Poker Articles

The McMulin Tracking System
By Nolan Dalla
(All Rights Reserved)

You've got to know when to hold 'em,
know when to fold 'em,
know when to walk away,
know when to run.

You never count your money
when you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin'
when the dealin's done.
-- Kenny Rogers ("The Gambler")

We've all know the words of the famous poker song written by Kenny Rogers. The message is loud and clear -- don't count your chips at the table! The idea seems justified. If you're so concerned about the amount of money won or lost that you are counting your chips, you'll be distracted from making good table decisions.

But is it wise to disregard the number of chips you've either won or lost up to a certain point in a poker game?

To the contrary! Keeping an accurate chip count is probably the single best indicator of good table selection.

It sounds way too simple: If you're ahead -- odds are that you're probably in the right game. If you're losing -- odds are that you're probably in the wrong game. Gee, that seems almost too simple.

Of course, not every game where you're winning is good, or where you're losing is bad. But the bottom line is -- keeping a rough idea of your chip count provides certain advantages by supplying useful information. Maybe just maybe, Kenny Rogers was wrong, after all. We'll see about that.

Other than to satisfy one's curiosity, are there advantages in keeping an accurate chip count? Obviously, if the deck has been running over you, you expect your chip stack to increase significantly. Conversely, if you are not catching your share of good cards, your stack size will probably decrease. That much is certain.

But what about the rest of the time when the luck factor and results seem to be breaking normally? In these cases, if you're ahead, odds are that you're probably in a good game for your style of play and/or you have made the correct adjustments to the conditions of the game. The real challenge is -- how does one make an "on-the-fly" estimate as to whether the cards and play at your table are really "breaking normally?"

Paul McMullin can answer this question. But first, a short introduction: McMullin graduated from the University of Maryland with degree in both math and computer science. He currently works for a company that programs display systems for the Department of Defense. McMullin has also taught computer science in a part-time graduate school program. In terms of game theory, McMullin is a life master bridge player (with 1100 masterpoints -- a very high level of achievement). His introduction to poker came about six ago when he stumbled onto an announcement about a free on-line poker tournament (WRGPT). McMullin then started reading just about every poker book he could get his hands on. He's been a regular contributor the Internet newsgroup "rec.gambling.poker" (RGP) ever since, and is one of the group's most respected voices.

In his spare time (and prompted by a different system contrived by Patti Beadles, a well-known poker aficionado in the San Francisco Bay area), McMullin devised a tracking method that is both simple to use and instrumental in providing an accurate assessment of the game.

Here's how it goes:

• First, aside from keeping your normal stack of chips on the table, you also keep two separate "side" stacks of chips -- one immediately to the right and the other to the left of the main pyramid of chips.
• Each time you post the big blind, add a $1 chip to the right stack. This stack counts the number of orbits -- or the approximate number of hands played up to that point.
• Each time you win a pot, add a $1 chip to the left stack. This counts the number of pots won. To make things easier, "color-up" the count stacks to keep them from getting in the way of playing.
• You need to make case-by-case judgments about whether or not blind steals should be counted in the left stack. McMullin advises that it seems to work well to count about every other blind steal as a "win."

Since random chance dictates you should win about 1 pot per orbit, this means that both stack sizes (right and left) should stay about the same. But, as we all know too well -- that's not the way things usually work out at the poker table. The value of comparing stack sizes comes in assessing game conditions when the counts show abnormalities. McMullin explains:

(1) A quick perusal of my records indicates that I tend to win somewhat less that one hand per orbit -- generally between .7 to .9 hands per orbit. This indicates that I'm playing somewhat tighter than my opponents. I'm happy with this "indicator." I've noticed that since I've been tracking my results, it's much easier to fold marginal hands, because I can check my chip counts and see that even with all the folding I'm doing, I'm still winning close to "my share" of hands by comparing the right stack to the left stack.

Nolan comments: So, the system is a motivator to play solid poker and not fall into the trap of playing losing cards. The system gives you an immediate indicator as to whether or not you are ahead or behind the rate of expected wins/orbit. This essentially lets you know if you've been running good (more than 1 win/orbit) or bad (significantly less than 1 win/orbit) for the session.

