![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's been a grinding week with, occasionally, some volatility thrown in. Both these hands raise interesting points.
In hand one, we have a situation where two regulars are aware of each other's ranges, and act accordingly.
$400 USD NL
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: The_eDude ( $515.85 USD )
Seat 2: Sharky_666 ( $784.65 USD )
Seat 3: Malek055 ( $170.20 USD )
Seat 4: Villain ( $406 USD )
Seat 5: Mayonnaise32 ( $551.60 USD )
Seat 6: Hero ( $396 USD )
Seat 7: XprSMusiC ( $227 USD )
Seat 8: CaliSquad92 ( $298.49 USD )
Seat 9: BKAlter ( $386 USD )
Seat 10: itteronja ( $570.24 USD )
Hero posts small blind [$2 USD].
XprSMusiC is sitting out
CaliSquad92 posts big blind [$4 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ A♣; A♡; ]
BKAlter folds
itteronja folds
The_eDude folds
Sharky_666 folds
Malek055 folds
Villain raises [$16 USD]
Villain's range here is rather wide, about 20% to 25% of all hands
Mayonnaise32 folds
Hero raises [$42 USD]
Because villain's range is wide, I'm going to be reraising with a significantly wider range than if villain had raised in early or raised an early limper. Say, 10% to 12% of hands. Villain is aware of this.
CaliSquad92 folds
Villain calls [$28 USD]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 6♡;, 5◊;, 8♡; ]
Hero bets [$86 USD]
This is a rag flop with drawing potential. I'm probably continuation betting 95% of hands here, so my range is still wide. Villain is aware of this
Villain is all-In [$362 USD]
Because villain knows I have a wide range, a shove has good fold equity. He can assume (correctly) that I will fold overcards and probably any underpair. He probably doesn't know what I will do with JJ or TT, but he has to guess that I will not lay down AA to QQ here. Surprisingly, QQ is, according to my stats, a fold in this situation. But since JJ comes out as a call, I'll make this a statistical freak. In fact I am calling here with any over pair, and also with a pair of sevens.
Hero is all-In [$266 USD]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 5♠ ]
** Dealing River ** [ 8♣; ]
Hero shows [ A♣;, A♡; ]two pairs, Aces and Eights.
Villain shows [ 9♣;, 6♣; ]two pairs, Eights and Sixes.
Hero wins $793 USD from the main pot with two pairs, Aces and Eights.
This hand occurred on another table a minute or so later
$400 USD NL
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Hero ( $412 USD )
Seat 2: Malek055 ( $174 USD )
Seat 3: Sharky_666 ( $447.40 USD )
Seat 4: Calling Station ( $323.20 USD )
Seat 5: Mayonnaise32 ( $400 USD )
Seat 6: Villain ( $429.85 USD )
Seat 7: BetForALivin ( $400 USD )
Seat 8: itteronja ( $448.90 USD )
Seat 9: XprSMusiC ( $62 USD )
Seat 10: The_eDude ( $617.09 USD )
Mayonnaise32 posts small blind [$2 USD].
Villain posts big blind [$4 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ 9♣; 9♡; ]
BetForALivin folds
itteronja folds
XprSMusiC folds
The_eDude folds
Hero raises [$12 USD]
As I have written before, these 3x raises are fine, provided you make enough correct fold and call decisions when opponent represents a flopped set. You are, in a sense, deliberately creating a difficult decision for yourself on the grounds that you make the right decision more often than you make a wrong one. This is just an extension of not raising all in preflop with Aces. You raise less, even though it might give you a tough decision on later streets, because you know that your profit margin is greater through raising a smaller amount.
Malek055 folds
Sharky_666 folds
Calling Station calls [$12 USD]
I didn't have any stats on this guy, which makes some of my later plays less than clever. I've defaulted the guy to a standard $400 weekend player, so I give him a range of any pair up to TT (with KK to JJ a possibility), any suited connector, "double gappers" (suited) from 86 upwards (perhaps 75s as well), and any suited royal flush draw, with the possible exception of KT
Mayonnaise32 folds
Villain folds
** Dealing Flop ** [ A♠, A♡;, 5◊; ]
Hero bets [$14 USD]
A standard CB from me these days is half the pot. Once again, the aim is to make more correct decisions on later streets than wrong ones, rather than to put in a bigger bet "to find out where you stand".
