I returned to Austin on Sunday. While it's great to be back in a climate that considers 50 degrees unseasonably cool, I've been pretty bored since touching down. So, what's the cure for boredom? Socializing, meeting new people, etc. What's my "cure" for boredom? Playing online poker, of course! I've been downswinging* recently, so I felt extra pressure to right the ship this week, before I hafta start borrowing money from Russian mobsters. Late into my afternoon session, this hand comes up. (I changed the names of the players mostly for the sake of simplicity.) I could just throw the hand history up here without any explanation, but that wouldn't do it justice. Instead, I'll insert remarks throughout the hand history to explain my equity, thought process, etc.
Regarding this hand: the thought process is typical, the gameplay is typical, and the outcome is typical. The only thing remarkable is the way in which the outcome occurred.
First, though: why "acid" raindrops? Cuz of this song...check it out.
POKERSTARS GAME #23840203616: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2009/01/12 16:48:07 CT [2009/01/12 17:48:07 ET]
Table 'Menkib IX' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: Aaron ($260.25 in chips)
Seat 2: Billy ($200 in chips)
Seat 3: Carl ($218.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Dave ($142.90 in chips)
Seat 5: Eddie ($288 in chips)
Seat 6: Frank ($230.60 in chips)
Seat 8: Gary ($200 in chips)
Seat 9: Hank ($157.05 in chips)
Gary: posts small blind $1
Hank: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Billy [Kc Kh]
Aaron: folds
Billy: raises $4 to $6
This is the standard raise for this level...if we were playing live in Vegas or AC, I'd probably raise to $20 because every single live player is a fish. Online, however, $6 is enough to get some folds.
Carl: folds
Dave: calls $6
Dave has less than a full stack. (A full stack--ie, the maximum buy-in--for this table is 100 big blinds, or $200 in this case.) That's one of the best indicators that Dave is a fish--an amateur who generally will play more starting hands and play them more passively than a regular would. If you're a good player, you buy in full, because you (theoretically) have an edge at the table. If you have an edge, you want to maximize that edge by putting as much money in play as possible. Also, having a full buy-in allows you to get creative with bluffs, implied odds, and other semi-advanced concepts that an amateur doesn't fully understand. If good-->buy-in full. The contrapositive, of course, is true.
So, I'm definitely happy to see Dave call. I'm hoping he has something like JJ or AJ; that way, he might flop a hand (like a pair of jacks) that he views as strong enough to "play for stacks" (eventually bet all his money) but that still loses to my pair of kings.
Eddie: folds
Frank: folds
Gary: raises $24 to $30
Okay, over the last year or so I've played a few hundred hands against this opponent. He's like me in that he's tight and aggressive: he only plays a few starting hands, but when he plays them, he plays them aggressively. Aggression is essential to success in online poker. If you're passive, you can only win if your cards beat your opponents'. If you play aggressively, you can scare away opponents with inferior holdings in addition to winning with better cards. Of course, untempered aggression is easily exploited...that's where playing tightly comes into play.
Right now, my job is to put Gary on a hand. To do this, I put myself in his shoes. This is a fairly sound approach in this case, because since he plays like I play, it's fair to assume that he thinks similarly as well. Gary may be looking to steal the dead money in the pot. He knows that his raise suggests tremendous strength, especially because he's out-of-position (as small blind in this hand, Gary acts first after the flop, turn, and river). That means that I'll get to see how he reacts to the various community cards; this is a huge advantage for me. As such, Gary would be even more inclined to fold a marginal hand.
On the other hand, there's already $15 in the pot (1+2+6+6)...that's worth stealing. Besides, Gary isn't that worried about Dave. If Dave had a big hand, Dave would've reraised me. So, Gary only is worried about me, basically. He knows that I know that he's tight, so that means that I'll be giving him credit for a strong hand. As such, his steal is more likely to succeed. At this level of online poker, you see these "squeeze plays" fairly commonly. (The name comes from the fact that the original raiser is squeezed between the re-raiser--Gary--and the original caller--Dave--and often ends up folding the best hand of the 3.)
