After some horrible results in the last few days, I came in Tuesday determined to log a nice long patient session. This was mostly effective but the table was awfully solid and adapted to some of my strengths in ways I hadn't really encountered before.

Bear in mind that my line in these hands is very similar to a line I take with TPTK heads-up: check turn, overbet river, get called. Problem is I don't always have those hands.

Bear in mind also that it'll become clear I plan ahead better early in a session than late.

In both hands Hero covers with roughly $500.

Hand 1: Talkative, self-deprecating V playing with $140 after sitting down with $80 or so; he seems, from his conversation, to play a lot of hours of poker recently, but he doesn't take control of hands. Seems afraid to see a flop with a premium hand.

After one limper, he tosses in two chips and only then realizes that they are red. This is not, it seems to me, an act. He raised accidentally.

I make it 25 from the SB with K2 . Villain comments that "he gets stubborn": this is true, as he paid someone off in such a mode an hour ago. He calls.

Flop 678 . Villain has seen me steal (in position) and turn over a lot of low-stakes bluffs early in hands, and now he starts talking. "Oh man, I got stubborn and now you got all of that flop. That's right in your range. I call." (My bet was $25 again.)

Turn 7 . Check check. Villain says, "I'm not betting, I'm just calling cause you're betting." $100 in pot.

River 9 . I say "Now I gotta bet": $75.


Second hand: very different villain, speaks limited English, pretty old, a true regular and capable of caginess. Fairly tight. Makes it $10 second to act and I call on the button to set-mine with 4 4.

Flop Q26 . Villain checks. I bet $15, Villain calls. God, I'm an idiot.

Turn T . ($50 in pot.) Check, I check behind.

River A . Villain checks. Hero bets $50.


Flame away.

what to do against calling stations? don´t bluff them.

These are not calling stations. They know how to value hands in context.

The big issue here is my image, which is let's say volatile, versus their stacks.

The first hand that board smacks his limp calling range so I would just give up OTF, let alone mot be raising pre with garbage OOP anyway.

The 2nd hand isn't that bad as when he checks he has a lot if big cards that missed and you are protection g your equity. Turn is a good card to check because he picks up a lot of draws. The problem with the river is he probably called you flop bet with a good amount of Ax hands. Also, if he is folding 50,hes probably folding for 35.

Maybe I should add that on the turn in the first (789) hand, Villain thought for zero seconds before checking behind; gave no thought to betting.

What exactly are you trying to fold villain off of in hand one? What hands are you trying to rep? It seems to me the only thing you are repping is poorly played over pairs and air that just rivered a straight (so basically nothing in villains mind). Also, If you are ever making plays and justifying them in your head by something along the lines of "well the last time I played a hand like this I had a set, so now I expect my opponent to fold top two pair!" then, well... do I need to explain any further?

Also, It may be worth noting that you shouldn't be checking TPTK OTT and then over betting the river. I'm actually pleased to see that the concept of "pot control" is a thing of the past and now everyone had moved to bet/fold which is much better. But yeah, Since Villains at LLSNL will way over pay with draws and weak made hands, not betting the turn in most cases is absolutely criminal.

"you shouldn't be checking TPTK OTT and then over betting the river."

This is just against solid villains. There were more of them yesterday than usual.

Good points, thanks. I did indeed think I could rep "air that rivered a straight" in the first hand.

In hand one, hoping villain will fold 22, 33, 44, 6x, 9x, and Ace high. 9x a stretch I admit. But, but, $75!

repping anything at these stakes is risky bizz.

hand 1 i'd just let it go pre, even if he did accidently raise, since he is playing so short and has already shown a willingness to "get stubborn"

hand 2, you already know, check back flop

What about the river in hand 2? (Suppose the pot were like $35 for some reason.) (Okay, never mind, flop bet was the true mistake.)

An appropriate response would be: "On the river in hand 2 punch yourself hard in the face four times."

Thread title should read : getting owned by preflop mistakes. Atleast for hand 1. Hand 2 no stack sizes given so we dont know if we have the correct odds. Bloating a pot oop with k2 without is really bad especially without a real plan. Op you need to read up on the fundamentals of nlh. I think that could be more beneficial to you than posting here could be right now

Hand 1 fold pre. Just because V may have accidentally over-raised pre, doesn't mean you need to 3-bet OOP with junk, just fold. Don't C-bet this flop, it's terrible.

Saying "now i gotta bet" actually makes you look more bluffy, don't bother with reverse tells and whatnot, a bet should do it's own talking. If you're going to bluff it, pot or overbet is probably best for the river. But I don't think you should bother at LLSNL.
(fold pre and you don't get into this mess).

Hand 2 betting flop is fine to protect your equity IP but half pot is probably better than 3/4, The turn and river cards hit V pretty hard... I think the river bluff is V dependent, and if you peg him as one who can fold a bare Q a good amount here then it's okay. I feel that most people who c/c this flop will call down another street almost automatically, so river bet is probably bad.

