The Brink
In the corner of my mind, there remain some foggy and distant memories of this climb. The memories are diluted and washed out but the scent of them remains – caught in my nose. I am sure I have been here before because it is all so familiar.
The climb is significant and a bit daunting. I know that now because I am in the middle of it just as I am sure that I remember it as being so from the times I did it before.
The first few hundred feet are the worst because the rocks are loose and the footing is unpredictable. When I try to think back to those vaguely troubling memories of the three times I trudged up this mountain before, I believe I remember having fallen repeatedly at the start the same way I fell this time. Getting a little headway and then sliding back down to the bottom, maybe making it a hundred feet before a boulder lets loose and tumbles with me back down to the bottom, or slipping and sliding in the muck of unpredictability with nowhere to slide back to but the bottom. The climb has always been hardest at the beginning because of the frustration of working so hard only to find yourself back where you started – at the beginning.
But, once you get past the first couple hundred feet, it gets better. The footing improves and there are ledges to catch you when you slip. I remember slipping back down through the middle part of the climb as well, but it always seemed OK because there was enough topology below me that I could never possibly slip all the way back to the start again. Just keep the course, slip back occasionally, but climb on, forever higher. It was slow progress at times and at other times, when the sun hit the side of the mountain perfectly and the breeze was just right, the footing firmed up and I made amazing progress in spurts of rapid assent.
What is hardest about the middle portion of the climb is not the footing, but its length - length that breeds a cancerous boredom within me. I remember before that this boredom may have been what did me in but I don’t really care because the boredom is infecting me. I felt it creeping into me before, on every attempt, just as I feel it now, slowly and with malice, filling my capillaries and penetrating my bones. There is no risk in the middle part of the climb. You just climb. If you slip, you climb again. The bottom is so far away that you can’t imagine ever getting there again, but the top is so very distant that you are almost sure that it is unreachable. All there is to do is to climb in monotonous steps and repeated patterns over and over again with no end in sight and no chance of failing. It becomes completely and utterly without purpose. It is just climbing for the sake of climbing and it is nauseating.
I feel it now as I did then. I am so very bored.
It was somewhere along this muddy, rocky path that I remember the brink. I haven’t gotten there yet this time, but I can feel it just around the next corner, or the next. My vague recollection of the brink is that I was delighted by it. When I made this journey before, in this stage of total and exhausted bored depression, I came upon the brink and it was a magical, fresh and different - a perfectly inviting change from the monotonous hours upon days upon weeks of pointless climbing.
At the brink, this muddy path takes a jog to the left, the sky opens up, and the world drops away from you. The brink is a cliff. The muddy path that I am on leads right up to the edge of the cliff before turning again off to the left and continuing on its slow and disgustingly tedious merry way. The cliff at the brink falls off dramatically and endlessly, a three thousand foot drop straight down to the bottom. And this is why the brink is so magical. It is risk: risk that I have not felt for months, risk that I will never feel again by continuing my mind numbing trek on the path to my left, risk that is enticing because it represents some kind of feeling at precisely the time that I am most without feeling. Across from the edge of the cliff at the brink, at an easily jumpable distance is the pure and beautiful face of a sheer rock wall. With two steps and a twitch of the leg muscles I could easily hurl myself the distance to that rock wall – as I remember doing before – and catch hold, or drop to my death at the bottom. And, at the top of that rock wall, is the top of the mountain, a direct yet dangerous climb straight up to my goal. The path to my left meanders forever, up and down and in circles before making each little step upward, and eventually winding its was upwards to the top of this very same rock wall – an endless journey. But here at the brink, the top is visible, and the temptation is absolute: one simple leap, one lucky snag, and a bit of luck in climbing the rock wall without even one slip, and I am there.
The brink is two choices – and endless journey on the same path I am on or a one time chance at getting there now. Take the leap, make a short climb, don’t make any mistakes and, bingo, the journey is over. Maybe you die, but it has to be better than the slow death that the current path feels like.