Calling Station calls [$14 USD]
Against most players online at $50 BI and up, this is a pair of Aces with a "not sure" kicker. Given my previous range assessment, I'm now putting the guy on ATs, AJs or AQs, possibly a slow-played set of fives. Stupidly, I'm allowing my "default" range assumption to act as if it's an "experienced" range assumption. This really is a bad mistake, and the bet on the turn is the biggest error.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 9♠ ]
One of my reasons for making a mistake here is that I had effectively given up on the hand on the flop once I was called. But now I've hit my two-outer and I know that I am a very big favourite. Opponent either has one out (if he has a set of fives) or three (if he has AT, AJ, AQ). Normally I would bet the pot here (say, with AK down to ATs), but now I decide to get sneaky. I think that another half-pot bet could well look like an attempt to get to a cheap showdown, thus eliciting a raise from AQ as well as from 55. Erroneously, this actually gives opponent implied odds to a three-outer.
Hero bets [$26 USD]
Calling Station calls [$26 USD]
** Dealing River ** [ 6♣; ]
And this is where I hang myself. I've made two big mistakes in this hand, which lead to the "big" mistake here. By that I mean that, if I hadn't made my earlier mistakes, there is nothing wrong with my action on the river. People look at the hand and see the error being the river play. In fact the seeds of the error (the real causes) were made earlier in the hand. My first mistake was to "give up" on the hand on the flop after I was called, rather than staying focused on the hand in case I hit my two-outer. This is the reverse error to thinking that you have a monster certain winner (say, AK on an AA5 board against a rock), only to be reraised with a massive all-in. Because you have headed down the "how can I maximise my winnings" route, you insta-call and, of course, you see 55). In this case, my "loser" becomes a "winner", but my lack of preparedness leads to a mis-sizing of my bet.
Hero bets [$52 USD]
Calling Station raises [$104 USD]
I'm still stuck in my assumption of 55 or AQ to AJ, with perhaps a misplayed AK
Hero is all-In [$308 USD]
in which case, I obviously shove (opponent has about $167 behind, so this is not as big an overbet as it looks.
Calling Station is all-In [$167.20 USD]
Calling Station cannot believe his luck.
Calling Station shows [ 6◊;, A◊; ]a full house, Aces full of Sixes.
Hero shows [ 9♣;, 9♡; ]a full house, Nines full of Aces.
Calling Station wins $648.90 USD from the main pot with a full house, Aces full of Sixes.
Now, if I bet the pot on the turn, Calling Station is probably going to fold (he wouldn't fold in a live game, but flat-calling the turn with anything less than AQ is just horrible. And flat-calling with AQ isn't very good). But what he is going to do is irrelevant. In fact, I want him to call, because he is not getting implied odds. A fold with A6 would be correct, while a call would be wrong. If he calls and stacks me off on the river, then so be it.
***LATER*** As Mr Young has pointed out, the last Ace and the fives are also "outs" for opponent, which makes my play even worse. However, as he also noted, these are not "hidden outs", and so the cost to me is not so great. Indeed, opponent calling for these outs, is only marginally plus EV. Doesn't affect the fact that I should bet significantly more on the turn.******
++++++++++++
I've slipped out of the manic phase and am heading into a bit of a depression. It was Jan's birthday yesterday, and I have never coped well with exclusion or rejection. This is all my problem. I am not the centre of the universe and I have to learn to cope with external realities over which I have no control. I'm certainly a great deal better at this now than I was a decade ago. But it still engenders a certain sadness and regret. So it goes.
But I also noticed less of a keenness to "get it in" while at the poker tables. If that leads me to playing a little bit too weak-tight at the $400 level (although the two hands above from last night would seem to appear that I'm perfectly happy to punt!) then I should drop back to $$200 and $100 (the levels at which I play during the week anyway).
I wrote just over a week or so ago thhat I had allocated three grand to "take a shot" at the higher levels. What I failed to point out at the time (and which I have not seen referenced elsewhere) is that there seems to be an implicit assumption that you will either spin it up or lose it.
But what about the (more likely?) outcome of neither winning nor losing? Suppose I play for a month and I'm where I started? If your expected win at a lower level is a couple of grand, then surely you have "lost" $2,000? Or suppose I play for three months and I have won no more than I would have expected to win at a lower level, but with higher volatility?
I don't know what the answer to that poser is. On the one hand, you could say that you should stay at the higher level, because you will eventually "master" that level and win correspondingly more. On the other hand, you could say: "Fuck this 'eventually'. Look at my win rate, volatility and blood pressure now. My ears are bleeding".
Let's face it, standard deviation at $400 BI is probably $600 every hundred hands, which is likely to come in at about $700+ an hour. That means that every one hour in a hundred you could be looking at a $2K+ loss. Am I ready to cope with that with equanimity (i.e., in a manner that will not affect my playing style)? Only, I suspect, when I am in a manic phase.
At $200, the standard deviation shrinks dramatically, because it's more of a nut-fest. Maybe $220 to $250 every hundred hands and $260 to $280 an hour. That gives you a 1-in-100 hourly loss of no more than $800, which is quite bearable.