So, back to our original task. What does Gary have? We can't know exactly, so we want to give him a range. Using the above thought process, let's say he has AA, KK, QQ, JJ, or AK. So, how does our hand (KK) stack up against that range? This is a very important part of poker that often gets overlooked. Every novice who watches ESPN knows that AA is 80% to win against KK, or that AK is 30% to win against KK. But memorizing these percentages does very little for you unless you can see your opponent's hole cards. Luckily, there's free software floating around that allows you to calculate your equity (equity just means % to win, essentially) against a range of hands. KK has 62.6% equity against the above range (don't forget that there are more possible combinations of AK than of AA). 62.6 is pretty good for us. If someone offered to flip a coin against you for $400 and your side of the coin was promised to show up nearly 63% of the time, you'd eagerly accept that bet. (Well, unless you're extremely risk averse like my boy Saliya, or if you're working with a limited bankroll, etc.)
So, we're happy to play for stacks. For reasons that would bore you (and require pages of explanation), the best way to proceed is to re-raise (as opposed to calling).
Hank: folds
Billy: raises $48 to $78
We want Dave to go all-in, because we're confident we're beating Dave. If he folds, it's okay but not ideal.
Dave: folds
Damn. Oh, well. We still have Gary. We wouldn't mind a fold from Gary, because that'd allow us to win $38 (the amount of money in the pot that wasn't originally mine) 100% of the time, as opposed to winning $208 (Gary's $200, the big blind's $2, and Dave's $6) 63% of the time. Still, .63 * 208 is greater than $38, so we'd rather see a reraise all in (assuming he'd play JJ the same way he'd play AA...if he'd fold anything but AA in this spot, we'd obviously rather see a fold).
Gary: raises $122 to $200 and is all-in
Sweet.
Billy: calls $122 and is all-in
We've done our job...we've gotten it in good (ie, as a favorite). Now it's in the hands of the poker gods.
*** FLOP *** [Jd 7h Td]
Okay, that's not a great flop. JJ is crushing us now, obviously. QQ is still in big trouble. KK is freerolling. Freerolling means that you can't lose the pot, but you can still win it. In this case, if Gary has KK, he and I are gonna chop (split the pot) unless he goes running diamonds (if the next two cards are diamonds), because that'd give him a diamond flush (we know he has the Kd because we don't). If he has AA, we're still in big trouble. If he has AK, the most likely hand he could have, he has 7 cards that'll win him the pot (4 Q's for a straight, 3 A's for a better pair), giving him approximately a 30% chance to win. Of course, he could also have a diamond (or two), which would improve his odds.
So, what's our equity at this point? 50.2%. We're officially coinflipping for $400, boys and girls.
*** TURN *** [Jd 7h Td] [7d]
Ugh, a 3rd diamond. This doesn't immediately change anything unless he has AdKd, but the general rule is that if a card doesn't help you, then it hurts you. If Gary has QsQd, he now has 10 cards that'll win for him (8 diamonds and 2 Q's). If he has KK, he has about a 20% chance to scoop the pot (take it all) and I have a 0% chance to scoop. Worse, if Gary has AK with a diamond, he has 14 ways to win, giving him a 32% chance to win.
Our overall equity (against his range, that is)? 47.1%. Now we're slightly worse than a coinflip. We don't want to see an ace, and we definitely don't want to see a diamond (unless it's the Kd, which gives us a nearly unbeatable full house).
*** RIVER *** [Jd 7h Td 7d] [Ad]
Worst card possible. We're now losing to AK. We're losing to KK. We're losing to any QQ that has the Qd. We're losing to JJ. FUCK!
Our equity? 15.8%. So, the only way we can possibly win (assuming our range is accurate) is if Gary has QsQc or QhQs or QhQc. 3 combinations out of, well, a lot. Kiss that money goodbye.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Gary: shows [Qc Qs] (two pair, Queens and Sevens)
Hallelujah!
