Internet Poker Grinder

2004-06-10T22:23:00.000-06:00

FYI

My PokerTracker databases are reaching maximum size with just under 2 million hands in them. A serious limitation for what I'm trying to do. I'm switching to MySQL and writing VB programs to administer them.

2004-06-08T20:56:00.000-06:00

Luck or Skill 1
For this week’s chart, I exported hands from one of my PokerTracker databases, all at $1-2 limit holdem tables and excluding any game I myself was involved in. I also filtered it to include only players who had at least 200 hundred hands represented. This yielded 793,571 hands from 1,534 players. I wanted to chart the often-used statistic in limit holdem, Big Bets earned per hour (BB/hr). Let’s see if there is a normal distribution and what the average earn might be. The poker literature throws two big blinds per hour out there as good performance at the higher levels.

.

The average was a negative 1.37 big bets per hour. The minimum was –35.62 with a maximum of 32.73. The standard deviation was 8.29 BB/hr.

Conclusions:
There is the makings of a bell curve present in the chart. This in itself tends to suggest that poker profits are random. If that were the case, it would also be saying that this is a negative expectation game. But, there are more losses here than can be accounted for by the rake alone. Next week, I’ll look more closely at the actual money distribution from this sample, including the rake. A major piece of information that is missing from the picture is that winners play more and win more. And there are tons of players playing a little and losing a lot. This might explain why the variance in this sample is so big!

2004-06-01T05:17:00.000-06:00

Running Good

My best earning month of poker was also the month that I spent the most time playing poker. I also spent more time working out at the gym and running in that month than any other since I’ve been playing. My worst month of poker dollar-wise was the month that I played the least, and I didn’t work out at all. Draw your own conclusions, but exercise helps me play longer and get in the right state of mind to win.

I’ve collected quite a few hand histories (over 1 million) since my last post. I’ll see where I can find some bell curves for next week's post.

2004-05-18T13:18:00.000-06:00

Raw Data

In each hand of a game, I use my perception of individual players to follow the interactions between everyone at the table. All the while, I’m trying to manage other players' perception of my game.

With the blog, I’d like to start looking at groups of players. The goal is to explore the universe of poker “truths” with statistics. Ultimately I hope to help my sense of perception at the tables.

So, here’s a small sample of data:

-Limit-----Hands---Winners---Losers---%Winners
$.5/$1---197,308--------299------393--------43.21
-$1/$2---220,013--------369------426--------46.42
$5/$10----64,983--------101------117--------46.33

Now what do I do with that? First, I try to recognize the limitations. It's not a big sample and the size of the sample is smaller at the $5/$10 level. I resolve to collect more data before drawing too many conclusions. Also, there might be more short-handed data at the higher limits than the lower ones. I’ll have to control for that. This table was collected at one site on ten-seat tables. Also, I limited the sample to players with more than 100 hands. Increasing the number of played hands radically changes the data. I excluded myself from any statistics.

What kind of inferences do I want to make? I want to know if the percentage of winners is a function of the game itself, or if the number of skillful players in the game makes the difference. Do most winning players at the higher levels make their money by cutting losses and letting their winners run? Or do they consistently stay on the winning side of the ledger more often? I don’t think I’m anywhere close to answering that at this point. Surely, both types of winners exist. Which is the most actuarially sound strategy? Thus the quest begins.

Hand Histories Wanted: depbonus@yahoo.com

2004-05-11T10:58:00.000-06:00

Averages VS Large Numbers

Anytime I solely use pot odds to make a play I’m relying on the “Law of Averages.” Results are going to vary, but the more hands I play the closer that variance will be to the actual mathematical expectation. There is no uncertainty about that, just odds of one thing or another happening. If all I ever do is play the cards, there is not much uncertainty for my knowledgeable opponents either.

