Players who bluff with the best hand. This was the main issue I had in my homegame last night. I got involved in a couple of hands where I was faced with a suspicious bet on the river that didn't fully make sense with the story I was being told. In both cases I made the hero call, only to have my opponent show me a bluff that happened to have been 1 pip better than the hand I called with. *sulk* Very strange occurrence. When this kind of thing happens, I don't know whether to pat myself on the back for making a good read (since my opponent admitted to bluffing after I called), or kick myself for calling too wide. Playing against opponents who bluff with hands that have showdown value are really tough to read. Because in their mind, they're weak. In their mind, they don't think they can win at showdown, so they're forced to resort to bluffing. So a person who is skilled at reading people and can pick up on this information will have an easier time making a hero call. That being said, if my opponent admitted he was value-betting, I would have given him a lot of respect and label him a shark. But since he admitted he was bluffing, it's just kind of fishy. I dunno. Very bizarre scenario calling bluffs on the river and somehow still lose. I suppose the simplest remedy for this is "don't call so wide" because it's just so dissatisfying making the right read but not being rewarded for it.

Regardless of that, I think I played fairly well, all in all. Booked a modest profit of $100 for about 8 hours of play. Considering the majority of the people at this game were stuck, I was happy to come out on top. There were like 2 or 3 people who absolutely crushed the game that left.

Got another game on tonight.

You could always raise the river if you think it's a bluff. If they fully believe it's a bluff then you'll have a ton of folds in that spot.

I read one of the concept of the week posts and it made me realize calling is generally where we make mistakes, and calling is generally worse than raising. Although I'm still getting a grip on the line between agression and spew, it's definitely a paradigm shift mentally.

I'll try and find it for you.

It seems that a lot of strategy at the intermediate level will encourage aggression. Betting instead of checking, raising instead of calling. For the most part I think this can be a fine way to approach poker because you'll constantly be applying pressure and putting your opponents to tough decisions. However, when you start to consider things like pot-geometry, hand-navigation, perceived image. I've found that just smooth calling can be the more optimal play in a lot of scenarios. I never gave much consideration to raising the river in spots where I have showdown value and expect my opponent to be bluffing. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Why would you need to turn a bluff-catcher into a bluff? That only seems necessary if your hand can't possibly win at showdown, in which case... it wasn't a bluff-catcher to begin with. Seems like a dangerous way to respond to river bets, especially in the cases where your read is wrong and your opponent was in fact valuebetting with a nut-heavy hand. I try my hardest to avoid making river-mistakes because those are typically the most costly. There's definitely an argument to be made for raising in spots like these. But generally speaking, when I find myself heads up on the turn and have a plan ready for the river, I don't like changing the plan once the river comes. Unless of course something bizarre happens like the villain over-bet shoving all in. But yeah, I think a mistake a lot of people make is having a plan for a hand, and then changing it completely one street later. Sometimes it's necessary to change your plan given certain runouts and certain betting patterns or live-tells, etc. But for the most part, changing your plan mid-hand will leave you more vulnerable than your opponent, I think.

I'm reminded of this one hand I played earlier in the week. I'm in the CO w/ A8, and the person to my direct left is someone who likes to get creative in spots and step out of line every now and then; he's on the BTN w/ JT. Preflop, he was planning on raising the button, but decided not to once he saw me limp in from the CO. Then when the flop came out 9 high rainbow, and action checked to him, he decided to checkback and just wait until he makes it to pair status before putting money in the pot. The turn came an off suit 8 and action checks to me. I put out a value bet. The BTN just calls. The river comes a complete brick and I check. Now the BTN decides to bomb the river? I thought the hand through and made the call. But what was my opponent doing wrong? A bunch of things really, but I think the main thing was that he constantly changed his plan during the hand. At first he was going to take an aggressive line and open the btn, but didn't. Then he was going to just take a passive line and wait until he made a hand before betting. Then he decided instead of waiting for a hand, he was going to be aggressive and bluff with air. Lol, what?! He was confusing himself on what to do at almost every street and became lost. All of a sudden his story makes no sense at all. And because he effectively had no plan for the hand, he lost a big pot when he probably could have taken the pot down had he stuck to his original plan. So yeah, I think making a plan and sticking to that line is going to be a lot more effective in the long run, than wildly switching between different lines.

So yeah. Personally, I see it as a spew, to raise the river in that spot with what is essentially a bluff-catcher. But maybe it's just a super high-level play too. Haha.

Lol, it's definitely a spew. That's one of my big problems. I play incredibly spewy but I play at levels where it generally works out. Reading your thought process makes it very clear to me the reason not to bluff that spot.

High level play? Me? Oh stop it you.

I am learning though. I can only get better if I keep on working at it! I find I'm paying more attention to the story I'm telling though. Always more to learn, and there's nowhere to hide. That's why I love this game.

There's a video on youtube by Gripsed that talks about the Poker Matrix and planning a hand / telling a story. And in this video he says something which I think is really on point. "One thing that separates pros from amateurs is that amateurs play the game one street at a time. They base their decision in the moment when each card hits rather than looking at the big picture. Pros on the other hand, generally have a plan for the entirety of the hand once the flop comes out." Definitely a neat little skill to acquire, and getting practise with it will also help fine-tune your thought process in a variety of different spots.

hey, thanks man! And goodluck in your poker journey too.