I am not at the brink yet, but I remember it. I remember taking the leap before – three times. Twice I caught hold and twice I began the climb straight up before losing my grip and falling to my death. Once I missed my grip entirely and fell immediately straight down to the bottom. But those memories are not strong. The pain has faded. What happened then may not matter now. I have never tried just turning left and continuing on. The brink is that enticing.
The brink is right around the corner. I can feel it coming.
What will I do?
I am not sure. I do feel stronger now. My climbing skills have improved. My grip is firm.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Going to War
“Force, and fraud, are in war the two cardinal virtues.”
- Thomas Hobbes
FORCE
There were numerous reasons to enter World War II, including but not limited to the fact that someone got a little bit uppity and dropped bombs on our heads. Far down the list of good reasons to enter World War II was the reasonable expectation that entering the war would end the continuing desperate slowness of our economic recovery from the depression. It may have been far down the list, but historically it was significant.
In his little green book, Phil Gordon has a chapter on hands to go to war with. Hands like open ended straight flush draws. Hands like two over cards with a flush draw. Hands that are drawing hands but that are likely to actually be favored. Most of us know what these hands are. But are we willing to go to war with them.
I say, not only do we need to be ready to go to war with these hands as Phil suggests, but that in a NL cash game it is essential that we do go to war with them. On the flop we must push these hands as far as we can. We need to be ready to raise, re-raise and go all in with them.
Not only are these hands favored and are slightly more likely to win money than lose it but they are exactly the kinds of hands that everyone at the table must know that we are willing to play and play strongly. By going to war with drawing hands we are letting everyone know that we are willing to gamble, or so it would seem. In the long run, by raising the crap out of these things, we will make a small profit, but there is a fallout that, like the economic recovery spawned by World War II, is a reasonable expectation but not really thought of as a good reason to go to war in the first place.
The side benefit of going to war with these hands is that our future actions are now framed by the fact that we are gamblers and willing to risk our whole stacks. The next time we raise with a set to our opponents over pair, they will remember that we pushed our whole stack on a draw and will be much more willing to hang with us. By pushing our weaker holdings we greatly increase the profitability of our stronger ones. “You have to give action to get action” as Doyle likes to say.
Go to war. If you drop your whole stack on a 50/50 shot, don’t sweat it. Rebuy and play on. Your willingness to push the slight edges will benefit you later when you have the big ones. The hit you may take initially will likely be followed by a strong economic recovery.
- Thomas Hobbes
FORCE
There were numerous reasons to enter World War II, including but not limited to the fact that someone got a little bit uppity and dropped bombs on our heads. Far down the list of good reasons to enter World War II was the reasonable expectation that entering the war would end the continuing desperate slowness of our economic recovery from the depression. It may have been far down the list, but historically it was significant.
In his little green book, Phil Gordon has a chapter on hands to go to war with. Hands like open ended straight flush draws. Hands like two over cards with a flush draw. Hands that are drawing hands but that are likely to actually be favored. Most of us know what these hands are. But are we willing to go to war with them.
I say, not only do we need to be ready to go to war with these hands as Phil suggests, but that in a NL cash game it is essential that we do go to war with them. On the flop we must push these hands as far as we can. We need to be ready to raise, re-raise and go all in with them.
Not only are these hands favored and are slightly more likely to win money than lose it but they are exactly the kinds of hands that everyone at the table must know that we are willing to play and play strongly. By going to war with drawing hands we are letting everyone know that we are willing to gamble, or so it would seem. In the long run, by raising the crap out of these things, we will make a small profit, but there is a fallout that, like the economic recovery spawned by World War II, is a reasonable expectation but not really thought of as a good reason to go to war in the first place.
The side benefit of going to war with these hands is that our future actions are now framed by the fact that we are gamblers and willing to risk our whole stacks. The next time we raise with a set to our opponents over pair, they will remember that we pushed our whole stack on a draw and will be much more willing to hang with us. By pushing our weaker holdings we greatly increase the profitability of our stronger ones. “You have to give action to get action” as Doyle likes to say.
