Finally start my cash game

Okay, I know it's been a while since I talked about starting a bankroll and playing the $0.05/$0.10 game but I finally deposited into PS and started off with $250 - 25 times the max buy in for that game.

I also started an Excel spreadsheet on my stats. I have the date, starting amount for each session, the time I start and the time I end, and my ending amount for that session.

For my first session, I decided to play 4 tables at a time. It was a little hectic at first but it kept me busy and focused on the game. Too often, when I'm a little card dead, I stop paying attention so having multiple games running helps. Also, it will also increase my hourly return by playing multiple tables.

So according to the book, I should average about 20 cents per hour per table if I play solid poker. So considering I was playing 4 tables, my expected profit in two hours should be around $1.60. Well here is my stats for today:

Hours played: 2 hours
Starting bankroll: $250
Ending bankroll: (drumroll pls..) $271.30

Wow. That's all I have to say. I was getting some good cards, no doubt about it. I got dealt Aces 3 times and Kings twice and didn't get have them cracked. So that's lucky. However, out of those 5 hands, I only won a big pot with a pre-flop all in with the pocket kings. The other hands, I won modest pots with.

To be honest, the biggest pots I won were with flopping trips. My basic strategy with mid and low pocket pairs is not to raise with them pre-flop. They have little immediate value. Instead, they have a lot of IMPLIED value - meaning, if you flop trips, you will get paid off in a big way. However, you will only flop trips about 11% of the time. So there's no point in raising 3 times the big blind and then having to deal with callers. Most of the time you will miss on the flop and then you really don't know where you're at. The way I like to play them is to limp in and only invest 1 BB and see if I can hit. Even if someone raises, given I have a big enough stack, I can easily call up to 4 times the BB. The worst case scenario is you're up a bigger pair where you're 4:1 dog so you can still call and not lose money in the long run. If you hit, you could get paid off by Aces or Kings, perhaps even get their entire stack. But most of the time, you'll be up against two higher cards and if you're lucky, they'll flop top pair with a very nice kicker and will be severe underdog to your set.

Of course, every flop is different. You might flop a set and the raiser missed but has a lot of outs. Maybe they think they have two overcards with a flush draw which they may think are all good outs (9 + 4 = 13 cards). They might be ready to go to war with their hand. It's definitely important to assess the flop and how connected it is and even though you have the best hand with trips, your opponent my incorrectly believe they are a coin-flip situation and push all-in. A set might be as dominant as a 2:1 favorite against a flush draw but still, you will lose a third of the time in these situations.

Luckily for me, many of the situations where I flopped a set, the flop was pretty disconnected and I wasn't afraid to either give my opponents a free card or check raise them.

Lately, I've been appreciating the "small-ball" method to playing NLHE. I'm beginning to understand why pros like playing this way. Just in case those reading this do not know what "small-ball" and "long-ball" is, a quick definition:

"Long-ball" poker - this method involves big bets and often employing the all-in move.
"Small-ball' poker - this method is the opposite: meaning bets are often small and often feeling out the opponent and an avoidance of the all-in move unless the player has the nuts.

Another analogy is boxing styles. Long ball would involve trying to use the knockout punch a lot. Small ball would be just taking a series of jabs here and there and chipping away at your opponent.

So lately, I've been studying and learning the "small-ball" method. The reason is, I think it's more profitable to play this way. In the past, I used a lot of "long ball" plays. I think it came from reading Doyle's 'Super System' and thinking that aggressive play and putting your opponents to a decision for all their chips was the correct way to play. While in one sense that is true. You do want to play aggressively and put your opponents to make difficult decisions but if you don't understand the finer points of playing poker, you leave yourself a big hole in your game that good players will exploit. Mainly they will trap a lot, re-raise you weaker hands, etc. Every style actually has its strengths and weaknesses.

Back to my original point. IMO, playing small ball will minimize your losses and maximize your winnings. If you're constantly putting out small bets out there, you can gain information about your opponents. I usually go about half the size of the pot for my bets. The trick is, I will bet no matter how strong or weak my hand is. I might have a gut shot straight and will still bet at it. Or I could flop the nuts and still bet the same amount. It will make it practically impossible for my opponents to know if I'm drawing or already there. They can either fold, call or raise. If I'm drawing, obviously the board is connected and if they call, they either have a medium strength hand or also on a draw. If I get raised, they have a strong hand - at least top pair or better. Of course, many times people will just fold because 2 out of 3 flops, your opponent misses the flop completely. So you take down a small pot or fold without too much invested or, if you're getting the right price you can call a raise.

