Thursday, January 2, 2014

Happy New Year!

First session out of the way last night.  Although I don't really stand by resolutions, I have resolved to play more 2/5 this year.  I held to my resolution last night by getting my first 2014 session underway by playing - true to form - 2/5.  Wow!  I bought in for the minimum, $200, and got a bit too aggro with my open ender + over card, check/raising the flop and shoving the turn into a flopped 2 pair.  Second bullet, though, would see me cooler the same guy with top set of KK vs. his mid set of 66, followed by my AA vs. KK (AIF).

Overall, I did okay.  I'm not enthralled with the idea of buying in short.  I feel like there's very little room for error as far as betting a street or two and needing to add to my stack.  However, in the two tables I played in, the play was far more passive than the standard 1/2 game lately.  Obviously, I have limited sample sizes, but I saw a lot of limping and less raising PF.  Moreover, raises get more scrutiny and people are playing a bit closer attention to starting stack sizes.

There were a few times that I was able to raise a host of limpers on the BTN to $25 or slightly more and get folds from every single one.  In 1/2, that kind of shenanigan would never work: raising to the equivalent $10 -$12 with 5 players in would get calls from every single one of them.  It was kinda cool; I think I can replace any prior PF raises / flop folds with BTN steal money.  I believe this is a nice source of revenue that wasn't generally available before.  In other words, stealing limps in 1/2 simply costs a lot more, and the folds are not necessarily guaranteed when raising to ANY amount.  The folds are far more likely at 2/5, with far less overall monetary risk.

I'll continue to post observations in the coming weeks, as I get more time to play.  I have until the end of this week off from work, and the end of the month off from school, so I should get in a few hours of poker time.

Happy New Year to everyone, and may this year be even more profitable, both monetarily and mentally, than 2013.
Posted by The Poker Meister at 1/02/2014 10:51:00 AM
Labels: ,

9 comments:

  1. Memphis MOJOJanuary 3, 2014 at 2:15 AM

    And HNY to you too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. lightning36January 3, 2014 at 7:20 AM

    Interesting. Can't wait to hear how the next sessions go. I hesitate playing at that level since I haven't played live much the past 18 months.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM

    Happy New Year 2014 PM!

    Nice recap, it is far more profitable buying for full in 2/5. Short stack strategy works, but, you need be very selective with the hands and the money making potential is limited by the short buy-in when you hold a monster hand. There are so many tables to choose from even for 2/5 at MDL, so, no reason to stick to the same table if the action is not that great.

    I had a first good session at 1/2, as I always say, play at MD Live where the action is always LIVE!

    GolfPro

    ReplyDelete
  4. AceJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:46 PM

    PM, the following hand came up and your analysis would be appreciated. UTG (stack 160) makes it $15, I call with Tc,Jc (stack 450), big blind (stack 200) calls. Flop comes down 5h,9c,Qd, BB checks, UTG bets $30, I call, BB calls. Turn is 3c, BB checks, UTG goes all in for $115, and it's my turn...WWPMD? Thanks. Now, here are the side notes. UTG lost a big pod recently and is drinking. BB does not look strong and I'm 70% sure he'll fold after my action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Poker MeisterJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:55 AM

      It seems like it's a math question, not really a read-based question. Let's assume he has two types of hands here: Ace high (and /or a pair of 9's or 5's), or he has a pair of Q's+. FWIW, he could also be drawing JT (or turned a backdoor better flush) like you, but let's keep that out of the argument for the moment.

      If he has second or third pair --- or Ace high, you have 6 additional outs to go with your nut straight draw (6 outs) and decent backdoored flush draw (9 outs). 21 outs in this case has me calling as I'm entitled to nearly 50% equity in the pot going into the river. I think there's what... $45 + $90 = $135 in the pot and he shoves $115... that's a call there for better than 2 to 1 pot odds. (FWIW, I want BB to call here and make the pot even juicier).

      With 6 outs less, you're talking around 30% equity, it's a marginal fold - I think you could make an argument either way, given that he's totally tilted and could just be anger tilting.

      If he turned a backdoor flush draw better than yours - QTcc, for example, then you're obviously screwed with 6 clean outs.

      Given your description, though, in cumulative, I think this is a call. Given he's tilting, it's likely your JT pair outs may be good, and your flush & straight draws are most certainly good. I think you're getting better than 30% equity here and since the call of $115 into $135 is marginal without the pair outs, I call off the remainder and wait for him to show the river.

      Delete
  5. AceJanuary 18, 2014 at 10:55 PM

    Thank you sir. I ended up folding. The BB folded as expected. UTG showed red pocket 99. Doing the math was kind of tricky because if he's showing AQcc I can't count on the flush draw. For some reason I saw it as a coin flip and since I had doubled thru UTG few hands earlier I decided to keep his money :) If he flipped over his cards after going all in and showed 99 would you fold?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Poker MeisterJanuary 18, 2014 at 11:50 PM

      Simple answer to if he flips 99 after going all in: no, I fold. Mathematically, you're getting exactly 29.5% equity to make a 46% pot odds call - it is incorrect to call. You're never making money here (if I've done my math correctly). That's why I said if the other guy calls, all the more reason to make the call; the other guy calling gives you 31.5% pot odds on the call, very very marginally unprofitable.

      Delete
    2. AceJanuary 19, 2014 at 4:26 PM

      Appreciate it.

      Delete
    3. AceJanuary 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive