I have 48 minutes to shower and get to the noon tournament at the Venetian, so this has to be short. So far:
Arrive Monday night at 7pm, cab to Harrah's, check in, and go right over to the Venetian for their 9pm tourney. Only it is a 7pm tourney. I sit down at their $1/$2 NL Hold'em cash game, knowing that the cash game is not my strong suit. I just want to bide my time until the 11pm tourney at Caesar's (um, it was at 12am), but for the first time ever in a Vegas cash game, I win ($200). Between the rake, dealer tips, and drink tips, I am pretty proud to clear this much in ninety minutes.
10:50pm, arrive at Caesar's and discover I need to wait a while. I buy in to the 1/3 NL game and win another $186 before the tourney starts. The midnight tourney (cost is $70) there is small and only worthwhile because it's one of the few options at that time. I am playing extremely well, doubling my chips while risking very few. Then someone I identify as a poor player goes all in pre-flop against my KK. She has A8s and well, we all know that means aces will flop, and they do here, too. I lose my edge, and I'm soon going all in with 77 as overcards to a flop, only to lose to QQ. Sorry, I can't recall the betting (I'm taking a notepad to the Venetian this Wed noon). I place 20 of 32. I walk back to the cash game and win $170. It's late, and I go to bed, up $486.
Noon, Tuesday, and I enter the Venetian tournament ($150) as one of 139 participants. I am mostly short-stacked, because I learn the hard way that the play in Vegas is different than the play in Minnesota. I basically lose my chips to two limpers, one limping with KK (I had QQ), and one limping with JJ (I had 99). These two losses make me play short stack poker, and I lose all in A10s to the chip leader's AQ. Place 50 out of 139.
Tuesday 4:30, I head to the Bellagio to see baseball people. I don't have a clue who's who, and only recognize that people are wearing media passes. I look for Aaron Gleeman and don't see him, so I go play poker. I buy in for $200 for a cash game when I learn that there is a Sit and Go for $130. Top 2 of 10 get into the $540 Bellagio 7:15pm tourney (and $30 in cash). I get third, of course. On the way out, I pass a blackjack table and decide to put my remaining $70 down for one bet. I get 73 and the dealer has an 8 showing. Of course, with your one and only bet or your last bet, you always get a double down situation! I have four twenties and get $80, $70 of which I use to double. I get a 2, dealer turns over a King, and there goes $140. I bet the extra 10, get QQ, and the dealer gets three cards to 21. Yuck.
Tuesday 7:35pm, I arrive late to the Venetian and pay $120 for the evening tourney. I play the short stack the whole night, surviving by risking the stack and having the table fold. I finally have AJs and get two players to call me. Flop is AK6, turn is 6, river is 2. I think I've won, but the chip leader and hottest player happens to have a 6. Place 18 of 85. Go to bed. Down $550 for the day, $64 for the trip.
Noon Wednesday, Venetian. I'll keep better notes so that I can give some analysis of the interesting hands. I'll try to update before bedtime.
Update: I had zero hands, once going 18 hands with no card higher than a 10. I played one of these tens and made top pair on the flop, only to be bet of the hand by a player who flopped a set. I got blinded down, and my limps all got raised, so I was short stacked immediately, finally went all in with A9 and got caught by AQ. I lasted ninety minutes and decided basically I didn't want to play short stacked all day again. Down $150 on the day, $216 for the trip.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
The One Where I Email Bill Smith
I just sent off an email to Bill Smith. It's not my first. The problem with sending Bill Smith, general manager of the Minnesota Twins, an email is that one has so much to say, so much to, well, tell him.
I mostly got that email out of the way on Friday, so today, as I prepare for my trip to the winter meetings, I thought maybe I better send Mr. Smith one very succinct email, titled: Garret Atkins' numbers.
I mean, how could he resist opening that email from his hotel room at the Bellagio? If he doesn't recognize my name, it could be contact information for Atkins. And if he has interest in that, then I know I did the right thing by sending Atkins' contact numbers of a different kind.