Now if you put in a small bet and someone goes all in, then you can't really call unless you have the best hand. But if you've identified a person who likes to play long ball like that, it's only a matter of time where they will get called with the best hand. And that's really the hole in long ball. You gain little but also lose a lot.

Example - this past weekend, I played in a rebuy tournament. I was at a table where this guy would raise pre-flop and then follow up with an all in after it. He did that twice. He did that with AK and lost, re-bought, and lost again with pocket Queens. He lost to the same guy who played some trash hands. The trash hands were two 4-5s (vs. the AK and flopped a 5) and A-5o (vs the QQ and flopped an A). Now this donkey who would call with trash hands, is a perfect example of tight-aggressive long ball player's nightmare. The guy who took a beating reminded me of myself a few years ago. I just hated players who would play trash and get there.

I quickly learned each person's style of play and adjusted my game accordingly. A good player should be able to see each person's flaws and exploit them. So fast-forward about 10 hands and this punching bag and I are tangled in a hand. I raise with pocket Jacks. He calls with J-To. He flops top pair and I have the overpair. He bets it, and I immediately know he has a hand like AT or KT or something like that. I re-raise him and of course, like clockwork, he goes all in. He shows his JT and I show my pocket jacks and drawing only to the remaining two 10s in the deck - I knock him out of the tourney.

The main thing is when you play against donkeys like the one I described above, hands like QQ and KK go down in value quite a bit. Having the discipline to lay down those big pocket pairs when an Ace hits is difficult but it doesn't change the fact that a pair of Aces still beats a pair of Kings. Instead, you want to make them pay dearly for playing such a bad kicker and when you raise with AK, AQ or even AJ, and they call your raise with A5, now you can make them pay dearly when they hit their Ace. You start chipping away at their chip stacks for having kicker issues.

The other advantage of small ball play is you offer very little or no implied odds to your opponents.

Implied odds is a little different than pot odds. Pot odds are pretty easy to understand and to calculate if you practice a little. Implied odds are more slippery to figure out. Basically the concept is, even if you don't have the pot odds to call typically on the turn, if you hit your card, you could more than recoup that amount because you know your opponent will pay you off.

Example: If you're on a flush draw on after the flop and the pot is $700. If your opponent bets $400, the pot is offering you $1100/$400 or roughly 3:1. But your chance of hitting your flush on the turn is only 19%. So it wouldn't be a profitable call. But if you pay the $400 now and hit your card and could extract another $1000 from your opponent on the turn and river, then $400 to get $2100 would be profitable.

Quite often, implied odds are more important to consider. But implied odds can vary widely based on how your opponents play. If you play against tight players, you might as well forget it. They offer little or no implied odds. They'll make you pay too much for a card but if you hit and they know it, they'll shut it down and while you take down a pot, you made a losing bet. Over time, you will lose money. On the other side, loose and aggressive players offer fantastic implied odds. They're style is fast and big. Paying a little too much now is a small price to get the rest of their stack. Hence, another flaw in long ball play. If an opponent will put their stack at risk with top pair, playing small pocket pairs is a great hand to try to trip up on. Or even suited connectors could do the job if a lot of rags flop and you hit two pair or better. Playing small ball in these situations helps because if a scare card comes out, you can just check it and now your opponent has to do the betting. Then you can decide to continue or fold. The value of small bets no longer pay off bad calls on earlier streets. Now if you were ahead but now behind, you've lost the minimum for you hand and can fold. This is called 'folding equity'. Quite often, the difference between a winning player and a losing player is exactly this. It's not that both types can't get paid off with the best hand, it's a matter of who loses the least with the second best hand. We've all been in these situations....it's not easy. Just the other day, I had Aces and after the flop, every instinct told me my opponent had trips (after 2 re-raises). I still didn't have the discipline to lay down the aces. I had to see if I was right. It is exactly these situations that differentiate me and someone like Phil Hellmuth or any top ranked pro. They can throw it away and continue on and possibly come back and win the tournament. I need to get there, especially when I had the instincts to know I was behind.


Playing small ball can limit your losses when you don't have the best hand. At the same time, you can win a lot of small pots by outplaying your opponents. Don't count on doubling up this way though, unless someone is willing to go all-in and you have Aces.

Now all this talk about small ball and how great it is, there is a downside. It requires a lot of practice and confidence that you can outplay your opponents after the flop and on the following streets. This means reading your opponents and exploiting their weaknesses.

Well, I think this post is long enough.