![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksOne could, of course, call it Sodd's Law, but it seems inevitable that bad runs strike when you move up in stakes.
Another $400 lost this evening, making me about $600 down since Sunday. It's hard to be "happy" about losing $400, no matter how inconsequential it is in the grand scheme of things. And I'm not. I'm pissed off. But at least this evening I can console myself that, even if I am not good enough, I am not THAT bad.
What do I do with these hands. Should I fold them, or am I right to stay to the end, even though I think that I am losing?
Hand A: I get JT of diamonds in seat 7. Two limpers before me. I limp. Button raises, BB calls and two original limpers call. Flop comes 7D 8D 9S, giving me flopped straight and four-card straight-flush draw. Checked round to the button who obligingly bets. Two callers. I raise. All three call.
Turn brings six of diamonds. Checked to me. I bet, button calls, one of the original limpers raises. Do I call? Already a $130-odd pot. I call with a heavy heart. River is ten of spades. Limper bets, I call. He shows King-three of diamonds for a higher flush.
Hand B: I get KK in seat four. I raise and only the BB calls. Flop comes AQ4 rainbow. Check to me. I bet, BB calls. Turn is another Queen. Check to me. Do I bet? I decide not to. I think that if I am winning, I am unlikely to be giving much away, while if I am losing, I am saving a bet and I might elucidate a bluff. Turn is garbage. BB bets. I call. He shows QT off.
Hand C: QQ in late. All folded to me. I raise. Am called in BB. Flop is J73 two spades. Check to me, I bet. Turn is another Jack. Check to me. Same scenario as before, except that he might be on a flush draw. So I bet. He calls. River is another Seven. He bets. I call. He shows 97 of spades for a small full house.
Hand D: KQs in late. Two limpers. I raise. Call from BB and the two limpers. Flop is KQ2, two spades. Check to me, I bet, call from BB, one call one fold from limpers. Turn is small diamond. Check to me, I bet. Two callers. River is a spade. Bet from BB. I call. He shows A7 of spades for the flush.
All of them were reasonably-sized pots and I lost the lot. In 220 hands I VPIP'd 19% of the time and managed to win a hand 20% of the time that I saw a flop. My win% at showdown was 30%. Awful. And that doesn't even mention the raising hands I had like AK where the flop promptly came Jxx all the same suit and, yes, not mine.
I walked away from battles, resisting the temptation to think that I was being robbed. But this meant that I folded a hell of a lot of hands on the turn. Was I being raise-bluffed a la Simon Galloway? Quite possibly, but since I couldn't hit a flop to save my life, there was no way I could find out. I tried a reraise once (with middle pair and just one overcard) but was promptly reraised back. Once again, I walked away.
In a sense I have to wonder whether in this case I know myself better than others do. I might be good enough to win at this level, but I don't know that I am mentally strong enough.
On the other hand, just because following others' advice has made me miserable, that does not make the advice wrong. Although a $600 loss in three days is in excess of anything I have lost previously, I have been here before. Except that it was $2-$4 and the loss was a then unparalleled $200.
As Aksu said, if I can't learn to treat $1000 as an unimportant amount, then I will never be able to win at a level above $2-$4. And, in the grand scheme of things, a grand is an unimportant amount.
There have definitely been situations where I have been laying down hands on the turn that I have a nagging feeling I should be reraising with. After years of experience at a lower level, you get to know what is the right or wrong move in a given situation, but at a higher level, that might not be the right move. For once it might be nice to have an experienced player at this level looking over my shoulder. Should I just follow the lower-level strategy and see what happens, or should I try to change my style straight away? Because I can see that JUST playing as I played at the lower level will not work. You get reraised more often, and fewer players are willing to lie down and die when you bash a bet at them on the flop. Therefore you need some new strategies. This goes beyond a check-raise bluff on the turn. In a general sense, you need to make more marginal judgements of hands.
The problem with this is that it can take a long time before you know whether your marginal judgements are right, too conservative, or too reckless. I have to keep trying. But if the loss reaches $1500, I really don't know that I will have the confidence to go on.
Part of this is that I am racked with self-doubt. It permeates my very bones. This is not a good character trait for a poker player. Indeed, if I had to compare myself with any sportsman, it would be with Geff Boycott. I have no great natural talent for the game of poker, but I am willing to work hard at it. And I have worked hard at it. But it makes things difficult when situations like this arise.
And knowing that I've been getting bad breaks doesn't stop me cursing the screen (but at least I haven't been cursing myself this evening, which is a step forward) when I miss yet another flop. I mean, is to TOO much to ask to be lucky when you move up in stakes? Just the once?