I think you don't know what the f is going on in most hands and probably have some leaks in your game.

In the specific hands in question, why are you trying to playing against a bad villain with less than 30bb with K2s? Just fundamental stuff really. Are you trying to scoop the blinds or something?

In hand 2, if you are betting flop you are going to need to fire multiple shells here. Betting flop and giving up is burning money. I actually don't hate the river bet when the A hits but the flop/turn combo is meh.

In hand one, the errors in postflop passivity would have been nullified by preflop passivity.

Yes, the blinds plus $10. And then I get to show and share a laugh with Villain (as indeed I did anyway, albeit without showing, in the end) -- he and I were friendly.

People like to pay you off when you are having a good time and being friendly and projecting a little craziness.

Please spare me the general comments about how I don't understand poker or comprehend math or put people on hands.

In both of these hands I had good ranges assigned to these opponents by the turn, and best guesses about their holdings that were exactly correct. The problem was in discerning their stubbornness.

Ironically, it's that stubbornness that usually makes me money. Here it worked very strongly against me: the dollars involved and the weakness of the opponents' holdings could not outweigh their personal reactions to my image. Any extra and updated thinking I might do at Level Three was wasted, since they were locked on the flop at Level Two: "he has total trash regardless of what the board does."

Leason being learned....

It's all good putting opponents on ranges accurately, but because of your preflop, (and sometimes flop) mistakes you made it incredibly difficult to play these hands profitably postflop.

Hand 2 wasn't played terribly, so don't feel bad about it. Both double/triple barrel and trying to get to showdown are probably better than the line you took.

Adjusting to peoples play is the key to profit. People will play how they want to play, you just have to find the right counter-play. People at low live call too much, it's famous for it, thats why you have to lower your bluffs. It may not be the most fun way to play but it's the most correct. If you cannot adjust well you will lose money where you shouldn't.

Hand 1 opponent tightened his lips, stacked off an irritated $75 from his stack of $90, and called. I mucked. He showed AJ (and yes, this is still a hand he would intend to limp).

Hand 2 opponent barely hesitated, called $50, and showed JJ. The 44 I showed; it contrasted nicely with the AQT triple-diamond board.

These opponents made perfect decisions on the flop and then stuck to the plan regardless of what transpired. Very impressive.

Anyone disagree that I got flat-out outplayed here?

You're the typical "young gun" that sits down in a table and thinks that you can outplay everyone with aggression.

These old timers probably have ran into your player type thousands of times in the last several years.

You may want to consider your entire approach to these games. The first hint is that you are getting called down in 1/2 games with A high and third pair hands. Raising light and then showing for a good laugh is poor strategy. Compare that to a guy who never shows his hand. You can do that and still be plenty friendly, trust me.

In these hands specifically you have to tell a good story when you are bluffing. Bluffing representing a narrow range and bluffing into strength are usually bad ideas.

I have no idea why you think these hands are revealing about my "entire approach." The only distinctive thing about my approach is that I occasionally make wacky preflop raises in position, and show for image. These hands are not typical of that.

I am confident that against the moderately attentive opponents I tend to face (daytime), my image is more profitable than never showing uncalled hands. But I have to play more precisely and quit bluffing off chips....

I thought the interesting thing here was opponents' play. How many of us are capable of making these exact checks and river calls? Is this passivity a gear you possess?

If they are thinking at Level Two, then Level Three is exactly where you should be. Maybe you misunderstand what Level Three is? If you think their Level Two thinking is (correctly) that you have total trash, then your Level Three response (correctly) should be to value own them with good hands. If you think you can bluff them here, you are ignoring Level Two. That is, you are thinking about what you have, and what they have, and thinking you can bluff them off their hand without taking into consideration what they think you have. This is not extra and updated thinking at Level Three, this is just FPS. Level Three MUST take into account Level Two.

Both hands played pretty horribly IMO. You rep nothing on either hand. I would snap call with JJ on hand 2 and probably level myself into a call on hand 1.

Point was they weren't updating their Level Two, which I assumed in my Level Three that they would do. They made a plan and stuck to it, whereas in their shoes I would have leveled myself into folding both hands on the river.

Think you are just using terms that you have no idea what you are saying. Go back and read the thread from the start and look at the responses you received without trying to justify why you did something, etc.

Slim, why don't you answer the question? Are you calling the river in these spots against an unpredictable opponent?

More likely you're taking control of the hand at some point, and enabling me to fold my trash for cheap.

So many of you guys seem to prefer dickish judgmentalism to conversation, I swear. My point in posting these hands was of COURSE that they were butchered. But I thought the call in hand two was particularly remarkable and impressive, and wonder if anyone had insights. If you're just going to carp about my reactions and ideas I invite you to read a different thread instead.