Billy: shows [Kc Kh] (two pair, Kings and Sevens)
Billy collected $405 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $408 | Rake $3
Board [Jd 7h Td 7d Ad]
Seat 1: Aaron folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Billy showed [Kc Kh] and won ($405) with two pair, Kings and Sevens
Seat 3: Carl folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Dave folded before Flop
Seat 5: Eddie folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Frank (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: Gary (small blind) showed [Qc Qs] and lost with two pair, Queens and Sevens
Seat 9: Hank (big blind) folded before Flop
So, we escaped. Phew. The discussion of equity throughout the hand is a bit misleading. Don't think that, just because our equity was junk by the end of the hand, that we played the hand poorly. When the money went in, we had sufficient equity to feel good about our play. This is the only metric that matters. Also, this hand discussion was a bit academic; my toughest opponents and I think like that throughout the games, undoubtedly, but it's an unwritten rule that a player will never fold KK in that situation. So, this specific situation required little thought on my part. Still, I wanted to go through a bit of discussion because I'm always eager to take the opportunity to defend poker as a game of skill.
*It goes without saying that this isn't my personal graph. The X-axis, by the way, is the number of hands played. Poor Grimstarr...rumor has it that he lost $200k "coinflipping". That is, he and an opponent both agreed to go all-in regardless of their cards. The result of this agreement is that you have 50% equity (assuming your opponent doesn't renege), because your cards and your opponent's cards are random; as a result, you have a veritable coinflip. Players sometimes flip to get unstuck. If someone lost $1000 playing poker, for instance, he might ask an opponent he trusts to flip him for $1000. Poker players are weird like that about money; at the end of the day, you're either up, even, or stuck. If you're stuck, it doesn't matter how stuck you are, so you might as well try to get back to even, assuming your attempt is at least neutral in terms of your expected value.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
Miscellanea
Lest you think this blog will be a constant bombardment of heavy questions with no substantive answers, here's just a smattering of random links, etc. (Wow, how pompous did that last sentence sound?)
First, my buddy Kyle recently posted a link related to the debate over the merits of a universal health care system. The article itself is very readable and identifies a unique concern that some opponents of nationalization may echo. I really enjoyed this writing, which isn't surprising considering Kyle and I are similar in many ways...except he goes to a better school, has a girlfriend, owns a car, and has locks of spun gold.
Second, my high school classmate, good friend, and resident atheist Ryan Krause authored an interesting take on The Dark Knight, a movie about some superhero and his archnemesis that one or two of y'all may have heard a bit about. I'm not linking this because he's my friend; it's a great article that's well worth reading.
Word of the Day: Exoculate. You can probably derive the meaning from its roots (e.g. "exonerate" is "to remove the onus", or, to free from blame). Still not sure? Let's just say that it'd be a handy word to have at your disposal when watching Kill Bill Volume 2.
Finally, a deep thought: How cool would it be if Greg House were on Lost instead of Jack? Inter-network crossover for sweeps season, perhaps?
First, my buddy Kyle recently posted a link related to the debate over the merits of a universal health care system. The article itself is very readable and identifies a unique concern that some opponents of nationalization may echo. I really enjoyed this writing, which isn't surprising considering Kyle and I are similar in many ways...except he goes to a better school, has a girlfriend, owns a car, and has locks of spun gold.
Second, my high school classmate, good friend, and resident atheist Ryan Krause authored an interesting take on The Dark Knight, a movie about some superhero and his archnemesis that one or two of y'all may have heard a bit about. I'm not linking this because he's my friend; it's a great article that's well worth reading.
Word of the Day: Exoculate. You can probably derive the meaning from its roots (e.g. "exonerate" is "to remove the onus", or, to free from blame). Still not sure? Let's just say that it'd be a handy word to have at your disposal when watching Kill Bill Volume 2.
Finally, a deep thought: How cool would it be if Greg House were on Lost instead of Jack? Inter-network crossover for sweeps season, perhaps?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Should Jesse White Sign?
