![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipitfish) wrote2006-02-23 11:08 pm
I Should Be Able To Make This Lay Down
Most of my readers will probably think I am insane for considering this
laydown in this situation. I think, however, that I misplayed this
hand. I also have somewhat of a moral obligation to post this, as ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
nick_marden once lost a big pot with a very similar situation
and I told him what I am telling myself at the end of this post.
I was playing $1/$2 NL HE, $200 max online at Full Tilt Poker. Historically, these games are the types of tight weak games I've written about so often. However, lately, they have been more loose-passive.
I was at a six player table, and a few people had busted. We were
dealt a hand with three people suddenly after two people left
simultaneously (one busted and one left on his own). I was in the
BB
with J
J
. The button, Quyzzie, raised to
$7, which was a standard preflop raise. I hadn't been at the table
but for a dozen hands, but Quyzzie was playing pretty loose from
what I saw, but not with his preflop raises. His vice seemed to be
bad one-pair hands on the flop.
The largest stack at the table, who seemed to be a strong player (named Mikechike) made it $20 to go from the SB. I gave Mikechike credit for a big hand here. I figured he had a pair between TT-AA, AK, or AQ.
I had a tough decision. I felt that it was a tough laydown to make three-handed, and a reraise from Quyzzie meant I had to fold preflop. I had $252 behind, Mikechike had me covered ($258), and Quyzzie had only $87. I decided to call the $18 cold, and be done with the hand if Quyzzie reraised or if I missed the set. Quyzzie just called.
The flop came J
5 A. Mikechike paused for a moment and bet $18
into the $60 pot. I actually considered a set of aces as a possible
hand. AK was the other very likely possibility, making his bet
hoping that someone with a weaker ace would raise . But, I was
realistically worried about AA (for all the good it did me).
I decided to set Quyzzie all-in. This way I could look to Mikechike like I wanted to be heads up with Quyzzie, and force him to a decision knowing one player would be all-in. (I expected Quyzzie to call with any Ace, and it seemed somewhat likely he had one — my feeling about his preflop raise was Ace-high.) I made it $67 to go. Quyzzie insta-called (yes, I usually try to avoid that cutesie online poker term.). I really felt he would have thought some about putting his stack at risk with KK or a flush draw, so I was pretty confident he had an Ace. Mikechike called somewhat quickly behind him.
I thought Mikechike might have a flush draw here, but I realized after
the hand I couldn't put him on this. The only one that made sense is
K Q, and it would have been pretty odd preflop
behavior for that holding. In a sense, I think I have to put him on
exactly AA at that point, because he'd take the opportunity to protect
AK. (Remember, my only read on him is that he's a pretty good,
reasonable player.)
Therefore, when the turn falls T, Mikechike checks, and and the pot stands at $261, I think
I can check instead of betting my last $166 (which is what I did).
Of course, Mikechike "insta-called" in his own right. Mikechike had
the only hand that made sense —
A A
. (For the curious, Quyzzie had A Q — overplaying one pair again. Again,
for all the good it did me, my read on Quyzzie was right.)
If I instead check the turn, and that 7 that came on the river arrives, Mikechike likely puts in a
value bet. I may have to call up to $100 there, but I might be able
to fold for all-in. Indeed, AK seems even less likely when he just
checked the turn. Meanwhile, if I check the turn, and the flush
doesn't come, how much if any should I call when he value bets top
set?
Finally, is this all just a stupid marginal discussion? Should I have made the "more obvious" right play of folding preflop, even though we were three-handed?
I have to admit Mikechike played it as I would have — trying to sell it as a flush draw to two obviously made hands that can't have anything but runner-runner flush outs, and therefore they are left drawing dead on the turn. Even if Quyzzie does have the flush draw, Mikechike can safely check the turn, because I conveniently already charged Quyzzie the maximum to see the river. But, I should have seen past it because no flush draws coincide with the preflop action.
I think I should be ashamed of myself. If it's the 5 J A instead of the A 5 J , maybe the flush draw with an AK
becomes more likely and I have to just take the beat. But the board
the way it was, I should have walked away $166 richer than I did.
Anyway, all I have left to say to myself (on Mikechike's behalf) on this hand is: Ship It, Fish!
no subject
I always have the problem of not having enough time when I play online.
T
no subject
no subject
I didn't start to get good at this until after reading the Psychology of Poker by Shoonmaker. One of his key pieces of advice is to "sub-vocalize all of your reasoning". The idea is that you should say in your head to yourself, "I am doing this because of X, and I think he has Y or Z," rather than taking a gut feeling and going with it. Once you start saying things word-by-word in your head on every hand, you get to doing it quickly. After all, if the thoughts are coming to you anyway, the only hard part is turn them into words in your head quickly. If you are generally a quick thinking in other areas, that's a skill that you can develop by sheer practice.
Indeed, the practice is key. I developed the ability to do it quickly by watching the action of each and every hand, and sub-vocalizing the thoughts every time, no matter who was playing and no matter whether they were calling, raising or folding. Remember, it's a common misconception that you aren't "playing poker" once you folded; you have a job to do after folding, which is the very one I'm describing here. Once you do that over and over, these thoughts just come to you quickly. Obviously, they don't occur in my head in proper English and readable as they do above — I do post processing on the thoughts before posting. But, the basic ideas are there within seconds at game time (except, when as I point out with the KQs in this example, I revise my thinking in at post mortem time). And, the only reason I can do it quickly is thanks to tons and tons of practice over thousands of hands.
If I'd had infinite time online, I would have been able to eliminate KQs and probably been more able to fold. OTOH, I'd also have realized something I realized on the subway about this hand this morning — that it was even less likely Mikechike held AA because I read one of the A's as dead in Quyzzie's hand. So, thinking fast can be a burden, but it can also save you from considering tangents that are best left for the subway, and keep you focused on "just the facts".
In my experience, every time the action is to me, I only need three sentences in my head to choose the (typically) correct play. If you notice my reports of hand analysis, there are usually only three sentences that summarize why I made the act I did. Those are usually the three sentences that were in my head at the actual moment. The rest is fluff to make the thing more nice to read in the blog. :)
no subject
I've read a couple of Phil Gordon's books. I liked The Little Green Book.
The other thing I question is, how wmuch money does it wind up costing you while you learn these things? I'm not sure my wife would tolerate me losing a pile of cash to learn how to play poker better :)
T
no subject