Have crawled back to $330 down since I started typing this.
Another $400 lost this evening, making me about $600 down since Sunday. It's hard to be "happy" about losing $400, no matter how inconsequential it is in the grand scheme of things. And I'm not. I'm pissed off. But at least this evening I can console myself that, even if I am not good enough, I am not THAT bad.
What do I do with these hands. Should I fold them, or am I right to stay to the end, even though I think that I am losing?
Hand A: I get JT of diamonds in seat 7. Two limpers before me. I limp. Button raises, BB calls and two original limpers call. Flop comes 7D 8D 9S, giving me flopped straight and four-card straight-flush draw. Checked round to the button who obligingly bets. Two callers. I raise. All three call.
Turn brings six of diamonds. Checked to me. I bet, button calls, one of the original limpers raises. Do I call? Already a $130-odd pot. I call with a heavy heart. River is ten of spades. Limper bets, I call. He shows King-three of diamonds for a higher flush.
Hand B: I get KK in seat four. I raise and only the BB calls. Flop comes AQ4 rainbow. Check to me. I bet, BB calls. Turn is another Queen. Check to me. Do I bet? I decide not to. I think that if I am winning, I am unlikely to be giving much away, while if I am losing, I am saving a bet and I might elucidate a bluff. Turn is garbage. BB bets. I call. He shows QT off.
Hand C: QQ in late. All folded to me. I raise. Am called in BB. Flop is J73 two spades. Check to me, I bet. Turn is another Jack. Check to me. Same scenario as before, except that he might be on a flush draw. So I bet. He calls. River is another Seven. He bets. I call. He shows 97 of spades for a small full house.
Hand D: KQs in late. Two limpers. I raise. Call from BB and the two limpers. Flop is KQ2, two spades. Check to me, I bet, call from BB, one call one fold from limpers. Turn is small diamond. Check to me, I bet. Two callers. River is a spade. Bet from BB. I call. He shows A7 of spades for the flush.
All of them were reasonably-sized pots and I lost the lot. In 220 hands I VPIP'd 19% of the time and managed to win a hand 20% of the time that I saw a flop. My win% at showdown was 30%. Awful. And that doesn't even mention the raising hands I had like AK where the flop promptly came Jxx all the same suit and, yes, not mine.
I walked away from battles, resisting the temptation to think that I was being robbed. But this meant that I folded a hell of a lot of hands on the turn. Was I being raise-bluffed a la Simon Galloway? Quite possibly, but since I couldn't hit a flop to save my life, there was no way I could find out. I tried a reraise once (with middle pair and just one overcard) but was promptly reraised back. Once again, I walked away.
In a sense I have to wonder whether in this case I know myself better than others do. I might be good enough to win at this level, but I don't know that I am mentally strong enough.
On the other hand, just because following others' advice has made me miserable, that does not make the advice wrong. Although a $600 loss in three days is in excess of anything I have lost previously, I have been here before. Except that it was $2-$4 and the loss was a then unparalleled $200.
As Aksu said, if I can't learn to treat $1000 as an unimportant amount, then I will never be able to win at a level above $2-$4. And, in the grand scheme of things, a grand is an unimportant amount.
There have definitely been situations where I have been laying down hands on the turn that I have a nagging feeling I should be reraising with. After years of experience at a lower level, you get to know what is the right or wrong move in a given situation, but at a higher level, that might not be the right move. For once it might be nice to have an experienced player at this level looking over my shoulder. Should I just follow the lower-level strategy and see what happens, or should I try to change my style straight away? Because I can see that JUST playing as I played at the lower level will not work. You get reraised more often, and fewer players are willing to lie down and die when you bash a bet at them on the flop. Therefore you need some new strategies. This goes beyond a check-raise bluff on the turn. In a general sense, you need to make more marginal judgements of hands.
The problem with this is that it can take a long time before you know whether your marginal judgements are right, too conservative, or too reckless. I have to keep trying. But if the loss reaches $1500, I really don't know that I will have the confidence to go on.
Part of this is that I am racked with self-doubt. It permeates my very bones. This is not a good character trait for a poker player. Indeed, if I had to compare myself with any sportsman, it would be with Geff Boycott. I have no great natural talent for the game of poker, but I am willing to work hard at it. And I have worked hard at it. But it makes things difficult when situations like this arise.
And knowing that I've been getting bad breaks doesn't stop me cursing the screen (but at least I haven't been cursing myself this evening, which is a step forward) when I miss yet another flop. I mean, is to TOO much to ask to be lucky when you move up in stakes? Just the once?
