Experiment: Woodshedding on C-game.

Introduction
I recently posted on how my C-game was not beating 25NL.  I suspect some of this was runbad (C-games brother-in-arms), but I was (and am) concerned that some of it is just plain playing bad.  So I concocted an experiment.  I decided to woodshed.  "Woodshedding" is an American colloquialism that means practicing in isolation in lower-intensity situations in order to hone skills.

This all started after I played a few hundred $3.50 superturbo sit n' gos on FTP.  I didn't play particularly well in these games, but I ground out a steady profit in rakeback in addition to the fairly swingy returns of the game itself.  I made a ton of stupid errors*, but my ability to play something resembling a consistent game made up for those mistakes.  This got me thinking.  My auto-pilot was still pretty damn good even more than a year after I last played a high volume in sit n' gos.  I need to develop the same thing for NL cash.  I need to woodshed the easy situations and make up for my shortcomings and inexperience in the hard ones.

So yesterday and today, I started woodshedding.  I aimed to play ~10k hands of poker at the lowest stakes I could play them for a high speed.  I chose 5NL RUSH poker and played 3 tables of full ring and 3 tables of 6 max.  This was the most I could easily handle at one time.  It was more than HEM's HUD could.  I don't know if this a memory issue or a software issue, but 8 tables of KISS poker works fine and always had).

Anyway, it took all of 7 hours of grinding + 1 hour of two tabling (while making a video for two friends who want to learn the basics of  NL cash) was enough to log the hands. The hand velocity was more than a bit stressful, especially without a reliable HUD.  I definitely timed out on some monsters preflop and stuck in some hurried minraises for good measure.  About once every ten minutes I would find myself facing action that didn't "click", ie I had no idea how I got there.  Fortunately, many of these were missed bets and not missed calls or overbet bluffs.

Obviously, this is not A-game poker.  But it wasn't supposed to be.  It was supposed to be stressful, so that when I was playing, I was playing using mostly instinct and the most streamlined thought processes I had.

RESULTS

Over 4982 hands of 6max, I ran at 20.0 BB/100 ($49.80 total), with a 23.1 VPIP/19.2 PFR, a 26.6% WtSD, a 60.9% W$SD, a 2.92 AF, and a 33.9 Agg%.

Over 4595 hands of FR, I ran at 14.3bb/100 ($32.85), playing a 17.5 VPIP,13.1 PFR, 21.2 WTSD%, 57.9 W$SD%, 2.84 AF, 32.8 Agg%.

This is a grand total of $82.65 (17.26 bb/100).



What's obvious from this.

1. I understand poker well enough that I "play" even when my active attention is quite preoccupied.
2. I am clearly missing a lot of bets in this sample.  My AF is too low, my won $ at SD is too high, and I found numerous spots where I was leaving value on the table by just calling (or folding) when raising (or calling) might have been the best option after I looked over that hand and others like it.

Where does the money come from?  

In order to play against the rake and the blinds and win, you have a lot to make up for.  First we have to ask, where does the money go?  What are we up against?

• $53.44 of my bets went to the rake.
• $26.36 were posted in the SB
• $65.44 were posted in the BB

A breakdown of each hand type.

AA and KK (91 hands) netted $43.30 (9bb/hand).



 

QQ, JJ and TT (121 hands) netted $13.16 (2.1 bb/hand)

Pairs 99 and lower netted $32.03 (2.0 bb/hand)

Broadway hands (1113) netted me $22.93 (0.4 bb/hand).  AK accounted for $5.98 (1 bb/hand).

Baby suited aces netted -$2.12 (-.2bb/hand).

Non-broadway suited connectors and 1 gappers (436) netted $13.85 (.6 bb/hand).

Outside of the blinds, I netted an additional $8.22 with other hands and I lost $36.11 with them including my blind play (most of which is naturally checking and folding).  But even if I never played one of them,  I would have netted a smaller but significant profit from the rest of my hands.  Even the tougher hands, suited connectors and suited aces are just sugar on top of the profit margins.

The difference between net money won and EV(money won) is a huge uncontrolled variable in the results.  For example, I ran far below "HEM EV" and just missed a lot with suited aces and hit a ton with suited connectors.  I ran very well with AA-KK in "HEM EV" but ran horribly in hand range at commitment threshold EV with them, and so on.

What mistakes have I made in my play?  Do they reflect my C-game?

