br management en het nemen van shots (dutch)

Wilbert schreef laatst een zeer interesant stukje op pokerinfo.nl

LINK

Na een uurtje 4tablen heb ik regelmatig meer dan m'n halve bankroll op tafel liggen. Ben ik nu onverstandig bezig? Een dergelijke vraag zal door mensen heel anders beantwoord worden. De belangrijkste reden hiervoor is is een verschil in aanpak van bankroll management. Maar wat is dat nou eigenlijk, bankroll management?

Bankroll management is het bewust afstemmen van de hoogte van je stakes op je voor poker beschikbare hoeveelheid geld (je bankroll). Hoe je die afweging maakt kan heel persoonlijk zijn, maar voor veel mensen speelt je risk of ruin een belangrijke rol. Je risk of ruin is de kans dat je blut gaat met de door jou gehanteerde strategie als je oneindig veel handen speelt. Voor verliezende spelers is je risk of ruin 1. In de kansrekening betekent 1 namelijk "altijd". Voor break-even spelers is de risk of ruin ook 1. Een break even speler zal namelijk uiteindelijk ooit een downswing krijgen die groter is dan zijn bankroll, en aangezien hij niet wint groeit zijn bankroll niet. En zelfs als zijn bankroll door geluk een beetje gegroeid is zal hij uiteindelijk ooit een grotere downswing krijgen die hem toch van zijn geld ontdoet. Risk of ruin is dus een begrip wat enkel en alleen voor winnende spelers betekenis heeft.

Betekent dit nu dat een verliezende speler geen bankroll management kan toepassen? Nee, een verliezende speler heeft ook een bepaald budget dat hij bereid is te riskeren voor poker. Voor een verliezende speler zal dit vaak een maandelijks bedrag zijn. Het belangrijkste voor een verliezende speler is dat hij zorgt dat hij zoveel mogelijk plezier heeft van zijn geld. Dat kan betekenen dat hij één sessie per maand op de $1000nl speelt, maar ook dat hij elke dag even $50nl speelt. Dit is ook bankroll management. De beslissingen hierin zijn echter vrij persoonlijk van aard. Ik zal me hieronder dus bezig gaan houden met bankroll management voor winnende spelers, zonder hier in te gaan op de vraag hoe je nou eigenlijk weet of je een winnende speler bent.

Een winnende speler wil meestal twee dingen bereiken met goed bankroll management:
1) een lage risk of ruin, en
2) een hoge winrate.

Voor dit tweede punt is het belangrijk dat je lekker in je vel zit, en dat je je A-game speelt. Voor veel mensen betekent dat dat ze tijdens een sessie op één en dezelfde limiet kunnen blijven spelen zonder hun bankroll in de gaten te houden. Dat betekent dat je in je aanpak niet erg flexibel bent. Je kunt dan niet makkelijk bij een bepaalde grootte bankroll voor een nieuwe limiet kiezen, omdat je simpelweg niet opmerkt dat je bankroll een bepaalde grens is gepasseerd. Voor deze mensen is het daarom raadzaam risk of ruin uit te rekenen als zijnde de kans dat je blut gaat in oneindig veel handen op de limiet waarop je nu speelt. Daarvoor is de volgende formule te gebruiken:



Je risk of ruin is hier een kans (geen percentage, 1 betekent dus 100%), je winrate is hier uitgedrukt in bets per 100 handen en je bankroll in het aantal bets van de limiet waarop je speelt. Je standaarddeviatie is weer uitgedrukt in hetzelfde aantal bets per 100 handen. Voor een voorbeeld, klik hier, en scroll naar beneden tot je bovenstaande formule ziet. Wat is nu een aanvaardbaar risico? Voor de één is dat 0,1%, voor de ander 1%, en voor weer een ander 10%. Dat is natuurlijk erg afhankelijk van wat je met het geld wilt gaan doen. Bedenk echter wel: als je op een lagere limiet blijft hangen, terwijl je goed genoeg bent om een edge te hebben op een hogere limiet, dan verklein je je risk of ruin, maar ook je winrate.

Is dat het nou? Moet ik echt eerst 50 buyins bij elkaar grinden voor die nieuwe limiet, om ervoor te zorgen dat ik niet blut ga? Gelukkig (vind ik zelf) is het antwoord nee. De andere optie is het tijdens het spelen in de gaten houden van je bankroll. Stel je voor dat je met $1000 een veilige buffer voor jezelf hebt gecreeerd op de $50nl, met een risk of ruin van 0,1%. En stel nu dat je van plan bent om te kijken of het verantwoord is om eens even een paar tafels $100nl te openen. Om op de $100nl een net zo lage risk of ruin te hebben moet je (door de hogere standaarddeviatie op de $100nl) heel wat extra geld bij elkaar schrapen voor je de overstap kunt maken. Maar nu pakken we het op een andere manier aan. We grinden onze bankroll naar $1200 op de $50nl. In plaats een sessie te gaan spelen en te reloaden zonder erbij na te denken, openen we 2 tafels $100nl, en checken elke keer ons saldo voor we reloaden. Zodra onze totale bankroll onder de $1000 zou zakken als we op één van de tafels onze stack zouden verliezen, sluiten we alle tafels en gaan we meteen terug naar de $50nl. Wat doet dit met onze risk of ruin?

De oplettende lezer zal inmiddels doorhebben dat de risk of ruin van deze aanpak nooit groter kan zijn dan het spelen met $1000 dollar op de $50nl, aangezien als onze shot misloopt we diezelfde $1000 nog over hebben voor de $50nl. Het risico wat we hier lopen is dus minder dan 0,1%. Dat is dus minder dan het risico van gewoon braaf doorspelen op de $50nl met een bankroll van $1000. Kortom: het is niet erg dat je een keer een limietje hoger probeert, als je je bankroll maar goed in de gaten houdt tijdens het spelen, en op tijd omlaag gaat als het tegen zit. Een van de problemen met deze methode is wel dat je over een flinke dosis discipline moet beschikken. Zodra je per ongeluk in een van je shots toch brainless aan het reloaden slaat, heb je een probleem, en moet je niet alleen terug naar je oude limiet, maar zelfs een extra limiet omlaag. Ook is het belangrijk dat je niet met scared money speelt, aangezien dat een negatief effect heeft op je winrate. Wellicht kan dit artikel daarbij helpen. Zelfkennis is dus erg belangrijk bij het nemen van shots, maar als je het doet, en ondertussen je bankroll goed in de gaten houdt, dan kun je er je winrate dramatisch mee verhogen, zonder dat je meer risico loopt dan je gewend bent.

De groeten, en tot snel aan de $1000nl,

Wilbert

(dutch article`s) Equity en het belang om verder te leren!

