Visit to the U Club Ends February

[shipitfish]

The O Club and The I Club have been merged into a single new club in a new location, which I'll be calling the U Club. This is my new favorite spot to play for a number of reasons that will go in my review (yes, I'm really going to write those reviews RSN). I visited on Tuesday night to play for a few hours after work. I arrived and found a single full NL $1/$2 game, for which I added myself to the list.

While I waited, I took a seat in the $10/$20 limit HE game run by the T.E., the proprietor of the I Club. This was a tough game. I made the sixth player in this short-handed, aggressive game. I knew nearly all the players from previous visits to the I Club. T.E. himself was playing, as was M.S., who is a pro-ish poker player who co-ran the O Club and now helps run the U Club. I can beat M.S. when he's off his game, and he tilts pretty easily, but there was no indication he was there yet, as the game had just started.

I picked the seat that seemed to put the most aggressive players on my right, although, as it turned out, I still ended up with a very aggressive player in my left. I didn't really want to be in this game. But, I didn't want to wait to play. Also, I don't want T.E. to feel he can't draw people into the game at this new club, as this $10/$20 game can get really good. Thus, I don't want this game to stop running for lack of interest. I'm of course not going to stay in a bad game for a long time, but giving it time to keep it going while waiting for another seat seems like a reasonable long-term investment.

I quickly lost $200 by trying to muscle the aggressive players a bit, which was probably a general mistake. I work much better in short-handed limit games like those online, where there are hyper-aggressive people who take flops a bit too easily. Instead, I was surrounded by mostly tight-aggressive players who knew tons about the game.

I picked up my best starting hand in my half hour in this game when I caught K T in the cut-off. The tight player to my right raised, but I had noticed he'd been attacking the blinds pretty hard. I felt that he didn't necessarily have a hand that beat mine.

Calling would have been foolish; I had to clear the field and decided to three-bet. I was mortified when M.S. called cold from the SB, and was sure I was beat in at least once place. I felt better when that tight player just called. At this point, I had him on probable medium pair or a reasonable ace-high. If he had me dominated, it was by KQ specifically, I thought. But, meanwhile M.S. was the big concern.

The flop came Q-high with two spades. The two checked to me, I bet, M.S. called and the tight player raised. I obviously needed to catch to win, so I just called. M.S. tossed his hand quickly, and I was hoping that maybe we had cleared a K from the field and given myself two additional outs. The turn hit the draw with the A.

The tight player bet and I just called, which I realized was a silly move. I doubted after calling that he'd bet the river, because if he had only a pair, he would be too afraid of the board. OTOH, I suppose raising right away might get a fold from a Q, whereas that Q might check-call the river if I only called the turn. Regardless, I was unhappy with my mere call as the river came.

I was surprised when he bet again. I raised and got paid off. He mucked what he said was two pair, and was a bit unhappy that I played KTs in that spot, but I am still pretty happy with the play from start to finish, save the mere call on the turn.

A few minutes later, I surprisingly discovered that this player was none other than brettbrettbrett! A few minutes later, Dan from the old I Club and River Street showed up. He reminded brettbrettbrett of a goofy hand where I bluff-raised Dan on the river after misreading the board on the flop and getting in deep with no way to win. brettbrettbrett decided that given that loose play, he surely should have three-bet with two pair in our spot just a few minutes earlier. Too bad Dan hadn't shown up a few minutes earlier to give brettbrettbrett that advice. :)

With Dan joining the game, it was getting even worse. I was walking away down just $2, and I was glad to see that enough people had shown up to get a second $1/$2 NL game going.

I was also glad to see the new game included a number of regulars from the old O club. Mostly, they were tight-weak players who overplay one pair. At the other end of table, were two players — a woman and a man — who had showed up together, and seemed like they must have been O regulars, but probably from the late period just before the bust since I'd never seen them before. I never caught the fellow's name, but heard the woman, K.A., tell many people her name.

Indeed, it was hard not to hear her. She gave a running commentary of every hand to her friend, cagily trying to cover her mouth as she spoke. This is the moment where I really love the Bose headphones. So many people think I can't possibly hear that well with them on, when, in fact, it is the best way to hear people whispering across the table because they filter out the noise in-between.

Not, however, that there was anything that interesting being said. Her analysis was obvious and lacked insight. She also got amazingly frustrated by the most minor of things. It was as if someone acting out of turn was a personal affront to her sensibilities. She started to get on my nerves.

