Sunday, January 11, 2009

The Grump vs. the Geeks






Last night I returned to the Venetian. I knew that the porn stars would all be at Mandalay Bay for the big Adult Video News awards ceremony, and that that would leave just the Consumer Electronics Show attendees. Sure enough, I spotted a few convention ID badges around the necks of my fellow players.

That's right---it was going to be me against the Geeks.

Let me just skip right to the end of the story. I played for exactly three hours, finishing up by $573. I never lost a big pot, never got my money in with the worst of it (except for deliberate bluffs--every one of which was successful). Compare that to Thursday night, playing against the porn stars. My stack fluctuated wildly up and down, finally ending up a fairly pathetic $115 for just under eight hours of play, and even that success was dependent on some lucky flukes.

My conclusion, based on the highly scientific sample size of one table each: Porn stars play better poker than computer geeks. Who knew?!

****

There was one seminal hand worth describing. Our table was blessed with a Geek Maniac. He was the friendliest, chattiest, smilingest guy there, very affable and enjoyable personally. But he was a maniac. He played at least 90% of his starting hands. If nobody raised ahead of him, he would do the job himself virtually 100% of the time. Sometimes it was a min-raise, sometimes to $6, sometimes $8, sometimes $12. As far as I could tell, the amount didn't vary with his hand strength. Rather, he would go in spurts of a certain amount for a while, then change to a different amount for a while, etc. He would always, always, always continuation-bet the flop. He was an inveterate bluffer--as one would have to be playing that way, because you just don't make real hands that often.

As I trust my readers know, it is impossible to play poker profitably this way. Sure, he won about three monster pots during the time I watched him, but, predictably, it would all either bleed away slowly or get lost in another huge confrontation. But he had a big wad of Benjamins and wasn't afraid to dig into it. Excellent! I recognized two other local grinders at the table, and this one guy was feeding all three of us. (We stayed out of each other's way.)

So late in the day, Geek Maniac is under the gun and straddles, as always. I'm in middle position and see my favorite hand, the 2-4 offsuit. Yay! I can't lose! Position isn't perfect, but I've played 2 1/2 hours of rock-solid poker, never showing a bluff, winning every large pot I contest, showing down nothing but strong hands. So the situation should be a good one for either making a completely unreadable hand or making a plausible bluff. I called the $4, knowing that it was just a down payment, because, as he always did, Geek Maniac raised it, this time to $12. I called again.

The flop was A-Q-2 with two hearts. (I had none.) Geek Maniac bet $15. My lowly bottom pair might be good here, and I might improve to two pairs or trips, or be able to represent the flush if another heart were to come, so I called. Besides, I wanted to see what he would do on the turn. (I should mention, perhaps, that Geek Maniac had a major tell in his bet sizing. When he had nothing or something really weak like bottom pair or an underpair to the board, he would repeat his bet size from the flop to the turn, or from the turn to the river. Huge information giveaway.)

Turn was an offsuit 2, giving me trips, which was almost sure to be the winner here. Of course, he plays any two cards this way, and could theoretically have had the case deuce--or even, God forbid, pocket queens or aces for a full house--but that's mathematically unlikely enough that I felt I could safely disregard it unless he showed real strength. (Another facet of his bet-size tell was that he didn't bluff big; his big bets and check-raises were always the real deal.) This time he bet $25, suggesting that he had top pair at least. I raised to $80. He called without too much difficulty, but with definite trepidation. Again, this let me know that he had a real hand, but certainly no monster. He was very easy to read, both from betting patterns and body language.

River was an offsuit 5, completing no possible flush or straight draws. Beautiful! Geek Maniac checked. I bet $100. He hesitated for no more than two seconds before calling, which makes me wonder if I could have squeezed more out of him. But no matter--I showed the ol' 2-4. He nodded unhappily and mucked without showing. I scooped in the roughly $420 pot. Thank you, deuce-four!

***

Geek Maniac left the table quietly maybe ten minutes later. I was surprised at the table talk after he was out of earshot. A young woman two seats to my left (I've played with her before and know her to be good) said, referring to me, "I was so happy when he won with that deuce-four! I was, like, 'Yeah! Take THAT!'" (Geek Maniac had stacked her earlier when he flopped a set of queens to beat her pocket kings.) Even more surprising, the dealer then piped up: "Me, too! I know I'm supposed to be neutral, but I loved seeing him get a dose of his own medicine!" Apparently, despite his personal affability, the Geek Maniac's playing style had been getting on everybody's nerves.

