Party Poker Reload, Part III
In my previous two entries, I discussed my chase for a $100 Party Poker Reload Bonus. The bonus required that I play 1000 raked hands, which I vowed to accomplish playing exclusively full-ring $0.50/$1.00 limit hold'em.
I must confess that I failed in my quest. I completed the bonus, but I only played 999 raked hands at these stakes. In the end, I was so sick of playing full-ring limit that I could not play even one more hand. So, I finished my bonus chase playing one orbit of 6-max, no limit hold'em (blinds = $0.10/$0.25). In those 5 hands, I netted about $4 in profit when I raised preflop (6X the blind) with AA and got three callers. I pushed all-in on the flop and everyone folded. But I digress; this is a blog entry about limit hold'em.
In Part I of this series, I commented on how good the play was at these stakes. In Part II, I commented that the played was poor. So, now, in Part III, I again have to comment that the quality of play was quite good.
Over the last 500 hands or so, I won only one pot where my opponent played absolutely awful. One person from early position limped and then someone from middle position raised. It was folded to me on the button, where I woke up with AA. Given the limp and the raise ahead of me, I decided to three-bet. The game was loose-passive and I was 6-tabling (more on this later); therefore, I was betting to reduce the size of the field more than I was betting for value. Everyone folded (including the limper) to the raiser, who four-bet it. I figured that he had AK, KK, or QQ -- perfect! The flop was ideal for me: A 5 5. He bet out on the flop and I called. The turn was a blank and I decided to spring my trap on the turn by raising. I was surprised when he three-bet it for me, allowing me to cap it. The river went check-bet-call and I took down at big pot (he had AK).
In the table below, I am showing my statistics for my little experiment in low limit hold'em. In the end, I won at a very nice rate of more than 3 big bets per 100 hands. You'll note, though, that most of my winnings occurred in three of the sessions. These were the sessions where I caught cards, played well, and had weak tables. What does this tell me? This reinforces the need to grind it out when playing limit hold'em. It's best to simply wait patiently, losing the minimum, until you have a strong hand and you can extract bets.
What else did I learn? I started focusing in on value-betting on the river. This is perhaps obvious to some, but I think it is worth re-visiting. I once read an article from Daniel Negreanu stating that value-betting correctly was the difference in his game that allowed him to move up beyond the $20/$40 limits. I am quite proud of the fact that I made only one incorrect value bet on the river over my last 500 hands. By the way, when I say "incorrect", I mean that I went against my "read" and tried to value bet an opponent who I thought might have had me beat.
In the end, I profited about $170 (bonus+winnings) from my experiment, which is a lot of money for someone playing with a very short bankroll. I also learned how unexciting it is for me to play poker these days. This reinforces my intuition, which tells me that I should quit playing poker because I play for fun, not money, and it is not fun anymore for me. This boredom becomes expensive when I start playing hands that I should not play and I bet them too aggressively. Alternatively, I start playing too many tables, so I can merely accumulate hands instead of playing hands well. My last few sessions were all played with 4 or 6 tables so that I could clear the bonus as quickly as possible; it is no coincidence, therefore, that I essentially broke even in these sessions. I would play well until I was "up" and then lose focus until I was "down", after which I would play better.
This blog entry seems somewhat negative, but I am trying to find ways to be excited about poker again. I have a home game to play this Friday, which should be a lot of fun. The other idea I have is to start playing way above my bankroll so that the amount of money involved will keep my focus. I have dabbled with this idea already, playing no limit hold'em (Blinds = $0.50/$1.00).
I must confess that I failed in my quest. I completed the bonus, but I only played 999 raked hands at these stakes. In the end, I was so sick of playing full-ring limit that I could not play even one more hand. So, I finished my bonus chase playing one orbit of 6-max, no limit hold'em (blinds = $0.10/$0.25). In those 5 hands, I netted about $4 in profit when I raised preflop (6X the blind) with AA and got three callers. I pushed all-in on the flop and everyone folded. But I digress; this is a blog entry about limit hold'em.
In Part I of this series, I commented on how good the play was at these stakes. In Part II, I commented that the played was poor. So, now, in Part III, I again have to comment that the quality of play was quite good.
Over the last 500 hands or so, I won only one pot where my opponent played absolutely awful. One person from early position limped and then someone from middle position raised. It was folded to me on the button, where I woke up with AA. Given the limp and the raise ahead of me, I decided to three-bet. The game was loose-passive and I was 6-tabling (more on this later); therefore, I was betting to reduce the size of the field more than I was betting for value. Everyone folded (including the limper) to the raiser, who four-bet it. I figured that he had AK, KK, or QQ -- perfect! The flop was ideal for me: A 5 5. He bet out on the flop and I called. The turn was a blank and I decided to spring my trap on the turn by raising. I was surprised when he three-bet it for me, allowing me to cap it. The river went check-bet-call and I took down at big pot (he had AK).
In the table below, I am showing my statistics for my little experiment in low limit hold'em. In the end, I won at a very nice rate of more than 3 big bets per 100 hands. You'll note, though, that most of my winnings occurred in three of the sessions. These were the sessions where I caught cards, played well, and had weak tables. What does this tell me? This reinforces the need to grind it out when playing limit hold'em. It's best to simply wait patiently, losing the minimum, until you have a strong hand and you can extract bets.
What else did I learn? I started focusing in on value-betting on the river. This is perhaps obvious to some, but I think it is worth re-visiting. I once read an article from Daniel Negreanu stating that value-betting correctly was the difference in his game that allowed him to move up beyond the $20/$40 limits. I am quite proud of the fact that I made only one incorrect value bet on the river over my last 500 hands. By the way, when I say "incorrect", I mean that I went against my "read" and tried to value bet an opponent who I thought might have had me beat.
In the end, I profited about $170 (bonus+winnings) from my experiment, which is a lot of money for someone playing with a very short bankroll. I also learned how unexciting it is for me to play poker these days. This reinforces my intuition, which tells me that I should quit playing poker because I play for fun, not money, and it is not fun anymore for me. This boredom becomes expensive when I start playing hands that I should not play and I bet them too aggressively. Alternatively, I start playing too many tables, so I can merely accumulate hands instead of playing hands well. My last few sessions were all played with 4 or 6 tables so that I could clear the bonus as quickly as possible; it is no coincidence, therefore, that I essentially broke even in these sessions. I would play well until I was "up" and then lose focus until I was "down", after which I would play better.
This blog entry seems somewhat negative, but I am trying to find ways to be excited about poker again. I have a home game to play this Friday, which should be a lot of fun. The other idea I have is to start playing way above my bankroll so that the amount of money involved will keep my focus. I have dabbled with this idea already, playing no limit hold'em (Blinds = $0.50/$1.00).
posted by frazwood at 11:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home