As my annoyance rose, it brought something about my own play to my attention. From time to time, I used to be a player who wasn't all that different from K.A. Surely I have “been her” at the table more often in the past than I would like to remember. I realized that her ego and self-importance about how poker worked was part of my edge in the game. I'd been there before; I'd made that selfish mistake of thinking the game was there for me, and now I could see her doing the same thing. I had the same edge against her in the game that others used to have against me.

I unfortunately didn't gain a moment against her to use to my advantage, but her money moved around the table enough as she played too obvious of a game, failed to bet out with top pair and bemoaned that those who had called her preflop raise with junk had hit a higher pair on the turn. Generally, she played in that “tight but uninformed” style that I've come from prefer in players. It's amazing to see people who learn enough about the game to not be total fish then just stagnate. People just don't seem to realize that anything worth doing requires a lifelong endeavor of learning to keep pace.

Indeed, the game reminded me about the need for constant vigilance in poker. I made an horrendous call with the nut straight on a runner-runner flush board that was checked around on the flop. I rivered the straight after calling a small bet on the turn, and then made the classic widow poker mistake of not being cognizant that shared cards mean a card that helps you can often help your opponent more. And, after all, straight vs. flush is the easiest of all examples of this concept.

That $82 lost, and being $250 down by then, I looked at my clock and decided I'd leave that game even or better. Now, it's not usually good to set goals that confined in a time frame, since there's often not enough time to recover. But, I felt at that moment if I put some pressure on myself to truly play a better game than all of my opponents, I'd succeed.

I fortunately didn't disappoint myself. I trapped a hyper-aggressive chronic bust-and-rebuy player for his whole stack when we both turned a flush and mine was the nut-flush. (I'll put more about that hand in a post this weekend.) Once I got that stack, I had to tighten up and avoid drawing hands as two reasonable but beatable players were on my left with bigger stacks. I hoped to trap them and double through in a big way, but instead I picked up a pretty good pot by out-kicking a JT with AT against a passive player on my right. I was $100 up as the hour of my departure rolled around.

Sometimes, it's worth looking at a weak game and setting a goal for the night for yourself.

(I took obligatory stack shots.)

Comments

[roryk.livejournal.com]

If your goal is to pro in ten years, it would be good to start practicing being a pro. I think you are the type of person who once you got it in your mind that you wanted to act like a pro you could have a lot of fun doing it. It is really fun to be disciplined and to take care of yourself, to look out for yourself and to constantly be playing your best and making the best possible decision for yourself and your pocketbook. There is no point in thinking about how to play a hand right and agonizing over cold calling here or reraising or should you have folded here and what not if you are also not simultaneously thinking about how to pick the best games, when to play and how to make sure you are playing your best. Those last two things are way more important than any technical skill or how to play a specific hand by far if you want to play as your job. Picking a game, picking which seat to sit in, calming yourself down, choosing when to play and when to go home are decisions that come up every single time you play. Playing a specific hand or a specific kind of situation might come up one in a hundred times you play. It is far more important to teach yourself and discipline yourself to choose good games, choose good spots, play when you feel strong and steady and like you are going to win and get up and leave when you feel bad than to think about how to play slightly better. It would be better that every time you got 97o and T8o that you cold called any number of bets preflop with them than if you decided to sit in a bad game. You could have that glaring hole in your technical game and it wouldn't matter as much as those other things because those things don't come up very often.

Don't sit in bad games. Ever. Let the other "pros" do that. They will be broke eventually and you won't. Save your energy and time for when the games are good. I have used the same excuse you used, that I just wanted to make sure the game would keep going, that I was doing the guy running the club a favor. I was being a nice guy. Really, your first statement was the right one, you just didn't want to wait to play because you drove all of the way there to play. I used to do that all of the time too and then I got stung bad a couple times being stupid and doing that so I stopped. One day, when you get wise, you will drive all of the way to the club, and you will look around and see all of the games suck, or you will look into yourself and you will see you are not ready to play that day, and you will take yourself off of the list and go home without having played a single hand. And that will be an awesome day for you because that is what it takes to really win huge at the end of the year, making great poker decisions like that. Try it out, you will see how awesome it feels to say to yourself, "I am going to make good decisions about how I invest my money and time." You will feel so powerful and confident. You don't have to play. You choose to play. You look at the game and decide to play. You are free to do what you want to do, you don't have to play just because you came there. If people say anything to you you don't have to do anything. You have this quiet kind of confidence and are your own person. If you practice it it will hit you all at once one day and you will never go back to the other way of playing.