______________
In hand one, we have a situation where two regulars are aware of each other's ranges, and act accordingly.
$400 USD NL
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: The_eDude ( $515.85 USD )
Seat 2: Sharky_666 ( $784.65 USD )
Seat 3: Malek055 ( $170.20 USD )
Seat 4: Villain ( $406 USD )
Seat 5: Mayonnaise32 ( $551.60 USD )
Seat 6: Hero ( $396 USD )
Seat 7: XprSMusiC ( $227 USD )
Seat 8: CaliSquad92 ( $298.49 USD )
Seat 9: BKAlter ( $386 USD )
Seat 10: itteronja ( $570.24 USD )
Hero posts small blind [$2 USD].
XprSMusiC is sitting out
CaliSquad92 posts big blind [$4 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ A♣; A♡; ]
BKAlter folds
itteronja folds
The_eDude folds
Sharky_666 folds
Malek055 folds
Villain raises [$16 USD]
Villain's range here is rather wide, about 20% to 25% of all hands
Mayonnaise32 folds
Hero raises [$42 USD]
Because villain's range is wide, I'm going to be reraising with a significantly wider range than if villain had raised in early or raised an early limper. Say, 10% to 12% of hands. Villain is aware of this.
CaliSquad92 folds
Villain calls [$28 USD]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 6♡;, 5◊;, 8♡; ]
Hero bets [$86 USD]
This is a rag flop with drawing potential. I'm probably continuation betting 95% of hands here, so my range is still wide. Villain is aware of this
Villain is all-In [$362 USD]
Because villain knows I have a wide range, a shove has good fold equity. He can assume (correctly) that I will fold overcards and probably any underpair. He probably doesn't know what I will do with JJ or TT, but he has to guess that I will not lay down AA to QQ here. Surprisingly, QQ is, according to my stats, a fold in this situation. But since JJ comes out as a call, I'll make this a statistical freak. In fact I am calling here with any over pair, and also with a pair of sevens.
Hero is all-In [$266 USD]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 5♠ ]
** Dealing River ** [ 8♣; ]
Hero shows [ A♣;, A♡; ]two pairs, Aces and Eights.
Villain shows [ 9♣;, 6♣; ]two pairs, Eights and Sixes.
Hero wins $793 USD from the main pot with two pairs, Aces and Eights.
This hand occurred on another table a minute or so later
$400 USD NL
Seat 4 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Hero ( $412 USD )
Seat 2: Malek055 ( $174 USD )
Seat 3: Sharky_666 ( $447.40 USD )
Seat 4: Calling Station ( $323.20 USD )
Seat 5: Mayonnaise32 ( $400 USD )
Seat 6: Villain ( $429.85 USD )
Seat 7: BetForALivin ( $400 USD )
Seat 8: itteronja ( $448.90 USD )
Seat 9: XprSMusiC ( $62 USD )
Seat 10: The_eDude ( $617.09 USD )
Mayonnaise32 posts small blind [$2 USD].
Villain posts big blind [$4 USD].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ 9♣; 9♡; ]
BetForALivin folds
itteronja folds
XprSMusiC folds
The_eDude folds
Hero raises [$12 USD]
As I have written before, these 3x raises are fine, provided you make enough correct fold and call decisions when opponent represents a flopped set. You are, in a sense, deliberately creating a difficult decision for yourself on the grounds that you make the right decision more often than you make a wrong one. This is just an extension of not raising all in preflop with Aces. You raise less, even though it might give you a tough decision on later streets, because you know that your profit margin is greater through raising a smaller amount.
Malek055 folds
Sharky_666 folds
Calling Station calls [$12 USD]
I didn't have any stats on this guy, which makes some of my later plays less than clever. I've defaulted the guy to a standard $400 weekend player, so I give him a range of any pair up to TT (with KK to JJ a possibility), any suited connector, "double gappers" (suited) from 86 upwards (perhaps 75s as well), and any suited royal flush draw, with the possible exception of KT
Mayonnaise32 folds
Villain folds
** Dealing Flop ** [ A♠, A♡;, 5◊; ]
Hero bets [$14 USD]
A standard CB from me these days is half the pot. Once again, the aim is to make more correct decisions on later streets than wrong ones, rather than to put in a bigger bet "to find out where you stand".
Calling Station calls [$14 USD]
Against most players online at $50 BI and up, this is a pair of Aces with a "not sure" kicker. Given my previous range assessment, I'm now putting the guy on ATs, AJs or AQs, possibly a slow-played set of fives. Stupidly, I'm allowing my "default" range assumption to act as if it's an "experienced" range assumption. This really is a bad mistake, and the bet on the turn is the biggest error.