Go to war. If you drop your whole stack on a 50/50 shot, don’t sweat it. Rebuy and play on. Your willingness to push the slight edges will benefit you later when you have the big ones. The hit you may take initially will likely be followed by a strong economic recovery.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Reverse Implied Odds
Reverse Implied Odds
I love when other players lecture me. I was playing against Book Poker General, who has been playing ABC poker in a six handed game for the last 30 minutes. The play went like this.
BPG is sitting UTG with $115. I have $65. BPG raises to $2.50. I call with 8d9d. One caller behind. Pot is $8.
Flop is 5s7dJs. I have a double belly buster. A 6 or 10 makes my straight.
BPG bets $8 at the $8 pot. The pot sized bets means that the pot is only paying 2-1. I do have outs, 8 to the straight and a backdoor flush draw. Plus, I believe I have an opportunity to steal the pot from this donk if a spade comes off. I call.
The player behind folds.
The turn is a 2s. BPG checks. Pot is $24. I go for the steal, throwing out a $12 bet. I expect he might call this with an As, but if another spade doesn't come on the river, I feel very confident that this is my pot. He does call. I immediately put him on a big pair with only one spade.
Now, this is the key to the later confrontation I have with BPG. Could he possibly have a hand like AsQs or AsKs? Yes. It is possible that he could have that hand. Would he have played the hand the way he did? Maybe but I don't think so. The big bet on the flop made it obvious to me that he was protecting a made hand. Given that, I discounted the possibility that he was on a spade draw. The bet was not right for that hand with this player. He was tight and played by the book. The book says deny odds to the draw so he denied the draw odds. It seemed obvious to me. I check that one into my memory, HE DOES NOT HAVE A SPADE DRAW. I am playing the hand as if he doesn't.
So, even when the spade came off, I knew he didn't have the flush or that it was at least VERY unlikely. I felt I could steal this pot with a bet unless he had the AsA or KsK in which case he would call. He called.
What I am getting at is that the odds were a lot deeper than the obvious ones - pot paying 2-1 and me drawing at 5-1 on the flop. On that flop call, I had a ton of outs that weren't even really outs. Then on the turn bet, it was really just bad luck that he had a big spade in his hand. He very well might not have and I am confident he would have folded in that situation. I only needed to win that turn bet one time in three to make money on it. AND, I was very friggin confident that he did not have a flush. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
The river makes my straight. It is the 10d.
BPG checks and I make a bet he can call, $15 at the $48 pot. He calls and turns over KsK. I win the hand with my straight.
If I had missed my straight and a spade didn't come off, I probably would have made a bet that he couldn't call, my stack. I am very very confident he would not have called that bet.
Regardless, I was very pleased with the way I played this hand for reasons that I highlight above. It worked out for me, but I think there are a ton of other ways it could also have worked out. It is not a text book play, but I still liked it and am very confident that I made money making plays on every street: the flop call, the turn steal attempt, and the river value bet.
BPG: "wow. nice".
I assume that he is being sarcastic.
HERO: "TY"
HERO: "I love double belly busters. I can't get away from them"
It is true that I do love them, but it isn't the only reason I called as we now know. My play seems pathetic from the outside until you take back the layers. Anyway, I hope to get him going.
BPG: "I see that"
There is a long pause.
BPG: "Nice bet on the turn"
HERO: "Oh, that. I thought I could steal it."
BPG: "Ah"
There is a long pause.
BPG: "And that flop call, 4-1 for 2-1. What was that."
I don't bother to correct him. It was 5-1 for 2-1, but he had the right idea.
HERO: "Was it that bad? Oh, I didn't know."
BPG: "I thought you made that flush."
HERO: "And you called anyway?"
Longer pause
BPG: "Do you even know what reverse implied odds are?"
I do.
HERO: "I don't read poker books."
BPG: "Keep playing that way"
HERO: "They confuse me"
HERO: "I just play and win and then play again. It is not rocket science."