Those who have been following the perpetual scandal that is Illinois politics have heard Hot Rod Blagojevich has recently appointed Roland Burris to former Senator Obama's vacated seat. The U.S. Senate has so far refused to seat Mr. Burris, likely because they have no desire to associate themselves with the corruption emanating from Springfield. Hey, no problem...who could blame 'em? It's unclear whether the Senate has the right to refuse to seat a legitimate appointment made by a legitimate governor, but this topic has been kicked around many times that it's no longer groundbreaking. (If you're interested, though, I like Steve Chapman's take.)
What interests me is the part of this story that relates to Jesse White, the Secretary of State in Illinois (if you've been to an Illinois DMV recently, you've undoubtedly seen pictures of Mr. White). As at least partial justification for refusing to seat Mr. Burris, the Senate points to Mr. White's refusal to sign the official appointment given to him by Governor Blagojevich. Mr. White declines to sign because of the "moral issue" inherent in (quite literally) endorsing the action of a man who, while not convicted, has certainly done some wrong (I could make a haircut joke here, but Chicagoans have been hearing 'em for so long that they're cliche).
For our purposes, let's assume that Jesse White's refusal to sign is actually an obstacle in Mr. Burris' path to Washington--Mr. White himself claims that his signature is not necessary for Burris to be seated. What should Mr. White do? On the one hand, he has a legal obligation to sign the appointment. On the other, his morals tell him not to. His refusal functions as a de facto veto of a lawful gubernatorial action, and surely the Secretary of State has no veto power. Which should triumph, the legal duty or the moral duty? Where, if anywhere, is he getting this moral obligation? Should there be a law higher than, well, the law?
Unfortunately, I have more questions than I have answers for this one, so hopefully y'all can provide some insight. Thinking out loud here, I'm assuming that the Secretary of State takes an oath to uphold the laws of the Illinois constitution. He's subverting the constitution, so isn't he breaking that oath? On the other hand, one could argue that oaths and similar promises are made with the implicit understanding that, in a conflict between keeping one's promise and defending one's own morality, the morality interest will always prevail. When you promise to pick someone up at the airport, have you broken that promise in a morally wrong way if the only possible way to pick him up is to steal a car? (Let's say your own car broke down.)
I wish I had a conclusion that gave all the answers, but I'm pretty stumped myself. I wish I could start this page off with a discussion that resolved itself a bit more definitively, but the ongoing drama in D.C. won't be Page One material for long. I guess I'm sacrificing completeness for topicality.
_____________
and now for something completely unrelated...
If you're looking for a good rap song, check this out. The beat samples Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing", if I'm not mistaken. Like it enough? Download it here, then send me the mp3 because I don't have a way to unzip files.
What interests me is the part of this story that relates to Jesse White, the Secretary of State in Illinois (if you've been to an Illinois DMV recently, you've undoubtedly seen pictures of Mr. White). As at least partial justification for refusing to seat Mr. Burris, the Senate points to Mr. White's refusal to sign the official appointment given to him by Governor Blagojevich. Mr. White declines to sign because of the "moral issue" inherent in (quite literally) endorsing the action of a man who, while not convicted, has certainly done some wrong (I could make a haircut joke here, but Chicagoans have been hearing 'em for so long that they're cliche).
For our purposes, let's assume that Jesse White's refusal to sign is actually an obstacle in Mr. Burris' path to Washington--Mr. White himself claims that his signature is not necessary for Burris to be seated. What should Mr. White do? On the one hand, he has a legal obligation to sign the appointment. On the other, his morals tell him not to. His refusal functions as a de facto veto of a lawful gubernatorial action, and surely the Secretary of State has no veto power. Which should triumph, the legal duty or the moral duty? Where, if anywhere, is he getting this moral obligation? Should there be a law higher than, well, the law?
