Let's see how bad I garble this. Is it wrong to correlate my risk tolerance with my skill level? When it comes to investing, I think of two different people. There's the guy that happily invests in bonds. His return is smaller than what he could get in the stock market. But that return is assured (I know inflation and all that, bear with me) where playing the stock market comes with no guarantees. Then there's the guy that invests in stocks that could yield a very high return. He feels confident that he can analyze the industry and what the prospects are.

Which brings me to poker. Yeah I've got the basics down. But things like thin value, being OOP (especially MW), and trusting my reads are uncomfortable. I've bet TPTK 3 streets with confidence and won because I've seen V call down numerous times with TPWK. But there have been many times that I've shied away from a marginal hand that could be best. There are times I'm watching a hand play out and I can predict the action and range at showdown with great accuracy. Then there are the times I completely whiff.

I'm not saying that I just want to get it in AA vs 72. But if I'm in a situation as a favorite 53% of the time, I could play that situation a thousand times and realistically be break even or worse. Obviously I want the times I win to be big pots and the times I lose to be small pots. It just seems that the margin for error isn't worth it considering my skill level.

Elaborate on this?

Cash or MTTs?

Take SC for instance. OTF I've got 3 to a straight/flush. OTT about a 1/3 of the time I will hit a draw. So I feel like I'm just playing Bingo. I keep reading about developing post flop skills to outplay your opponents. It just seems to me that at the stakes (1/2) and environment (no fold'em home game, high aggression) outplaying means have "fat" value or get out.

Trying not to have MUBSY but OTT or OTR, MW (or even HU) even IP when the board is 2/3 out of 3 (paired, flushed, straightened) my player/hand reading skills are lacking to play less than the nuts/near nuts confidently.

"There are situations where there is a slight gain to be had, but only at the cost of much risk. One example would be a big move in when you flop a flush draw. The alternate play of just calling is rarely clearly worse." -Sklansky TOPATNLH this example takes skill out of it since Hero is all in. I'd rather be the guy AI, even though the risk may be greater.

With FDs I will bet/raise them if I think my opponent has a fold button. Otherwise I will check/call for my implied odds (as they don't have a fold button so will pay me off when I hit).

Turning the question around; how many small edges can you give up to reduce variance before you have no edge left?

IMO, as you get better, you become more comfortable with thin value, reads and playing OOP. Some take longer than others...I still don't do thin spots well. Best thing to do is find a spot that makes you uncomfortable and force yourself to play it differently than you normally would.

I was meaning elaborate on your skill level - do you think you're way below your opponents, in which case taking any edge is critical and you may as well increase variance, or do you think you're way ahead of your opponents?

I think this is relevant to what you're asking. In general, you want to put yourself in positions to succeed. So, if there are hands that you should play/continue with based on GTO in certain situations, but that you feel uncomfortable playing, it can be smart to get away from them. You don't want to do this so much that you become easily exploitable, but do your best to get into spots in which you feel most confident.

Sorry for late reply, caught the flu.

I think that I have a better understanding of the basics than most of my opponents. I struggle to construct a range for the players in the hand with me. This isn't helped by how wide they call and how often the pots go 5+.

Just read an interview with Ari Engel. "...all of these things are problems with playing weak hands. You get in to these questionable middle ground spots. Good players don't try to avoid these questionable spots. They just try and get better at maneuvering through these questionable spots.". Maybe its just a case of hitting a plateau and having to push through.

At some stage in your poker life - and you may be at that stage now - you realize that poker is a game with vanishingly small edges, and very high variance. How you cope with those small edges and high variance will dictate how you play the game, and/or for how long. With today's tougher games and lower winrates, risk-aversion is not a particularly useful trait. You kind of have to take the "thin" spots just to break even.
In other words, you can't just be a nit and print money in 2019 in the same way that you could in 2009. Unless you're in a very soft game, you have to fight for pots.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...g-1748783-new/

Is this the kind of situation that you speak of? Even the established posters disagree on the correct play. I know that at some point you "have to play poker". In the above example let's say I call, V cbets, I fold & get pissed off at myself for donating $45.

While the above example might be at the extreme it illustrates the kinds of situations that I'm completely lost in.

Maybe it's just the games I have access to at the moment. When I read some posts or articles describing low stakes I shake my head. There are quite a few players in my game that aren't passive fish with no clue about ranges, odds, equity, etc. There are a few loose passives/players that will bet/call three streets with TP. But mostly my games consist of high aggression with players that will bluff.

Maybe it's just as simple as you stated and I need to accept the variance. For example I adjust my opening size but instead of a "sweet spot" that gets me to the flop HU or 3 way it's more like a light switch. Either we are going 5 ways to the flop or the table folds and I make $3 with JJ.