2 Artikelen die perfect op elkaar aansluiten over Equity en het belang om verder te leren in poker.

volg de reacties op het forum voor nog meer interesante stof.
Het artikel van Leroy:
http://www.pokerinfo.nl/Topic709007-617-1.aspx
Ik heb mezelf in het verleden vaak afgevraagd wat ik beter moest doen om hogerop te komen in poker. Ik keek dikwijls omhoog naar de betere spelers in de hoop iets te leren waardoor ik antwoord kon krijgen op die vraag. Nu ik een aantal jaren verder ben en een stuk beter ben gaan spelen, lijkt het me niet meer dan eerlijk dat ik die vraag eens beantwoordt. Niet zozeer voor de Leroy van een paar jaar geleden, die zo graag antwoord had gewild op die vraag. Maar voor de mensen die nu in zijn schoenen staan en net zoals hem hoopvol omhoog kijken voor een antwoord.

In twee artikelen bespreek ik vijf lessen die ik gaandeweg heb geleerd en beschouw als mijlpalen in mijn pokerontwikkeling. Hoewel het onwaarschijnlijk is dat ik met het delen van deze lessen anderen in één keer op een hoger niveau zal tillen, is het wel mijn intentie om beginnende spelers te laten zien in welke richting ze zich moeten proberen te ontwikkelen.


Breek los van de vuist regels
Vuistregels zijn waarschijnlijk even gevaarlijk in poker als ze nuttig zijn. Aan de ene kant kunnen ze een verdwaalde speler houvast bieden in complexe situaties. Aan de andere kant kunnen ze een mentale luiheid tot gevolg hebben die veel geld kan kosten. Het grootste probleem met vuistregels doet zich voor als mensen situationele factoren niet meer meenemen en prat gaan op vuistregels.

Op pokerfora vind je dagelijks een grote hoeveelheid voorbeelden van verkeerd gebruik van vuistregels. Zoals spelers die altijd continuation-betten (i.e., de flop betten als je preflop de agressor bent geweest). Of spelers die bepaalde handen altijd spelen ongeacht de situatie. Daarvoor hebben ze vaak verschillende redenen. Soms vinde ze dat hun hand sterk genoeg is voor een raise, omdat het te weak is om te folden of omdat je toch wel implied odds hebt.

Van Seven Card Stud heb ik de situationaliteit van Poker Situaties leren waarderen. Beslissingen op de eerste inzet ronde van Seven Card Stud (3rd street) waren daarvoor een geweldig inzicht. Expert beslissingen op 3rd street zijn namelijk zo afhankelijk van situatie dat het bijna niet meer nodig is om je spel te variëren.

Onlangs nog postte er iemand een TT hand die hij three-handed speelde. De button raisete en de SB re-raisete. De poster wist dat de Button en SB met een groot scala van handen zouden raisen in deze situatie. TT was een te sterke hand om preflop weg te leggen opperden sommigen.

Als we de vuistregel echter loslaten zien we dat callen ervoor zorgt dat de TT hand nogal transparant wordt, waardoor de tegenstander in de hand in een erg voordelige situatie zou komen in een erg grote pot. Tevens mogen we er rekening mee houden dat post flop beslissingen vaak lastig worden, als we veel actie krijgen op lage flops of op flops met kaarten hoger dan een T. Misschien dat een fold dan toch niet zo slecht is, ook al is het slechts 3 handed.

Een ander voorbeeld is als spelers met suited connectors uit positie een preflop raise callen. Vaak redeneren ze als volgt: De agressor raisete minder dan 10% van zijn stack, dus als ik hit, dan kan ik genoeg winnen om deze hand winstgevend te spelen.
Maar als we de vuistregel loslaten, dan zien we dat we ons misschien vergissen.

Ten eerste hitten we maar zelden een made-hand. En als we die hitten is dat vaak een zwak paar of een monster op een gevaarlijk board (zoals een 3 flush board of straight board). Dus we zullen erg vaak als we spelen met een draw of zwak paar komen te zitten.

Ten tweede zitten we uit positie post flop. Zeker voor het spelen van en value halen met draws is dat erg lastig. Je moet al snel een semi-bluffen en op die manier een grote pot bouwen. En dat met het nadeel dat je elke straat als eerste moet handelen. Daarbij komt kijken dat je niet per se afbetaald krijgt als je jouw draw of monster hit. Die kaarten kunnen nogal de actie doden. Misschien dat die implied odds toch niet zo goed zijn als ze lijken.


Poker draait om Equity
Veel mensen zijn bezig met allerlei zaken in poker, behalve de zaken waar het echt om draait, en waar het echt om draait is equity (i.e., het percentage van de pot wat jouw hand gemiddeld waard is).

Veel mensen raisen bijvoorbeeld om ‘te weten waar ze staan’, of om ‘hun hand te beschermen’. Maar ze houden geen rekening met hun equity tegen de hand ranges van hun tegenstanders wanneer deze bijvoorbeeld gebet hebben of gecalled hebben. Het kan namelijk prima zou zijn dat je na gebet of geraised te hebben, helemaal geen equity in de pot overhoudt omdat jouw tegenstander al zijn zwakkere handen heeft gefold.

Het belang van equity leerde ik indirect in Sit and Go’s (een-tafel tournooien). Als de blinds in tournooien hoog worden ten opzichte van jouw stack, dan heb je eigenlijk geen keus meer dan all-in te gaan of te folden. Callen of normaal raisen zit er niet meer bij. Wanneer je dan all-in moet gaan kan je aardig benaderen door equity berekeningen uit te voeren. Door een tijd lang op een droge en puur wiskundige manier te spelen heb ik het belang van equity in poker geleerd. En die kennis heb ik overgedragen naar No Limit Cash games.

Het resultaat was tweevoudig. Enerzijds leerde ik om een minder emotionele, maar meer analytische benadering voor poker. Het ging immers niet meer om outplayen of als beste de tafels breken. Het ging om equity, en equity was niet romantisch of emotioneel. Nee, equity was saai en rekenkundig.

Anderzijds ging ik inzien dat ik altijd moest letten op handranges, en hoeveel kans mijn hand had om te winnen tegen de hand ranges van mijn tegenstander. Ik zag opeens in dat sommige raises die ik maakte niet goed waren, omdat mijn tegenstanders die raises nog met te weinig handjes callden. Tevens zag ik in dat ik op dezelfde manier verkeerde bets of calls maakte.

Een voorbeeld van zo’n situatie is wanneer je KK preflop reraiset en jouw tegenstander je callt met JJ+, AQs+ en AK. Op een QJT flop heb je dan opeens minder dan 30% equity in de pot. Waar ik voorheen nog wel eens wou vuren hier, check en fold ik nu.

