In poker as with many other games of skill the strategy that works against one opponent may not work against another. More generally the strategy that works against one style of play may not work against another. This leads to an interesting effect whereby we can sometimes see "waves" of strategy.

When I started playing poker fairly seriously I read lots of books. Most were at least a few years old and almost universally recommended tight aggressive play. It's still a good way to play. However increasingly we're seeing a new generation of players who are doing well with looser aggressive play. It seems that when everyone at the table is playing tight aggressive there's an advantage in being looser.

So what happens when everyone at the table is playing loosish aggressive? Where will the spin of the strategy wheel take us next time? Two years from now will we all be playing loose passive?

I hope not.



Photo Credit: kk+ (Creative Commons)

Labels: general, strategy

If you play online poker tournaments - multi-table or sit 'n' go - for any length of time you'll come across "Double or Done" (DorD) players. So what is "Double or Done"?

"D or D" could also stand for "Do or Die". It's a strategy for no-limit, no-rebuy tourneys that involves pushing all your money into an early big pot on a coin flip hand. If you lose you're out. But if you win... you've doubled up early, giving you a big advantage for the rest of the game.

My immediate reaction to this is very negative. For a start I don't like that sort of playing style, either in my opponents or myself. I'm also not convinced the maths adds up - it fails to take into account the entrance fee for the tourney. You'd have to play twice as many tournaments to get the same expected result, costing you twice as much in entry fees.

On second thoughts, maybe there is something to it. Tournament structure means that only a minority of players end in the money, the rest get paid nothing. If for example it's choice of four tournaments where you do well and just miss the money, or eight tournaments where you make the final table, then the latter is probably a better financial proposition. Even taking into account the entry fees, perhaps it does work.

There's also the time factor. If you're going to end up with nothing, better to find out before investing a couple of hours of time that could be more profitably spent elsewhere. If time is money then playing a tourney for three hours and going out on the bubble is expensive.

So part of me thinks that maybe there really is something in DorD poker. As of yet I haven't tried it. Even if it does make financial sense (I'm still not convinced) it's simply not the sort of game I want to play. My main motive for playing poker is fun.

On the other hand, there are bills to be paid...

Labels: glossary, poker, strategy

Well, that strategy seems to have potential. I didn't win the money but ended within two places of it.

Things started well, though it did mean some scary bluffs/gambles - such as going all in with King high after the flop (my opponent had a shortish stack and, as I hoped, folded). So I built up a nice pile of chips then held tight during the second quarter and let others knock themselves out. When the third quarter arrived I was ready to go on the offensive, unfortunatley I then suffered a total drought of good cards.

I'm definitely going to continue experimenting with this strategy. Yes it's risky, but in terms of bankroll there's no difference between missing the money by two places and missing by 20 - or even 200. It's financially btter to have (say) three tourneys in the money and three where I get knocked out immediately than to have six where I just miss the money.

Of course, that theory does depend on my actually getting the money rather than missing by two places. Watch this space!

Labels: poker, strategy

Another day, another multi-table tournament without hitting the money.

I'd survived until about the halfway point but with a severely short stack. So when I was dealt K-K I had to push in, even though I was out of position. Two other people called. It turned out that each had a single Ace - and another Ace fell on the board. Bye bye Valeyard.

My tournament poker play isn't too bad. I often win money in single-table tournaments. On multi-table I always outlast the fish and usually finish near the bubble. A few times I've won money and once got to the final table. However I'm still going out too early too often. Why?

I try to play fairly tight, fairly aggressive. That gets me quite a long way, but by the middle of the tourney I'm usually pretty short stacked. That restricts my options and often results in beats like the one above.

So what I need to do is to find a way of getting to the same place with more chips. Sounds easy when I put it like that...

What I want is to build up a bigger stack early, then protect it strongly until the blinds start getting high. At that point I can use it to attack.

My guess is that I should play looser and more aggressive early when the blinds are low, especially when I have position. Then if I can build up a decent stack I need to pull in my horns and play ultra-tight until the middle of the tournament.

Essentially it's a gamble. If I'm right then that strategy will probably mean getting into the money more often, at the cost of going out of more tournaments early.

Which won't do my ego much good but should help my bankroll.

Labels: improving my game, poker, strategy