![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksA couple of hands, and an example of two parts of Poker.
The first is something that I have mentioned before; that poker is a game of not making mistakes rather than of briliance, which is why NL is dangerous for me, because I freely admit that I am prone to occasional horrific lapses. And these are more expensive in NL than they are in Limit.
The second is something which I didn't think that I was vulnerable to, but maybe I am. So I shall have to keep my eye open for it. It's the famed "winner's tilt".
HOLD'EM POT LIMIT ($0.25/$0.50) - 2007/05/28 - 02:48:04 (ET)
9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Pizzzzeanut ($19.45 in chips)
Seat 2: vialli99 ($30.50 in chips)
Seat 4: TYDL-TKL ($83.10 in chips)
Seat 5: bjarteflem ($26.75 in chips)
Seat 6: KrazedAAce ($57.30 in chips)
Seat 7: azngetto77 ($42.10 in chips)
Seat 8: cwr2 ($53.80 in chips)
Seat 9: Hero ($56.15 in chips)
KrazedAAce: posts small blind $0.25
azngetto77: posts big blind $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [7♣ 7♠]
cwr2: folds
Hero: raises $1.25 to $1.75
At this level, the game is fairly passive. If there was a good chance of me being reraised, I'd throw this away most of the time.
Pizzzzeanut: folds
vialli99: folds
TYDL-TKL: calls $1.75
bjarteflem: folds
KrazedAAce: folds
azngetto77: folds
*** FLOP *** [7♡ T◊ 3♣]
Hero: bets $1.50
A weak lead to hint that I've got something like AK and have missed.
TYDL-TKL: raises $7.05 to $8.55
Hero: calls $7.05
A reraise here would rather defeat the image created by the weak lead. Let him think that I'm chasing my A or K
*** TURN *** [7♡ T◊ 3♣] [5◊]
Hero: bets $3
Well, it worked last time.
TYDL-TKL: raises $3 to $6
Hero: raises $3 to $9
I'd rather hoped that he would raise more. It's beginning to look unlikely to me that I'm going to be able to get all my money in now. But I can't see him folding to a mini-reraise. If he raises me back, then I'll probably punt an all-in.
TYDL-TKL: calls $3
Oh well. Never mind.
*** RIVER *** [7♡ T◊ 3♣ 5◊] [6♣]
Hero: bets $20
This leaves me with $16 behind. Perhaps I could have bet $25 here. If the guy has a pair of 4s I'm fucked, of course, but that's seeing shadows. He might have a pair of sixes.
TYDL-TKL: calls $20
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Hero: shows [7♣ 7♠] (three of a kind, Sevens)
TYDL-TKL: mucks hand
Hero collected $76.35 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $79.35 | Rake $3
Board [7♡ T◊ 3♣ 5◊ 6♣]
Seat 4: TYDL-TKL mucked [T♠ Q◊]
Seat 9: Hero showed [7♣ 7♠] and won ($76.35) with three of a kind, Sevens.
I thought that I got about as much as I could out of the guy, given his hand. But I still look at it as $16 that I failed to win. But would anything larger have meant me losing my customer? It's easy to say "No! These people always call". But we don't know that. We just see the times that they call the big bets. Not the times that they fold.
Anyhow, within seconds (unfortunately, for me), this hand came up at another table.
HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($0.25/$0.50) - 2007/05/28 - 02:49:47 (ET)
9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: kmar1085 ($134.85 in chips)
Seat 2: yome ($19.25 in chips)
Seat 4: Noecrusoe77 ($12.30 in chips)
Seat 5: paservant ($91.95 in chips)
Seat 6: [M69] ($55 in chips)
Seat 7: hoppy ($48.45 in chips)
Seat 8: Matt98568 ($56.30 in chips)
Seat 9: Hero ($35.90 in chips)
Noecrusoe77: posts small blind $0.25
paservant: posts big blind $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [A♠ Q♣]
[M69]: calls $0.50
hoppy: folds
Matt98568: folds
Hero: raises $1.75 to $2.25
kmar1085: folds
yome: folds
Noecrusoe77: folds
paservant: calls $1.75
[M69]: calls $1.75
I'd rather have one opponent than two with this kind of hand, and an AK is not ruled out opposite me. I should really play this cagily.