While Aaron Gleeman is very comprehensive in his analysis of players like Atkins, I broke down the basics of what Smith needed to know about the Rockies' 3Bman:
Garret Atkins, career away from Coors: .260, .328, .424 (avg, obp, slg)
Brian Buscher, vs rhp in 2008: .316, .368, .437
Brendan Harris, career vs lhp: .295, .360, .440
How can anybody look at these numbers and make a trade for the poor fielder who's enjoyed the fruits of hitting at Coors Field? I don't think even Bill Smith can ignore this...if he opens it. Perhaps I should have shown more restraint and less rambling in my email on Friday, though, for now I fear he will see my name and dismiss it without opening. Oh, the humanity!
I mostly got that email out of the way on Friday, so today, as I prepare for my trip to the winter meetings, I thought maybe I better send Mr. Smith one very succinct email, titled: Garret Atkins' numbers.
I mean, how could he resist opening that email from his hotel room at the Bellagio? If he doesn't recognize my name, it could be contact information for Atkins. And if he has interest in that, then I know I did the right thing by sending Atkins' contact numbers of a different kind.
While Aaron Gleeman is very comprehensive in his analysis of players like Atkins, I broke down the basics of what Smith needed to know about the Rockies' 3Bman:
Garret Atkins, career away from Coors: .260, .328, .424 (avg, obp, slg)
Brian Buscher, vs rhp in 2008: .316, .368, .437
Brendan Harris, career vs lhp: .295, .360, .440
How can anybody look at these numbers and make a trade for the poor fielder who's enjoyed the fruits of hitting at Coors Field? I don't think even Bill Smith can ignore this...if he opens it. Perhaps I should have shown more restraint and less rambling in my email on Friday, though, for now I fear he will see my name and dismiss it without opening. Oh, the humanity!
The One That Got Away
As I depart for Las Vegas this afternoon, I thought I'd briefly update all on the recent poker tournament I played in at Running Aces. There's not much to say, other than I again made my biggest mistake in poker--I assumed my opponent was bluffing or clueless. More on that some other time. This time with AK and a flop of A, 9, 2 rainbow, I disbelieved that the Big Blind, who made a pot-sized bet, had hit a set. His call of a preflop raise had me pretty sure he didn't have two pair, and I just couldn't put him on pocked deuces or nines. I went all in, and he insta-called with deuces.
To provide you all with the number one rule in all of poker: If you assume your opponent is bluffing or just trying to steal with a medium hand, you had better be able to rule out the hands that can beat you. In this case, I could rule out AA and 92 pretty easily, but what if the BB had stayed rather foolishly with A2 or A9 suited? It was possible, as were 22 and to a lesser extent 99, which he would more likely re-rasie with. My bad.
On Wednesday, I got away with one mistake in the $100 noon tourney at Running Aces and proceeded to make it to the final two, heads up. I played very well overall with good cards, a combination that has unfortunately been lacking in my game. My opponent had a 3:2 chip lead, and I went all-in with K5o. He had A8, called, and it held up.
Upon reflection, I became furious at my decision. I had about 110,000 chips with the blinds 6k/12k. I was on the small blind. While a king looked good, afterward I tried to imagine the scenarios, given the various hands he might have had:
Any pair: he calls, and I'm behind.
Ace mid or better, such as he had: he calls, and I'm behind
K9-KQ: he calls, and I'm dominated
Q9 or worse: he folds, and I pick up 12k, or about 4% of the total chips
That leaves QJ, Q10, J10, Ace low, and King mid or low as the only hands where he has to think. Given his conservative play and nice chip lead, he probably folds all the hands here where I'm in the lead, knowing I have those beat. The only positive impact of my going all in was to possibly push him off Ace low or King mid, meaning I'd pick up a few chips I shouldn't have.
To sum, he would fold all hands where I had him beat, and there were only a few hands he would fold where he had me beat. I was in a Big Lose, tiny win situation. Very stupid play on my part. Most times, he won't have a hand, so I'd get away with it, and truthfully, I'd probably already gotten away with one or two of those.
Tonight I play the Venetian tournament. Assuming I can get online, expect an update in the morning. If I can keep pumping out the blog material, my plan is to keep a running summary of tournaments I play in, starting today. Mind you, for 2008, I would have to win a big tournament to get into positive $$$, so a tax man need only be concerned with my 2009 running tally.