I thought this was really strange. From the dealer's perspective, not only is such an overt display of favoritism highly unprofessional (even after the other guy has left the table), but why should she care who wins or loses, or what anybody's playing style is? I could understand it if the guy was a jerk. Then it would be perfectly natural to wish to see him taken down. But as I've said several times, he was really a charming, happy-go-lucky person whom it would impossible to dislike. He was never rude, never churlish, never a sore loser, always complimenting other players on good hands and good play, an extremely generous tipper, etc.

As for the other players, they should have hated that hand--first, because it made a big chunk of chips a helluva lot harder to win than if they had stayed in Geek Maniac's stack, and, second, because it for the first time revealed me to be a lot more potentially tricky and difficult to put on a hand than they had presumably believed prior to that point. Logically, it made no sense for them to be happy with the outcome. But I guess for some people, the emotional revenge satisfaction factor meant more than the implications for their chances of leaving the game winner. Personally, when I see a big pot go down between other players, I always either love or hate the result based on my assessment of whether that mass of chips just became easier or harder to take home; I'm rooting for the worst player to win. Once again, I guess I have to face the fact that the way I think about things just isn't shared by most of the rest of humanity.

****
Just a "BTW" thing that occurred to me for the first time last night: Since "Venetian" is the adjectival form of "Venice," why isn't it spelled "Venecian"?

14 comments:

Cardgrrl said...

I am always astonished at how many people take things personally and wind up being motivated by "revenge" at the poker table (which is almost always entirely counterproductive). When I encounter somebody like the Geek Maniac you describe, it's all I can do to keep track of the table talk over the din of "ka-ching" sounds in the ear of my imagination. I'd be tempted to tag him with a radio transmitter so that I could follow him to whatever game he sits at next! :)

The "t" in Venetian has, I believe, to do with it's origin as a Latin suffix. But don't quote me on that.

Grange95 said...

I presume "Venetian" derives from the Italian name for the city, "Venezia" and/or the region, "Veneto". Venice is an anglicized version of the city name. Now why we don't keep the anglicization for the adjectival form ... that's above my pay grade.

BTW, I folded 2-4 to a preflop raise last night. Would have flopped two pair, and the table big stack (a maniac) flopped a straight. Of course, I also would have boated on the turn deuce, and doubled up for $800 or so. Oh ye of little faith! *Le sigh*

Short-Stacked Shamus said...

VNH, sir. Way to swing that 2x4.

Of course, I would've guessed the earlier session would've been the one to have produced a seminal hand.

--S said...

From a dealer's perspective, we (dealers) always have an opinion about the players at a table. The more professional of us never let it show but nearly every hand we are secretly rooting for someone.

It could be we are rooting against the non-tipper. It could be we have a headache and the guy who just won't shut up (regardless of how nice he might be) needs to go. It could even be simply because we don't like the way someone looks. Who knows what it is, but rest assured we're always rooting for somebody...

Local Rock said...

Thanks, that was fun, and I had wondered about poker in the midst of geekfest but never have gotten a sample of it myself.

Anonymous said...

So, you have battled the geeks and porn stars on your ground, but will you grapple with them on theirs? :)

Mike said...

When you start playing 2-4 offsuit for a raise is when a difference between good player and bad player disappears. Sounds like a horrible play.

Rakewell said...

Mike, care to elaborate on why you think it was a horrible play? Keep in mind that my opponent would raise with any two cards. The 2-4 starts with about 33% equity against a random hand, and the potential implied odds were huge, as was demonstrated by how things played out. If I have to pay $12 to win about $200, I don't have to succeed very often to make the investment profitable. There is no question that I have won more with the 2-4 than I have spent playing it, because I tend to either win big or dump it cheaply after missing.

So how was it "horrible"?

Mike said...

