Originally Posted by SpinMeRightRound View Post
So let me get this straight:

-you suck out jamming 76 suited vs QQ pre (why are you still 3betting marginal hands when you have no fold equity?)
-you cooler someone with trips + top kicker, when they had trips + 2nd top kicker
-you win a flip AK vs QQ
-you cooler someone with a straight when they have top 2 pair
-you consistently get hit by the deck preflop with monster hands

As far as I can tell, none of this is skill. Analyze everything honestly and critically. Ask yourself "would I have played the hand differently if I was in their position?" If not, it's pure luck. There will come a session in the future where you're on the wrong end of these hands and you lose $2.1k (probably more than $2.1k, because most inexperienced players start playing worse when they run bad).
[QUOTE=6bet me;54365842]Yes, I would have played many of the hands differently.

1) I wouldn't call down 3 streets with AJ in a 3bet pot. I'd definitely fold river. I'd consider folding turn too.
2) I wouldn't flat a raise with KJo preflop.
3) I wouldn't make the same loose calldowns that many people made against me.

It's not all luck. Some of it is actually me playing better than my opponents.

1.) Yes you would.
2.) You will call a shove with 76dd though
3.) Called an all in with 76dd
4.) You claim you played a certain way to build a certain image, then when you find yourself I a spot where you may be able to capitalize on that image you hit the brakes and bet a small amount and plan to fold.

It is 100% positive variance, you avoid a devastatingly bad indefensible call with 76dd and accidentally win a pot. You go out of your way and do everything you can to avoid getting value from your monster hands( bet a small amount and plan to fold if raised-AQ vs AJ tripAs) and manage to accidentally win a few more pots riveting people all the while avoid value like it the plauge. I agree you would have played your opponents hands differently, you would have lost more faster. None of this was you playing better than anything, you did not out play ****, you played yourself. I’m glad that you booked a winner despite your playing. Good god with this guy.

Are you questioning OPs level of excellence?

Keep in mind we are witnessing a true master in action here, that will have saved up $100K in couple of years and be a feared livereg at 5/10 and above.

Just lol

OP is a gigantic whale and is probably the only one in his player pool and this thread who doesnt realize it.

Sure 6bme may not have played some hands well (absolutely hate the 67dd). But he’s just highlighted some of the interesting hands of the night. He played a lot of straight forward non post worthy hands well in between the interesting ones. You guys bash on him when he loses, you bash on him when he wins. Can’t y’all just be happy for a guy who just had his biggest winning session?..

The biggest winning session that consisted of coolering people, massive suckouts and getting constantly hit by the deck.

tbf to 6b, you do still have to play those cooler/"hit by the deck" hands correctly to get good-max value. As bad as you want him to be, it's not as if 6b's going to be a losing $1/$3 player.

I agree too many people here are just looking for excuses to pile on him... but in fairness, it's because he rarely just comes in, shows a bad hand like the 67dd and says, "I butchered this one... was feeling too good after running/playing well I let it get the best of me when he jammed." People would be like, yah, fair enough, we all make mistakes... have been on winner's tilt, etc etc... good session otherwise. It's that he posts his bad hands like they are good hands then defends them to the death even when better, higher winrate guys with long histories say it sucked.

It makes people assume all his play is bad, instead of seeming like sometimes he is showing a mistake for advice or just to hold himself accountable for bad play, but therefore the rest of his hands are likely solid.

The 67dd was the best example... he like 5 messages before says nobody adjusts at his games, then implies his play was good because it was a "break-even call" that will net him EV later.... against whom exactly? The players don't adjust, remember?

DLuo, is it possible for 6b to buy up a small part of his action on your stake? It seems like that'd easily be the most +ev thing he can do atm.

I'm always open to negotiating terms with my horses. I have some arrangements where people have a certain % of themselves and then the rest is on stake. Don't think 6b has the $$ to be buying up his own action atm though.

If you're implying he'll be playing better with some of his own money... you may want to read the older posts ITT HAHA (bangbang)

I suppose so, but I think it's better to congratulate someone for their good skill rather than good luck. Anyone can get lucky, it means nothing. But good skill usually takes hard work.

It would be clever if it got people to adjust badly to his **** play.

No one is thinking he would be better except your actual stake. If anything you putting some restraints on is a good thing for op.

The issue is op plays an awful session, wow lol my high EV lines were all went against me. OP Wins wow I'm a 40000bb winner over 12 hands hence I will repeat this and **** my steak he's holding me back.

The reality is OP may be a winning really bad live player, he certainly isn't a winning 2nl pokerstars player. What I would want personally is when my stake had a bad session they were overly looking to blame themselves and when they had a winning session they were looking to blame themselves. At what points does OP get better?

I realize you're sort of joking here but I'm just saying that since his life roll sucks that he'd be better off trying to negotiate a 60/40 (or better) split as opposed to 50/50 if he puts up x amount.