(2) If I'm running better than one win per orbit during a session, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm outplaying my opponents. When the deck is running over me, I'll win more than my share of hands. When I'm running good, I should expect to see a significant increase in my main pyramid of chips. This point is critical! Keep in mind that the loosest players will often win more than one hand/orbit, but will still be losing money overall. This is because they are giving more action than they're getting!

Nolan comments: If you see that you are winning more hands than normal, but still bleeding off chips from the main stack, you are probably playing way too loose (seeing too many flops, and staying in with too many hands on later more expensive rounds of betting). Conversely, if you are winning fewer hands than normal, but are ahead in chips, this generally means you are playing well and/or in a game where you are one of the more skillful players.

(3) If I'm running worse that .6 wins per orbit in a session, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm being outplayed: I could just be I'm in the middle of a cold streak. When I'm in a dry spell, if my stack is shrinking slowly or not much at all, then I'm pretty comfortable staying patient and waiting for the cards to turn around. If my stack is getting sucked down quickly, then I have a decision to make. Am I'm being outplayed, making poor decisions, or have just been suffering "normal statistical variance" (bad beats)?

Nolan comments: This appears to be one of the most important aspects of the tracking system. When you're loosing chips quickly, you will probably realize that the game may not be suited for your style. But on those occasions when the game is socially comfortable for you, the tracking system may provide a visible cue that it is time to reevaluate the game conditions (which you may have been otherwise distracted from doing).

(4) The most telling indicator seems to be when I'm winning my fair share of hands, but my stack isn't increasing! When I'm playing at a table full of tough players, I may win my share of hands. But my stack tends to stay pretty flat. For example, in one game recently where I knew the game had a tough lineup, I was actually winning slightly greater than my "normal" .8 hands per orbit. But I was losing chips at an alarming rate! It didn't take long to conclude that I was the "dead money" in the game. So, I changed tables to find greener pastures. In the new game, it looked like I was averaging only about .6 to .7 wins per orbit -- but I was adding about 1 stack of red chips per hour to the pile in front of me. The "counts" I was keeping helped me be confident that I wasn't just having the deck run over me -- it truly was a "great game" for my style of play!

Nolan comments: Interesting that on one game you won more than your share of pots but failed to win money. In another game, you won less than your share of pots, but still increased your chips. The tracking method appears to be a very reliable indicator of how things are going and allows you to make a very accurate assessment of the luck and skill balance in the game.

To clarify a few points, McMullin stresses that his system is probably best suited for low to middle-limit holdem games. However, it's easy to see that the system could also be used for Omaha and perhaps seven-card stud games, as well (assuming you can track the number of hands played). McMullin does not recommend the system for short-handed games, since there are very different skills and expectations for these games. He points out that at "full tables," stealing blinds and isolation moves are not nearly as important as in bigger cash games or short-handed games. At lower limits, if blind stealing becomes a major consideration, there's probably an easier game at another table, or at another casino, he says. To those who dismiss the notion of keeping separate chip stacks, McMullin replies -- "I've never felt like the distraction of keeping a few extra stacks of chips has marked me as a target in any of the games that I've played. But I suspect that it might draw unwanted attention at a significantly higher-limit or at a short-handed table."

So, the fact is -- Kenny Rogers got it wrong. It certainly is a good idea to count your chips at the table. If you can't determine how many hands you've won, or how many hands you've played, or the percentage of pots you've won, or know if you're getting hit with the deck or a less than favorable run of cards, it's nearly impossible to take an optimal course of action. McMullin's system provides the player with accurate answers to these important questions -- without taking notes or trying to memorize results.

The McMullin Tracking System appears to be a simple tool that can provide a practical, on-the-fly assessment of any game. A cursory glance at the two chip counts compared to the size of the main stack quickly answers the question we all ask ourselves every time we sit down at a table, namely -- "how good is this game?" It lets you ignore the hype about so-called "great games" with "monster pots." It really is an informal metric of how good the game is for your style of play. This in turn allows a player to make the best possible judgment about the game -- without having to rely on less-than-reliable factors. We owe a debt of gratitude to Paul McMullin for introducing and sharing what is heretofore known as the "McMullin Tacking System." Even if you find keeping the chip counts distracting, it seems to codify some of the factors you should be considering long before "the dealin's done."

Nolan Dalla can be reached at: nolandalla@pokerpages.com