BPG: "Keep it up, you will go broke soon enough."
HERO: "I don't really know what implied odds are, let alone REVERSE implied odds."
BPG: "That is obvious."
HERO: "Did I play that hand badly."
BPG: "No, just keep doing what you are doing."
HERO: "Thanks, you too."
Reverse implied odds refers to the concept that when you are drawing to your hand, there is the chance that some of your apparent outs really help your opponent also. You can make your hand but he can also make a better hand. It is an important concept because when it happens, you pay off in a big way. You have trapped yourself and it costs you dearly. So, the implied odds of it happening really benefit your opponent.
BPG was referring to the fact that if I caught my straight but he also caught his flush that I would have to pay off. Basically he was saying that I was stupid for drawing because the wrong card would kill me.
Fair enough.
Basically, on the turn bet, I wasn't drawing to 8 outs. I was drawing to 6 outs and the other two could kill me. Also, he might already have the flush in which case all of my outs would kill me by his reverse implied odds comment. True that. Except, he did't have the flush. I knew that or at least was wildly confident that he did not. What he didn't know is that I wasn't drawing to 8 cards that made my straight. I was drawing to EVERY non spade in the deck because I was so confident that I could win this hand on the river if a spade didn't come off. The tiny chance that he already had the flush was well worth taking the shot at being able to win this hand with EVERY non spade in the deck on the river.
I guess I was looking at the reverse reverse implied odds. Joke, there is no such thing. But you get the idea.
And, if anyone didn't understand reverse implied odds, it was him. With his turn call he was only calling with the K high flush draw. What if I had the ace. Would he have to pay that off. What if he hit and I already had the ace with some likely holdings like AsQs. What then? That is what reverse implied odds is about. That is what actually happened. He is the one who didn't understand them.
I don't know why, but I find these types of hands amazingly interesting. Reading a concept and understanding a concept are completely different things. Understanding the game beyond the book level is a hard step to take. The game is a lot deeper than what can be captured in a book. And players who don't understand this aren't going to have long term success. At least that is my take.
He couldn't know my logic to the way I played that hand, but he made an assumption that was wrong. Hopefully, he put a few notes on me down and we will meet again.
I love when other players lecture me. I was playing against Book Poker General, who has been playing ABC poker in a six handed game for the last 30 minutes. The play went like this.
BPG is sitting UTG with $115. I have $65. BPG raises to $2.50. I call with 8d9d. One caller behind. Pot is $8.
Flop is 5s7dJs. I have a double belly buster. A 6 or 10 makes my straight.
BPG bets $8 at the $8 pot. The pot sized bets means that the pot is only paying 2-1. I do have outs, 8 to the straight and a backdoor flush draw. Plus, I believe I have an opportunity to steal the pot from this donk if a spade comes off. I call.
The player behind folds.
The turn is a 2s. BPG checks. Pot is $24. I go for the steal, throwing out a $12 bet. I expect he might call this with an As, but if another spade doesn't come on the river, I feel very confident that this is my pot. He does call. I immediately put him on a big pair with only one spade.
Now, this is the key to the later confrontation I have with BPG. Could he possibly have a hand like AsQs or AsKs? Yes. It is possible that he could have that hand. Would he have played the hand the way he did? Maybe but I don't think so. The big bet on the flop made it obvious to me that he was protecting a made hand. Given that, I discounted the possibility that he was on a spade draw. The bet was not right for that hand with this player. He was tight and played by the book. The book says deny odds to the draw so he denied the draw odds. It seemed obvious to me. I check that one into my memory, HE DOES NOT HAVE A SPADE DRAW. I am playing the hand as if he doesn't.
So, even when the spade came off, I knew he didn't have the flush or that it was at least VERY unlikely. I felt I could steal this pot with a bet unless he had the AsA or KsK in which case he would call. He called.