On Thursday I posted that I was going to play a homegame that night, but something came up and I didn't end up going. I did however put in a $1/$3 session at Crown last night, and I had an interesting interaction with one of the other players...

So, I haven't played at Crown for quite a while. I've probably played like 3 times in the last month and half, 2 months-ish? And when I walked over to the table I had registered for, I put my rack of chips down in the 8-seat, took my ticket and time charge out of the rack and placed it on the felt. As I'm taking my jacket off to drape over the back of my chair, the player on the 7-seat looks at me and says, "I'm just gonna trade seats with you real quick. Don't worry, current players have priority of seat choice over new-players." He then starts shifting his chips towards me, and I look at him and say, "unless you requested a lock for this seat, you're not getting it." He tries to defend himself to the dealer, but the dealer didn't allow him to take my seat. At this point he reluctantly starts shifting his stack back to where they were. Normally I wouldn't care, but I specifically chose that seat because the player in the 7-seat was the big stack on the table. And it's always good to have position on these guys. Not because they have a skill advantage, but because the way poker works is money flows clockwise. More often than not, you'll be winning chips off of players to your right, and losing them to players to your left. Disgruntled by the fact that seat-7 couldn't get his way, he leans over to me and says, "you should take it as a compliment." Upon hearing this, I realise that the only reason why he wanted to change seats with me is so that he could have position on me. Which I thought was strange because I didn't recognise this player, but he seemed to recognise me. I asked him, "Have we played together before?" And he says, "yes, a few times. You always put me on tilt." At first I thought he just wanted my seat for a trivial reason, but now I know. I laughed and said, "don't be too worried. You may be at a positional disadvantage, but you have me covered." To which he replied, "yeah, that's why I also want position on you." Then he goes, "just don't put me on tilt." I simply say, "I'll do my best not to." I'm really glad him and I had this little exchange because unbeknownst to him, he just revealed a bit of information to me about what kind of a player he is. And I haven't even posted my BB yet! Naturally, as soon as a spot opened up in the 1-seat, he locked it up and shifted over. Lol. I'm finding all of this really quite amusing. Despite not playing at crown for a long time, this guy seems to know me and for whatever reason feels threatened by me. Well. This guy and I got involved in 3 hands together.

Hand 1
At this point, the villain in question had moved to the 1-seat and now has position on me. But before he moved, I saw him play a hand where he raised from the SB to some ridiculous amount like.... 8x the BB. After getting 2 callers, he open bombs the flop which is Qhigh. He takes it down, leans over to me and says, "this table is so weird." I could be incorrect, but everything about the way this hand played out lead me to believe that he had KK or AA. Anyway, he moves to the 1-seat and now I'm on the BTN w/ KQo. Action limps to me and I also limp in. This is quite arguably a bad limp, but from what I noticed, opens weren't encouraging any of the players on this table to fold. And I wasn't prepared to play a raised pot multiway even though I do have a hand that flops quite well. I'd much prefer to play this hand HU. But that wasn't too likely of a scenario, so I opted to just limp (which might not be much of a compromise, but it can't be too bad?) In any case, I limped, SB limped. Now our villain who's in the BB decides to make it $10. That's kinda strange. Earlier (when he had what I expect to be a big pair from the SB) he raised to 8x. Now after the WHOLE table limps in, he makes it 3x? He almost never has a big pair here since he's aware that this is a table that doesn't like to fold to opens pre-flop. Well sure enough, everyone who limped in is now calling the $10. There's about $70-80 dead money in the middle. Despite my story making no sense, I don't really see how I have any other choice. I know the Villain doesn't have a big hand, and I'm pretty sure no one on the table is limp-calling a small open with a monster. I move all in. SB folds, and the villain looks at me, let's out a chuckle, shakes his head and folds. Everyone else folds.

Hand 2
At this point, the Villain has changed seats AGAIN. His stack has dropped significantly, and now sitting in the 5-seat. He's on the BTN. Action limp-folds to him. He opens to $12, SB folds, I'm in the BB with AJ Although I feel like I have his range crushed, I don't want to play a 3-bet pot out of position, and I also want to disguise my hand-strength. So I just call. A player in the middle just calls and we're 3-way to the flop. Flop comes something like A62r. I check, MP checks and Villain fires out a c-bet of $15. There's almost no way I'm beat here, but I want to discourage the guy in MP from seeing a cheap turn, so I raise to $35. MP folds, Villain once again looks at me, shakes his head, let's out a small laugh and folds his hand.