Een ander voorbeeld was dat ik leerde hoe onwaarschijnlijk monster handen vaak zijn ten opzichte van andere mogelijke holdings. Op een board als Ad Qs 6s is een set zo onwaarschijnlijk als je preflop niet gere-raised bent, dat de equity van jouw handen enorm omhoog gaat. Met een hand als AhQh bijvoorbeeld lig je achter tegen AA, QQ, en 66.

Omdat de pot niet gere-raised was en jij een A en Q in je hand hebt, is de kans op AA of QQ verwaarloosbaar klein bijna en 66 kan jouw tegenstander nog maar op 3 manieren hebben (6c6d, 6c6h of 6d6h). Als je hier bet en geraised wordt, moet je je bedenken dat maar 3 waarschijnlijke handen jou beaten en je moet je eens voorstellen hoe makkelijk dat de hand speelbaar maakt. Nu is dit voorbeeld natuurlijk erg duidelijk. Maar het gaat op in bijna alle situaties.



Toch kom je er niet met equity alleen, ondanks het feit dat het erg belangrijk is. Je hebt meer middelen nodig om poker te verslaan. In het volgende artikel zal ik het hebben over de andere 3 lessen die ik heb geleerd. Het zal gaan over het onderscheiden van relevante en irrelevante informatie, creatief zijn en toegeven dat je het niet snapt.



Het artikel van stoep:
http://www.pokerinfo.nl/Topic710670-617-1.aspx

Pokeren leer je zo!

“It takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master”, is een beroemde uitspraak in de pokerwereld. En het klopt als een bus. De regels van poker zijn betrekkelijk simpel en iedereen kan het spelletje binnen een minuut meespelen. Maar om het spelletje echt te beheersen, dienen er bergen verzet te worden. In dit artikel zal ik enkele leertheorieën uit de psychologie in relatie brengen tot het poker en daarbij valkuilen en aandachtspunten in kaart brengen. Daaruit zal naar voren komen dat écht leren pokeren nog niet zo eenvoudig is en dat men tevens nooit uitgeleerd raakt.



Hoe leren we?

De manier waarop mensen leren of nieuwe informatie tot zich nemen krijgt al enkele tientallen jaren de aandacht van de psychologie. In eerste instantie waren psychologen wantrouwig ten opzichte van processen die zich in het brein afspelen en richtten hun aandacht alleen op waarneembaar gedrag. Wat psychologen opmerkten was dat mensen heel goed konden leren op basis van het directe resultaat van gedrag. (operant conditioneren). Het idee hierachter was dat correct gedrag door de resultaten werd beloond en daardoor vaker zou voorkomen. Tegelijk zou incorrect gedrag door de resultaten worden bestraft en daardoor minder vaak voorkomen. Denk hierbij aan het leren selecteren van starthanden. Je zal snel ondervinden dat AA goeie resultaten oplevert en deze hand vaker gaan spelen. Tegelijkertijd zal je 72o vaker in de muck gaan gooien, omdat je er maar zelden mee wint.

Een andere invalshoek is het leren door observatie. Mensen kunnen nieuwe kennis en vaardigheden aanleren door het gedrag van anderen te kopiëren. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan het leren van een dans of het leren van piano spelen. Het dagelijkse pokerleven is vervult van kopieergedrag. Kijk maar eens hoeveel mensen hun tafelhouding hebben geleerd van de professionals.

Later richtte men zich in de psychologie meer op de processen die zich “in” het brein afspeelden. Dit gaf onder meer het belangrijke inzicht dat men kan leren door inzicht. Dat wil zeggen dat de mens een situatie kan bekijken, beoordelen en overdenken, om vervolgens de juiste handelingen toe te passen.

Valkuilen bij het leren van Poker

Als men deze leermethoden loslaat op het pokeren, dan zien wij gelijk enkele valkuilen. In het poker is het immers mogelijk dat verkeerd gedrag wordt beloond en dat goed gedrag wordt afgestraft. Het directe resultaat is dus geen goede aanwijzing voor het leren pokeren op een winnende manier.

Daarnaast schuilt er ook in het leren door observatie een valkuil. Wie Jamie Gold in High Stakes Poker ziet limpen met J6o, kan op verkeerde ideeën gebracht worden. Of nog erger, er zijn genoeg spelers die mensen zien winnen door 72o hard te raisen en daarom maar besluiten om die ook te gaan raisen. Of spelers die AA gaan limpen omdat ze anderen hard met AA zien verliezen als het geld erin gaat.

Men dient dus niet klakkeloos gedrag van professionals of anderen te kopiëren, maar men dient zelf de theorieën en ideeën achter het poker te begrijpen en toe te passen.

Om dezelfde reden is het ook niet slim om zonder nadenken rijtjes starthanden uit je hoofd te leren. Poker is een spel van situaties. En elke situatie kan om een andere benadering vragen.

Hoe te leren in Poker

Voordat mensen alle vertrouwen in de psychologie opzeggen, moet ik zeggen dat er oplossingen zijn. De problemen met het leren in poker onstaan doordat mensen zich richten op de verkeerde informatie. Ze kijken naar de hoeveelheid geld die iemand op een avond wint of uitsluitend naar de keren waarop een ander succes had. Maar in het poker kan je dus blijkbaar niet uitgaan van het directe resultaat van jouw beslissingen of van die van anderen.

In plaats daarvan moet je jezelf richten op de informatie die er echt toe doet. Je moet je richten op de winstgevendheid van beslissingen. En om die informatie te vinden moet je voorbij de oppervlakte van poker zoeken.

Goed winnend leren pokeren doe je door op de juiste manier de handrange van je tegenstander in te schatten. Je gebruikt daarbij alle informatie die voor handen is. Vervolgens bepaal je jouw equity, door jouw hand af te zetten tegen de handrange van je tegenstander. Op basis van die informatie kies je de actie die jouw winst op de lange termijn maximaliseert (ref. REM-strategie van Flynn en Mehta in Professional No Limit Hold ‘Em, twoplustwo publishing).

Als je goed wilt leren pokeren dien je deze vaardigheden te optimaliseren. Dat kan je doen door boeken te lezen, die je nieuwe inzichten kunnen geven. Daarnaast dien je veel na te denken over je spel en moet je je eigen spel blijven analyseren en verbeteren. Maar bovenal leer je goed pokeren door vooral heel, heel, héél veel te spelen. Door veel te spelen ga je situaties herkennen en is het tevens mogelijk om bepaalde handelingen automatisch te laten verlopen (waardoor je je aandacht op andere informatie kan richten). Al die extra moeite kan er toe leiden dat jij op een betere manier handranges kan inschatten, op een betere manier jouw equity kan bepalen en op een betere manier de juiste actie kan kiezen. En uiteindelijk zal je dan vanzelf een betere speler worden.

Maar dit is geen gemakkelijk proces. Het duiken onder de oppervlakte van poker en uitzoeken naar relevante informatie is een ingewikkeld proces, een proces wat maar weinigen aankunnen. Het is daarom dat er zoveel fishes in poker zijn, de meesten leren nooit hoe ze goed moet leren!