** Dealing Turn ** [ 9♠ ]
One of my reasons for making a mistake here is that I had effectively given up on the hand on the flop once I was called. But now I've hit my two-outer and I know that I am a very big favourite. Opponent either has one out (if he has a set of fives) or three (if he has AT, AJ, AQ). Normally I would bet the pot here (say, with AK down to ATs), but now I decide to get sneaky. I think that another half-pot bet could well look like an attempt to get to a cheap showdown, thus eliciting a raise from AQ as well as from 55. Erroneously, this actually gives opponent implied odds to a three-outer.
Hero bets [$26 USD]
Calling Station calls [$26 USD]
** Dealing River ** [ 6♣; ]
And this is where I hang myself. I've made two big mistakes in this hand, which lead to the "big" mistake here. By that I mean that, if I hadn't made my earlier mistakes, there is nothing wrong with my action on the river. People look at the hand and see the error being the river play. In fact the seeds of the error (the real causes) were made earlier in the hand. My first mistake was to "give up" on the hand on the flop after I was called, rather than staying focused on the hand in case I hit my two-outer. This is the reverse error to thinking that you have a monster certain winner (say, AK on an AA5 board against a rock), only to be reraised with a massive all-in. Because you have headed down the "how can I maximise my winnings" route, you insta-call and, of course, you see 55). In this case, my "loser" becomes a "winner", but my lack of preparedness leads to a mis-sizing of my bet.
Hero bets [$52 USD]
Calling Station raises [$104 USD]
I'm still stuck in my assumption of 55 or AQ to AJ, with perhaps a misplayed AK
Hero is all-In [$308 USD]
in which case, I obviously shove (opponent has about $167 behind, so this is not as big an overbet as it looks.
Calling Station is all-In [$167.20 USD]
Calling Station cannot believe his luck.
Calling Station shows [ 6◊;, A◊; ]a full house, Aces full of Sixes.
Hero shows [ 9♣;, 9♡; ]a full house, Nines full of Aces.
Calling Station wins $648.90 USD from the main pot with a full house, Aces full of Sixes.
Now, if I bet the pot on the turn, Calling Station is probably going to fold (he wouldn't fold in a live game, but flat-calling the turn with anything less than AQ is just horrible. And flat-calling with AQ isn't very good). But what he is going to do is irrelevant. In fact, I want him to call, because he is not getting implied odds. A fold with A6 would be correct, while a call would be wrong. If he calls and stacks me off on the river, then so be it.
***LATER*** As Mr Young has pointed out, the last Ace and the fives are also "outs" for opponent, which makes my play even worse. However, as he also noted, these are not "hidden outs", and so the cost to me is not so great. Indeed, opponent calling for these outs, is only marginally plus EV. Doesn't affect the fact that I should bet significantly more on the turn.******
++++++++++++
I've slipped out of the manic phase and am heading into a bit of a depression. It was Jan's birthday yesterday, and I have never coped well with exclusion or rejection. This is all my problem. I am not the centre of the universe and I have to learn to cope with external realities over which I have no control. I'm certainly a great deal better at this now than I was a decade ago. But it still engenders a certain sadness and regret. So it goes.
But I also noticed less of a keenness to "get it in" while at the poker tables. If that leads me to playing a little bit too weak-tight at the $400 level (although the two hands above from last night would seem to appear that I'm perfectly happy to punt!) then I should drop back to $$200 and $100 (the levels at which I play during the week anyway).
I wrote just over a week or so ago thhat I had allocated three grand to "take a shot" at the higher levels. What I failed to point out at the time (and which I have not seen referenced elsewhere) is that there seems to be an implicit assumption that you will either spin it up or lose it.
But what about the (more likely?) outcome of neither winning nor losing? Suppose I play for a month and I'm where I started? If your expected win at a lower level is a couple of grand, then surely you have "lost" $2,000? Or suppose I play for three months and I have won no more than I would have expected to win at a lower level, but with higher volatility?
I don't know what the answer to that poser is. On the one hand, you could say that you should stay at the higher level, because you will eventually "master" that level and win correspondingly more. On the other hand, you could say: "Fuck this 'eventually'. Look at my win rate, volatility and blood pressure now. My ears are bleeding".
Let's face it, standard deviation at $400 BI is probably $600 every hundred hands, which is likely to come in at about $700+ an hour. That means that every one hour in a hundred you could be looking at a $2K+ loss. Am I ready to cope with that with equanimity (i.e., in a manner that will not affect my playing style)? Only, I suspect, when I am in a manic phase.
At $200, the standard deviation shrinks dramatically, because it's more of a nut-fest. Maybe $220 to $250 every hundred hands and $260 to $280 an hour. That gives you a 1-in-100 hourly loss of no more than $800, which is quite bearable.
______________