Hand 3
In this hand, the villain is once again on the BTN, and I'm in the BB. Action limps around to me with 92 and I check. Flop comes 992. Wow! SB checks, I check, action checks to villain who hesitates and then checks. Turn comes a Q. SB checks, I check, action checks to villain who bets out $20. SB calls the $20, I raise to $55, folds around to villain who just calls, SB folds. River is a 7. At this point, I'm assuming this Villain is fed up with my raising, so I predict I'll get a lot of calls from Qx type hands. He only has like $120ish. I probably could have just shipped it, but decided to just bet $80. He goes All In. I call, he shows T9. MHIG. He doesn't laugh this time. He gets up from his seat and says to me, "this is why you put me on tilt." I didn't know how to respond to that, so I opted to say nothing. He says, "hometime" and leaves the game.

Obviously nothing personal when it comes to winning money off of other players, but I just find it interesting how the one person on the table who he tried to be weary of was the one who kept taking his chips. Now, I didn't outplay him so much in these 3 hands, I had him beat every time. And in that last hand, if the situation were reversed, I'd be getting stacked too. But I can only imagine how this session has impacted his perception of me. He seemingly already viewed me as a tough player, and now perhaps even more so. It's not even necessarily true. There are heaps of people in the poker room at crown that are better than me. It's just unfortunate for this particular villain that I had him beat, every hand we played together. Not a bad guy, and not a bad player. And there was no malice in anything he said to me. In fact he was behaving professionally for the whole session. I look forward to playing on the same table with him again.

h2 just c/c with AJ on A62r because limp/caller who is most likely a fish can over-call with worse ax, 6x, gutshots to that small c-bet

c/r is an oveplay and you wont get called by worse or fold out better. preventing limper from seeing a cheap turn isnt a good enough reason because your hand isnt vulnerable and his hand is unlikely to catch up to yours. he can easily have AT/A9 that he'd l/c pre and c/f to a c-bet and c/r

Hey Duke! thanks for giving me a second opinion. Also, I love your PG&C thread, it's awesome!

On H2, I don't mind check-calling that flop, and sometimes I do take that line. My in-game decision was more based on the fact that I assumed I would make less mistakes by check-raising flop. Let's assume I just call the BTN's c-bet, and the MP calls as well. Am I starting off with a check on the turn, or am I leading out? I don't like starting off with a check because both my opponents now have full say in what size the pot is going to be. They can both check back and have effectively seen a turn AND river for the price of just 1 bet. If one of them bets, am I just check-calling? It seems like a really passive way to play the hand and doesn't give me a lot of information on just how strong my opponents are. I COULD lead out on the turn, but what benefit is there in waiting until the turn to lead out? Is it because my hand-strength is more disguised that way? Or is it to give my opponents a chance to "catch up"? Both are fine reasons. But I opted to go (for what I think is) the lower variance play. It's possible I'm leaving money on the table taking the line that I did. But I don't think it's too bad.

I do agree with you that check-raising is unlikely to get better hands to fold. But that wasn't my intention. Also, people who play low-stakes live are capable of very fishy things. Even over-calling a check-raise with top pair. I've seen it happen a lot.

Raise pre with KQ OTB over a single limp pretty much every time, live players aren't limping their K9s/KTo to fold to a raise from a 20-something in a hoodie. Additionally, they're just going to c/f their A-rag or suited connectors if they miss, so it's missing a tonne of value not raising KQo.

Hand 2 was just a disaster, we're OOP with A-hi against a loose opener who also has a sizing tell that he's weak. Not 3-betting pre is a mistake given that we probably have to fold most flops if we just call. Flop was even worse, since we're getting all better hands to continue but all worse to fold. There's no draws to worry about, and we're ahead (which we probably are) V is likely drawing to runner-runner.

Oh, and check-raising so that you make 'less mistakes' on later streets is pretty bad, since the check-raise itself is a mistake. It's essentially equivalent to the live-donks who open 20x with JJ/AK because they have no idea how to play them post-flop.

Hand 3 is OK, simply because a lead + call means that one of the Vs likely has a 9, and as such isn't folding to a check-raise. Leading is also an option, although I'm probably only leading if we're 5-ways or more. Otherwise checking and hoping for someone to spike a pair/draw on the turn is also fine since literally any turn card can give most live Vs a pair which they're calling at least one bet with on this board.

hmm, looking back at H1, I really should be opening the BTN here like, every time. This hand was still rather early on in my session, and I typically take things slow when I start a session; play small pots, get information on players for cheap or free, play super tight. But I suppose in a vacuum, this particular spot is like a mandatory raise.

As for H2, I'm still not convinced my post-flop line isn't profitable. If the Villain isn't calling (what is effectively) a check-minraise, then I probably wasn't going to be getting much action from him on later streets anyway. Like you said, probably runner-runner. And he seemed to be a one-and-done kind of player who isn't too likely to 2-barrel as a bluff. In the event that he HAS hit the board in some way, or feels stubborn with a pocket-pair above 66 then he's going to be tempted to peel a large portion of the time. Although, 3-betting pre is arguably a better line to take. I just have a tendency to want to play smaller pots out of position and bigger pots in position.

played my $1/$2 homegame last night. Given how badly I was getting outdrawn on, I think I played fairly well. The game itself is great. People are calling c-bets with no pair/no draw, and calling river bets with Ace high. Lol, wut?! Not many significant hands to post. I attempted 1 suicide bluff which failed (not surprisingly! I really have to refrain from being tempted to take this line) and every other hand I played I got the money in good.