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

Rory,

The game wasn't really that tough at all, I don't think. It may have seemed that way to Bradley, as limit hold em isn't his primary game, but both guys who worked at the club/played can be counted on to both miss bets and pay off. No, it wasn't a great game. And it didn't become one til about an hour later. But, Bradley has a positive expectation in that game, whether he knows it or not.

Your comments about "the best hand I've seen in a while" are right on. Three-betting me with KTs is most often going to put him in a bad spot.

brett

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about T.R. M.S. is actually a very good limit player when he's on his game. It's often hard to know when he is or isn't on his game. Friendly advice since you've given me the same in my journal and I owe you one: Don't underestimate M.S. As for whether I had positive EV, it may have been true, but I was certainly skeptical about whether I did or not.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. The situation with NYC poker is somewhat complex right now, and there is a certain justification. I want T.R. to believe that players are going to show up and play in that limit game, and that sometimes he'll draw a NL player in at least for a while. That game is a good game when the “right” players show up. The right players are only going to show up when they know the game goes off every night and has enough people interested in it. It's an exception to the rule in NYC poker to have a club that spreads both NL and limit at the same place. I would like T.R. to believe his deal with M.S. and others will work and he'll get a few time charges from people who usually play NL (as I am one of those right now). My long term limit vs. NL live game selection in NYC has a huge boom if I know I can show up at the U Club and examine multiple games quickly to find out if the action is good. (Since I'm not actually a pro yet, I often can spare only four hours to go play live, so quick game evaluation and selection in one place can make those four hours more profitable.)

Without this as a factor, no freaking way do I sit in that game with that line-up, even with no seat in the NL game. I sit for 45 minutes and listen to This American Life on my audio player and see if some weak folks show up for a NL game or get a sit in the hopping NL game that was running. Yes, my desire to play was a factor, but it wouldn't been enough to put me in the game by itself. BTW, you once told me, roryk to play in tough games sometimes. I'm trying to reconcile that advice with this one. What am I missing?

I'm way ahead of you, BTW, on leaving a club (walking in, looking around, and walking out) when the lineup is bad. I've done it twice at NYC clubs in the three months (the games are actually usually good). I've also played as low as $4/$8 at Foxwoods when I really showed up to play $10/$20 because the action at $10/$20 and $5/$10 weren't good that day. (AFAICT, you can nearly 24/7 find a good $4/$8 game at Foxwoods, although occasionally you get that weird tough $4/$8 table and just get a table change and move.)

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I don't really like the 3-bet with KTs from the CO, aggressive game or not. I think you lose a lot of money getting involved with many marginal hands preflop. If you look back over your journal you lose very big pots in NL getting involved with marginal hands preflop and it also happens to you in limit. I think if you were just more patient and were more content to sit there and fold you would fare much better in the games. The phrase "I picked up my best starting hand in half an hour" prefacing the KTs makes me think you were getting impatient to pick up a hand to play. Maybe the guy was being super super aggressive, I dunno. KTs is a little weak for me there. If people are cold calling 3 bets preflop from the SB then the game is probably a weak game, and you do not need to loosen up and 3-bet with KTs to beat it. You can just play normally and you will crush those guys.
Anyway, a tight player to your right is raising from the HJ, which is a long distance to be attacking the blinds from. He probably has a legit hand. KTs does not fare well against his range there, so it should be an easy fold. He is not really in blind attacking range.

I think it is important to grow as a poker player to be openly honest with yourself about why you do things at the poker table. I use the universal you. To be honest about why you sit at the table. Was it to preserve the game, really, or was it just because you wanted to play? Be honest with yourself, and you will grow as a poker player, you will find your weaknesses, and when you find them, you can eliminate them and you will become a much stronger, much better player. Why did you 3-bet there with KTs? You called the player tight. Did you really think he was attacking the blinds from the HJ, 3 spots away from the blinds? Or were you impatient, not having had a good hand for a whole half an hour, itching to play, since maybe you sat down in a bad game to play in the first place, so you 3-bet him lightly with KTs? Were you thinking since you hadn't played a hand in a while the tight player might give you respect and you could move him off his hand? What were you really thinking? I find it hard to believe that you really think KTs was the best hand there. But maybe you did. I'm just throwing another possible analysis out there. If it is true that you were impatient, do you see why sitting in the bad game was bad? You sat in the bad game, raring to play. But then, a dry spell of hands. And you get a marginal hand, you're raring to raise. But then, the right player raises. You know you should throw this hand away to his raise. But you were all ready to raise so you 3-bet because you haven't had a hand in a half an hour. It all comes from the impatience to play. From self examination that 3-bet would have been avoided since you would have looked honestly at yourself, seen the real reason why you wanted to sit in a bad game and not sat in the first place. And that is what makes a real pro a pro, knowing himself and avoiding bad situations. All those other "pros" sitting in the bad game, they don't know that yet. And one day when you are sitting in a game, playing your best, they will come sit down. Impatient. And you will be the one benefiting from their bad 3-bet. And they will never, ever, benefit from you. Because you will never do that.

