![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksAfter a player has had a losing session, or a series of them, it's common, if he's at least vaguely competent, for him to go back over his game and to look for "leaks" — parts of his game that are consistently costing him money. Sometimes these are tactical — incorrect play in situations that crop up again and again. Perhaps a play that worked at one level or on one site was negative EV on another. Sometimes these are strategic. Too much watching TV, surfing the web, or other distractions. Or poor game selection.
But what happens if he can't find any leaks? Well, one answer could be that he is just being generally outplayed, and it's time to look for another game at another level. But another answer could be that he is looking for leaks in the wrong place.
As Caro has pointed out, a dollar that you don't lose is worth just as much as a dollar that you win. What he should also emphasize is that a dollar that you fail to win costs you just as much as a dollar that you do lose. In other words, it's just as important to look for leaks in your game when you are winning as it is when you are losing, because these leaks are just as costly.
I think that I am good at plugging my losing leaks. I don't go on serious tilt and I recognize when I am heading towards minor tilt through over-tiredness. No longer do I make those exasperated river calls just so that I can prove to the rest of the table (and to myself) how unlucky I am being today.
But I am not so sure about my "winning" leaks. As I said in a previous post, I am forcing myself to bet for value at the end a lot more when I am checked into. I am jamming hands more than I did, because it is clear that a raise will not frighten people off, so I might as well make the pot bigger (in other words, I was very good at raises that thinned the field, but not very good at ones which built the pot).
But I had (and have) other game and meta-game weaknesses. I still tend to protect my winnings. Although I am now doing so less, and only when a game that I have chosen has suddenly got tougher. When on a winning streak, I am in a rush to sit down. Now I am forcing myself to make sure that a game is attractive before I do so. I am diligently trying to teach myself that, although a number of my opponents are clever, many others are not. If a play by an opponent could be either very clever or very stupid, even at games of high altitude, it's usually better to plump for the "very stupid" line.
Surprisingly, one blog that helped me here was that written by a high-stakes sit'n'go specialist, the Zee Justin site (www.zeejustin.com). I don't care how clever this guy is, if he is playing 10 tables simultaneously, he is mostly playing by rote, and I have a good idea what that rote consists of, at least in the early stages. But he uses good game selection and knows that solid, rather than clever, play, will be enough to beat these guys. The trick, if you are playing 10 tables, is not to make mistakes, rather than to make plays of genius.
So, I reckon that all I have to do is not make mistakes. Sounds easy, huh? And, in a sense, it is. My opponents might have lots of money in front of them; they might have slaughtered lower-stakes games. But they are not superhuman, and they too have leaks in their game. Perhaps they have more than me. I have no wife/girlfriend with whom I might have had a storming argument which could have put me on tilt); I don't drink, so I won't be sitting down overconfident and over-tired. And I don't tilt; I walk away. I don't need to be clever-clever, because if I play steadily and don't let anything get to me then, eventually, even my toughest opponent will let something get to him, and he will crack.
But what happens if he can't find any leaks? Well, one answer could be that he is just being generally outplayed, and it's time to look for another game at another level. But another answer could be that he is looking for leaks in the wrong place.
As Caro has pointed out, a dollar that you don't lose is worth just as much as a dollar that you win. What he should also emphasize is that a dollar that you fail to win costs you just as much as a dollar that you do lose. In other words, it's just as important to look for leaks in your game when you are winning as it is when you are losing, because these leaks are just as costly.
I think that I am good at plugging my losing leaks. I don't go on serious tilt and I recognize when I am heading towards minor tilt through over-tiredness. No longer do I make those exasperated river calls just so that I can prove to the rest of the table (and to myself) how unlucky I am being today.
But I am not so sure about my "winning" leaks. As I said in a previous post, I am forcing myself to bet for value at the end a lot more when I am checked into. I am jamming hands more than I did, because it is clear that a raise will not frighten people off, so I might as well make the pot bigger (in other words, I was very good at raises that thinned the field, but not very good at ones which built the pot).
But I had (and have) other game and meta-game weaknesses. I still tend to protect my winnings. Although I am now doing so less, and only when a game that I have chosen has suddenly got tougher. When on a winning streak, I am in a rush to sit down. Now I am forcing myself to make sure that a game is attractive before I do so. I am diligently trying to teach myself that, although a number of my opponents are clever, many others are not. If a play by an opponent could be either very clever or very stupid, even at games of high altitude, it's usually better to plump for the "very stupid" line.
Surprisingly, one blog that helped me here was that written by a high-stakes sit'n'go specialist, the Zee Justin site (www.zeejustin.com). I don't care how clever this guy is, if he is playing 10 tables simultaneously, he is mostly playing by rote, and I have a good idea what that rote consists of, at least in the early stages. But he uses good game selection and knows that solid, rather than clever, play, will be enough to beat these guys. The trick, if you are playing 10 tables, is not to make mistakes, rather than to make plays of genius.
So, I reckon that all I have to do is not make mistakes. Sounds easy, huh? And, in a sense, it is. My opponents might have lots of money in front of them; they might have slaughtered lower-stakes games. But they are not superhuman, and they too have leaks in their game. Perhaps they have more than me. I have no wife/girlfriend with whom I might have had a storming argument which could have put me on tilt); I don't drink, so I won't be sitting down overconfident and over-tired. And I don't tilt; I walk away. I don't need to be clever-clever, because if I play steadily and don't let anything get to me then, eventually, even my toughest opponent will let something get to him, and he will crack.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-07 04:41 pm (UTC)Maybe a mixture of my playing style inducing it and the ESPN fans out there that "love seeing a move go down" I have found that exasperated calls have turned into pleasurable calls this year.