Current BR: $9550

Played a short session last night. Played okay, but I did get involved in a hand where I think I may have made an error. Not sure.

Blinds $1/$2
Stacks are $500 eff.
No history on Villain and no reliable reads. Although he does strike me as the type who doesn't play a lot of poker. Just with the way he handles chips and cards, etc. Also playing quite snugly. Not stepping out of line or playing fancy. (MP)
Hero has rock table image. (CO)
Action folds to Villain who opens to $12, folds around to Hero who flats with QT, SB flats behind. 3-way to the flop.
Flop: 642
Action checks to Villain who bets $25, Hero raises to $50, SB tank folds, Villain tank min-clicks to $100, Hero folds.

I could arguably put QT into my 3-bet pre pile of hands but it was the first time I had seen Villain raise pre and didn't want to get blown off of seeing a flop, so opted to just flat.
The flop is where I feel I may have made a mistake? After Villain c-bet to $25, my read was basically overpair 90% of the time (weighted towards 10+), 66/44/22 9% of the time, and air like 1% of the time. With this read, I wanted to design my flop decision in such a way that doesn't look like I'm drawing and also give myself a chance to see a free river if the turn doesn't improve me. In my experience, recreational players get confused (and in some cases worried about sets, etc.) when they have an overpair to the board, and their opponent raises their c-bet. But because they can almost never fold an overpair, being raised will encourage them to just call and see what you do on the turn. This was my desired outcome, and thought it was a likely outcome since recs typically aren't overly aggressive and are happy to get to showdown with anything that has value. Furthermore, I hadn't been raising many flops at this point and figured a raise would likely set off alarm bells. There is an argument for just calling, but I felt that had I just flat called the c-bet, my hand looks somewhat face up and I'm almost never getting paid when the third spade hits. And if I call flop and don't improve on turn, I would likely be faced with an almost pot-sized bet. If that's the case, then should I just be folding on the flop? Not getting much value if I flat-call and hit, and won't be getting the right price to see a river if I miss. Now I don't know for sure that he'll price me out if I call and miss on the turn, but given how he reacted to my raise, it was not likely he was going to make it cheap.

But thinking about it later, I've come to realise that this may not be a justified reason for me to raise. Because I'm obviously not value-betting. And I'm not intending to fold out worse. So then what am I doing? FPS? What's the correct play here; call and see a turn, raise and take initiative, or fold?

After he 3-bets, now I'm put in another tough spot. I don't like calling for the exact same reasons I opted not to call the initial bet. I considered 4-bet shoving, but I knew my opponent was so bad that he could never fold an overpair, especially not after putting in $100. This is why it's so great playing deep with these guys because they're almost always getting it in on the flop with their big pair regardless of what comes out, and they're happy about it too. I would have played a set the exact same way as I played my actual hand. But he doesn't know that. He doesn't even think it's a possibility! :S So my plan was to raise with the expectation he would just call and evaluate turn, but since that plan failed, I thought folding was the best option. Not sure.

He showed his hand after I folded and we talked about it afterwards.

Great news to share!
For the first time since the 5th of June, my bankroll has reached the 5-figure mark!
*sigh of relief*
wow, I did it! I remember my June/July downswing very well. It cost me around 4K (not all of which was money lost on poker, but since I use my BR to pay for stuff off the tables as well, I included such expenses in this downswing.) But dropping 4K in such a short period of time is clearly working backwards. So what exactly happened to cause such a downswing? What mistakes were made that affected my BR in such a negative way? Finding out the answers to this will help me not repeat history.

Since it was the first time I had ever reached a roll of 10K (strictly from grinding poker) I was feeling quite a degree of over-confidence. I was in the midst of an upswing, I was feeling great, making ambitious dreams of earning a million from poker and felt invincible. Everything felt too easy, and I just didn't see any signs of slowing down.
______After reading my updates on 11/6, it's apparent just how unprofitable over-confidence can be. I was calling opens with trash hoping to "get lucky", making speculative bluffs with 0% equity against opponents I have no information on, making crying calls when my relative hand strength is low and "I know I'm beat". Just inexcusable mistakes that are nothing short of amateur.
______I was also not keeping to a schedule. I'd just play for the fvck of it. Wake up at 7am, feeling bored, head to crown. No game plan. The days would melt together and I'd lose track of time. I just didn't care because I had so many BIs.
______After losing 4BI I entered into a tournament. At the time I convinced myself it was a good idea and used every excuse I could to play it. A lot of what I thought, I still believe. But I wasn't being 100% honest with myself. The one piece of information I neglected to admit was, "I want my 4BI back, and I want them back now." This should never be a reason to play poker. Ever. Doesn't matter if you think the field is soft, doesn't matter if you've had prior success, doesn't matter if you think your edge is high, doesn't matter if there's overlay (okay... maybe if there's sigNIFicant overlay, I can justify it.) But even then, if your main motive is to win back losses, it's never a good time to play. Unfortunately I ignored my cumulative tilt, and entered into a game for the wrong reason.
______Despite being on a downswing I opted into a homegame that I was underrolled for. How did I justify this? Because I have a history of crushing homegames? Yah! Not completely honest with myself there. It was an easy game to beat but I experienced some unwanted variance and my downswing grew to 6.5 BI. No one to blame but myself.
______Made the decision to take a break from poker, but didn't keep to this decision. Mistake! Made comments like "I hope my downswing ends" but not really formulating a plan of action. Mistake! Making excuses to "get unstuck". Mistake! Paying for unnecessary **** like cigarettes. Mistake! Combining all of these mistakes together = lighting $4,000 on fire. 1 error in judgement is forgiveable, as long as you can learn from it. But compounding mistakes? Not okay. 2+2er H9] brought this to my attention, and I'm glad he did.

