Villain 1: Seems TAGgish, not getting out of line, often raises in position - first session playing this villain
Villain 2: Active, straddling and raising/young, talking poker hands and strat, seems to know everyone (players and dealers) - first session playing this villain
Hero: Second time playing live in about a year. Am a bit nervous/uncomfortable, have been folding many hands pf. Think I am seen as serious/nervous/tight/oddball douche (have to work on this but not my priority at moment)

Player to my left had tabled a bluff against me about 10 hands earlier. I had 99 and opened in CO and he called on Button. All others folded. Flop KKx, I checked, he checked. Turn little card. I lead for c 1/2 pot and he quite quickly 3x me. I fold and he quickly turns over AJo. Not sure why he tabled it, maybe to set me up for value later. Maybe because I appear so stiff and he didn't like me.

$1/2 NL (9 handed)
UTG ($300)
EP Hero ($175)
EP+1 ($200)
MP ($175)
MP+1 V1 ($320)
CO ($380)
Button V2 ($300)
SB ($200)
BB ($200)

Hero is dealt QQ

1 fold, Hero raises to $15 over button $5 straddle, EP+1 folds, MP folds, V1 calls $15, cutoff folds, V2 calls $15, SB folds, BB folds

I wonder if I should have raised a bit more as I am oop and can be vulnerable on many flops. Given aggressive nature of game raising more for value would make sense.

Flop ($48) J,5,4
Hero bets $30, V1 calls $30, V2 calls $30

I bet 2/3p because that doesn't give them proper pot odds to call w draws. In hindsight, perhaps a psb for value/protection would be preferable since there are a lot of bad turns, I am oop, and the game seems a bit loose. When they both call I am thinking Jacks or spades are likely as higher PP would have 3-bet pre and 2-pair+ might likely raise.

Turn ($138) T

Hero? We have approx. psb left and are covered by villains. It crossed my mind to bet-fold as I could get value from worse and if raised probably beat as I look strong and unlikely to fold. However, I am fairly new and don't know if that's lighting money on fire. Is shoving going to simply accomplish folding out worse and getting called by better?

I am just beginning to study poker, have read Small Stakes Poker Cash Games by Jonathan Little, but otherwise am green. Started reading Professional No-Limit Hold'Em by Miller et al., but the Stack-to-Pot Ratio section felt a bit difficult to take in and incorporate, and I wasn't sure if that is the best for me to be learning at this point. Am considering reading No-Limit Hold'Em: Theory and Practice by Sklansky.

Any help is much appreciated as this was one of many spots where I felt quite uncertain.

I'd raise a bit more pf, but it probably didn't make much difference. Bet on the flop is good but with two callers and the FD hitting on the turn, I'd just check/fold.

Don't worry about being green, we were all green at one time. If I had one thing I'd do over again in poker, I would have bought and read far fewer books than I did. Poker is a game where you want to learn the concepts in depth, not just skin deep. Instead of reading more books, go back to Little's book and now re-read it again more slowly and after each chapter start working out how you would apply the concepts in your game. I'd do this especially since Miller's SPR concept was difficult for you.

Pre-Flop is the easiest place to start. For me, there are just 4 elements that define whether you are going to put yourself in the best place to win a hand.

1. Hand strength. If you have AA, you have the best pf hand. Everyone is putting their money in bad against you. Of course, you can have the best hand pf without AA. You'll find a significant portion of your winnings will come from having AA.

2. Iniative. There was a study online years ago that showed about 1/3 of the time the winning hand was not the best hand because people folded a better hand. You only have iniative if you bet or raise. That gives you two ways to win. When you call, you can only win if you have the best hand.

3. Position. When you act last, you get to see what everyone did first before you have to make a decision. Much of the rest of your winnings will come from having the button.

4. Knowledge. Most poker players vastly overweight their advantage over their villains. However, being better allows you to make money with hands that others would lose money.

In very simplistic terms, you want to put your in a situation where you have a majority of these advantages and the more, the better. It should be fairly obvious that even if you were not a good player, raising from the button with AA makes it likely you'll win the hand. What is more difficult is to see that calling a 3 bet made by the button with hand like KTo from middle position is that you aren't likely to win the hand.

So how do you practice the new concepts? Read the HHs in this forum and apply your new knowledge. Post your answers. It is very easy to go, "yeah, I'd do the same things everyone else is saying." When you write them, you get feed back on your thinking. That is how you will improve.

Hi Venice10,

Greatly appreciate the feedback. Am right at the end of Little's book and will certainly follow your advice and re-read it in the manner you suggest.

Your comments on initiative, along with the statistic, highlight an important (and I'd guess fundamental) aspect of winning NLHE. I remember seeing a quote by Doyle, I think, that said something like, "checkers and callers don't last long in poker." I've already noticed loose-passive opponents whom I have position on are some of my favorite opponents outside of someone just plain spewing.

