Here is a funny story from tonight’s session. I am in the big blind. Everyone folds to the small blind, who raises. I call (automatic, plus he is a guy who looks like he might be the type to raise here with any two…I am accustomed to them). I semi-bluff raise the turn, but he calls. Typically, they don’t…I make decent money from this play. (Flop is 225, turn is 6, I have 9-7). He looks determined so when an ace hits the river, I give up and don’t bluff again. He turns over 57 (pair of fives) and takes it down. OK, one hand of thousands.

But now he turns to me and tells me that normally he chops, but he knows I don’t so he needed to make a play. He asks me if I want to chop with him (presumably because I am now intimidated/impressed by his aggressive action). Let’s see…would I rather chop with a guy, or have a guy in the small blind willing (anxious?) to raise me from out of position with 75 offsuit. I think I’ll just have to live with the raising, sir.

I am in the midst of writing a long series of columns on blind play. It seems to be dragging on to seven parts (I apologize to all of you who are sick of it by now and wish we were getting on to something else, but I started it so I have to see it through). The last one will touch on small blind vs. big blind play. Position plays a paramount part in my game, as you know, and I will not recommend making fancy plays heads-up out of position with trash hands, especially against competent opponents. However, one of the benefits of not chopping is people seem to think it is a badge of honor to make such plays. And no they won’t change their minds just because I will tell them not to.

Happy New Year everyone. I want to thank those of you who have visited my website, and I hope you continue to find some of the material worthwhile in 2006. Also, I hope you all have a healthy, safe and profitable year.

Many of you are curious about what sort of results to expect, and I thought I would share some statistics from last year with you. Overall, I had a very good year, with my best hourly rate. I did not play as much as in some years, totaling only 719 hours of live play, with 604 at 30-60. Actually, I lost overall in the non-30-60 hours (for example, I dropped $1600 on a poker cruise — my first losing cruise), but I did manage to win over $80/hr at 30-60. I still think I can do better, and I am aiming for $90/hr this year. I had no other game with more than 16 hours in it.

In 30-60, I had 142 sessions, with an average of 4.25 hours/session (my stamina is down for medical reasons and I play fewer hours per sitting than I used to). My hours per win and hours per loss were nearly identical (4.29 to 4.19) which means I am not staying longer when I am stuck…I just leave when the time comes.

I had two losing months this year (I have never had more than one before) and they were consecutive months. My standard deviation for 2005 30-60 was $665/hr, which is very high, but my coefficient of variation was 0.12 which is excellent (for me, anyway). My worst single day was a $2890 loss, while my best single day was a $4460 win. Longest winning streak was 10 sessions; longest losing streak was 3. My win rate on weekends continues to dominate my win rate on weekdays as it has my whole 5-year pro career, but it was a bit closer than previous years.

I actually run my fiscal year from July 1 to June 30, as I officially told myself I was a professional on July 1, 2001, so I do not close the books (except for tax purposes) on December 31. But it seemed like a good time to give you some insights into my data.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that you keep good records. You need to know what you are doing and where you are to understand where and how you need to improve. If you aren’t doing this yet, make it a resolution. I use StatKing, which you can purchase and download here (I get no compensation for this product). Alternatively, you can use the Poker Analyst at Cardplayer.com. I have not seen it as I do not like the idea of keeping my stats on-line at someone else’s site, but I hear it works fine.