so what can I do to avoid such an horrific downswing?
Perhaps being overrolled can lead to bad habits. Having solid bankroll management is key to having any type of financial success in poker, because it allows you to play optimally knowing that you have a cushion to fall on if you stumble. But this idea of "infinite money" can have a negative effect on your mental game if you disrespect the value of your dollars. You begin to justify stupid lines because, "hey! I have a cushion to fall on if I lose, so why not try and bluff?" This type of thinking is clearly unjustified. In poker, you should always try and identify and execute the decision which will show the most profit long term, regardless of how much money you have. That's poker101. The amount of money in your roll is irrelevent and doesn't excuse bad-play. Being overrolled isn't the problem, it's the bad habits that
arise from having a misguided understanding of what it means to have a healthy roll. Easy solution; don't use your wealth to justify poor-decision making. Abusing your BR will ensure failure.

Other things to keep in mind;
-Keep to a schedule.
-Don't use boredom as an excuse to play.
-Don't play for the wrong reason.
But most importantly, BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF! Can't stress that enough. If you try to fool yourself into subjective decisions, you'll find yourself in an unfavourable situation. Look at your current scenario from an objective point of view and THEN make the decision.

this is something I wrote in July when I was nearing the lowest point of my downswing,
July-Dash wasn't giving up, and I'm so thankful he didn't. Because he GOT there! He made a plan, dropped stakes, kept his head together, and grinded!

Current BR: $10,200

It's so rewarding to know that I am capable of handling downswings (especially those 10-20BI downswings) with professionalism and control, all without losing sight of my goals. Well, yes. I did recover from my downswing, but I still haven't reached stage 1 of my plan which is to get to $10,600. But now that I've gained some experience over the last 6 months, I can avoid the things that caused my mid-year downswing. Let's fvcking grind!!!!!!!!!

Quite possibly the most beautiful girl in the world. Blonde, brunette, short-hair, long-hair, with makeup, without makeup. Perfect, regardless. And she's from Melbourne! =O

Some hands I played recently

H1
$1/$3 @ Crown
Hero: $195 (nitty image)
Villain: big stack (seems somewhat competent, hasn't made any big mistakes or taken any weird lines, but does overvalue some hands as is typical of LLSNL recs.)
SB: $100 (basically a loose-cannon. Loser at the table. Not playing well)

Hero UTG (AKo) limps, action limp-folds to Villain (who had just won a 70ishBB pot) who raises to $18 from the CO. BB calls, Hero 3-bets to $190, folds to Villain who tank calls. SB quickly makes one of those "fvck-it-I-call" calls.
Flop/Turn/River goes check/check. The whole board is Queen high, and I don't improve. I table my hand, SB tables a 3 and mucks his other card? (there was no 3 on the board) and Villain tables JJ for the win.

My plan pre is to always check-raise from UTG. To how much depends on the sizing of the initial opener. Before anyone raised, my plan was to check-raise for value. But once i see $39 in dead-money in the pot, I don't really see any other option than to effectively push, and I'm doing it as a semi-bluff/semi-value. It's likely one of these guys has pockets. If they fold, that's great news. If they call, I'm flipping. And one of them may just be tempted to call with a weaker Ace. I don't want to just flat-call though and invite everyone else in and then be forced to act first on every street in a 3-way pot. And considering I had such a tight image, my fold equity is quite high. I'm never expecting TT+ to fold, though. But from what I've noticed, players typically don't want to lose $200 when they have JUST made it the previous hand. The Villain here just GOT those chips, he wants to give them a good home for an orbit or two before he wants to start putting them at risk. And considering how long he tanked, (regardless of what he ends up doing) the fact that he's even considering folding is good news for me. So if I'm getting JJ to think about folding and X3 to "snap" call, that must show a long-term profit. That being said, I view the Villain to be somewhat competent, so it's possible that he snap called my shove in his mind, but was just posturing in a way to entice the SB to get involved too. If so, wp.

But I made a live-tell that gave the Villain information. And I feel that THIS tell is the mistake I made, not so much the line that I took. I had $195, but 3-bet to $190 leaving a single chip behind. Most non-thinking players don't even notice this, but I do it so that my opponent is forced to show his hand before me if he opts to put me all in after the flop comes out for my last chip. But if that's the case, then I must not want to show my hand. Why wouldn't I want to show my hand? Because I want everyone to fold, right? Well.... the Villain in this hand KNEW this exactly. After he called and before the dealer ran the flop, people on the table were making jokes about why I kept 1 chip. And the villain corrected them by saying "nah, he's doing it so he doesn't have to show his hand." Probably explains why he didn't put me in after I checked both flop, turn and river, because the information I reveal from showing my hand is worth more than $5.