1. In general, I played marginal losers too often  in EP.  Crappy aces, suited connectors, and the smallest pairs are not that great vs. unknowns and OOP.  I should have folded many hands that I did not in EP.  I think I ran well in these spots that were generally not very profitable.  This is definitely consistent with my C-game tendencies (YES).
2. I was not comfortable with the villain's tendencies on later streets and I backed off.  I think I let value go by folding or checking too often in big pots.  This is classic C-game.  Missing or misplaying a low-frequency, high value situation can be as severe a leak as misplaying high-frequency, low-value leaks like preflop errors. (YES)
3. I bluffed too much and semibluffed foolishly.  Given my innability to read hands well, two barrel bluffing villains who were likely to have made hands was silly.  Again, classic ill-advised betting lines.

In a few posts after this, I will analyze different situations (and a few hands) in greater depth.

*A stoxpoker member called me out for a big one (or to be less dramatic, "thought the situation very odd ") in a thread.  This player is easily the best reg I've encountered in the 3.50 STs right now and I recognized it after about 20 or so games.  That's life, eh?  I recognize his brilliance and he picks up on my weakness.

Two points on poker from the mile high perspective.

1. I'm not beating 25NL with my C-game.
2. Forum Fails and Forum Wins.

I'm not beating 25NL with my C-game.
I swap sweats with two players, both of whom are very good for their limits.  I feel like I can keep up my side of the conversation fairly well about ideas and mistakes.  But I can't put in the hours or pull of the results that they do.  The reason why is C-game.

I can commit some fairly trivial errors if I am not paying attention.  This is something that is hard  for me to surmount for several reasons.  For one, I like to solve difficult puzzles.  So I enjoy playing in marginal spots, to the point that I unconsciously let myself play a -EV to find myself in tricky spots.  Second, I level myself.  I give my opponents too many opportunities to play straightforwardly without and benefit.  Thirdly, I play my C-game far, far too much.  I have to correct these if I want to play NL at higher stakes (where I will undoubtedly have more fun).

Forum Fails and Forum Wins. 

Nick "Stoxtrader" Grudzien, one of perhaps a half-dozen people who has had the greatest indirect impact* on my poker game has admitted to multiaccounting and resigned from his coaching position at a site he was instrumental in founding.  Moreover, allegations of collusion (at least softplaying collusion) linger in one of the accounts he has confessed to using.  Obviously this sucks, but the aftermath was equally frustrating.

On the subject of Stoxtrader's actions, I'd like to make it clear that what he did was wrong and deserves punishment, the same way multiaccounting by Brian Townsend and Justin Bonomo did were wrong and deserved punishment.  But, I don't think the scandal fell out in such a way that Nick got exactly what he deserved.  I think what he has confessed to is worthy of a ban from poker for a little while, but certainly not the loss of his position at a website that shares his name.

A great deal of contemptuous talk has been bandied about on the subject.  I think the allegations need to be fully investigated (Personally I hope Nick can be completely cleared and return to playing cards and being a decent guy).  I am dismayed by how efforts to advocate for neutrality (I wish I could claim this), or even an alternate view (I am definitely a pro-stoxtrader and pro-run the numbers right then make the call guy) are treated on the forums.  That's a big forum fail. 

A few assertions.  Forums are an easy place to be a douchebag.  In forums and in the world at large, decent people fuck up and do stupid, reckless, and arrogant things without thinking them through.  Most harmful actions deserve some reprimand, as Nick''s multiaccounting definitely does.

But that does not mean you should be a douchebag or that you should appease or side entirely with the victims in a terrible spot.  As a community member, look at what the implications are for the long hall.  Also, it most certainly does not mean you should destroy a person for their moment of weakness, even if you dislike them.  I learned this the hard way when I realized my reaction to the Justin Bonomo scandal and the Brian Townsend scandal were totally different.  The difference was in my very high prior opinion of Townsend.  Lately, I just proceed as if I did hold that person in high regard, even if I don't.  It just works better in the long run.  My low opinion of Jason Ho did not keep me from asking for objectivity on his behalf.  He was still punished to the fullest extent that he could be.  I'm not saying that's "forum win", it's just a means to avoid fails.