All of the uncertainty in a “honest” poker game comes from the players, not the cards or the dealer. I can’t know with moral certainty what laws, if any my opponents are operating under. The trick is to infer their psychology from the way they have played past hands. With Limit Hold’em on the Internet, I can use hand histories and the “Law of Large Numbers” for opponents I see quite a bit. Once I know their type, I can apply the law of averages and use the strategy that best suits the situation given what I “know.” Without enough hands in the bank to get some statistical certainty, it is best to determine the psychology that dominates the table and stick to playing the cards. Of coarse, you want to pick the tables that will yield the juiciest return from such a strategy (Loose and Passive).

But ideally, I’d like one or two known quantities at that table too, even if they are excellent players. It reduces the uncertainty for me in the game. I also prefer short-handed play for the same reason.

Usually, a player with a really self-destructive psychology will not be around long enough online to establish moral certainty by statistical methods, nor do you need statistics to spot the maniac. He’ll also attract enough attention that table psychology is still the most important factor. So, it is with the better players and at higher limit games that this approach is most useful.

Still, all the stats are just an adjustment to pot odds. They help me determine how strong my hand must be to win in the here and now. If you know that, there is no uncertainty about the odds of this hand holding up or of me drawing to hand that is good enough. The law of averages will work its magic. Instincts about relative hand strength are nice/mandatory, but the statistical method is definitely the fastest way to develop them online.

That is, it could be, IF it wasn’t so hard to get enough data. You see, to infer a law from incomplete information, you need independent observations. This means that your data has to be situational because other players are playing the players too. In fact, a big part of what you are trying to measure is how much are they playing the players. To get independent observations, you have to create a slew of general situations that combine starting cards, position and the previous action. Given X environment, generalize that a loose/passive acts like this 75% of the time and a tight/aggressive would act this way 75% of the time. Take score, determine what category the player fits in and make your game-time decisions with those collected results in mind. I’m having troubles with the model in a six-player universe. As far as after the flop, all I got is raise/call/fold stats with no hand strength or previous action factored in. I have just enough to see the players that see a lot of flops but play tight and aggressive afterwards. And I don’t think I have enough computer power to add much more that anytime soon.

2004-04-27T10:48:00.000-06:00

If You Can’t Say Something Constructive

I wish I could say sorry for not writing. But, I’m not doing this to vent or whine when it’s not going so good. With a lot of time off for moving and some sub-par performance at the tables, it’s taken me until the 27th of the month to meet the monthly expenses.

I am sorry that I can’t be more like the Poker Blog. He’s there through thick and thin and I’ve come to rely on him as a poker news source. He’s just a better writer than I will ever be. Besides, at this point, it’s the playing of poker I have to focus on. And anything useful I have to share will spring from that.

I like those months were the nut is in the bag by the end of the first week and I’m a writing everyday. Or where everything is on schedule and I’m saying something every few days. But they can’t all be like. Can they?

My experience has been that 1/3 months are great, 1/3 are just reaching the goal and 1/3 feel like a death match that taps into the surplus from the great month. I have yet to have a losing month, but I don’t have a job to fall back on either.

Blogging during a death match is probably not recommended. At least, for me.

2004-04-03T10:07:00.000-06:00

The Prescribed Amount

Got the new DSL up and going and I don’t have to climb a phone pole to use the Internet . . . impressive. Playing and blogging time have suffered over the last week or two.

Playing more equals more money. So, the most common mistake on the grind is playing too much and not being at your best for too much of the time. But recently, I’ve made the less common mistake-- not playing enough. Few people that play a game or sport for a living can afford to take many days completely off. You’ll slip out of the groove if it's going good and you’ll lose needed income if it is not going so good.

It’s not really a middle ground that I’m looking for. I want to execute the optimal amount of playing time per day. At first, you log hours arbitrarily trying to find a magic number. Eventually you learn to match your other obligations and needs with the playing conditions available and establish a rule for each day’s play.

I had some troubles making the phone company and my moving help follow the plan though.

