the “real world.” And besides, he added, relieving himself of the stress of full-stacking is more likely to add years on his life than making a few extra bones in his time on this planet.
Think about this for a minute. A long minute....
So now as a mental exercise, I pose two possibilities before you. Would you rather make
A) $400,000 a year for the rest of your life or
B) $600,000 a year for the rest of your life?
Even those non-materialistic charitable types would certainly choose option B, if nothing more than for the reason that they would have an extra $200,000 a year to do good works with. But wait! There's a catch, of course....
To earn $400,000 a year you would have to work (or play) the normal 40 hour work week. To get the $600,000 you would have to work 59.5 hours a week. The payback ratio here is slightly skewed in favor of option B, but is getting a good ROE (return-on-effort) really worth sacrificing all of that extra time?
Now I know that they say that money isn't happiness, but that doesn't entirely support the facts. The first thing that needs to be addressed is “what is money really good for?” Here is the short list, in the order in which they are satisfied:
1)Fulfilling basic needs
2)Security
3)Recreation and materialistic wealth
4)Status
I would say that money that covers your basic needs “buys” the most possible happiness. While the extra money to cover security issues might not buy you more happiness directly, it frees you of certain burdens that will allow you to enjoy happiness that comes from other endeavors more intensely. Recreation is obviously important, but the manner in which it is enjoyed and consumed may or may not be directly tied in with your income. After these first three facets are filled, the value of any extra money you make rapidly begins to decline according to The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Even though the creation of extra wealth may gain you status, that status is relative to the wealth and prestige of those around you and many other factors. After all, making $600,000 a year may make you a big timer in the world of poker but your wife or girlfriend that you have been habitually ignoring is probably not all that impressed.
So back to short-stacking...
I do this for the same reason that MyTurn2Raise does. It prevents stress and gives me a solid income. By relieving myself of normal poker-related stress, I have more energy, sleep less, eat healthier, and generally am more pleasant to be around. These things are no small matter and could not possibly be bought for an extra $10 an hour.
Think about this for a minute. A long minute....
So now as a mental exercise, I pose two possibilities before you. Would you rather make
A) $400,000 a year for the rest of your life or
B) $600,000 a year for the rest of your life?
Even those non-materialistic charitable types would certainly choose option B, if nothing more than for the reason that they would have an extra $200,000 a year to do good works with. But wait! There's a catch, of course....
To earn $400,000 a year you would have to work (or play) the normal 40 hour work week. To get the $600,000 you would have to work 59.5 hours a week. The payback ratio here is slightly skewed in favor of option B, but is getting a good ROE (return-on-effort) really worth sacrificing all of that extra time?
Now I know that they say that money isn't happiness, but that doesn't entirely support the facts. The first thing that needs to be addressed is “what is money really good for?” Here is the short list, in the order in which they are satisfied:
1)Fulfilling basic needs
2)Security
3)Recreation and materialistic wealth
4)Status
I would say that money that covers your basic needs “buys” the most possible happiness. While the extra money to cover security issues might not buy you more happiness directly, it frees you of certain burdens that will allow you to enjoy happiness that comes from other endeavors more intensely. Recreation is obviously important, but the manner in which it is enjoyed and consumed may or may not be directly tied in with your income. After these first three facets are filled, the value of any extra money you make rapidly begins to decline according to The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Even though the creation of extra wealth may gain you status, that status is relative to the wealth and prestige of those around you and many other factors. After all, making $600,000 a year may make you a big timer in the world of poker but your wife or girlfriend that you have been habitually ignoring is probably not all that impressed.
So back to short-stacking...
I do this for the same reason that MyTurn2Raise does. It prevents stress and gives me a solid income. By relieving myself of normal poker-related stress, I have more energy, sleep less, eat healthier, and generally am more pleasant to be around. These things are no small matter and could not possibly be bought for an extra $10 an hour.
A Great Quote
Poker has us all by the balls. The fortunate thing is we get to adjust the grip. - Kyle "Cottonseed" Hendon
Monday, February 16, 2009
Two Simple Thoughts...
I don't always have to get deep....
"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to bum hunt and feed him for a lifetime."
To all of you rakeback "pros": GET A FUCKING JOB!!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Leaks in Poker, Leaks in Life
"No decision is ever too small." - Dusty "Leatherass" Schmidt
Until recently, I had often wondered why I have always been tremendous at managing my poker money yet have failed to translate that approach to my off-line finances. Having averaged about $6,000 or more a month or for the past couple of years, I have always been baffled at the fact that I had no money left over after paying my living and recreational costs and yet the debt kept managing to pile up. After reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, this is a mystery no more.
You see, when playing poker, I would always treat every single dollar at stake with care. If someone were to point out to me that I had some minor leak that was costing me $5 a day, that would be completely unacceptable. I've always treated that minor edge with value and I had hoped that I always gave some thought before making that little call or tiny bluff. Truth be told, if you examine the win rates of the absolute best winners at the $1/2 NL stake, you will see that they are winning about $12 per 100 hands, or 3ptBB/100. That's about $9.50 per hour at a full ring table. Some of you might be surprised to find that edge is so small, but what that translates into is that one extra pot they stole or that one small opponent value bet that they failed to pay off.