Conclusie

Concluderend kan men stellen dat leren pokeren nog niet zo eenvoudig is. Men kan niet uitgaan van het directe resultaat en men dient zich te richten op de zaken die er echt toe doen; handranges, equity en het maximaliseren van de winst. Daarnaast zien we dat ervaring erg belangrijk is. Leren pokeren is een continu proces, waarin je je hele leven kan blijven verbeteren. Kortom:”Poker, it takes a lifetime to master”.

Stoep

PS Grote dank gaat uit naar Leroy Soesman voor zijn deskundige feedback!



PPS Een bekend post op 2+2 van Zeejustin sluit mooi aan bij dit onderwerp en is zeker de moeite om te lezen. http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7339473&page=0&fpart=1&

Advanced Thinking and Hand Ranges

By Nick Eisel
Any good poker player knows that there is no such thing as "always" in our game.

One of the many reasons the game is so strategically lucrative is that every hand is unique and every decision has to be weighed against a wide array of factors. This month I want to take a very advanced look at putting a strong opponent on a range of hands and then see how this range of hands changes the "standard" play of a hand into a play that certainly has negative expectation. So, consider yourself warned this article is not for the beginning poker player or even for someone who has just recently switched over to No-Limit Hold'em cash games.

The hand in question happened the other day during one of my usual 12 tabling sessions on PokerStars. The game is $1/$2 No Limit Holdem (9 players) with everyone at the table having around $200 in front of them. Everyone folded to me in the small blind and I was holding 4c 4d. My opponent in the big blind is a very solid thinking player.

I decided to make my usual play in this spot and raise to $6. Whether or not this is the best play against a strong opponent is the topic of another article, but suffice to say that this guy is smart enough that I'm not going to win a big pot off of him if we don't start building it early. There is also a large likelihood of him either folding pre-flop, or calling and folding to the continuation bet I will make on most boards. Since pocket fours doesn't rate to improve that often, the best way to make money with the hand is to be aggressive in a heads up situation.

My opponent surprised me by re-raising to $21 rather quickly and now it's $15 for me to call. Normally I avoid situations like this with a small pair heads-up and out of position, but in this case I decided that it would be hard for my opponent to give up AA, KK, or QQ if he had one of those hands and flopped an over-pair and I flopped a set. I guess the point I'm getting at here is that I felt there was enough implied value in calling here even against a tough opponent and while out of position. Over-pairs or top pair good kicker hold more weight in a blind battle than they would normally.

The flop came Ac Tc Ts and there was $42 in the pot.

Nothing special here, if he had AK or AQ he just got there and I have absolutely no way to ever know where I'm at in this hand without first investing a lot of money. I check with the intention of folding and my opponent checks it back.

The turn came the beautiful 4h giving me a full house.

What to do?

There are a number of lines I can take here to make some money on the hand, but I chose to check and let my opponent bet a weaker hand and then confront him with a raise. After all, he could've checked something like AK on the flop trying to trap me or maybe he'd decide I was bluffing and pay me off. Another option was to check call the turn and then bet out on the river which may induce a call from something like KK, QQ, or JJ that wants to get a showdown on this board.

I checked and my opponent bet $20. I decided to check-raise to $56 and hopefully keep him in the hand. He called relatively quickly.

The river was an interesting card, the Qc. There was $154 in the pot so I decided to bet $72 which I felt he would probably call with AK or AQ.

Before I knew it, my opponent had pushed all in, I had called, and my hand had gone to the muck as I saw the bad news that he was holding AA and had flopped the top full house. Bad beat, right? Hang on a second.

The tendency of most players at this point would be to curse their bad luck or possibly go on tilt. I try to be more rational about things and something bothered me right away after that hand that I couldn't explain. The rest of the session ended without incident, and I couldn't stop thinking that maybe I'd done something wrong in this hand and could've saved some money. I showed a few friends the hand history and both of them asked me what my problem was as it's not like I can ever get away from that big of a hand. After spending some more time thinking about the hand, I believe I could've played it much better than I did and I'm going to explain why. Let's take it one street at a time.

Pre-flop

Okay, so I raise in and my opponent re-raises. If he had just flat called preflop he could literally have anything and I wouldn't really be able to narrow his range any just yet. Since he re-raised however, I know he has a pretty strong hand since I also know that this opponent respects my play and plays against me on a pretty regular basis. I'd say loosely that his range here is pairs from AA down to 99, AK, and AQ and sometimes complete air, but rarely.

Flop

Since I was playing 11 other tables at the same time I was involved in this hand, the flop action didn't mean as much to me as it should have if this hand occurred in a casino or if I just hadn't opened up any other games yet.

The fact that my opponent checked behind me on the flop is a huge deal in terms of narrowing his range down. The more I thought about this hand afterwards, the more I realized that this opponent would only rarely check behind on the flop with AK or AQ in this spot. He knows that I'm going to fold to a lot of continuation bets here and he is smart enough to mix in actual hands for value along with his bluffs. I'm also pretty sure that he wouldn't consider top pair a slow-playing hand on this board with Broadway possibilities and a flush draw. So since he checked I think we can eliminate a large percentage of AK and AQ type hands. Obviously you can't entirely remove them from your analysis since he could be varying his game or check it back for any other number of reasons, but I'd say it's very unlikely he has just AK or AQ after the flop check.

The hands that fit this flop action would be KK-JJ since he'd be looking to get to a cheap showdown and wouldn't want to expose himself to a check-raise bluff here in a big re-raised pot where he couldn't possibly call. By checking with those hands he can then call the turn and make a decision on the river if I bet again.

Other hands that would check the flop are AA and TT since they would be plenty strong enough to slow-play.

As I said in my preflop analysis, I don't think he would re-raise me with KQs, KJs, or QJs (again I could be wrong), so we don't have to worry too much about him taking a free card here with a club draw.

Also; 99 is a hand I'm pretty sure he bets the flop with as he doesn't want to get to a showdown and his hand has literally no value if I bet on a future street so he would want to take a stab here and give up if he got any heat.

Getting inside of your opponent's head and figuring out how he would play each of these hands is really what separates the good players from the great ones and I clearly was not on top of my game during this hand.

Turn

Okay, so now I've got my full house and have to figure out what to do with it. If I'd been doing the full hand analysis all along this would be an easy decision for me but I wasn't in the zone on this particular day and was almost on auto pilot and probably shouldn't have been 12 tabling. There are a few courses of action that can be okay considering his potential range here. If I check now he will check back with KK-JJ and probably bet AA and TT trying to get value. He may also bet KK trying to get me to check the end as well. I could also lead out here but then I'd be in a real conundrum when he raised me as he couldn't really have a hand that I could beat if I was totally in sync with his range like I am now looking at the hand in retrospect.