2004-03-31T04:50:00.000-06:00

Therapy

I’m in the middle of moving to a house in the country. The Hooter Ville phone company still hasn’t been able to connect the DSL. They’ve only missed one appointment so far. So, I’m still hopeful.

Not much time to blog lately, but I still want to get into it. No one in my personal life cares about poker. Even If I were to win the WSOP, none of my friends or family would be impressed, although I guess the money might attract some unwanted attention from who knows whom.

With a blog no one is forced to listen. But I can pretend that someone is.

2004-03-22T21:55:00.000-06:00

Weekly Tourney

Wow, it’s been almost a week since I blogged. I guess I was focused on playing . . . good. I’m getting ready to try and get some money over to Planet Poker so I can play in the “Journalizer’s” weekly tourney. Check out Felicia’s Poker Talk for details.

2004-03-17T01:21:00.000-06:00

Concentration

It’s the biggest challenge of grinding. Your looking for a certain type of game, making the same plays over and over. It can get boring.

Someone gave me a tape of the first WPT show of the new season. Tonight I’m watching the show for the first time and playing online at the same time. I'm winning pretty big. Then near the end of the show there is some bizarre heads up action and I’m trying to figure it out as it is happening on my tape. Next thing I know, half my winnings are gone and I can’t tell you a thing about how it happened. Focus, Focus, FOCUS!

2004-03-14T22:33:00.000-06:00

IQ

Certainly, there are a number of intelligent forms of life on this planet. But consider this, without goals, can any species be said to have intelligence? As humans, we have great latitude in actually choosing many of our goals. But choosing bad goals or failing to develop a rational plan to achieve them cannot be considered smart.

The quality of goals selected tends to divide the family of poker players into different species, that and the soundness of the plan they decide to implement. In the competition within the species (fish VS fish or shark VS shark), it comes down to persistence and adaptability.

2004-03-12T13:57:00.000-06:00

Capital Tools

No time to blog when your favorite site makes major upgrades. I had to go into programmer mode while still having to play 8 hours a day. I had to get those hand histories compatible with the PokerTracker. My long workouts eat up a chunk of the day too. Swim 3 miles one day, run 12 miles another, always hitting those tennis balls—at least it allows me to glue myself to the chair as needed. Technology and endurance are worthy investments in this game.

2004-03-07T16:04:00.000-06:00

Paranoia

What scares me about online poker?

The card room might fold and I will lose my money? No, there are plenty of solid sites. Even though I try to focus on playing one at a time I don’t keep my entire bankroll in one place.

Running into people with more skill? No, I’ll just find another game when that happens.

Running into a bot? No, although that game could get too loose with everyone going after the easy money.

Running into people using PokerTracker? No, these people are going to give me respect.

Running into collusion? Yes, you bet cha! Teams using instant messaging, or Winbot to share cards and jam pots for each other would scare me to tilt.

But this can be a problem in a casino or home game as well. Yet, cheating, like so many other things can be more efficient on the Internet. Well, scared money can’t win so I’d better get over it. I know the game well enough to know when something isn’t right. It hasn’t happened yet, but if it does, the plan is to get out!

And what if I have run into cheaters already and not noticed? I am winning. What difference has it made?

2004-03-06T14:10:00.000-06:00

Mission Creep

The original blog plan was: Just write some thoughts about poker every once in a while. So, why am I spending any time worrying about links and what people might like to read?

I can't do that! It's a trap-- like spreading your resources between too many poker sites, playing too many multi-table tourneys, or jumping between classes of games.

The edge is all about efficiency, which requires focus. (Edge) (Time)= Profit. It's that simple. So, keep it simple. By trying to hold the environment constant, more focus is possible on the complexity of each individual hand as it is played.

Stick to the blog-plan.