MMSS, I'm also saying that 6b stays under the condition of the stake because he'll still be mostly under the stake $$$.

dude, I'm at a loss for words , especially regarding the AK hand you folded face up against the drunk guy. You're willing to call off with 76 against an old man but not AK against a drunk guy ? I don't even....

OP so clueless his staker needs to coach him on buying food. Probably put a bib on him at the table as well.

ROFL

The funny part is that OP "really went looking for cheaper places to get food" (outside of a grocery store of course, and then there is this place right at the casino. Lots of effort must have gone into that.

The way you talk about you not blaming your gf because she can not cook for you is pathetic, if you want to eat cheap cook your own food, it's simple, if you're not able to do that you're just stupid and mirage has reason, you probably need a bib to eat your prepared food

As I've read more of this thread, I've come to the conclusion that playing poker under a stake, with the discipline of a good stakeholder is probably the best solution for the OP can achieve at this time. It isn't a good solution given all the options available, but the OP isn't capable of a better one at this time.

I'm reminded of a thread in the old live casino poker forum about a player that died. He wasn't famous, but lived and played at mid-stakes for a lot of years and ended up playing low stakes before he died. He was well liked by people who knew him, but of course people mocked him for never making it big and clipping coupons to Subway to live.

To me, that would be the best result for the OP that he can achieve. We all have limitations. Critizing someone for not being able to able exceed their limitations is just wrong. Ron Rivera, the coach of the Carolina Panthers tells the story of a game where Buddy Ryan, his defensive coach with the Chicago Bears, had him cover a great wide receiver and he was just crushed giving up multiple big plays. The Bears lost the game. When the team reviewed the game on Tuesday, Ryan cut out all the plays that Rivera was beat from the tape. He didn't blame Rivera for not being able to do what he wasn't physically able to do.

What are you talking about, OP can beat 10/20 and 200NL online.

Analysis on AK hand

Question: is it better to jam $500 on the river, or bet/fold $225 instead?

Answer: it is better to bet/fold $225 and it's not even close.

Analysis: Let's start by making some fairly reasonable assumptions about the villain. Many of these assumptions assume that the villain is loose-passive and assume that he arrives at the river with a fairly wide/fishy range, but the analysis becomes even clearer if we give him a nittier range.

We will say that villain calls a 3bet pre and arrives at the river with:
- All 4 combos of ATo
- All 4 combos of AJo
- All 3 combos of AQo
- 2 out of 3 combos of AKo (he will sometimes 4bet pre)
- 2 out of 3 combos of 22 (he will sometimes fold pre)
- All 8 combos of A2s-A9s
- All 3 combos of 99

In total, there's 26 combos in villain's range:
- 10 combos beat us
- 2 combos we chop with
- 14 combos we beat

So we can already see that a river value bet is super thin here. Almost half of villain's range beats us.

Now consider the fact that villain is slightly elastic. He might station me off with A3-AJ 80% of the time against a $225 river bet, but he might only station me off 60% of the time with those hands against a $500 river jam.

80% * 14 combos = 11.2 combos
60% * 14 combos = 8.4 combos

Consider also the fact that villain is bluff raising river basically 0% of the time. He always has a boat when he raises. We will also assume that villain never folds AK to any sized river bet.

Now, in order to justify a larger value bet as opposed to a smaller value bet, we need to ensure that we are getting called more often with hands that we beat than hands which we beat.

If we jam river, we get called by 8.4 combos we beat and we get called by 10 combos that we lose to, so that's bad.

If we bet $225, we get called by 11.2 combos that we beat and we get called by 10 combos that we lose to, so that's good.

You can see by these figures that a river bet is super thin as it is. By no means is it unreasonable to worry about being behind in this spot. But if we are going to make a thin value bet here, we need to ensure that we get called by weak Ax hands such as A7 at least 70% of the time, and against a $500 river jam, I'm not sure we do that.

To make matters even worse: we lose an additional $275 the times when we run into a boat and we jam river. So even though I've mathematically shown you that against a slightly elastic villain that never bluff raises river, it's better to make a smaller value bet here as opposed to a jam, the fact that we lose an additional $275 the times when we jam and are behind makes it crystal clear that jamming is -EV.

6b, just advice for next time: you can't just not weight the hands that we lose to as well. Yes, we lose to 10 combos but he's raising some of those combos prior to the river so he doesn't actually have 10 combos of those hands. You have to figure that A2 is raising flop a bunch, A9 sometimes-mostly always. All of his hands that beat you are also raising some % ott.

Summary: the bet isn't as thin as you're making it out to be.

WTF hand is he analyzing? I looked and can’t find it. If his analysis is correct, I will self-ban from thread.

Do you have to be a degen and/or terrible player to get people interested in your PGCs? Might have to get pished and blow my bankroll on blackjack

(But i'm a lucky bastard so i'd win at it probably)

Some erm, interesting hands there 6bet