So I think if I take such a line against an opponent who I feel is competent, I might re-think the whole "leave-1-chip-to-conceal-info" trick.

But this next hand is against the same Villain and he does something REALLY interesting which made me question just how competent of a player he is.

H2
Hero ($350) Still nitty image, barely playing any hands
Villain (covers) Still not doing anything out of the ordinary..... until now
LP (weakest player at the table, playing every hand)

Action folds to Hero in MP who limps in with A5, LP raises to $8, folds around to Villain in the BB who calls, Hero calls, 3-way to the flop.
Flop: J44
Villain checks, Hero checks, LP makes it $18, Villain calls, Hero calls.
Turn: 8
Villain checks, Hero leads $75, LP tank-folds, Villain calls quickly.
River: Q
Villain asks "how much do you have left?" Hero doesn't answer but displays chip-stack clearly, Villain takes 5 seconds and says "All In".
*sigh* *groan* *wtf* Nothing about this story makes sense..... As I'm thinking, the dealer is counting me down and I ask to buy two lots of time and give him $2. I come to the conclusion that the only hand he can possibly have here that beats me is 44 or T9 None of the fullhouse possibilities make any sense. If he had a fullhouse by the river, why is he donk-over-bet-shoving? He knows I'm tight, so why would he scare me off by putting me all in? It just doesn't make any sense. I come to the conclusion that I have to be good here. But I thought I'd do one more thing just to make sure I'm making the right decision. I ask the Villain, "this is a really tough decision, I really want to know what you have! If I fold, will you show?" And he makes a vague hand-gesture/shrug. I press on, "...is that a yes?" and this is what he says, "Well, seeing as how this IS a really big pot, I'm happy to show you".....
*lol*
That's all I needed to hear. I made the call.

Unless the table has been raising a bunch pre-flop AND GII light pre-flop then the UTG limp with AKo is pretty bad since odds are it will just be limped through otherwise (after all, the competent guy who had JJ raised, not an ATC maniac).

In hand 2 V obviously realised you turned a flush, and figured that unless you had the nut-flush exactly then you wouldn't call his shove (and he has a boat blocker which helped). I don't think his shove is as bad as you made it out, but it's still pretty bad only because people don't like to fold a turned flush even after the 4th flush card comes for psychological attachment reasons.

Oh, and depending on LPs stack size, pre might be a fold. It's also a fold if LP was raising a bunch of hands (which it sounds like he was). If he's raising often we need to play hands which dominate, not dominated A-rag type hands. Even without LP in the hand it's probably still a fold since it's been folded to us and as such the odds of a multi-way limped pot are significantly reduced, thereby reducing our chances of over-flushing someone (which is the whole reason we limp A-rag suited).

yah, come to think of it, the table WAS somewhat passive pre-flop, and I wasn't seeing too many shoves. Should be an open given how loose-passive the table was behaving preflop.

Well...villain figured wrong xD. If he had a more nutted hand, I actually really like it, because it allows his opponent to level-himself into a call with the second best hand. But as a bluff I just think it's a spew and is really only effective against a T4/94 type hand (which you're chopping with anyway). It's not effective against a flush because, he would almost never play a K high or 10high flush this way on the river because he'd also be worried of running into better. So his bluff is really only effective against hands he already beats (apart from better three of a kinds. But am I really limp-calling K4 pre when I have barely been playing any hands?) I dunno, I think his bet on river is a disaster. I just don't think it works as often as he thinks it does.

Oh, I forgot to mention, LP had about the same as me. He was playing too many hands but somehow hitting a lot, and making a lot of post-flop mistakes but still somehow winning. He ended up going broke. Which is a shame because he was fun to chat with. Kept the table happy and social.

But duuuude!! I was hoping to get some advice on the QT hand ...I got totally schooled in that one

more good news!

Idiot me wrote the wrong postcode when ordering merchandise from Jason Somerville's RunItUpStore, so the package got returned back to Nevada. They re-shipped it to the correct address though, and it finally came today!!! I love getting fun sh*t in the mail, especially if it's coming from overseas ^__^ I'll take pictures later...

EDIT: oh, included in the package was a couple of RunItUp.com patches. I threw one on the front of one of my shirts. I plan on wearing it during my next session at Crown. Just as an experiment to see if it does anything different for my image; giving me any added fold-equity, or maybe more action? etc. We'll see....