At any rate, I like a check and call here with the intention of probably leading out on the river and folding to a big raise. Kinda crazy, I know, but if you think about the big picture it's almost impossible for him to take this type of a line as a bluff.

This was probably the most important street in the hand and I played it terribly because I didn't fully understand what his flop check meant in the heat of battle. A check-raise really doesn't do anything for me except fold out worse hands and make me pay the maximum when I'm beaten.

River

Since I check-raised the turn it's pretty hard to not get all in here on the river. Taking an alternate line like check calling the turn clearly would've been a better option. Since I did check-raise the turn, I should probably check this river and call a moderate bet and fold to an all in.

Summary

As you can see, it's easy to become blinded at the table and look at your hand simply based on what it is instead of looking at it in terms of how it fares against your opponent's potential range in a given situation. Being on auto-pilot caused me to overplay my full house here to the tune of probably $80-$100 depending on what my opponent did. Most of the time when you have a full house you should be looking to get all of the money in the middle but there are always exceptions like this hand. If you can consistently identify these and take your foot off of the gas pedal when they arise, it will benefit you quite a bit in the long run.

Remember, I'm not advising that you start laying down monsters like this or becoming passive with them, but knowing your opponent and what hands he is likely to hold in a given spot should give you enough of an edge to take the proper action with your hand.

Good luck at the tables.

Ace Speaks: About Bluffing

By Rolf Slotboom

People who don't know much about poker often think it's a bluffing game. They have seen some Hollywood-movies or heard stories about players winning huge pots with nothing and bluffing out the best hand. The fact of the matter is that bluffing can sometimes be an important factor in poker (especially in pot- and no-limit poker), but that most of the time solid play gets rewarded and the best hand will win the pot.

Bluffing is often referred to as "the act of the desperate". When you have nothing to show in the end, you'll have to bet to have at least some chance to get the money. On the other hand, not many things give greater pleasure to poker players than making your opponent fold the better hand. If you are able to win pots because of the way you play, rather than the cards you hold, the skill factor in poker gets rewarded, rather than the ability to wait patiently for the best hand (which, as you should all know, is very important in just about every poker game).

There are some people who hardly ever bluff; there are people who bluff all the time. The first group of players can't expect to be paid off on their good hands (and thus make less money than they potentially could), the second group loses money because people will just check to them and let them bluff off their money. Somewhere in between, there must be some kind of "optimum bluffing point". What's more, the importance of bluffing is not equal in all poker games. Let's take a look at two of the most popular (and, in fact, my favorite) poker games: limit hold'em and pot-limit Omaha. Bluffing in limit hold'em.
People often say that there is no bluffing in limit hold'em, that it's a showdown game where the best hand wins, that bluffing here equals throwing away your money. There may be some truth in this, especially for the low limit hold'em games. In the higher-limit games ($10-20 and up) the bluff is an important factor however. A large percentage of the pots at the higher limits is won without a showdown, thus giving the bluff a better chance to succeed.

In limit hold'em, a large percentage of the pots can be called the "default pots", when no one has a real hand. The first one to become aggressive can expect to pick up the pot and this might just as well be you. Excellent candidates for steals are ill-coordinated flops like K83 or flops with a pair and no draws possible (for example 833 rainbow). You might be able to steal a few pots per session, and knowing that there is hardly a player at the higher limits who figures to make more than one big bet per hour, this adds up to a lot.

Still, it's important not to overdo these kinds of steals and to sometimes bet your good hands on flops like these as well (for example, your AJ on a JJ6 rainbow flop). If people catch up on what you're doing, they will start re-stealing or calling you down (setting you up to bluff off your money), thus making your attempts unsuccessful. Against coordinated boards (two of a suit or straight draws possible) you never bluff, period. You might decide to semi-bluff or bet a rather weak hand to try to get heads up against a probable draw, but you never bet to pick up the pot when you can expect your opponents to like the flop. Bluffing on the river is hardly ever successful in hold'em, unless you can convince your opponent the river has made the hand you had been drawing for (for example, you have T9, the flop comes J83 with two hearts and on the river comes a third heart; by betting here you might make your opponent fold a winner), or if you think your opponent has a weak (or busted) hand himself.

Most of the time, bluffing on the river in hold'em only works if you can make your opponent think you've got a made hand (rather than a draw) by betting all the way. Let's take the same flop, Jh 8d 3h, and once again you're in there with T9 (I don't recommend you're in there with this hand too often, but that's not the point here). If you come out betting with this hand on the flop and the turn as well and you've got only one opponent left, he might be in there with a hand like QT or the nut-flush draw for example and fold without much thought if the river hasn't helped him and you keep betting. That is: by semi-bluffing early in the hand you have paved the way for a bluff on the end. If you just call all the way with your draw and then suddenly bet on the river when the board doesn't seem to have changed that much, your more skilled opponents will become deeply suspicious and call you with hands as weak as one pair or even ace high. Conclusion: bluffing in limit hold'em can be done occasionally, but the situation has to be right and also your image has to be right. If people tend to see you as the famous Rock of Gibraltar who wouldn't dare steal a pot, your bet is more likely to win the pot than if people suspect you might be in there with nothing.

Bluffing in pot-limit Omaha.
In pot-limit Omaha a lot more bluffing is possible, still it's more of a semi-bluffing than a bluffing game. In this game it's often the big draw that becomes aggressive on the flop, rather than the made hand (in fact, if the flop comes Jh 9d 3h and the J9 faces a bet by Kh Qd Td 8h and the bettor shows his hand to him, the J9 is going to fold without a shred of doubt even though he has got top two pair and the bettor only has king-high). Because draws can be so powerful in this game, playing like this is hardly ever considered semi-bluffing anymore, let alone bluffing. Bluffing on the river is possible every now and then, although in the big pots one or all players involved will be all-in on the flop or turn most of the time, and decisions are therefore made early in the hand rather than at the river.

If the money is deep, a big bluff on the river is possible, even if you suspect your opponent has a very good hand. Example: flop Kh Tc 3h, your opponent bets the pot, you (in early position) call with Ah Jh xx. Turn: Jd. You figure your opponent for a very good hand (top set, three kings) but decide to represent the nut straight you might very well have (after all, you must be in there with something to call a pot-sized bet on the flop, right?) and bet the pot. After some hesitation, your opponent calls. If the board rags on the river, a good-sized bet might very well win the pot for you, even though you're up against a very good hand. Every time you think the nuts might not be out there, your bluff has a good chance of success. Another example of a bluff that might very well work in pot-limit Omaha is the "bare-ace play". The flop comes three of a suit (or even better, two of a suit, you bet, get called and on the turn comes the third card of that suit); if you have the lone ace of that suit you might be able to win the pot because in this game people know better than to call with a non-nut flush (you, of course, should know which players are and which players aren't capable of folding the king-high flush).