Another example of thinking one thing and doing something better: anytime I read the phrase "lol" in a forum discussion involving critical thinking, I immediately imagine the most terrible things happening to the person who said it (friend or no friend) and their mother.  But that's not the way I respond.  I try to be critical, direct and open in what arguments I offer back.  And if I think there is a crossed wire, I'll often PM the party who I am debating and try to make it clear what my position is and that I have nothing personal against them.  Again "fail avoidance"

On the subject of "forum win", I have to give credit to the collective PR savvy and dominance of the debate exhibited by the HSNL forum on 2+2.  I'll just quote my thoughts on it from a previous forum post.

If you read between the lines in the thread, a few of the more prominent members were basically (and $EV-optimally) angling very hard to keep on three things:

1) Nick had multiple accounts.
2) Nick changed accounts and wouldn't say why.
3) One of Nick's previous accounts had been accused of collusion in the past...

...[M]y father was involved in corporate litigation. He once told me the worst thing you could face in a courthouse was a "professional expert witness" who could not be moved off the coached statements. In a way, that's how tenaciously the HSNL guys kept on the topic. Any effort to disagree or establish a different majority consensus was effectively and rapidly shut down and they were back on target. This isn't to say they were coached (far from it), rather that they took hold the high ground and obstinantly stuck to it. They just never let it go.

"Kirk Sr." also said the crowning moment of his career was cross examining an executive with a need to feel like a benevolent authoritarian. Over the course of an afternoon, he basically ground this guy's testimony into the dirt by constantly pressing him to account for actions (which were reprehensible) in front of the jury. He could not manage to stick to the story, because of his desire to be admired. By the end of it, he came off looking like he was not entirely on the up and up and/or unable to make tough decisions that most leaders are required to face, effectively demolishing his credibility and thus his arguments for the breach of contract being entirely on the other party.

In a way, this is what I feel happened to Nick and some community leaders (paid or otherwise) in 2+2. Rather than saying nothing until the right thing could be said (and by the right thing I mean the truth if you are an optimist, or the +$EV thing if you are a pessimist), they offered up weak half-responses bidding folks to continue to bide their time on the matter. These were torn to shreds and thrown back in their faces effortlessly by the regs at HSNL. In the end, I think the some of the leadership here and there backed themselves into a corner and paid for it.

And in the aftermath, I have some free advice from Kirk Sr, that colorful old polar bear.

"When you've been accused of something serious, shut the f*ck up and call your lawyer, whether it's true or not."

*Ed Miller, David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth, Dan Harrington, Collin Moshman, in case you were wondering.

Anatomy of a spewathon.

Over about 4k hands of 25NL rush poker, I dropped 15 buyins.  Here's my breakdown of how.

1. I wasn't using a HUD.
2. The blinds that I left on the table ate up (-4BIs)
3. Ran bad on preflop all ins.  Over 13 "exciting moments" I ran $99 under EV and at -$126 or (-5 BIs).   For greater than 60BBs, the worst hand I shipped against was AK.  The worst hand I shipped was AQ.  I also saw some "mid sized stacks shipping with JJ.  In addition to the (what is now obvious) spew with AQ, I also shipped QJs vs a 40BB nitwit (questionable, at best) and KJo vs a 44/11 (my head explodes at the losses I take reciprocally here).
4. I ran bad in pots where I three bet (-$7).  I got a lot of action from marginally better hands and only got in one pot where I value towned a range for two streets.
5. I got creamed when I faced a 3 bet and didn't get all in (-$180.00) (-7  BIs).  Once I spewed off 1.5 BIs facing what I though was likely a desperation river bluff from a draw (wasn't).  A second time I called three streets with an overpair when I could've dumped the turn vs the villain's range (-1.25 BI).  I shipped KQ vs a three-bet range much narrower than I thought.  I missed with a semibluff shove once and semibluffed into what I presumed was a weak range (wasn't) and I only got paid a few times. This, alongside with the marginal losses is enough to empty a pocket.
6. I wasn't using position or betting information well.  So I picked up a little bit of value here and there, but not nearly as much as what I left lying around.  Barf.

Take home lessons:

1. Use a HUD for Rush poker.
2. Betting ranges are narrower than I thought.  I broke one of the fundamental rules of poker and was denying I did it while I did: I was giving nitty, solid regs action with marginal hands.  Doing this 5 times was enough to cost me, well five or more buy-ins.
3. Nobody else is playing in thin spots, so I should adjust my strategy.  More raise and one barrel.  Less multistreet play.  Less drawing to two pair/straight combo hands.
4. Start using stop losses in RUSH poker.  The game just goes to fucking fast.