Are we seriously discussing open limping with one of the worst starting hands in Hold Em and calling a raise with it? That is a pretty big leak. It is somewhat excusable had you been on the button and tried to steal the straddle and blinds with a raise. On a flop, you peel one off where your equity vs a generous range of 22+,A2o+,KTo+,QTo+ is only 18%. You have to be able to win his whole stack a very high percentage of the time to make this play profitable, which is not guarantee by any means. You also have to include the situations where you are dead against sets, two pairs or where the card giving you 2 pair would give your opponent a higher 2 pair. Overall, this makes calling preflop and flop a huge leak. Good player's edge over a random tourist who plays 90% of his hands come from better starting hand selection, extracting value from weaker hands, denying the correct drawing odds, drawing at the right price, controlling the pot size, hand reading, trapping and many others but from playing offsuit garbage hands for a raise and peeling flops with bottom pair no kicker.

On another note, from playing a few sessions with you, I feel like you have other leaks in your game, mostly preflop. In particular, calling raises with low suited connectors with 45-50bbs is unprofitable/breakeven at best, especially in HU situations. The game you are trying to play would be more effective with deeper stacks, where you would rely on implied odds when hands like 57s and 67s come through.

Of course you might tell me that you've been winning playing the way you play but the truth is that even having numerous leaks in your game, it is possible to beat 1/2 games due to how weak the competition is. However, having those leaks you are not maximizing your win rate. Also, once you try to move up to 2/5 or higher (or try online games as low as 10 NL) those leaks will become more transparent and will haunt you.

The hand similar to the one you've described in your blog came up in our session today.
What are you trying to do calling raises with 120$ stack (too shallow) with 57s (doesnt play very well heads up) and peeling J95 rainbow flop for a pot size bet? Hoping to improve to a two pair without proper pot odds or proper implied odds? Then how does it make you any different from random Joe Smith who plays poker for the first time and calls with any pair? Float and hope to hit a scare card? Well, you did hit an ace and lost another 85$ in a pot you didn't belong to in the first place. I do not see too many aces in your range there (AJ is about it), assuming you called the flop with at least some piece. Overall, you seem to be too creative without need to do so: if you playing poker to 'outplay' people with 24 and 75, that's one thing, but if you are playing to make money and maximize your expectation, I feel like your strategy isn't optimal: I'd either significantly tighten up preflop with your stack or play deeper, and I would avoid playing pots with players who can read you well and know how to control pot size/extract value just for the sake of outplaying them and feeding your ego...

P.S. I know I might sound harsh but I am just trying to help.

Anonymous said...

Shamus wrote: "Of course, I would've guessed the earlier session would've been the one to have produced a seminal hand."

This is just awesome.

Rakewell said...

Mike, I don't recall a hand like you're describing, nor does it really make sense. If I was playing 5-7, why would I want to hit an ace? Where and when did this occur, and what seats were you and I in?

Mike said...

Ballys, yesterday.

I don't know if you were trying to hit an ace. I was merely asking what was your intent on calling the pot size bet on a flop with 3rd pair no kicker. You must have been planning on either hit 2 pair on the turn or hit a 'scare card' and take the pot away.

Regardless, I don't think it was a good play on your part and find this hand very similar to your 24o hand. You are welcome to discuss strategy anytime, btw: mike.zaloznyy@gmail.com - I don't play for a living but poker money has been in a nice bonus in last few months...

Rakewell said...

Hmm. Still don't remember it, so can't comment on what I was thinking. But regardless, I'll just say this: If you play only hands that opponents expect you to be playing, you might as well play with your cards face up. I certainly don't play 5-7 or 2-4 every time I see them. But if you're not playing them at least once in a while--and in situations where opponents would not expect you to have them, such as after a preflop raise--I think you're being too predictable. I'm confident, for example, that the only reason the Geek Maniac called $80 on the turn and $100 on the river was because he thought he knew the range of hands I would be playing there and that he could beat that range. He concluded that a 2 could not be in my hand. But at least as important as whether or how much you win or lose on the hands when you play them is the effect it has on opponents thereafter. On a raggedly flop, they will be less likely to assume that you missed; bluffs are more likely to succeed, etc. Those are things that can't be quantified in any discussion of pot odds, implied or otherwise.

Mike said...

How can you not remember a big pot you played less than 24 hours ago? That's quite incredible.

Anyways, I now feel like my big post was just a waste of time and energy and you didn't get what I tried to convey. Oh well.