Game $1/$2
Hero ($600)
UTG (covers)
Villain ($245)
Hero BB 99, UTG raises to $25, 5 callers. SB folds, Hero calls.
Flop: 9A2r
Hero checks, UTG bets $40, Villain who is NTA calls, everyone folds to Hero who raises to $210, UTG folds, NTA calls and is all in for $220.
Turn: A
River: brick
Villain shows A9

*sigh* yeah, I could have raised flop smaller, but UTG had nothing and wasn't calling a raise of any size. I could have just called but, ehh... I felt that if either opponent hit top pair, none of them were folding regardless of what I did. Wanted to get my $600 stack in comfortably by river. Quite a bummer. Had I taken this pot down, my BR would be just shy of 11K. But obviously being a 91% favourite isn't a good enough spot.... Seems like in order to find success in poker one's patience truly needs to be tested. Don't typically like using the word "unfair" in poker, but sometimes I feel like this game can be really unforgiving.

But this hand raises an important mental-game issue that I've been struggling with recently. When I first started out in live poker, I'd let these types of unfortunate run outs put me on tilt, and I'd play through the tilt and more often than not lose more buy ins. But 11 months into my poker career, I've reacted in the complete opposite way. I'd almost insta-quit the game, because I just don't trust myself that I can continue making profitable decisions in future spots. But is this really the correct way to approach things? My poker friend claims that I'm "too fragile". And I never thought about it before, but I think it might be true, and even worse, it might be a leak. Bad beats are an inevitable part of poker. If you can't continue to play A-game when you run into them (despite the table being super easy to beat) then what are you doing playing poker in the first place? I'd love to be able to continue to play even after I lose 300+BB pot as a 91% favourite. But when that kind of thing happens, I just feel shell-shocked and can't focus. Is it a mistake to quit and not risk playing poor poker, or should I just man the fvck up and continue grinding even if I feel I wont be able to focus? Not sure which decision is more -EV.

I might be heading in to Crown Thursday or Friday next week. Any tips?

Should I play 1/2 or 1/3?

When we run in to a situation that is in some way traumatic, we generally try to get back to equilibrium. Your body doesn't know what happened, it's just going "Ah! WTH man! Gtfo! Ruuuuunnnn!"
It can also try and block the experience that gives us that trauma in the first place. No more of that experience= no more trauma.

But what really is the trauma here?

The question I have to ask is this. Was it because you lost, or because you have an emotional attachment to what you lost?

This game can be brutally unrewarding because it is grounded In probablility. You can be the best player on the table but if the deck decides to kick you in the stomach then there's not much you can do but limit your losses.

Also, Poker has a particularly brutal scoreboard in that the way it keeps score is through a thing a lot of us derive our value from.

Money. (Not a healthy self-worth paradigm, but money is the most universally recognized way of giving value materially and often times emotionally too. Happy Birthday! Here's a card with money.)

Not only do you lose (everyone hates losing), but you also lose your "value" which is even worse when we get bad beat, because we emotionally own the win. 91% value and yet this guy wins the pot? How am I losing?

So couple that with pride, ego and the general spectrum of human reactions/ feelings that come with keeping a score in a game and you get a concoction that makes losing very, very painful.

There will eventually come a time though (I keep telling myself this) when I will realize that the score is just an illusion. This will only happen when I am a good enough player to understand what I am doing is profitable in the long term. Only I can really keep score. I do that by learning and ensuring I am doing everything in my power to play. Profitable. Poker.

Once I understand that, bad beats will seldom mean anything. They are temporary negatives in a 91% positive world.

That pain will never go away completely. The pots will get bigger, the players more intense. If I make it close to the money in the WSOP and get beaten all in with 91% equity, it will still hurt. But I will cope with it better. And eventually, I hope, it will fade away into this beautiful 91% postive world.

Hope this helps, I tried to get my point across as concisely as possible.

Tl;dr?
Don't feel bad bro! You made the right play! One day that 91% (or maybe the 9% even) might win you a bracelet. #lifecrushing

That's the first time I used a hashtag, I'll have you know. I violated a principle for you. Appreciate it! Lol.

well, action is generally much better on Friday nights, than it is during the week. As for what game you should play, really depends on your comfort level and how many buy-ins you have to take a shot. The way 1/2 is structured makes it difficult to beat long term. Starting off shallow with a 40BB stack kinda limits one's skill-edge and basically makes it a game where only the cards matter. And having the rake capped at $20 is quite the rip-off. By comparison, 1/3 is a better game but probably not a wise investment if you're uncomfortable with those stakes. Play what you feel most comfortable with. If you have less than 10 buy ins for 1/3 you might end up playing scared-money.

So yeah. 1/3 is a better game, but if you can't afford to play it, then it might be more worthwhile to stick to a less expensive game.

good question.

I'm not really sure. I don't think it's so much due to an emotional attachment to the money itself, but more an attachment to the expected outcome. Afterall, in that hand I posted earlier (at the time it was played) the pot size was less than 6% of my entire bankroll. That's not really a significant portion to cry about. So in that sense I don't really care if I lose, if the value of the pot is that small in relation to my roll. It's more due to the fact that I developed a strategy to beat that specific table, yet the short-term results seemed to prove otherwise. If I lose $1 as a 1% underdog, I wouldn't care because I was expected to lose that dollar 99 times out of 100. But if I lose $1 as a 99% favourite, I feel crushed! So yeah. It's not the money I become attached to, it's the expected outcome that I become attached to. So it's all very frustrating. And that frustration of being forced to accept short-term variance (despite poker being a long-term game) .....is a little discouraging. Being a robot and just not caring about short-term variance would be awesome, but it's hard. I think a lot of it just comes down to patience and discipline. I like to believe that I have both. But if I insta-quit a juicy game just because I ran into a 9%er, then I probably don't have as much patience as I thought. Definitely something that I could work on.

