ยป Vigorous Vigorish
For all of my anti-stats poker homies, here’s the legendary tournament Annette Obrestad took down without looking at her cards, in two parts:
Annette_15 was 18 when she won her first World Series of Poker Europe event in London for one million pounds sterling (approx. USD $2 million). She was not legally allowed to gamble in the ‘States at the time.
This was her experiment in table reading, psychology, positional pressure, and exploiting first-in vigorish*. Because when you don’t have cards, what else is there to go on?
In the last few days I’ve been thinking that statistical analysis of poker might be fairly unsound, as well as boring. The simple reason being that your sample size is never where it needs to be to get more than a decent guess.
Anyway, I’m going to watch along at home and see what I can learn.
* Vigorish (n.): 1. An exorbitant or unlawful rate of interest. 2. A percentage (of winnings or loot or profit) taken by an operator or gangster.
In poker most players miss most flops. The person that bets at a pot first usually takes it down, regardless of their cards. This tendency for the first player to enter a pot to win is the “first-in vigorish”.
The fact that she didn’t look at her cards is apocryphal.
Jared
11 Aug 09 at 3:04 pm
To hear
herNegreanu tell it she looked exactly once, but what is your source?[Edit: Oh right, that Wikipedia article about her which I linked, but didn't read? Hahah.]
Jack
11 Aug 09 at 3:06 pm
Having watched it now she makes some pretty improbable folds, even two-handed at the end (ie, she folds hands that are likely miles ahead so she’s probably playing heads-up blind). Unless, that is, she lied about looking and is just on an entirely different level from me (totally possible).
I think I can tell which hand she peeked with too — the three-handed J9 hand with four diamonds on the board and the 9d in her hand. That’s the kind of situation where you just need to know if you have a diamond, else fold. I heard an interview once where she said the hand she peeked at was one where she needed to know if she had a flush, so there you go.
Jack
11 Aug 09 at 4:00 pm
Hmm, alternately it could have been the spade flush hand in part I. That agrees with Wikipedia’s version better.
Jack
11 Aug 09 at 4:13 pm
Just played a small buy-in 27 player tourney blind and got 12th (top 5 pay). Outlasting half the players is pretty good considering — but I would have like to take it down, obviously.
I got a bit fancy with a raise on a scary flop and then didn’t back it up with a shove when called, which left me short stacked. Gotta have a plan for the whole hand, including for when they don’t fold to genius plays. In general I felt like I should have been a lot more aggro — more blind attacks, less relenting to disguise my steals, and more shoves at opportune moments (though there really was only the one).
If not for that “fancy” play maybe I make the final table, as I was certainly in the hunt. It was esp. bad because it was a kind of bluff that the player I attempted it against had tried earlier against a different opponent. Don’t bluff people the way they like to bluff others, they’ll see it coming!
Short stack play is almost exactly the same as when you can see your cards: Look for good situations and push with any two.
Raising limpers and late-position raisers who’ve demonstrated the ability to fold after entering a pot is how I got most of my chips. The rest came from position steals and religious continuation betting.
I won a weird pot where I decided to represent an ace, got called, and actually had an ace stronger than my opponent’s. I wouldn’t have played the hand differently if I had been able to see my cards, except I was willing to fold if my opponent played back at me at all. He just never did.
It’s cool being forced to pay attention to how the table is playing. In theory I’m doing that when I can see my cards, but in practice that obviously hasn’t been the case. There’s so much more information out there than I’ve been processing, especially when I’m not in the hand. Cards are, apparently, very distracting.
Good exercise, very fun. I’ll have to do it again when I’m in a clearer mental space (not tired, angry, hungry, etc).
Jack
12 Aug 09 at 12:31 am
QFT
Jared
12 Aug 09 at 2:48 pm
Tried another couple today, finished 13 and 22. Made the same basic tactical mistake in the first one: Getting too fancy on a scary board.
In the second I made a strategic error. I dropped down to a cheaper buy-in which had the effect of making the average player a lot worse — unable to fold even overcards.
Gotta play at a level where people are trying to win, not just waiting for bingo.
Jack
12 Aug 09 at 3:58 pm