The value of position is already starting to feel intuitive to me, but it's amazing to read that much of the winnings will come from that seat representing 1/9 of the table. One scenario that I am unsure of is when there are bad players to my right, which is good, but better players than me to my left. If I have a choice, which I sometimes do when people leave the game, is it more advisable to keep position on the bad players or leave that setup and move to where I am to the left of the good players as they are prone to causing problems with their aggression?

The knowledge advantage seems most difficult to attain but obviously is indispensable, and I'd guess increasingly so as one moves up in stakes. In Little's book he talks about things like certain flops/boards being better for one opponent or another based on their position and associated preflop ranges. Seeing this play out in reality at the table was/is eye-opening. It was one of the first times where I felt like I was seeing and understanding something my opponents were not--as opposed to things like pot odds which I assume everyone is at least aware of even if they do not play as such.

I'll comment on hands in the future like you recommend. I really enjoy reading the subtleties of people's thoughts and rationale for what they do. The hand I've posted actually gets a bit more interesting given turn action and the river, but I'll save that for after a few more replies, should others offer their thoughts.

Turn ($138) T

Hero checks, V1 checks, V2 checks

At this point I am doubtful anyone would not value bet a flush with the exception that perhaps V1 could be looking to c/r.

River ($138): 2

Hero checks, V1 checks, V2 bets $45, Hero?

At this point I thought my hand was under-repped. However, V2 betting into two players makes a bluff less likely than betting into one, but we had each checked both the turn and river so our ranges look quite weak? I was not sure what combos he could be value betting I beat, what combos would attempt a bluff, and what combos beat me. We are getting 4:1 so I had to decide if I'm winning more than 20%. My instinct is to fold, but in a strategy video I've watched the presenter talks about the mistake small stakes players make of folding too much when getting good odds (and actually calling too much with poor--mistakenly thinking larger bets are more indicative of bluffs).

Am I right to think this spot is a bit "gross"?

One thing I'd promptly disregard from Little is the tiny open sizing. It's not just me. Other pros who have commented on these stakes, besides little, say the same thing.

Since it is a button straddle, I think you're giving him good odds to call almost ATC by 3xing it. I'd probably go at least 4-5x. Particularly with QQ, which is both very strong and pretty vulnerable, I'd try to raise near the max I thought I could get action with.

Flop bet is fine, but you could go bigger. There are some weak hands to target like 99, but not many. You might as well go for max value against jacks and draws.

It's a pretty bad turn, since JT also gets there.

I think you could go either way. Since you don't have a flush draw yourself, there is more reason to value bet/protect against flush draws. But you're not too thrilled to get money in anymore.

You could bet/fold like $50. That way, a jack will still call. You don't give free cards to random spades. Say, 67 or 88 with a spade.

River is a pretty easy call. If I thought about something else, it would be making a min raise. V should be betting QJ,KJ and AJ imo.

It's not a bad spot to bluff either, though I would expect him to bet a bit more. But you could have AQ/AK some spazz bluff and the other guy could have a missed draw. He is getting a nice price on a small bluff.

Thanks for info on pf bet-sizing. Little really emphasized in his books that that is what pros do and they do it for a reason, and you want to be like the pros, etc. To be fair, he almost always attaches the caveat that you must adjust to opponents so nothing is set in stone.

The straddling really put me off as I'm not rolled for it, hadn't planned on it, and am highly inexperienced with a 40bb stack. Was actually waiting for the blinds to leave the table.

It struck me as a decent spot to bluff cheaply for V2 as well given passivity of V1 and me. That combined with his active style was definitely making a call seem tempting but was unsure. Kept hearing in my head, "Don't be an lol station..." and thinking the size was asking for a call. Kind of leveling myself and not certain about how, exactly, I should be ranging and thinking about it.

Yeah. He seems oblivious to the fact that the rake and tips are such a huge factor. You need to build pots, so min open should be at least 4x.

People like Alec Torelli, Bart Hanson and others have more sensible advice on this particular issue.

You are playing with a giant player pool. They won't see you play enough to really learn your tendencies. If they do, 97% aren't paying enough attention.

Having said that, be aware that bet sizing tells exist. Exploit them in others and try not to be super easy to read.

It varies so much from game to game. But to take an extreme case. Suppose a whale is straddling the button and calling any raise up to 20x. It would be really dumb to 3x it with AA just to avoid having a bet sizing tell when you could get half your stack in with AA.

Not to get too off topic, but your point about rake makes good sense. A part of me worries about the long-term profitability of calling behind IP against limpers with things like J9o or 76s given the pots tend to be quite a small ratio in comparison to the rake at 1/2. My intuition is that I don't cooler opponents enough to make it worthwhile, accounting for when I'm coolered by them, but I guess it's perfectly "standard" ie profitable to limp those behind.

Results:

Showdown:
V2 (Button) shows 63 (a straight, Six high)

Hero (EP) mucks Q Q (a pair of Queens)

Lingering question is whether or not I'm good >20%. Guess that's something to take to PokerStove or Equilab.