Don't overdo this play, however, better that you don't make people even think you know about its existence. This play works best when you've also got a set in addition to your lone ace: if someone decides to call you down with a flush, you might be able to win the pot by improving to a full (in fact, you would be semi-bluffing here, rather than bluffing). Some words of caution: always be aware of your and your opponents' stack size. If some of them (or you yourself) are close to all-in, no one is going to fold a made hand and you're basically giving away your money. Also, you've got to be a hell of a guy, a real strong character, to pull off a big bluff on the river. It can be tough for you when you try to bet your opponent off his great-but-non-nut hand, and he starts staring you down for a long time, trying to figure out if you are strong or are in fact only representing strength. Take care, guys, and good luck.

Ace Speaks: About Position

By Rolf Slotboom

Position is one of the most important, yet one of the least understood aspects in poker. A lot of players don't ever think about their position relative to the button; they think about their cards only and don't adjust their decisions (whether / how to play) to their position in the betting.

Another group of players talk about position all the time; they play hands "because they are on the button", they bet "because they always bet when they are last to act" or make remarks like: "I don't play cards. I play position." The first group of players doesn't make the adjustments necessary to become a winning player and is often easy to play against. The second group seems to focus on one aspect of the game only and tends to forget that (especially in limit poker) card selection might be even more important; that most of the time you're going to have to show the best hand to win the pot.

Nevertheless, position is a very important factor in poker. Hold'em and Omaha are positional games: the closer you are to the button, the better. You might occasionally play hands that are slightly below your usual standards. You might decide to become a little bit more aggressive with your hand because you're last to act or try to steal a pot because of the weakness the other players have shown by checking, but if you overdo this you'll find your edge might decrease instead of increase. People might start check-raising you because they know you are going to bet whenever it's been checked to you; in fact, even tight, solid players like myself are going to (semi-) bluff check-raise you (and the other opponents) out of the pot.

Position in limit hold'em.
Position in limit hold'em is important, although not as important as many players seem to think. In loose / passive games your position often enables you to win more on your good hands (especially your good drawing hands) and lose less with them than you would otherwise. In tight / aggressive games (the usual standard for the limits $10-20 and up), you might be able to pick up some small pots because of your position.

However, in games like these the opposition is more knowledgeable than in the lower-limit games. People expect the button to bet when there hasn't been any action yet; they expect someone in late position to raise before the flop to try to steal the blinds. They will play back with nothing, expecting you to have nothing. This also means that if you do have the goods in late position, you might be able to win a huge pot because your late-position aggressiveness isn't necessarily the sign of a great hand to them. In loose / passive games, the free card play is profitable and will often work. Let's say you're playing a suited ace on the button, you flop a four-flush, there's an early-position bettor, three callers and you raise; they all call your raise. In games like these the check-to-the-raiser attitude still exists. People might very well check to you on the turn.

When you have improved you bet and when you haven't you check, getting more money in the money when you make your hand and losing less when you don't. In the higher limit games, the free card play will rarely succeed. People know what you're doing so they will either reraise on the flop or (better) call your raise and then bet into you when it seems like you haven't improved. I they do check to you on the turn, you might decide to bet rather than check because of the weakness they have shown.

If for example the board is Jh 8d 2h and you've got Ah 9h you would most of the time bet your four-flush, even if the turn hasn't helped you: someone with a jack or eight might fold, leaving you heads up against some kind of (straight) draw, that is your ace-high might win the pot. When the river is a blank and your opponent checks, you check it back (never bet your ace-high in cases like this, just show the hand down) and if he bets, you're going to have to grit your teeth and pay off (a bet by a busted hand is too likely in cases like this to fold).

Another play a lot of (semi-) knowledgeable players like to make is reraising a late-position raiser with a small wired pair. They expect the raiser to be on a steal and figure their hand is a small favorite hot-and-cold against two random cards; they want to play the hand heads up in position. I don't like this play however and use it only sparingly, only when I think somebody is out of line or tries to run over the game. The fact is: the raiser might have a good hand (he doesn't always need to be in there with nothing), one of the blinds may wake up with a real hand (forcing you to pay four bets for a hand that may barely be worth one), or the raiser may in fact be playing two random cards but receive help from the board.

In limit hold'em, you should be able to save money or make money because of the information you get by the players acting before you in the betting process. Therefore you might start betting second pair in late position because you think your hand is best; you might pick up an occasional pot if you think there are no great hands out there but don't overdo it. If people start passing their hands to you, fully expecting you to bet, to put the check-raise in and they do this habitually, then you might have gone a little too far with your late-position play and you should start tightening up a little (betting when you have the goods, checking when you don't).

Position in pot-limit Omaha.
In pot-limit Omaha, compared to limit hold'em, position is of paramount importance. Because in this game so many turn- or river cards may cripple your hand, people are reluctant to give free cards. Therefore, if it's been checked to you, the odds are against anybody being in there with a real hand, and a good-sized bet has a good chance of winning the pot right away. Even if people suspect you are stealing, they still tend to give up the hand. Pot-limit players don't like to battle for small pots with less than premium hands, even if they think the bettor doesn't need to have a premium hand either.

Often the person who makes the first bet is able to pick up the pot, and therefore it might just as well be you who does the grabbing here. But once again, don't overdo it. Just like in limit hold'em, people might start check-raising you with hands they will fold against others. If you bet a marginal hand that you will have to give up against a check-raise (for example, an open-ended straight draw when there's a two-flush on the board) it might be better not to bet at all, since you can make your hand for free; in fact, if you get check-raised here, you are losing money on a hand you actually could have made some money with. In general, I like to play for the big pots in Omaha.

If there has been no raise before the flop and the hand gets checked to me, I often check my marginal hands back. I don't want people to think I'm trying to pick up pots all the time. If on the other hand the pot has been raised before the flop and the money is deep, I might become very aggressive when I'm in position and I suspect there are no great hands like top set or some kind of monster draw out there. I try to use my tight image to represent the temporary nuts (most often top set) and if someone decides to play back at me, all the money is going to be in the middle. If I get called, I will have a lot of outs no matter what (in Omaha, you hardly ever bet or raise without having outs because people may be in there with all kinds of hands, and therefore the likelihood of getting called is high).

If you bet or raise on the flop with a fine draw (wraparound straight- and flush draw) and get called, it's up to you whether or not to bet the turn as well. Against most players I have the tendency to keep putting as much pressure on them as possible if I think they're in there with something like top two pair or a small set, to try to make them fold their hand. If the player is unlikely to fold even after a second pot-sized bet (either because he's a really bad player or simply because he doesn't respect your play), you should just check it back and try to make your hand for free. One more thing: while in general you can become more aggressive with your hand the closer you are to the button, sometimes the opposite is also true.