Unfortunately, I have more questions than I have answers for this one, so hopefully y'all can provide some insight. Thinking out loud here, I'm assuming that the Secretary of State takes an oath to uphold the laws of the Illinois constitution. He's subverting the constitution, so isn't he breaking that oath? On the other hand, one could argue that oaths and similar promises are made with the implicit understanding that, in a conflict between keeping one's promise and defending one's own morality, the morality interest will always prevail. When you promise to pick someone up at the airport, have you broken that promise in a morally wrong way if the only possible way to pick him up is to steal a car? (Let's say your own car broke down.)
I wish I had a conclusion that gave all the answers, but I'm pretty stumped myself. I wish I could start this page off with a discussion that resolved itself a bit more definitively, but the ongoing drama in D.C. won't be Page One material for long. I guess I'm sacrificing completeness for topicality.
_____________
and now for something completely unrelated...
If you're looking for a good rap song, check this out. The beat samples Marvin Gaye's "Sexual Healing", if I'm not mistaken. Like it enough? Download it here, then send me the mp3 because I don't have a way to unzip files.
The Obligatory Introduction
Let's keep this short, because who really likes introductions? Sure, we all enjoyed those days in high school where, instead of getting to work on the Chain Rule, we played Icebreakers or described our winter breaks (to the very people with whom we spent those December nights). But really, don't we look back fondly on those times simply because we dreaded getting back to work in earnest? Were you really paying attention when that kid in the corner named his three favorite movies? Unlike school, you theoretically want to be reading this blog, so (theoretically) an introduction that fails to relate to the theme of the blog is little more than an obstacle. Or are we reading too much into this whole thing?
So much for keeping it short.
Anyways, I've started this blog for a few reasons. One, I have some ideas and knowledge that (I feel) deserves an outlet and can't be adequately expressed in conversation with peers. Certain concepts simply aren't conducive to a coffeeshop discussion, where you're forced to shout over the Bob Dylan bootleg playing in the background and friends stray frustratingly far from the aspect of the topic that most interests you. Two, I've met a lot of intelligent people over the years, but not all of them know each other. Ideally, my buddies from high school will be arguing (respectfully) with my friends from UT. I've avoided detailing what exactly will come up in these posts, because I myself don't have much of a clue. I'd love to have a healthy share of serious posts concerning morality and politics, but who knows. I'll almost certainly explore less significant areas, such as college football and poker. I may even throw in a "life update" just in case Allie Presutti is reading (whassup Allie P), but those will be infrequent. If you ask me, life updates must be personal in order to be sufficiently compelling even for a lowly blog, and I'm too private a person to go into that much detail.
Finally, I've started this blog as a way to keep myself from being too one-dimensional. Law school basically consumed me last semester; I didn't neglect family or friends, but I sacrificed other intellectual pursuits. I'm no Renaissance Man, but it would be nice to read something that didn't require Black's Law by my side. Maybe having this blog will motivate me to expand my mind, if only so that I can have something interesting to discuss.
A few quick things: this page will not be updated routinely. I'll post only when I have something that's post-worthy. At the start, it'll be easy to come up with decent content, but as I become more entrenched in my courses, I'll likely have fewer ideas for posts.
Since I'll be talking little about myself in future entries, let me just get the basics out of the way here (on the off chance that someone who doesn't know me finds this page worthwhile). I'm a 21 year old male law student at the University of Texas Law School. I've lived in the suburbs of Chicago my entire life (up until August 2008) and spent my undergrad time at Northwestern University in Evanston. True Story: My freshman dorm was on the same street as my first childhood house. I love sports and card games, and I'll probably end up talking more about poker than you care to read...good thing it's my blog, haha. I enjoy law school but have no burning desire to become a lawyer. I'm trying to reconcile the Objectivist philosophies that Ayn Rand espouses with my Catholic values and my intangible attraction to the Kant that I've been exposed to over the years. I know very little about the great thinkers, and the little I do know is certainly simplistic and possibly inaccurate. Politically, I'm best described as libertarian, but that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian. I can't think of much else about me that will relate to this blog, so I'll stop.
