The Poker Chronicles

I waited for the Mansion bet as well - too long, it seems. While I was sleeping last night waiting the few hours for my Party money to make it to my Neteller account, apparently Mansion filled their 5,000 wager quota. I didn't notice this morning until I had moved in the Neteller money and went to place the wager - the game is no longer on the board. Now I have to send them a photo ID and get my money back without making a cent. Aggravating.

And I agree that Miami looks like the better team at the moment - I was going to hedge at Pinnacle where the line was Miami +1. I was even going to move the line to MIA +1.5 to get my freeroll back. I was going to be guaranteed about $470 either way, while getting a free $1000 if the Steelers managed to win by exactly one. *sigh* If you're looking to do any serious sports wagering Pinnacle is the way to go - their lines start at -104 for NFL games instead of -110. Makes a big difference over the course of a season. (Of course, I should point out that I am just a satisfied customer, not a Pinnacle rep, not that you have any reason to believe me in that regard).

Don't know if you really care, but according to Pokerpages, it was 1033.

Betting lines aren't a prediction of the outcome of a game.

Betting lines have historically been an amazing predictor of outcomes on everything. Lines can't be too wrong or sharp money will corect them.

The idea is to be part of the sharp money.

Well, I only bet sports when I can't lose, which I suppose makes me the sharpest of money.

Not as sharp as the point shavers.

Good job telling off the TD for being rubbish. I hate when tourneys start late.. there's no reason other than the TD not being up to scratch.

You might be screwed Matt. The promotion specifically says bet $1100 to win $1000 to qualify. Taking the line at -107 rather than -110 shouldn't entitle you to a refund, at least the way I understood the rules.

Hey Matt, I am a freind of george (surflexus) and I check out your blog on a regular basis and its funny that you posted this. My blog is about sports betting. I dont bet the outcomes of pro football until after week four. I only bet the over/unders I took the over at 34 points. Feel free to check out my blog it has a ton of info on it or you can email if you have any questions.
Thanks

Matt, this comment has nothing to do with the sports betting or point-shaving, but rather, with a previous slight philosophical difference between you and "Andy." Back in January, in response to a novice player who was asking some questions related to 6-handed limit games, Andy noted that he played slightly less aggressively -- especially from UTG and UTG+1 -- than you. Now, I've only been playing for about two years, and probably have no business playing short-handed games in the first place. But I enjoyed some early success at full ring games at lower limits, and starting bankroll was not a limiting factor, so I figured what the hell. I've read all the usual books, and I've repeatedly revisited your book's section on short-handed play. And while I probably haven't played enough hands short-handed (under 30,000 total) to rule out "variance," I've experienced wild swings with a slightly downward bias (roughly -.3 bb/100)

About a month ago I re-read Andy's January 6th post, and tweaked my game to incorporate his advice -- basically, folding small pairs, JT thru KT, and Ace-rag in early position. I have played about 10k hands this way (I know, I know, too small of a sample to draw any long-range conclusions). My VPIP has dropped from the mid-30s into the upper 20s, and my PFR has fallen from the mid-20s to the upper teens. My bb/hr, meanwhile, has skyrocketed to +3.

Again, I fully understand that the sample sizes are too small to draw any larger conclusions. But the improvement in my results prompted me to ask your opinion:

1) Your approach is to maximize EV over the long haul. Is there a point where you feel it might make sense for a more risk-averse player to sacrifice a little EV if it would drastically reduce short-term variance? And if so, do you feel that Andy's advice makes sense?

2) I know that you once revealed that your aggression factor was around 1.5. Have you ever gone on the record with your VPIP and PFR percentages? Or is that info classified?

1) Yes, I suppose, though it's probably far more to your advantage to force yourself to get over risk aversion. Personally I've never considered sacrificing EV to compensate for my own flaws, I just try to fix my flaws. That's just my mindset, depending on your goals it may not be yours. If you want to be the best poker player you can it has to be, but if you just want to make some money on the side with as little stress as possible (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that) then perhaps your outlook will be different.

Also I don't think his advice reduces the variance much. In the end it may increase it, since I feel the drop in win rate will be much larger than the drop in standard deviation. Without any real sample it's impossible to say for sure one way or the other.

2) Depends on the stakes. At $5/$10 it was something like 35/25. At bigger games it drops, as players are too good for me to raise junky suited aces UTG and such.