All the old stuff about learning to save that crying call on the river is flying out the window right now from what I can see. Given how often someone seems to be at it where I am playing at the moment, any kind of hand that beats a stone cold bluff on the end is fast turning into a compulsory call.
OK - so it's official - I AM a calling station. Exaggerated perhaps for my preference to induce the bluff on the end more times than betting for value - some people just can't turn it down.
So, don't send me the bill if it goes wrong, but throw in an extra exasperated call or 2 a session and see how it goes...
Exasperated calls
Date: 2005-08-07 04:52 pm (UTC)$15/$30 Texas Hold'em - Sunday, August 07,
Table Table 34809 (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 2: craniac12 ( $595 )
Seat 3: TheWacoKidd ( $1217.50 )
Seat 5: karprive ( $400.50 )
Seat 7: Hearts14 ( $918.50 )
Seat 9: j0011 ( $635.50 )
Seat 4: LUBOBA ( $1174 )
Seat 6: Birks ( $1291.50 )
Seat 10: HappyIdiot ( $1000 )
Seat 1: LuckystarWH ( $750 )
Seat 8: TYGOOG ( $4522 )
Birks posts small blind [$10].
Hearts14 posts big blind [$15].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Birks [ Kh As ]
j0011 calls [$15].
TheWacoKidd calls [$15].
karprive calls [$15].
Birks raises [$20].
j0011 calls [$15].
TheWacoKidd calls [$15].
karprive calls [$15].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 8s, Kd, 4h ]
Birks bets [$15].
j0011 calls [$15].
karprive calls [$15].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Th ]
Birks bets [$30].
j0011 calls [$30].
karprive raises [$60].
This guy is not very good, certainly not clever enough to put in a raise here on a hand that I am beating. And he isn't manic enough to put in a raise on a hand I am beating, either. No point in an exasperated call here. I know that he has either K8s or a set of 8s or a set of 4s.
Birks folds.
Birks calls [$30].
** Dealing River ** [ 9c ]
j0011 checks.
karprive bets [$30].
j0011 calls [$30].
karprive shows [ 4d, 4s ] three of a kind, fours.
j0011 doesn't show [ Jd, 9s ] a pair of nines.
karprive wins $387 from the main pot with three of a kind, fours.
Next hand in following post.
Re: Exasperated calls
Date: 2005-08-07 05:08 pm (UTC)Here's the next hand.
$15/$30 Texas Hold'em - Sunday, August 07,
Table Table 14215 (Real Money)
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: crazyt43c ( $185.50 )
Seat 2: brues ( $1979.50 )
Seat 3: Brogan ( $338 )
Seat 9: BankerLady ( $1320.25 )
Seat 10: astern123 ( $1495.50 )
Seat 8: paine94 ( $2093.25 )
Seat 7: sexylegs1 ( $1037 )
Seat 6: Birks ( $1035 )
Seat 5: Pantsfudge ( $1278 )
Seat 4: DYAT821 ( $725 )
astern123 posts small blind [$10].
crazyt43c posts big blind [$15].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Birks [ Qc Qh ]
Birks raises [$30].
BankerLady calls [$30].
crazyt43c calls [$15].
** Dealing Flop ** [ 5c, 6h, 7s ]
A scary flop. But walking away from this is wimpish. I could be beating any number of hands, and my opponents are far more likely to be on a draw than beating me.
crazyt43c bets [$15].
Birks raises [$30].
BankerLady calls [$30].
crazyt43c raises [$30].
Birks calls [$15].
BankerLady calls [$15].
** Dealing Turn ** [ 4d ]
crazyt43c bets [$30].
Birks calls [$30].
BankerLady calls [$30].
I'm tempted to raise again, despite a four-straight on the board, but the ropey two-pair is what is now scaring me.
** Dealing River ** [ 3h ]
Well, if there was a three out there, or a ropey two-pair, then that card saved me.
crazyt43c bets [$30].
Birks calls [$30].
BankerLady calls [$30].
crazyt43c shows [ Tc, 6c ] a straight, three to seven.
Birks shows [ Qc, Qh ] a straight, three to seven.
BankerLady shows [ 9s, 9d ] a straight, three to seven.
Bollocks. Only a Ten, a nine, an eight or a six beat me, while a three ties it. They have 11 outs to win and four to tie.
crazyt43c wins $137.34 from the main pot with a straight, three to seven.
Birks wins $137.33 from the main pot with a straight, three to seven.
BankerLady wins $137.33 from the main pot with a straight, three to seven.
Even though that board looks "unlucky", my call with QQ is not difficult.
So, where I was losing money was putting in calls knowing that I was stuffed. Steve Bennett spotted many moons ago that I could read cards in limit very well, but I still called anyway, "in case I was wrong". John Fox made the same point about his own play in his book. There are situations where I will make what looks like an exasperated call, but it isn't. I am calling because I think that the odds are on my side. I can think of only one hand in the past week where I made a wrong fold on the turn (QQ in my hand, three opponents and a board of 678 - 6, two clubs). Turned out the hands out were A7 of clubs, J9 of clubs and AK off. I checked from the SB, next two hands checked and button (who raised the flop) bet. I am seriously risking another raise from behind me if I call, so I passed. Actually I was 47% to win the pot as the cards lay, but I still don't like the situation.
Re: Exasperated calls
Date: 2005-08-07 06:06 pm (UTC)