Using money to keep score. I kind of wish we had some other way to measure success or correct-decision-making. Something that's more accurate. Because any idiot can get "lucky" but that doesn't necessarily mean they made a good decision. Especially in the poker world, money definitely isn't a reflection of skill. A few weeks ago I was chatting poker with this guy in the casino. He had walked his way into some money from running deep in a few tournaments, and we were discussing our thoughts on the game and cash-game strategy. And listening to him talk, I began to realise that he was a complete idiot and had no idea what he was talking about. Money, he has. Some tournament success, he has. But how high does he fare on the poker score-board when his thought process and attitude is completely defective?

But going back to the topic of losing. I don't really associate losing pots with taking hits to my ego. I've read up on entitlement tilt, and I honestly don't think that I'm more deserving to win at poker than anyone else that I play with. Even if I believe that I have a skill-edge, it doesn't mean I deserve to win a 9-1 scenario 100% of the time. My expectation might be to win 90% of the time, but it has nothing to do with me being 90% more deserving than my opponent. So I really do think that ego isn't the issue. My main issue is basically maintaining that motivation to grind when sh*t just isn't workin out... But that's one of the struggles of playing poker full time. It's very mentally and emotionally taxing.

not really a response to everything that you were saying, more just thoughts I had after reading your post xD

No problem. As long as something I wrote gave you food for thought.

don't need anyone to tell me I misplayed this hand. But I'll post it anyway, because I'm a fish.

Hand 1
$1/$3 @ Crown
Villain BTN: Young Asian guy, not paying any attention to the game, barely playing any hands.

Hero UTG (AA) opens to $18, MP calls, BTN calls, 3-way to flop.
Flop: JT4
Hero c-bets to $45, MP calls, BTN min-clicks to $90, Hero calls, MP calls.
Turn: 9
Hero donks $100 with $1 chip behind, MP calls and is AllIn for less, BTN re-ships, Hero calls.
River: brick
BTN shows JJ

So I like my pre-flop and flop decisions, but when the tightest player on the table min-clicks, I basically know I'm dead. And I would HONESTLY have folded had I not had the backdoor royal flush draw. If I had two red aces, I'm folding to the min-click and I'm happy about it. Once the turn comes, I can't really check-fold to a shove? can I? $330 in the pot with $100 behind... I guess I could? But I felt like if there was ANY chance whatsoever that the asian guy was fed up, on tilt, having a meltdown or just overplaying QQ/KK, it would be a big mistake to check-fold. So if I'm always check-calling a shove, then I may as well take the initiative and do it myself? But that's kind of a spew, because I'm like 95% confident I'm beat here... Is it bad to just bet fold on flop when a nitty opponent min-clicks you like it's no big deal? At the end of the hand the Villain said to me, "yeah, didn't think you had a straight." fyi, wasn't trying to rep a straight.

Hand 2
Hero UTG (AKo) opens to $18, BTN calls, BB calls. 3-way to flop.
Flop: A82ss
BB leads $15, Hero raises $45, folds to BB who goes All In for $47, Hero calls.
The dealer (who's on her first day) is figuring out how to proceed. I tell her, "it's okay, just run the cards" and the dealer's shadow tells me off for rushing her. At this point the Villain says, "you probably got me outkicked."
Turn: 8
River: 9
Villain shows A9

Nothing to be learned from this hand, except perhaps I shouldn't "rush the dealer" next time.

Hand 3
Hero UTG+1 (JT) $15, 2 callers.
Flop: AQ9 Hero checks, action checks through.
Turn: 4 Hero bets $27, 1 caller.
River: 2 check, check
Villain shows KK

I don't love c-betting this flop because it just connects with their pf calling range so frequently. any Ace/KQ/QJ and apparently KK? When it checks through on flop though, I feel like it's a good spot to semi-bluff. But when called, is it ever a spew to fire that last barrel on the river when I checked flop? In my opinion it is, and I think if I did fire on the river I was getting called. The best line to take is probably just betting flop, and continuing aggression on that exact run out, maybe giving up on river if my opponent is being sticky.

Hand 4
Hero ($250)
BTN ($90)
UTG+1 (covers)
Hero CO (98) UTG+1 opens to $12 (3rd hand in a row he's opened to $12, starting to get suspicious) Hero calls, BTN 3-bets to $40, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.
Flop: 764
UTG+1 checks, Hero checks, BTN All In for $50, UTG+1 folds, hero calls.
Turn: K
River: 7
BTN shows AA

ehh, yeah...BTN's stack is too shallow to justify calling pre, but UTG+1 had all the chips and he was getting so out of line preflop and making a ton of mistakes post. Once I flop that strongly though, I don't think I can justifiably fold even if he were to show me his Aces.