Also, if you're wondering where the title originated: Running it Twice is something that poker players do in order to minimize variance without influencing the players' expected value.* Think of it this way: if you and I were to flip a coin for $1000, to "run it twice" would mean that we'd flip the coin twice, each time for $500. Poker players apply that to their cash games from time to time. Anyways, I chose "Running It Twice" as my blog title because almost every other character string seemed to be claimed and because I'm hoping in part to take some law school concepts and run them past people who chose instead to contribute positively to society. Two different perspectives = "Running it Twice".
I sincerely hope you enjoy reading what I write. I encourage you to comment, especially on the posts that cover weightier topics.
*Admittedly, running it twice may nominally influence the EV of the hand in ways that might be discussed in a later post. I figured that an in-depth treatment of this would appeal to, oh, 1% of the readers out there, so I'm saving it until I've accrued more credit.
So much for keeping it short.
Anyways, I've started this blog for a few reasons. One, I have some ideas and knowledge that (I feel) deserves an outlet and can't be adequately expressed in conversation with peers. Certain concepts simply aren't conducive to a coffeeshop discussion, where you're forced to shout over the Bob Dylan bootleg playing in the background and friends stray frustratingly far from the aspect of the topic that most interests you. Two, I've met a lot of intelligent people over the years, but not all of them know each other. Ideally, my buddies from high school will be arguing (respectfully) with my friends from UT. I've avoided detailing what exactly will come up in these posts, because I myself don't have much of a clue. I'd love to have a healthy share of serious posts concerning morality and politics, but who knows. I'll almost certainly explore less significant areas, such as college football and poker. I may even throw in a "life update" just in case Allie Presutti is reading (whassup Allie P), but those will be infrequent. If you ask me, life updates must be personal in order to be sufficiently compelling even for a lowly blog, and I'm too private a person to go into that much detail.
Finally, I've started this blog as a way to keep myself from being too one-dimensional. Law school basically consumed me last semester; I didn't neglect family or friends, but I sacrificed other intellectual pursuits. I'm no Renaissance Man, but it would be nice to read something that didn't require Black's Law by my side. Maybe having this blog will motivate me to expand my mind, if only so that I can have something interesting to discuss.
A few quick things: this page will not be updated routinely. I'll post only when I have something that's post-worthy. At the start, it'll be easy to come up with decent content, but as I become more entrenched in my courses, I'll likely have fewer ideas for posts.
Since I'll be talking little about myself in future entries, let me just get the basics out of the way here (on the off chance that someone who doesn't know me finds this page worthwhile). I'm a 21 year old male law student at the University of Texas Law School. I've lived in the suburbs of Chicago my entire life (up until August 2008) and spent my undergrad time at Northwestern University in Evanston. True Story: My freshman dorm was on the same street as my first childhood house. I love sports and card games, and I'll probably end up talking more about poker than you care to read...good thing it's my blog, haha. I enjoy law school but have no burning desire to become a lawyer. I'm trying to reconcile the Objectivist philosophies that Ayn Rand espouses with my Catholic values and my intangible attraction to the Kant that I've been exposed to over the years. I know very little about the great thinkers, and the little I do know is certainly simplistic and possibly inaccurate. Politically, I'm best described as libertarian, but that doesn't mean I'm a Libertarian. I can't think of much else about me that will relate to this blog, so I'll stop.
Also, if you're wondering where the title originated: Running it Twice is something that poker players do in order to minimize variance without influencing the players' expected value.* Think of it this way: if you and I were to flip a coin for $1000, to "run it twice" would mean that we'd flip the coin twice, each time for $500. Poker players apply that to their cash games from time to time. Anyways, I chose "Running It Twice" as my blog title because almost every other character string seemed to be claimed and because I'm hoping in part to take some law school concepts and run them past people who chose instead to contribute positively to society. Two different perspectives = "Running it Twice".
I sincerely hope you enjoy reading what I write. I encourage you to comment, especially on the posts that cover weightier topics.
*Admittedly, running it twice may nominally influence the EV of the hand in ways that might be discussed in a later post. I figured that an in-depth treatment of this would appeal to, oh, 1% of the readers out there, so I'm saving it until I've accrued more credit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)