If you flop a very good draw in early position, you might decide to go all-in on the flop by check-raising or betting out yourself, whereas you would have just called a bet (rather than go all-in) in late position. By going all-in, you try to get maximum value out of your hand. If you just call a bet when you're out of position and then you make your hand, the original bettor might fold if you come out betting and if you check, he might check it back. If you are last to act, the original bettor will most of the time be forced to pay you off, since he may feel his check might have induced some kind of bluff; if the board pairs on the turn or river you just fold your hand and save money you wouldn't have saved in early position.

Some final words.
Your position in the betting is always an important consideration in poker. Still, you shouldn't make decisions based on position only but use your position in combination with all other important factors: is the opposition likely to be weak, what do I think I'll have to beat, if I bet will they suspect me of stealing, does the board make it likely for someone to be checking a monster, are there any habitual check-raisers anyway etc. If you are able to combine all those factors with your position in the betting process*, then you should be able to make (or save) a lot of money, just because you're last to act.

* In pot-limit poker, there is also another important positional consideration besides position in the betting process and that is position on the preflop raiser. If there has been a late- position raise and you are on the button, your position is in fact rather vulnerable. People might check their good hands to the raiser on the flop, expecting him to bet (which, even in Omaha, will happen quite often) and thereby bagging you as well. If the preflop raiser doesn't bet, it is by no means certain that a bet by you will win the pot because someone might be lurking in the woods. On the other hand, if you're the big blind and there has been an under-the-gun raise, your position may not be as bad as it seems. When the flop is favorable, you just check and if the preflop raiser bets, you might be able to bag the entire field, or induce some kind of (semi-) bluff by someone who tries to pick up the pot because there has been no action yet.

Ace Speaks: About Draws

By Rolf Slotboom

Most of the time, if you've got a made hand in poker (for example, JT in hold'em and the flop comes JT3), you will bet your hand. If you're drawing (let's say you have Q9 against the same board), you may very well decide to check. In fact, checking and calling is the natural thing to do when you have a drawing hand. However, this isn't always automatic. In limit poker, you're going to have to bet your draws as well as your made hands sometimes to avoid becoming too predictable. Betting a draw on the flop (or even the turn) is sometimes referred to as semi-bluffing. That is: you would like everybody to fold since you don't have anything yet, but if you get called you might win the pot anyway by making your hand.

Some people (especially rocks or weak-tight players) don't like it when players bet their draws aggressively. They will make remarks like: "Why did you bet? You had nothing yet". In the game I like best (pot-limit Omaha) you will never hear comments like this. In this game, the big draw is often king; draws are often favorite over made hands on the flop. Drawing hands can and should therefore often be played aggressively. Now, let's take a look at how to play drawing hands in three of the most popular poker games: limit hold'em, limit stud and pot-limit Omaha.

Draws in limit hold'em.
You may have heard limit hold'em is no drawing game. This is true to a large degree, because it's harder to draw out in hold'em than in any other game. Most of all, this means hold'em is a kicker game: if you've got AK, there's an ace on the board and your opponent is playing a bad ace, you figure to make a lot of money (he has to hit his kicker to win). It doesn't mean straight or flush draws shouldn't be played.

In fact, drawing hands can be very profitable in hold'em, especially if the game is loose (lots of preflop callers) and passive (not a lot of raising). Your implied odds in games like this can be very good, since it doesn't cost you much to draw to your hand and if you make it, you will probably get paid off. In games like this volume hands like small suited connectors and suited aces can be played for profit, sometimes even from early position.

However, in position these hands do better: you will make more money if you make your hand, and lose less if you don't. If the game is tighter and more aggressive (like most hold'em games at the levels $10-20 and up) you're not going to play these hands, and if you do you're going to raise with them (rather than call) from late position to try to win the blinds. If you flop a good draw at the higher limits, how you play your hand depends upon the opposition. How many players are in, what kind of hands do you think they hold, do they respect your play, can you win the pot against them by semi-bluffing etc.

Let's say you're in the big blind with 98 and the flop comes 652. If you're up against one or two tight players who figure to hold big cards only, you might become aggressive with this hand from the flop on, even though all you have is a gutshot and two overcards. If, on the other hand, you're in the big blind with Q9 against the same players and the flop comes JT2, don't be too thrilled about your hand; in fact, I would recommend checking and folding here. If they hold AK, AQ or KQ, it's hard to get them out of the pot (if they have flopped top pair it's going to be even harder), and the only card that gives you a sure winner is an eight. Drawing hands in position can sometimes be profitable hands in hold'em, especially in loose / passive games where the free card play might work. Against tougher opposition, the made hands are king. If there are only two players left on the flop in hold'em, it's hard for the draw to be the favorite over the made hand, even if the hand to beat is just top pair / top kicker.

Draws in 7 Card Stud.
In seven stud you're not going to start with hands like 987 or J98 to try to make a straight. You do play suited cards (if none or only one of your suit are out). If you get another suited card on fourth street, you have a powerful hand (depending of course on what the opposition has). On fourth or fifth street you might become aggressive with your four-flush in one of the following situations: a) you're in the hand with three or four opponents who won't bet but will call with their hands and don't figure to hold super-hands. In this case you are betting for value (that is, a bet here has positive expectation even though you don't have anything yet) or b) you're in the hand on against a single opponent who you figure to be rather weak, yet has a stronger hand than you at the moment.

In this case, you are semi-bluffing to try to make him lay down his hand on fifth street (in stud, whenever someone calls your bet on fifth street, he will most likely go all the way to seventh street). Most of the time, things are rather clear-cut in seven stud: the big pair (or the most dangerous-looking board) bets and the draw calls. Still, in stud it's a lot harder to protect your one- or two-pair hands than in hold'em and playing (quality) draws can be very profitable here. Just remember you're going to have to make your hand. It's almost impossible to bluff your opponent out on the end (like you can occasionally do in hold'em, by representing something you don't have). Since the pots are so big and the last card is dealt face down, the one- or two-pair hand will just grit his teeth and pay off your bet.

Draws in pot-limit Omaha.
Pot-limit Omaha is the ultimate drawing game. If the flop is Kh 9h 2d, you have Ah Qd Jd Th and your opponent, holding K9, knows you've got this hand, he is going to fold his hand without a shred of doubt. That's right: he has got top two pair, you have ace-high only and still he's going to pass. In Omaha, the draw is king. On the flop, the drawing hand can be the favorite over the temporary nuts, even when the nuts is as strong as top set or a made straight. Draws can and should often be played aggressively, especially if you suspect there is no set out there.

Still, don't over-estimate the power of the straight draw, because they sometimes look better than they really are: someone may have the same straight draw you have (so you might make your hand and have to split the pot) or a flush may be completed on the turn or river (so you make your hand but still lose). Pot-limit Omaha is a game of implied odds. You've got to know exactly where you're at in the hand, you've got to know exactly what you have to beat since this will decide which strategy is best (push or pull).