What I am getting at is that the odds were a lot deeper than the obvious ones - pot paying 2-1 and me drawing at 5-1 on the flop. On that flop call, I had a ton of outs that weren't even really outs. Then on the turn bet, it was really just bad luck that he had a big spade in his hand. He very well might not have and I am confident he would have folded in that situation. I only needed to win that turn bet one time in three to make money on it. AND, I was very friggin confident that he did not have a flush. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
The river makes my straight. It is the 10d.
BPG checks and I make a bet he can call, $15 at the $48 pot. He calls and turns over KsK. I win the hand with my straight.
If I had missed my straight and a spade didn't come off, I probably would have made a bet that he couldn't call, my stack. I am very very confident he would not have called that bet.
Regardless, I was very pleased with the way I played this hand for reasons that I highlight above. It worked out for me, but I think there are a ton of other ways it could also have worked out. It is not a text book play, but I still liked it and am very confident that I made money making plays on every street: the flop call, the turn steal attempt, and the river value bet.
BPG: "wow. nice".
I assume that he is being sarcastic.
HERO: "TY"
HERO: "I love double belly busters. I can't get away from them"
It is true that I do love them, but it isn't the only reason I called as we now know. My play seems pathetic from the outside until you take back the layers. Anyway, I hope to get him going.
BPG: "I see that"
There is a long pause.
BPG: "Nice bet on the turn"
HERO: "Oh, that. I thought I could steal it."
BPG: "Ah"
There is a long pause.
BPG: "And that flop call, 4-1 for 2-1. What was that."
I don't bother to correct him. It was 5-1 for 2-1, but he had the right idea.
HERO: "Was it that bad? Oh, I didn't know."
BPG: "I thought you made that flush."
HERO: "And you called anyway?"
Longer pause
BPG: "Do you even know what reverse implied odds are?"
I do.
HERO: "I don't read poker books."
BPG: "Keep playing that way"
HERO: "They confuse me"
HERO: "I just play and win and then play again. It is not rocket science."
BPG: "Keep it up, you will go broke soon enough."
HERO: "I don't really know what implied odds are, let alone REVERSE implied odds."
BPG: "That is obvious."
HERO: "Did I play that hand badly."
BPG: "No, just keep doing what you are doing."
HERO: "Thanks, you too."
Reverse implied odds refers to the concept that when you are drawing to your hand, there is the chance that some of your apparent outs really help your opponent also. You can make your hand but he can also make a better hand. It is an important concept because when it happens, you pay off in a big way. You have trapped yourself and it costs you dearly. So, the implied odds of it happening really benefit your opponent.
BPG was referring to the fact that if I caught my straight but he also caught his flush that I would have to pay off. Basically he was saying that I was stupid for drawing because the wrong card would kill me.
Fair enough.
Basically, on the turn bet, I wasn't drawing to 8 outs. I was drawing to 6 outs and the other two could kill me. Also, he might already have the flush in which case all of my outs would kill me by his reverse implied odds comment. True that. Except, he did't have the flush. I knew that or at least was wildly confident that he did not. What he didn't know is that I wasn't drawing to 8 cards that made my straight. I was drawing to EVERY non spade in the deck because I was so confident that I could win this hand on the river if a spade didn't come off. The tiny chance that he already had the flush was well worth taking the shot at being able to win this hand with EVERY non spade in the deck on the river.
I guess I was looking at the reverse reverse implied odds. Joke, there is no such thing. But you get the idea.
And, if anyone didn't understand reverse implied odds, it was him. With his turn call he was only calling with the K high flush draw. What if I had the ace. Would he have to pay that off. What if he hit and I already had the ace with some likely holdings like AsQs. What then? That is what reverse implied odds is about. That is what actually happened. He is the one who didn't understand them.
I don't know why, but I find these types of hands amazingly interesting. Reading a concept and understanding a concept are completely different things. Understanding the game beyond the book level is a hard step to take. The game is a lot deeper than what can be captured in a book. And players who don't understand this aren't going to have long term success. At least that is my take.
He couldn't know my logic to the way I played that hand, but he made an assumption that was wrong. Hopefully, he put a few notes on me down and we will meet again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)