Start of 2010

Going into 2010 I had around 400 dollars in my Pokerstars account. I started off the new year by playing some .01/.02 PLO and soon had 500 in the account. At this point i was getting sort of bored with PLO. I was playing around 9 tables at a time all tiled/overlapped on my notebook so I would get worn out quickly while playing.

Thus, I decided to give SNG's a try. I know during the pokerboom (2005-2006) these were gold mines and I thought that still might be the case. I ordered and read SNG Strategy by Collin Moshman and purchased SNG Wizard to help me out with my game.

I thought the best deal rake wise and skill wise was the 6.50 single table turbos on Pokerstars. At first everything was great I was running super hot, within a week I was up about 175 dollars and had almost 700 in my account. I even made one of the SNG leaderboards one week and received 20 dollars for it. Then things went south. All the flips and 60/40's I was winning before went the wrong way. My account took a huge dive and I soon had only around 400 dollars left in my account.

I knew I was getting somewhat unlucky, but I decided to quit playing the 6.50's. Of course because I was losing was part it. The main reason is that I didn't find alot of 'leaks' in peoples games at this level. Sure there were some bad players, but most were pretty competent. Basically a single table turbo SNG boils down to pre-flop pushing. The blinds get so high so quick that you basically have two options: push or fold pre-flop. Most players at this level are fairy competent when it comes to this aspect of their play. They know when to push. Tools such as SNG Wizard and other ICM software has allowed for most players at this level to be good late in the tourney when it comes to the push/fold decision.

Therefore I had to re-evaluate what direction I wanted to take, or if you will what games to play. If poker was a zero sum game (ie no rake or entry fees), this decision would be easier. But, with house fees this becomes are harder question. In the last year I've beat pretty much every game I've tried if you take out the house fees. However, in reality you have to figure this into the equation. If your serious about making money in poker you have to play in the game were people make the most mistakes. The relative question becomes which game do I have the biggest edge over my competition.

To answer this all I have to do is look at my Holdem Manager database. The two cash games I'm beating on Stars are .01/.02 PLO and .01/.02 NL. My winrate on NL is a little higher but over a much smaller hand number. While I may have more experience in NL then PLO, I have to factor my opponents into the equation. I think it's safe to say that the average player at the .01/.02 level is much better at NL then PLO. The reason is pretty obvious as poker nowdays is pretty much thought of as NL. The exposure of NL (TV, Books, Forums, etc.), has made the 'average' NL player much better over the years. The same cannot be said for PLO as it's rarely on TV(saw it once Aussie Million Cash Game) and books have just started coming out within the last year.

Another factor is that NL teaches you some very bad habbits for playing PLO. Since the games look and feel the same (except u get 4 cards vs 2), people will often play it the same. This leads to what I call some 'rookie' mistakes in PLO. Maybe next blog I'll cover some of these.

Based on the above I decided to go back to the grind in PLO .01/.02. I found some software (Table of Interest), that allowed me to play 15 or 16 tables at a time. Basically playing what's called robot poker (or peddling the nuts for the most part), however I would occasionally through a curveball to a 'regular'. I played around 10k hands in a few days and went +50. This is pretty consistent with my winrate I've established at this level.

Based on my stats I would make $360 for every 100k hands I play in PLO .01/.02. Problem is to get the kind of volume to make it worth while, I would need to 15/16 table. This figures to about 1000 hands per hour, or 3.60 an hour. Not great, but something positive at least. The great downside to this is playing that many table burns you out real quick. I can only play that amout for 90 minutes before needing a break. It's doable but very hard on one self. Another downside is you dont get many FPP, because the rake on the game is very low. So after a few days of grinding I though about another possability.

This lead me to thinking about short stacking. It's a strategy I dont really like, but I believe can be effective. In William Jockush's Pot Limit Omaha: Understanding Winning Play, he talks about the benefits of short stacking. Basically when you get all-in and there are others playing a side pot, you have an advantage as these players may bet each other out thus increasing your equity. Like I said I personally hate short stackers, but I'm not playing to make friends.

So the last few days I've been short stacking .10/.25 PLO. I was up around 60 right away, but feel on some hard times and am currently only up about 10. But, I think this strategy can work and playing the 'all-in' advantage can lead itself to helping out with the rake which is the biggest enemy at this level.

That's enough for now, I'll maybe go into some more details about my thoughts on PLO in general and short stacking strategy in my next post.

MNPuck