(no subject)

[peterbirks]

Another two-hour delay. Sigh.

I nearly caught a cab back to the casino to play for another couple of hours.

Yesterday saw a horror pot. I reraised from the cut-off with Kh Kd and got six callers, including one player behind me, a Mexican-Indian, as far as I could see. 10.5 big bets in pot. Flop came Js Ts 3s. Checked to me. I bet, Mexican woman raises and small blind three-bets, called by the original raiser. I probably have one out here. Woman either has JT or 33, while reraiser either has a made flush or a draw to the nut flush with something like AT off. So, I fold.

But you can't play these games like you do proper games. Turn brings my one out of the King of clubs. Betting continues bet call call on turn and bet call call on river.

Mexican woman shows two pair, Jacks and Threes to win pot.

And, yes, I know that I should have called the extra two bets on the flop, even though I am facing another possible two bets. You just never know in these fucking games. WHy did I decide to "fold early, call late"? Stupid idea. But, well, this hand just shows how out of form and out of ideas I am in this kind of game. I played like a cunt throughout the fotnight, which was what depressed me most about the whole affair. That I still finished a fraction up ust shows how bad the opposition was.But, to be honest, I now just feel like giving up the live game. It's no fun unless you can chat with the occasional enjoyable opponent who isn't a moron.

The network conection here at the airport is very flaky. Last time I was here I worked out why and created a get-around, but I can't remember exactly what I did.

However, I can now claim to have been dealt a Royal Flush (two cards in hand) at the Bellagio, which is something I would imagine not many people can say.

Of course, if I had been dealt it at the Flamingo, it would have been worth $599....



Oh, and although I remembered the mains connector, I didn't remember the adaptor, so I'm only on battery power. That just about sums up the fortnight.


Let's post this while I'm still online...

Comments

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

Don't you win a tshirt or something for getting a royal? :)

[(Anonymous)]

Your fold of KK on the flop was absolutely correct as any rational analysis would conclude - as you did - that you probably have one out. The fact it came is irrelevant .. but of course you know all this crap anyway. Of course you shouldn't have called on the flop.

However overall from the fragments you posted you seemed to be playing very badly, yes. I think the problem is that online you are used to a tight logical style of play (even though the stakes may be lower) and all you're learned plays and reflexes are so conditioned to this that you've forgotten by now WHY they are appropriate and just seem like the right way to play. The problem is that when you have 7 or 8 players seeing the flop with almost random holdings and unable to assess the odds your style suddenly becomes way way sub-optimal. I'm sure you would have done better at a 30/60 Bellagio short-handed game because suddenly it would be all about value-betting bottom pair heads-up again and your style would be correct.

Every single post is complaining how terrible your opponents are playing. But you've forgotten that you WANT them to play terribly. The problem is that you're complaining about their play while rigidly sticking to your starting hands and strategies. You have to sink to their level to beat them. And you should be able to outplay them on the flop and turn.

The other recurring refrain is how few big pairs youre getting and that theure losing all the time. A pair is a very weak hand when 7 other donkeys are seeing the flop. Forget pairs!!! Theyre not going to win 8-handed pots. The looser the game the more suited 1-gaps & co you should be playing. You are going to need straights and flushes here. Of course still play pairs for set value but unlike a tight online environment your profits here are going to be coming from straights and flushes.

The absolute nadir was when you finally flopped a set a few days ago. You're an overly tight player (for those games) but you've finally hit paydirt. And you'll only flop a set one hand dealt in around 200 (assuming some small pairs get ditched). So now is the hand that really has to pay for all the other missed opportunities. So what do you? Not re-raise the flop and allow the turn to get checked round. So only one guy pays you off on river. You might as well just flush your money down the toilet.

If you are unwilling or unable to adjust to the changed conditions then start playing some 15/30+ when it will suddenly all make sense again. Your brain is too highly tuned for the low-stakes games.

matt

matt

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

Nah, he is always going to have more than 1 out. You can't assume another player has flopped a set everytime. That said, he still should fold, because a flush is a real possibility given the action post flop.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I tried not to moan about opponents' bad play because, of course I want them to play sub-optimally. I had myriad hands where players who played every hand beat me with donkey wins. If someone sees every flop, then they are contributing to every win you have, so you can afford to lose a few to them. I didn't mention any of these!

The one type of hand which is an exception is the multi-wayer where a player's awful decision not only costs him or herself money, but also costs me money.

I know that Caro has covered this point. He says that, next time round, this player's mistake is equally likely to benefit you and harm the other player.

However, I'm not sure that this is necessarily so. If it is one fish against many sharks then, yes, it is the case, but if it is three fish and one non-fish, then I suspect that the mistake made by one fish is more likely to benefit one of the other fish than it is to benefit the non-fish.

That's not particularly well-expressed (I'm just back home and about to collapse into bed), but I think that you can see what I mean. Take one hypothetical example. Complete donkey makes bet on river that is bound to be called. Complete fish then calls this with something quite staggeringly weak. Non-fish in third position then takes the standard line on this (that to make an overcall requires a better hand than to make a simple call) and folds his medium pair bad kicker. Fish number 1 turns over total bluff and fish number 2 turns over bottom pair, because fish number 2 hasn't thought anything when making the call. Non-fish in third spot, meanwhile, does do a bit of thinking, and cannot see how, by any rationall analysis, his hand is good.

And that's the point, the use of any rational analysis in these situations seems to be wrong. I failed to adapt to that.

Now, I still think that I shouldn't moan about these things either. I should just adapt to them. But it is one area that particularly riles me. If a player donks and wins as a result of donking, then fine. But if a player donks and loses as a result of that donking, and in the process fucks me up in the hand, then I get riled.

Silly, I know.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I think you'll find that I misplayed the set fairly early in my experiences at the Bellagio. I got rather more into the swing of things there later.

But, you are right. I'd probably feel much more at home at the short-handed higher limit tables. The problem is, the comfort zone.

I'll have to start thinking about all this, doing a bit of re-evaluation from the bottom up.

PJ

There was another option

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Peter,

There were two important factors in this situation that could have led to a different action on the flop after you were doubly raised. The first is the character of the game which was loose and mildly aggro. And the second was the size of the pot. Although there was the worrisome possibility that someone already had the nut flush and you could be drawing nearly dead, that is far from certain with those kind of players who could be overly aggressive with a variety of holdings there in a large pot trying to winnow the field.

So a valid option was to RERAISE and then bet out again on the turn and see what happened. The pot was too big preflop to make that tight of fold unless one of the raisers was the tightest at the table. If you had reraised and another non-helping card came on the turn and your turn bet didn't get raised, then you would have a better read on them as having just one pair and something like AsTo a lot of the time. Obviously if one of them is tricky and aggro enough to raise you again with a worse hand, you could have problems, but I still probably wouldn't fold then if I suspected that could be the case.

And to be sure, raising was a better option than merely calling, because with a pot that big you are the one who badly wants to thin the field at that point.

BluffTHIS!

Re: There was another option

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, since I was facing two more possible bets (from Mexican woman and from original reraiser) then I might as well four-bet it.

I would have thought that a five-bet was certain though. But, who knows against these people. I clearly don't.

PJ