4 month reflection

The end of April marks the fourth month since starting on my poker journey. 

I have concentrated my studies well, trying to remain focused on what it is I'm trying to achieve. 

There's no point dabbling in poker. If I'm going to study this game then I'm only going to go all the way, making sacrifices to push myself, further than any past endeavor in my life. 

Some days I'm not at all sure what I've managed to take into my head, what I've managed to compound, but then I'll go for a walk after being at my desk for 5 hours straight and I'll have an insight that suggests that maybe all this work is having some impact after all.

I guess I'm following the exact same path walked by many before me. Begin with a goal, tremendous desire, and determination. I'm compounding the basics and fundamentals of poker into my mind. Except that I'm trying to ignite my mind into a thinking poker mind rather than a mechanical methodical mind.

It is hard work, there's no doubt about that. But then again so is computer programming except I have no interest in learning that.  There has to be one thing in life that you decide right this is something I'm going to excel at, whether it be playing the guitar and music composition, or creative writing and producing a novel. Either of those endeavors if one has the passion and talent can be the basis for a life long career. 

There has never been an area of my life where I've pushed myself hard enough so that I grow beyond my comfort zone. I've decided that I'm going to make poker my breakthrough. 

The most difficult concept I've encountered in this poker discovery stage is hand combinations and some of the tougher mathematical formula. I haven't been taught algebra, and trying to self-learn is difficult. Apart from that I understand the fundamentals so far. 

Believing in probability, pot odds, and equity value concepts

The reason we think in terms of pot equity, and pot odds is because good poker strategy exploits long-term probability. For example 2 outs at the flop requires pot odds of 14 to 1 in order to break even. Making these types of calls will earn money long-term as long as you utilize the odds correctly because probability theory will work out correctly in the end. The 13 times you lose in this example is offset by the one time you win, and therefore break even (make a call at greater than break even odds to make a profit).


lose - lose - lose - lose - win - lose - lose - lose - lose - lose - lose - lose - lose - lose 


Sticking to the correct strategy requires clarity, and belief in the truth of probability theory, and maybe also a little courage in the face of a string of losses. 

Bluffing analogy - like a tax rate or retail markup

Have just thought of a really apt analogy for bluffing - it's like a tax rate or retail markup. So if I think of my game as a low bluff game, I would expect more turnover, as in a low taxation market economy, the market responds by spending more with me but I earn less, or like a retail shop but I make less money.
Bluffing pads out my game. A Nitty player only earns on his premium hands. But a LAG bluffer open raising with a wider range has his bluffing range markup. How much markup he puts on his game determines his earning potential, but too much markup / bluffs can hinder or freeze his earning potential. 
So how much I want to add to my game depends on my bluff markup; a range of 20% - 33% would mean a bluffing range from 1 in 5, 1 in 4, to 1 in 3 hands.
I'd probably start off at 1 in 5 and move to 1 in 4 hands as my game improves. 

Key questions during hand play

Whats my range for current position?
What's my range in relation to my opponents?
What's my range for folding, calling, raising; responding to a fold, call, raise?
Am I stack committed? If so what's my SPR?
Am I seeking value, bluffing, stealing, or folding equity?
What's my plan for flop, turn, river if opponent checks, calls, raises?
Is my range polarized, merged, or skewed?
How does opponent read my range?

Fold equity - definition

Just thinking out loud here. Fold equity. How is it used? What situations?


Making opponent estimate the equity they give up by folding is less than the cost of making the call to our bet/raise.  In other words causing opponent to make an incorrect equity estimation by making opponent believe I have more equity in the pot than they (which may or may not be true).


When I want to induce folding I can 3-bet, shove all-in, double barrel to incur a cost against him he is unwilling to pay. 
The board texture ideally does not support his range.
The board texture supports my range. 
Aggression in the bettor/raiser supports fold equity - passiveness in the opponent supports your fold equity.
I have sufficient sized stack to threaten opponent for his stack. That is I can put him to the test for a decision for his stack using sufficiently sized bets. Also I support my threat with value in my hand, whether that be made value or implied value, and opponent can judge my hand to have implied odds based on the board, my pre-flop raise from position etc.

Checking on the river allows you to get away from stronger hands or get action from weaker

A poker saying 'get away from' example - by checking the river when holding say a medium strength hand, allowing the opponent to either check back or raise - if opponent raises then you can, if you are certain they aren't bluffing, 'get away from' having to risk placing,and possibly losing, a bet.


Get action from weaker hands - opponents who are checked to on the river holding weaker hands may think 'oh, I may have best hand', and bet. 

Use same sized bets

In Small Stakes NLHE Ed Miller advocates using same sized bets against specific opponent - which means the bet changes dynamically only in relation to different opponents, but not in relation to the relative strength of your hand. What you do not want to do is give away reads on the strength of your hand based upon varying bet sizes.


So against NIT I may bet 3 BB whilst against super crazy LAG I may min-bet or even check - the point is my bets remain the same against the player regardless of the relative strength/weakness of my hand. 

Fold to c-bet pressure

Betting is pressure and many opponents fold too frequently to pressure.


C-bet frequently, pulling back only on opponents who exploit this strategy.

• C-bet nearly every time in heads up pots.
• 70-80% in 3 handed pots.
• In four-handed pots be more measured, but you can still profitably make c-bets on many dry flops.

Bluff two barrel strategy

OK so I'm just a n00b, and I'm sure the advanced players have this all figured out, but for me this is an AHA moment.


If I only bet for value say on the river, and I fold or check all my failed draws, then my hands are revealed as value hands - that is my opponents know when I bet I'm betting because I have a (possibly) winning hand and so I'm less likely to get a call, and consequently I make less money in these situations.


When poker earnings are measured in terms of hundreds and thousands of hands, this can be significant loss of income.


Introducing bluffs on my failed draws. So instead of folding or checking my failed draws, I behave the same way I behave as when I hit my draw, I raise or at least I bet. I have 'balanced' my poker line for hitting my draw hands, and I attract calls which without adding in raised / bet failed draw hands, I would not otherwise attract.


In summary - adequately bluff on the turn and the river to force your opponent to choose between laying down his value hands and paying off your bluffs.

Small Stakes NLHE Ed Miller

I really like Ed's books - I'm onto the 3rd one authored by him - the first two I've read beginning with How to Read NLHE Hands, then Professional NLHE Vol 1 and now this one. 


Ed's very thorough, he never skips a step in his thoughts whilst explaining in a very straight forward manner, and he's very clear in his choice of words and meaning. 


My first reading of the book set my head in a whirl, the main reason is that I lost focus on the topic of the chapter, for example 'stealing from button against the blinds' as opposed to stealing from cut-ff against the blinds; and if you don't maintain focus on the current topic, the chapter loses all relevance. So I realized that after reviewing my first read through where I had gone wrong, and the second read through things are going a lot more smoothly, I'm understanding what it is Ed's explaining since I'm keeping the topic in focus at each stage. Like poker, reading about poker is situational and specific to your opponent.