*** FLOP *** [Q◊ 2♣ T♣]
paservant: checks
[M69]: checks
Hero: bets $5
I decide on a standard continuation. I still have my doubts about this. I'm building a big pot when, with TPTK, I don't really want a big pot. Than again, on this board, I think that my $5 will probably take it down. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
paservant: calls $5
[M69]: folds
*** TURN *** [Q◊ 2♣ T♣] [9♣]
paservant: checks
Hero: bets $28.65 and is all-in
dreadful
paservant: calls $28.65
*** RIVER *** [Q◊ 2♣ T♣ 9♣] [2◊]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
paservant: shows [A♣ 7♣] (a flush, Ace high)
Hero: mucks hand
paservant collected $71.30 from pot
yome said, "nh"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $74.30 | Rake $3
Board [Q◊ 2♣ T♣ 9♣ 2◊]
Seat 5: paservant (big blind) showed [A♣ 7♣] and won ($71.30) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 9: Hero mucked [A♠ Q♣]
What was going through my head? I don't know. Winner's tilt, pure and simple. The call on the flop indicates a chase. A club comes. Perhaps I thought that he would have led out with the flush, but that ain't necessarily so (as this hand shows).
On the plus side, when I replayed the hand, I realized that my mistake didn't cost me as much as I thought it did. To check behind here is ridiculously wimpish, but even if I do, I'm obliging myself to make a crying call for a modest river bet. If I bet here (which is what I would normally do), it's got to be something like $10, and then I fold to the reraise. So, net cost, about $17. Not worth the annoyance that I felt with myself at the time, given that it was probably a valuable lesson learnt
The first is something that I have mentioned before; that poker is a game of not making mistakes rather than of briliance, which is why NL is dangerous for me, because I freely admit that I am prone to occasional horrific lapses. And these are more expensive in NL than they are in Limit.
The second is something which I didn't think that I was vulnerable to, but maybe I am. So I shall have to keep my eye open for it. It's the famed "winner's tilt".
HOLD'EM POT LIMIT ($0.25/$0.50) - 2007/05/28 - 02:48:04 (ET)
9-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Pizzzzeanut ($19.45 in chips)
Seat 2: vialli99 ($30.50 in chips)
Seat 4: TYDL-TKL ($83.10 in chips)
Seat 5: bjarteflem ($26.75 in chips)
Seat 6: KrazedAAce ($57.30 in chips)
Seat 7: azngetto77 ($42.10 in chips)
Seat 8: cwr2 ($53.80 in chips)
Seat 9: Hero ($56.15 in chips)
KrazedAAce: posts small blind $0.25
azngetto77: posts big blind $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [7♣ 7♠]
cwr2: folds
Hero: raises $1.25 to $1.75
At this level, the game is fairly passive. If there was a good chance of me being reraised, I'd throw this away most of the time.
Pizzzzeanut: folds
vialli99: folds
TYDL-TKL: calls $1.75
bjarteflem: folds
KrazedAAce: folds
azngetto77: folds
*** FLOP *** [7♡ T◊ 3♣]
Hero: bets $1.50
A weak lead to hint that I've got something like AK and have missed.
TYDL-TKL: raises $7.05 to $8.55
Hero: calls $7.05
A reraise here would rather defeat the image created by the weak lead. Let him think that I'm chasing my A or K
*** TURN *** [7♡ T◊ 3♣] [5◊]
Hero: bets $3
Well, it worked last time.
TYDL-TKL: raises $3 to $6
Hero: raises $3 to $9
I'd rather hoped that he would raise more. It's beginning to look unlikely to me that I'm going to be able to get all my money in now. But I can't see him folding to a mini-reraise. If he raises me back, then I'll probably punt an all-in.
TYDL-TKL: calls $3
Oh well. Never mind.
*** RIVER *** [7♡ T◊ 3♣ 5◊] [6♣]
Hero: bets $20
This leaves me with $16 behind. Perhaps I could have bet $25 here. If the guy has a pair of 4s I'm fucked, of course, but that's seeing shadows. He might have a pair of sixes.
TYDL-TKL: calls $20
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Hero: shows [7♣ 7♠] (three of a kind, Sevens)
TYDL-TKL: mucks hand
Hero collected $76.35 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $79.35 | Rake $3
Board [7♡ T◊ 3♣ 5◊ 6♣]
Seat 4: TYDL-TKL mucked [T♠ Q◊]
Seat 9: Hero showed [7♣ 7♠] and won ($76.35) with three of a kind, Sevens.
I thought that I got about as much as I could out of the guy, given his hand. But I still look at it as $16 that I failed to win. But would anything larger have meant me losing my customer? It's easy to say "No! These people always call". But we don't know that. We just see the times that they call the big bets. Not the times that they fold.
Anyhow, within seconds (unfortunately, for me), this hand came up at another table.
HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($0.25/$0.50) - 2007/05/28 - 02:49:47 (ET)
9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: kmar1085 ($134.85 in chips)
Seat 2: yome ($19.25 in chips)
Seat 4: Noecrusoe77 ($12.30 in chips)
Seat 5: paservant ($91.95 in chips)
Seat 6: [M69] ($55 in chips)
Seat 7: hoppy ($48.45 in chips)
Seat 8: Matt98568 ($56.30 in chips)
Seat 9: Hero ($35.90 in chips)
Noecrusoe77: posts small blind $0.25
paservant: posts big blind $0.50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [A♠ Q♣]
[M69]: calls $0.50
hoppy: folds
Matt98568: folds
Hero: raises $1.75 to $2.25
kmar1085: folds
yome: folds
Noecrusoe77: folds
paservant: calls $1.75
[M69]: calls $1.75
I'd rather have one opponent than two with this kind of hand, and an AK is not ruled out opposite me. I should really play this cagily.
*** FLOP *** [Q◊ 2♣ T♣]
paservant: checks
[M69]: checks
Hero: bets $5
I decide on a standard continuation. I still have my doubts about this. I'm building a big pot when, with TPTK, I don't really want a big pot. Than again, on this board, I think that my $5 will probably take it down. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
paservant: calls $5
[M69]: folds
*** TURN *** [Q◊ 2♣ T♣] [9♣]
paservant: checks
Hero: bets $28.65 and is all-in
dreadful
paservant: calls $28.65
*** RIVER *** [Q◊ 2♣ T♣ 9♣] [2◊]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
paservant: shows [A♣ 7♣] (a flush, Ace high)
Hero: mucks hand
paservant collected $71.30 from pot
yome said, "nh"
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $74.30 | Rake $3
Board [Q◊ 2♣ T♣ 9♣ 2◊]
Seat 5: paservant (big blind) showed [A♣ 7♣] and won ($71.30) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 9: Hero mucked [A♠ Q♣]
What was going through my head? I don't know. Winner's tilt, pure and simple. The call on the flop indicates a chase. A club comes. Perhaps I thought that he would have led out with the flush, but that ain't necessarily so (as this hand shows).
On the plus side, when I replayed the hand, I realized that my mistake didn't cost me as much as I thought it did. To check behind here is ridiculously wimpish, but even if I do, I'm obliging myself to make a crying call for a modest river bet. If I bet here (which is what I would normally do), it's got to be something like $10, and then I fold to the reraise. So, net cost, about $17. Not worth the annoyance that I felt with myself at the time, given that it was probably a valuable lesson learnt
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-28 06:51 pm (UTC)Reducing the impact of mistakes
Date: 2007-05-29 09:15 am (UTC)That way, the cost of an error is reduced. I'm playing .50/1 NL, buying in for $20, and moving to another table when I get up to $60. Part of this is to play tight for two rounds, then switching gear a bit to cash in on the image.
Generally, that seems to work for me. My "losing-est" hand is JJ which keeps running into the 3 bigger pairs, so my "rushes of blood" are costing me less than variance is.
Re: Reducing the impact of mistakes
Date: 2007-05-29 11:36 am (UTC)There are definitely some players who can make a short stack work, and I think it's a matter of temperament.
Personally, I love three or four minimum buy-in players at my table, rather than eight people who are caked up. It seems to make the game far easier to play. Short stacks sitting in the two seats to your left is the ideal.
If I were playing a minimum buy-in strategy, it would be fifty bucks at a 200 buy-in. But I'm not, so I won't.
If you are buying in for $20, why not do it in a game where the blinds are smaller? Presumably because you prefer playing opponents with more cash at the table than you. I tend to like it the other way round.
PJ
Re: Reducing the impact of mistakes
Date: 2007-05-29 04:14 pm (UTC)I used to try max buyins (when bonus-clearing), but was generally a losing player. Then I reread Ace on the River recently.
Barry says that one of the advantages of minimum buy-ins is that you play a bigger stack when you are playing well, and reduce your risk of loss. That appears to work for me. My problem is stacking off on a bluff. Small buyins have worked for me recently, and you were complaining about a similar problem.
One thing I've noticed is that guidelines for short-stacked play tends to get overlooked. Value of blind stealing goes way up, big cards go up, position seems to be more important, but my library at least doesn't really discuss the adjustments in detail.
Re: Reducing the impact of mistakes
Date: 2007-05-29 05:58 pm (UTC)I did point out in an earlier post that, if a short-stacked player gets reduced to half his buy-in, then it was mathematically correct for him to go all-in with far weaker hands than these players tend to.
The problem with the value of blind-stealing going up is that, in my experience, thelikelihood of it succeeding for a small stack goes down. I'm sure that I win a number of pots with my continuation bets because I have ammunition behind. If I am short-stacked, the second barrel is likely to be all I have left.
PJ