2004-03-05T04:19:00.000-06:00

The Ideal Opponent / The Ideal Game

When you first start to take notice of playing styles or psychological profiles, the easiest type of player to spot is the maniac. This guy is loose and aggressive. He plays more hands relative to your self. He bets aggressively, and often overplays his hand. Once you learn how to play the maniac you might start looking exclusively for games with maniacs. It’s a winning strategy and easy to execute. But the maniac is not your ideal opponent and these are not the ideal games. What you’ll get is lot more variance in your results, which is to flirt with tilt. Better to stick to “normal” games than to do that.

The ideal opponents are just as loose as the maniac, but passive. They play more hands relative to you and call more than they raise. Commonly tagged as "calling stations," they usually are not aggressive enough when they have an edge. They are harder to find than a maniac, but you can start by looking for loose passive games. Look for games that have a lot of players seeing the flop and small to medium sized pots.

Once you’ve found the loose/passive game you can start watching individual players. The stats I look at are:
1) how many times they see the flop
2) their ratio of pre-flop raises to pre-flop calls
3) their ratio of post flop raises to post-flop calls
4) their ratio of wins per flop they had to contribute to see.

These numbers should help you determine your opponent’s likely holdings when you are in a pot with them.

The plan is the same for all games-- play tight (fewer hands) and aggressive (raise!) when you feel you have an edge. In this type of game, against this type of player, you will have an edge more often. And if a maniac happens to move to your loose/passive table, he'll be a lot easier to pick off.

2004-03-02T21:22:00.000-06:00

Choosing Where to Play

Sun Tzu, speaking on The Art of War, stressed knowing the battlefield, knowing the enemy and knowing your self. Just as war theorists use poker to develop game theories for battle, the war analogy can help create a strategic plan for Internet poker.

The battlefield in my analogy is a poker site. And like Tzu, I want to choose the battlefield that will give me the best chance of success. And Poker gurus Brunson, Sklansky and Cloutier seem to agree on the second principle of warfare. They stress factoring your opponent's tendencies into each poker decision too. "Know your enemy." I like to combine the first two principles and choose to fight my battles on the sites where my intelligence efforts can be relatively thorough and efficient.

On the old Southern road circuit, or in Brick and Mortar casinos, the men with the best memories (and notes) had the edge. It can be argued that on the Internet, the ones with the best programs and the biggest databases are the favorites. That is why many fellow bloggers are touting tracking software and mostly playing the sites that the software supports. These sites all average about 9,000+ players during prime time. I like that software too. Very Efficient! But how much use is it on sites with that many people online? And at the level I am playing, everyone is popping in and out all the time. No one seems to be sitting at one table very long.

I know more about my opponents at the sites with fewer players. Specially, since I have written templates to convert my hand history files so that they work with the software. At these sites, not many opponents are using such software. With fewer players, the quality of my information approaches completeness compared to the mega sites. Well, maybe I bought a reader or two by divulging that. I think its valuable information.

I should be able to blog a few more entries on site selection. Maybe next time, I'll talk about knowing your opponents and your self in a psychological sense. Turning those statistics into psychological profiles, not only helps me in site selection, but also in game selection, hand selection and specific betting scenarios.

2004-02-28T02:45:00.000-06:00

This log starts after I have been playing low-limit Internet poker for more than a year. I have to withdraw money every month to pay the bills and taxes. But, I have managed to accumulate a $3500 bankroll after starting with $200. My financial condition is improving slowly but surely. So, I have no plans to rush to higher limits until all my personal debt is paid off and I have a sufficient bankroll to play there.

I find poker to be no more or less of a grind than holding a job in any competitive field. Daily performance is mandatory for success. I guess most people wouldn't want an obligation like that though. If not, then they should be terrified of playing poker for a living. To me, a career demands that you give it everything you've learned from every other facet of life. A career is just what Internet poker has become for me.

I first discovered poker bloggers a couple of days ago and I thought I'd give it a whirl. If writing can bring me better focus and thus improve my play, then the blog is a success. If the blog hurts my game in anyway, then I'll have to quit. If anyone finds my page useful or entertaining, or if they can offer me some advice, well that's fine too.