Have crawled back to $330 down since I started typing this.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-05 10:00 am (UTC)I'm not too happy commenting at any depth on limit because I don't play it, but (at least some of) these are exactly the types of situation that I fear: by the time the protagonists' hands are defined, the structure gives both players odds to see it through. And that can get expensive.
In no-limit, I'd think that some of these situations either wouldn't occur because pot odds could be denied and the other guy mucks or he would be staying in the hand incorrectly.
What I am sure about is that if you're having negative feelings at the table then you're not playing your game. In that case you're rapidly going to reinforce the negativity and losing - or failing to win - becomes inevitable. Without a textbook definition to hand I can't be sure, but I'd say you're in, or perilously close to tilt. Which is a condition not to be rectified where you are. Go to a different game, site, structure, level, bar, restaurant, street, bridge (maybe not that one) - whatever gets your head back in "A" game space.
Yes, change perspective
Date: 2005-05-05 12:27 pm (UTC)Re: Yes, change perspective
Date: 2005-05-05 12:54 pm (UTC)But failing to maximise winnings has to be expected at a new level, because you are not in "the zone" of the way other people play (in specific instances) or tend to play at this level. So I misjudged the potential aggression of a couple of players (I expected them to be more aggressive than they were) and misjudged the potential "stickiness" of a player when I flopped 855 to my 88 (I raised pre-flop). I bet, fully expecting a raise, and the bastard folded.
So, what was happening was that I was winning small pots and losing big ones, when even I can work out that it should be the other way round.
I never have a full-on reckless "raise like a nutter and call when I shouldn't" type of tilt, but you definitely slip into a non-A game. Since limit is all about small edges and single bets here and there, a non-A game is a recipe for a death by a thousand cuts.
In other words, I reckon that I would have lost $200 last night, even if I didn't make a single mistake. Of the other $230, I rekcon that half was down to my lack of experience at this level and half was down to my sub-par play at any level.
Another day brings a calmer perspective and, in fact, I was quite calm last night. I went to bed and fell straight to sleep, rather than worrying about things. This is the benefit of the decent-sized bankroll. You can get things into perspective an awful lot quicker.
But, and I think I should make this clear, the $5-$10 game is a lot tougher because the other players make fewer mistakes. This means that you have to make sure that when they do make a mistake, you exploit it to the full. Perhaps they just make different mistakes. Or perhaps there are a greater proportion of "tough" games and a smaller proportion of soft ones.
Re: Yes, change perspective
Date: 2005-05-05 04:12 pm (UTC)Been there, done that, nearly designed a t-shirt but lost confidence.
I've been writing up my understanding of the "condition" for the purposes of my own elucidation if nothing else. I may blog it if it stands up to a re-read.
FWIW, I reckon "negative tilt" is just "tilt", at least in the sense that you're off-balance, out-of-kilter, wobbling in some way. This defines it this way:
"Playing a hand (or several hands) in an incorrect manner due to emotional turmoil. Generally caused by one or more '[bad] beats.'"
My attempt went like this:
"A change in a player’s mental, physical or emotional state that causes play to deteriorate to such an extent that a noticeable adverse impact on the players’ wealth is experienced."
Thinking about your issues in the bigger game, all of the reverses are within the range of shit that happens. Had you in fact got into the game and won all those hands (which is at least as likely as what actually happened), how would you now be feeling? If those reverses had happened at $2-$4, would you be angsting? Of course, the swing would have been 60% smaller, which would be a comfort...
Is there any mileage in considering that in all the cases cited your play (to these no-limit eyes at least) seems sensible at the very worst.
Having typed all that, my personal plan of action when I realised I was playing scared (a condition either brought on or exacerbated by the BPO qualifier) was to consciously move my playing style to "rock" and grind out some small wins at Party low stakes tables, taking the reduction in hands to look for chances to make moves which when executed successfully, started naturally to raise the aggresso-meter back to the point where I was pulling off flop-turn continuation combos and seeing them work.
I still sense that my play's a little tentative but I'm far closer to the game that was piling on the bucks (relatively speaking) earlier this year.
What's the softest game you know, irrespective of stakes? If you're not there, get there. Crush them.
Re: Yes, change perspective
Date: 2005-05-06 12:16 am (UTC)Keep the focus on the game, try not think so much about the results. Of course you know this. But what about trying to not look the results at all for a week. HHs will be there and you can summarise everything later with a bit more meaningfull samplesize. You need a comfortable tank for this of course.
just an idea
Aksu