To provide you all with the number one rule in all of poker: If you assume your opponent is bluffing or just trying to steal with a medium hand, you had better be able to rule out the hands that can beat you. In this case, I could rule out AA and 92 pretty easily, but what if the BB had stayed rather foolishly with A2 or A9 suited? It was possible, as were 22 and to a lesser extent 99, which he would more likely re-rasie with. My bad.
On Wednesday, I got away with one mistake in the $100 noon tourney at Running Aces and proceeded to make it to the final two, heads up. I played very well overall with good cards, a combination that has unfortunately been lacking in my game. My opponent had a 3:2 chip lead, and I went all-in with K5o. He had A8, called, and it held up.
Upon reflection, I became furious at my decision. I had about 110,000 chips with the blinds 6k/12k. I was on the small blind. While a king looked good, afterward I tried to imagine the scenarios, given the various hands he might have had:
Any pair: he calls, and I'm behind.
Ace mid or better, such as he had: he calls, and I'm behind
K9-KQ: he calls, and I'm dominated
Q9 or worse: he folds, and I pick up 12k, or about 4% of the total chips
That leaves QJ, Q10, J10, Ace low, and King mid or low as the only hands where he has to think. Given his conservative play and nice chip lead, he probably folds all the hands here where I'm in the lead, knowing I have those beat. The only positive impact of my going all in was to possibly push him off Ace low or King mid, meaning I'd pick up a few chips I shouldn't have.
To sum, he would fold all hands where I had him beat, and there were only a few hands he would fold where he had me beat. I was in a Big Lose, tiny win situation. Very stupid play on my part. Most times, he won't have a hand, so I'd get away with it, and truthfully, I'd probably already gotten away with one or two of those.
Tonight I play the Venetian tournament. Assuming I can get online, expect an update in the morning. If I can keep pumping out the blog material, my plan is to keep a running summary of tournaments I play in, starting today. Mind you, for 2008, I would have to win a big tournament to get into positive $$$, so a tax man need only be concerned with my 2009 running tally.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
The One about the Vikings
I'll readily admit to being a fair-weather Viking fan...maybe a bit more, since I'll watch them if I'm not doing anything else at home, even if they stink. As the NFL years go by, I know less because I care less, but I still have some wisdom about the sport. I was a football nut and played it (poorly) in college, and that basis never really leaves a person. So as I sit around the poker table and listen to the virtually unanimous opinion that Brad Childress is a horrible coach, I ask why and never really get a coherent answer. Play-calling and "should be winning" are the best the poker table can muster, and frankly, I just haven't bought it.
So I ask about the one Childress decision that, to me, was crucial and perhaps displayed poor judgment: don't you think, I ask the big and small blinds, that after just two games removing a young quarterback who's shown some promise, who went 8-4 as a starter last year, who provides an extra athletic dimension...and replacing him with a competent career backup, a never-was, never-will-be, and certainly an ehh QB who's about fifty was a basic poor decision for a coach who needs to make the playoffs and maybe win a game?
The button usually chimes in at this point, stating the obvious, that Tarvaris Jackson sucked in the Vikings' first two games this year. Fair enough, say I, he did pretty much suck. But then I remind the folks that Jackson got hurt in his 2nd preseason game, didn't play until the opener, and maybe he wasn't quite ready to start the season. I translate the "Jackson sucks" and "Gus Frerotte's 5-3" type responses that follow to "I'm a stupid white trash hick" and/or "ok, you caught me, deep down I don't want a black quarterback" and proceed to folding my hand.
At the time of Jackson's demotion, I balked, stating the above. But I also added this: if Childress keeps Jackson on the bench for a few games, it may well help the kid. The learning curve for an NFL quarterback is steep, and when one is expected to both learn and concentrate on performing, the difficulty is another order. I was happy to let Jackson, well familiar with playing NFL games, actually sit on the bench, soak up knowledge that is suddenly pertinent, and gain vision for what's happening on the field. I thought this would take two, maybe three games, and Jackson would be ready to come back and be a decent NFL starting QB.
The problem was, Brad Childress apparently didn't have this plan. He was happy to let Frerotte be his very mediocre self every week with this apparent strategy in mind: the Vikings have a lot of talent, the division is very weak, and a young QB who may or may not be ready will not decide the fate of a coach who only needs to make the playoffs to secure his job.
