Saturday, January 9, 2010

Back to the Grind..

So I have the first few sessions under my belt. Things are ok I guess, just the normal ups and downs of grinding.

I have a few highlight hands to share, but I am still working on the graph you see above. As of writing this is was still my old graph, but I am working out a way to export the numbers from HEM to a simpler online spreadsheet that will just measure and provide a constant graph of my bankroll vs. hands.

This is a slightly different line than I would normally take with AA here (which is what I had), but I think it's correct here. I really think that this guy will stack off with almost his entire range here. I think he stacks off with any overpair, either of the two flush draws, any 6, and most 8's. Normally I wouldn't be shoving here (I would be trying to max value) but there were so many draws that I think he stacks off with *on the turn* but folds to any action on the river if he misses, I felt like shoving was better. I did have the As, which makes it slightly worse to shove here as I am hoping he has a nut spade draw as a part of his call-off range, but that's pretty marginal I think. Thoughts?

One thing about the style I play at the micros is I tend to get lots and lots of action. It's also why I like to push hard on hands like the one above. After raising a ton and 3betting way more than anyone else at the table, I tend to not get a lot of credit when the chips go in. Here is a fine example. I had a good feeling that this guy was about to crack, and sure enough on this one he did. I led for 1/2 pot on the flop, looking for value here with a favorable flop. He min-raises, lol. This is probably the worst line he could take, as he limits his fold equity to the minimum and he simultaneously opens the door for me to 3bet. I oblige the invitation and re-raise full pot. Not to be deterred, he ships all-in having little fold equity. In a normal situation his all-in bet would have fold equity, but after I lead out > re-raise for full pot I am basically never folding a made hand here. I snap call and we get it all in. Go sklasnsky bucks!

Next hand is in regards to hero-calling the guys at these bottom stakes. The players who are thinking at all will often take a line on a hand like this one. This is a classic spot where the villain is putting in a min-bet on the flop just to see if it works. I tend to treat min-bets like that in a raised pot as if it were a check, except I get the option of raising if I wish. The turn would be a good card for a lot of hands this guy could have, but he checks it. River changes nothing and he bets 1/2 pot on river as a stab. It isn't much of a stretch to put yourself in his seat and take a similar line with air. I was also considering that I had under-repped my hand a bit, as I was generally raising/3-betting with AJ at that table, but didn't this time.

This is a funny phenomenon you see at the micros as well: The chronic minbetter. They will bet the literal minimum on the flop and the turn, then either check or bet pot on the river depending. I think this develops because there are players that don't know how to handle it, and get into a station-mode after calling minbets on the flop and turn. It also acts as blockers to people willing to just call with good hands when minbet. Against competent players though, I think it just works against them, as it opens the door to get bet off of whatever hand they do have, and good players just ignore the minbet and take their odds if drawing/wanting cheap turns and rivers. This guy was a little different, he made it a double-min on the turn. Only reason I posted this hand is just to show that these guys will often do this with complete air, and a raise or bet out at any point will take it down. This is more important in non-limped pots, cause guys will do this even on raised pots.

Here is a hand I really butchered. I felt like I played a little erratic this session, but this is the only hand which I really didn't like. I flop an open ender here after being the aggressor preflop from the cutoff with 7c6c. I lead out for pot, he minraises me. I decide to just 3bet this guy as these minraises are often weak. He calls. Again I reference the type of action I tend to garner. I hit the best possible card for me on the turn, but decide to check, hoping that he would just shove to my weakness after he flatted my 3bet on the flop. Right after I checked though, I realized that he could have a flush draw pretty easily here, and might just take his free card. He does check back. BAH! Now the river is a diamond, and I don't really think I can give much more action here. I check and he checks back garbage. Not sure if he would have called a shove on the turn. My guess is not, but he called a hell of a lot on the flop with it.. Anyway, obviously just shove the turn Marsh.

This is a simple and standard hand, and it might seem like a bad-beat post, it's far from it though. I just think that hands like this sometimes don't get posted because they aren't particularly interesting, but they are often the staple of how you win at these micro stakes. If you look at the villains action it's interesting. UTG raises pot, he calls with Ah7h from the SB. Sure. BB (me) 3bets for full pot. When people 3bet out of the BB when they could have just called an UTG raiser and had fine odds, they usually like their hand quite a bit. UTG calls, and now villain *overcalls*. This is pretty suicidal. He is OOP to both of us and facing an aggressive 3bettor post flop with a hand that he rarely can just go with. Now if I gave him enough credit to fold a flopped Ace postflop, *and* we were about 4 times deeper, I wouldn't mind. But he is already short stacked and I know he is stacking off on any Ace high flop. Even with the flop he did get, he is losing the hand 20% of the time. You can see how badly this works out for this guy usually.

Overall it feels fine to be back to grinding. It's mildly stressful, but having HEM to look at stats and hands after is fantastic. It just makes it easier to get at the type of data I was seeking out in the first Challenge. I think I will be trying to 6-table consistently, but right now I am doing the normal 4. I will do another session tonight probably as well..

7 comments:

royalbacon said...

Nice thorough post, Marsh. I’m not giving as much thought to this as you, and I still don’t have HEM installed, but it looks like I should.

And great breakdown analysis of what the other guys are doing. I’m noticing similar things but didn’t think to share it. I’ll going to be diligent about keeping the rare key hands versus just the money-making or losing hands like I have been. The goal is to learn something, right?

FYI, the link you provide to the text-history of a given hand is actually the text-history of the previous hand, where you had a pair of 8s.

Marshall said...

Thanks for the correction, I was able to find the Cake page too and fix it :)

How do I do strikethrough on this blogger editor is my next question..

About the goal being learning, yep it's a massive part of the thing for sure, and it's my main motivation for writing stuff in this blog at all (for my fellow Cake Challengers to learn what I have)

royalbacon said...

does typing "<" and "strike" and ">" and then after what you want to strike typing "<" and "/strike" and ">" not work?

I’m sure you tried this already, I don’t know why I’m bothering.

I also noticed you’re playing at $.02/$.04. Any reason why you aren’t stepping it up to the next level?

Marshall said...

Ha too funny, I did try the strike html thing but I did it wrong like a boss...

Re: playing .02-.04, I am playing that cause my roll isn't ready for the next level. I keep to around a 5% rule for buy-ins, which means upon starting I can buy in for up to 5.00 which is 1.00 over the max buy for the .02-.04. Max buy for the next level is 10.00, which is too much for the starting roll imo.

royalbacon said...

So what I’m really hearing is that you don’t feel that buying in for less than the maximum is correct, then. So you won’t move up until you’re at $200 or thereabouts.

Marshall said...

Right.

jason said...

I really don't see the play of the villains to be that bad here other than perhaps the dude with the A7. It seems way more difficult than the first challenge. See my general post for more comments.