As for my off-line life: I was sloppy to the extreme. After all, if I don't pay my utility bill on time they only clip me an extra $5. An overdraft fee is $33, but paying that is easier than getting off my fat ass to go deposit some money or asking a friend for a short term loan. Paying late fees on movie rentals is more convenient than driving out of my way to return them. Leaving the lights on in the house at all times probably only costs a few extra bucks a month, so who cares, right? I probably have about a dozen of these careless leaks, and truth be told, they were probably costing me about $20 or so- a DAY! All of this is rather embarrassing in retrospect and I am working to fix them all right now. We need to treat every single dollar like it matters. But there is also something that goes along with that that few people have ever considered...
I read a brilliant passage once in an investment guide. The author wrote that the dollars you save have more value than the dollars you earn. The reason? The dollars we earn are taxed but the ones we save are not. The ones we make might be worth about 75% of that, but we get a 100% ROI on the ones we don't spend. It's like rakeback. For those who are not very high volume players, Poker Stars players are pissing their money away. They should be playing at Cake Poker, where the savvy player can get back 35% of their contribution on top of beating up on shitty competition. Compare that to the lousy 12% or so return that the casual player or aspiring pro will get back at Stars. I tell people about this all the time and the fact that they simply do not care tells me that they do not have the mind set of the professional. They are making the comfortable decision to stay where they are rather than having to go through the trouble of re-depositing at another site. And believe me, I don't give a shit about how great their comp program is. All those pretty gadgets are subsidized by the rake you are giving them and getting a "free" PS3 might seem cool, but you'd still have to hawk it at a discount to pay your car loan.
I often like to tell people that the easiest thing about being a professional poker player is knowing to how win at the game. Your typical pro is by no means a baller; he is more akin to a coupon clipping deal seeker. He is constantly looking for that tiny edge- that 6:5 favorite on a coin-flip. If you are giving away those tiny edges, pretty soon you will be looking at the wrong side of that coin and an empty ewallet account.
Until recently, I had often wondered why I have always been tremendous at managing my poker money yet have failed to translate that approach to my off-line finances. Having averaged about $6,000 or more a month or for the past couple of years, I have always been baffled at the fact that I had no money left over after paying my living and recreational costs and yet the debt kept managing to pile up. After reading The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, this is a mystery no more.
You see, when playing poker, I would always treat every single dollar at stake with care. If someone were to point out to me that I had some minor leak that was costing me $5 a day, that would be completely unacceptable. I've always treated that minor edge with value and I had hoped that I always gave some thought before making that little call or tiny bluff. Truth be told, if you examine the win rates of the absolute best winners at the $1/2 NL stake, you will see that they are winning about $12 per 100 hands, or 3ptBB/100. That's about $9.50 per hour at a full ring table. Some of you might be surprised to find that edge is so small, but what that translates into is that one extra pot they stole or that one small opponent value bet that they failed to pay off.
As for my off-line life: I was sloppy to the extreme. After all, if I don't pay my utility bill on time they only clip me an extra $5. An overdraft fee is $33, but paying that is easier than getting off my fat ass to go deposit some money or asking a friend for a short term loan. Paying late fees on movie rentals is more convenient than driving out of my way to return them. Leaving the lights on in the house at all times probably only costs a few extra bucks a month, so who cares, right? I probably have about a dozen of these careless leaks, and truth be told, they were probably costing me about $20 or so- a DAY! All of this is rather embarrassing in retrospect and I am working to fix them all right now. We need to treat every single dollar like it matters. But there is also something that goes along with that that few people have ever considered...
I read a brilliant passage once in an investment guide. The author wrote that the dollars you save have more value than the dollars you earn. The reason? The dollars we earn are taxed but the ones we save are not. The ones we make might be worth about 75% of that, but we get a 100% ROI on the ones we don't spend. It's like rakeback. For those who are not very high volume players, Poker Stars players are pissing their money away. They should be playing at Cake Poker, where the savvy player can get back 35% of their contribution on top of beating up on shitty competition. Compare that to the lousy 12% or so return that the casual player or aspiring pro will get back at Stars. I tell people about this all the time and the fact that they simply do not care tells me that they do not have the mind set of the professional. They are making the comfortable decision to stay where they are rather than having to go through the trouble of re-depositing at another site. And believe me, I don't give a shit about how great their comp program is. All those pretty gadgets are subsidized by the rake you are giving them and getting a "free" PS3 might seem cool, but you'd still have to hawk it at a discount to pay your car loan.
I often like to tell people that the easiest thing about being a professional poker player is knowing to how win at the game. Your typical pro is by no means a baller; he is more akin to a coupon clipping deal seeker. He is constantly looking for that tiny edge- that 6:5 favorite on a coin-flip. If you are giving away those tiny edges, pretty soon you will be looking at the wrong side of that coin and an empty ewallet account.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)