As a fan, intense or not, I was put off by this decision, and it was the only one I could think of as to why Childress should be fired. I certainly don't want anyone anywhere to get hurt, but I've found myself secretly happy every time Frerotte has gone to the ground with injury. I wanted Jackson back in there, and it appeared that injury (hopefully minor) would be the only way that Childress would allow that.
Today it happened. Jackson, not having played for twelve weeks, came in when Frerotte went down and immediately looked better than Frerotte has in his three months as the starter. Granted, the playbook was short, the actual number of drives was only two, and the opposition hadn't prepared for Jackson. But he performed and performed well. Hopefully, that's the last we'll see of Frerotte as a starter, and we in Minnesota can actually start to think about winning a playoff game.
Oh, and one more thing, Childress should have gone for two against Detroit back on October 12.
So I ask about the one Childress decision that, to me, was crucial and perhaps displayed poor judgment: don't you think, I ask the big and small blinds, that after just two games removing a young quarterback who's shown some promise, who went 8-4 as a starter last year, who provides an extra athletic dimension...and replacing him with a competent career backup, a never-was, never-will-be, and certainly an ehh QB who's about fifty was a basic poor decision for a coach who needs to make the playoffs and maybe win a game?
The button usually chimes in at this point, stating the obvious, that Tarvaris Jackson sucked in the Vikings' first two games this year. Fair enough, say I, he did pretty much suck. But then I remind the folks that Jackson got hurt in his 2nd preseason game, didn't play until the opener, and maybe he wasn't quite ready to start the season. I translate the "Jackson sucks" and "Gus Frerotte's 5-3" type responses that follow to "I'm a stupid white trash hick" and/or "ok, you caught me, deep down I don't want a black quarterback" and proceed to folding my hand.
At the time of Jackson's demotion, I balked, stating the above. But I also added this: if Childress keeps Jackson on the bench for a few games, it may well help the kid. The learning curve for an NFL quarterback is steep, and when one is expected to both learn and concentrate on performing, the difficulty is another order. I was happy to let Jackson, well familiar with playing NFL games, actually sit on the bench, soak up knowledge that is suddenly pertinent, and gain vision for what's happening on the field. I thought this would take two, maybe three games, and Jackson would be ready to come back and be a decent NFL starting QB.
The problem was, Brad Childress apparently didn't have this plan. He was happy to let Frerotte be his very mediocre self every week with this apparent strategy in mind: the Vikings have a lot of talent, the division is very weak, and a young QB who may or may not be ready will not decide the fate of a coach who only needs to make the playoffs to secure his job.
As a fan, intense or not, I was put off by this decision, and it was the only one I could think of as to why Childress should be fired. I certainly don't want anyone anywhere to get hurt, but I've found myself secretly happy every time Frerotte has gone to the ground with injury. I wanted Jackson back in there, and it appeared that injury (hopefully minor) would be the only way that Childress would allow that.
Today it happened. Jackson, not having played for twelve weeks, came in when Frerotte went down and immediately looked better than Frerotte has in his three months as the starter. Granted, the playbook was short, the actual number of drives was only two, and the opposition hadn't prepared for Jackson. But he performed and performed well. Hopefully, that's the last we'll see of Frerotte as a starter, and we in Minnesota can actually start to think about winning a playoff game.
Oh, and one more thing, Childress should have gone for two against Detroit back on October 12.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
The Return of Twinstalker
Originally I had intended to talk about poker along with opining about the Twins, Gophers, etc. Between never finding a good voice, not have the time to commit to a blog, and general laziness, I sort of let the blog go. Now, however, I am playing a lot of poker and getting better at it. I realized the time has come to keep a log or a diary of hands I've played. What better place to do this than a blog? Twinstalker lives!
In a few minutes I will be leaving to play in a poker tournament at Running Aces near Forest Lake. I think the buy-in is $550, so I'm going to try to win a satellite entry. I'm leaving on Monday for Las Vegas and need all the cash I can muster. Tomorrow I will report on my tourney results for all to read. "All," heh, that's funny.
In a few minutes I will be leaving to play in a poker tournament at Running Aces near Forest Lake. I think the buy-in is $550, so I'm going to try to win a satellite entry. I'm leaving on Monday for Las Vegas and need all the cash I can muster. Tomorrow I will report on my tourney results for all to read. "All," heh, that's funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)