If you're relatively new to the game, be very careful about drawing hands that may be second best if you make them. The king-high flush is a hand that can in fact be very profitable, if you know how to play it; if the novice player gets any action when holding this hand, he will most likely lose his entire stack.

Two more things. First, in Omaha it's important to know exactly how many outs you have (for example, if your opponent has a set and you've got the nut-flush draw, you've got seven outs, not nine). Only if you are able to calculate your outs quickly and without mistakes, and of course if you are able to read your opponent's hand well, is it possible to know for sure if you belong in the pot or not. Second, make sure you've got good computer software available to you, so you can simulate interesting hands that have occurred, are able to calculate your drawing odds in Omaha better, and in time will play a better game overall. Take care, guys, and good luck playing your draws.

How Poker Players Suffer Big Losses By "Reverse Manufacturing"

By Mike Caro

Most players, even serious one, suffer much greater poker losses than they should. That makes me sad, so I'll try to fix it. One reason is that their losses are "reversed manufactured." Now there's a fancy term. What does it mean? Reverse manufactured means that those losses are the necessary byproduct of trying to manufacture a winning streak.

Oh, fine, but what does "manufacture a winning streak" mean. Ah, now we're getting right to the heart of it. You might have manufactured some yourself and not realized it. You're probably manufacturing a winning streak (and, in fact, manufacturing wins) if you like to brag about the number of times you've won in a row. If you go around telling anyone who will listen, "I'm on an 18 day win streak," more likely than not, you're manufacturing wins.

How can you manufacture a win? It's amazingly easy. All you have to do is refuse to settle for a loss and accept small wins whenever you need to. The only requirement is that you fight back when you're behind, hoping to break into the plus column, then quit happy if you succeed, rejoicing in the notion that you overcame adversity, struggled to restack your chips, and are now going home to rest victorious. It will feel like a proud accomplishment to you, but it shouldn't.

How you won

Let's look at how it might have just happened. You're a medium-limit player, not competing quite large enough to make a good living, but large enough to supplement your income or to barely get by without a job when required. In this way, you're like the majority of winning poker players - somewhere between just eking out a profit and professional wage-earner status.

Anyway, today you sit down in a $10/$20 hold 'em game, supposedly hoping to make a profit by showing off your Sunday-best poker skills. Sad stuff happens right away, though. Down goes a king-high heart flush, which you flopped, when a player holding the ace of hearts and deuce of diamonds sees a fourth heart come on the river. Next you flop three jacks, but they finish third when two opponents hit straights. Then there's that devastating hand where you got bluffed out of your birdcage by Bruno, who never, ever did that before. And it gets worse. The little medium hands that can go either North or South, all go South. Losses pile up. Misery surrounds you.

But somewhere deep, deep inside, you maintain your faith and conviction, and the spirit strikes you. You fight back. Hours pass. You grow weary. Hours pass. You fight to stay alert and wait for your luck to change. Hours pass.

It's now 3:40 in the morning and you need to be up at 8:30. Suddenly several pots are pushed to you. Then a small setback. Then you win more pots. After a string of pots go your way, you win a really big one. Is your recovery complete? You don't know, because you haven't had time to count your chips.

"Deal me out one hand," you tell the table. You need to stack these newly won chips, count them, find out where you stand. Down $135, put 10 of these $5 chips here, down $85 now, put these two $25 chips off to the side, down $35, oops, three more $5 chips under a $20 bill, exactly even, and that leaves these three $1 chips, change from the rake, so up $3! You did it! Your winning streak continues!

Time to go

"Deal me out!" you announce. "It's getting later than I thought." "Don't you wanna play till your blind?" someone asks. "You've got another hand coming." You're tempted, after all, you can just fold everything except aces - even aces if you really want to. But you just wave away the suggestion. "Nah, deal around me." And within minutes you're cashed out and on your way home. As you're leaving, a friend asks you how you did tonight. Your chest puffs out proudly and you say, "I won a tiny bit. Nothing that matters, but that's 19 winning days in a row."

Signs of trouble, my friends. Bad signs of trouble. You're manufacturing that win streak just so you can make yourself feel good about it. But you're not manufacturing profit. Sure, you think you're making profit, but really you're putting your bankroll at risk. You have tallied a lot of wins - a couple when you got off to a fast start and kept on winning, a few short ones when you started fast, but faltered and quit before you found yourself in the negative column, some where you'd come from behind and quit when you got ahead. And, of course, tonight when you'd stuck it out and turned a major loss into a tiny win.

Speaking of tiny wins, that's exactly the kind you're likely to have when you strive to extend a winning streak. That's simply because you're willing to settle for them. You'll quit with small wins when you've been winning more to keep from dropping below break even. And you'll gladly cash out with a small win if you've been losing and get ahead. However, there is no such thing as a small loss. You won't accept one. It's either a win or a big loss. You need to keep that winning streak alive if you can, right?

The wrong time to play

But, all together, this strategy means you're playing more hours than you should when you were losing, because you're trying to catch up. And it means you're playing fewer hours when you're winning, because you're eager to cash out and add to your win streak. By manufacturing a win streak, by forcing small wins, you're also putting yourself in grave danger of manufacturing huge losses - you simply won't experience them as long as your luck holds and your winning streak is extended.

You see, when you try hard as you can to dig yourself out, you risk digging yourself deeper. It's like that popular advice, "When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." I think those words were tailored for poker. Beware! On the few occasions that you won't be able to experience the glory of cashing out with that $3 profit and puffing up proudly, you're likely to suffer painful losses and depart pitifully from the poker table, all chance of recovery now hopeless. Maybe chance of recovery tomorrow will be hopeless, too. You will have lost way more than you should have. And I'm not talking about a magic stop-loss or predetermined limit on how much you should risk in a game.

Listen closely. I'm saying something different. I'm saying you lost much more than you should because you played poker in the worst of circumstances. When you're winning, opponents are usually intimidated by you. They're less likely to play their best games, less likely to make daring bets and raises with winning hands and extract every penny of profit from you. This means you can make value bets that can push your profits to the limit. Opponents who are intimidated usually keep calling in frustration, but seldom raise with anything but obviously strong hands. In doing so, they neglect to take advantage of all their edges, so you rule the table, and your profit soars.

Conversely, when you're losing, opponents are inspired. They play better against you specifically. They think, "Hey, there's someone I can beat. There's someone who's unluckier than I am." And they single you out for money extraction.

So, I don't like to hear about long manufactured winning streaks, because I know that those invite huge manufactured losses, too. And, in the long run, long winning streaks usually mean that you've played most of your time under bad circumstances and limited the time you've played under good circumstances. And that isn't a smooth path to poker profit.