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

If people are cold calling 3 bets preflop from the SB then the game is probably a weak game, and you do not need to loosen up and 3-bet with KTs to beat it. Precisely. But don't be too hard on him. At least he didn't call:)

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

My “half an hour” comment was more about the fact that I was playing short-handed and was feeling some blind pressure. It's certainly a weakness in my limit game that I am unsure how much to loosen up when playing short-handed. It doesn't hurt me as much in $2/$4 through $5/$10, which are my typical short-handed limit games online, because my EV is recovered by how bad the opponents play there.

I don't normally three-bet with KTs in that situation; I had the impression that brettbrettbrett was playing loose from both middle and late position, but you are right that I should have folded. Of course, I had odds to draw for the rest of the hand — check-raise I misremembered notwithstanding.

As I mentioned in another comment, there were a lot of thoughts in my head about how frustrated T.R. has been about keeping his limit game going at the U Club, and what it would mean if that game moved and I was somehow persona non grata because I keep saying “no” to T.R. when he asked me to play. Frankly, too, was it was in my head your advice that it's a good idea to sometimes play in tough games. That accounts for a good 50% of my reason for sitting down; the rest was wanting to play, you're right.

As for whether or not KTs was the best hand, I thought there was chance it would be. However, I knew that if he just called the three-bet his hand would be very tightly defined: probably leaving only AQ, KQ, and pairs 88-TT (and maybe JJ). A K was live against all but one of those hands. And, since I had played few hands and I felt he read me as tight, I thought he'd likely call the three bet and check nearly any flop to me.

I agree with you that these are all justifications, and it's actually easy to fold there. The other problem was I felt attacked by the blinds when since we were short-handed and felt the rest of the table was pushing hard to take pots, and that if was going to make money in this game, I had to push a little. I am thinking it's probably likely a bad idea for me to play that game short-handed unless a few specific poor players are there.

Honestly, one of the reasons that I've focused on NL is that my limit game (and meta-game, as we are talking about here) is not the best. I can't get beyond .80 BB/100 after hundreds of thousands of hands, and my game will need work to get better. I'm going to be focusing on NL with Bob, but I may separately hire a limit coach in a few years if NL games start to dry up.

you got the action wrong

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

Yes, you three-bet with KsTs, which against me is too loose, I'd think. Anyways, the flop went check-check-you bet, sb called, then I expertly check-raised both of you. And as far as me wanting to three-bet the river, I didn't see the spades at all. Hence, my river play. The lighting in that club is really somewhat weird, and that wouldn't be the first time I missed a backdoor draw. (Yes, last week I five bet a set into an obvious-to-everyone-but-me rivered flush. And it wasn't even a big set:))

I talked with Dan about this hand later that night, and he asked wtf were you doing calling the flop c-r. I have to imagine you called intending to fold most any turn, so you didn't appear to be nutso to the player on your right who clearly owns you when he can read the board properly:)

As for me reprimanding you for three-betting with KsTs, its close. I don't get too out of line against that lineup because the blinds are pretty loose. Also, this was very early in the session, and I spend at least the first hour playing very solid until I can guage how everyone is playing that night. But, and this is before I knew who you were, I sort of tend to "advise" people to my left not to do shit I don't want them to do. I guess I sort of do want people to three-bet me with the worst of it, but I'd rather they think me tighter than I am and only three-bet me with their monsters. It gives me a bit more freedom later. Obviously you aren't the weak-minded usual guy-to-my-left, so it wasn't going to work anyways. But, who knew.

Re: you got the action wrong

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

he asked wtf were you doing calling the flop c-r. I have to imagine you called intending to fold most any turn

I am very very sure that the flush draw was there on the flop, which is why I called the check-raise. I misremembered the flop action, as you pointed out and I have corrected in the post itself, but I know for sure I had the nut-flush on the turn.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

See, once you got stuck $250, then you decided to play good poker. Why did you have to get stuck $250 before you decided to play good poker? Why did you not come to the game with that attitude? You can tell yourself that you will not play unless you have that attitude. If you show up and for whatever reason you do not have that attitude, just go home. Or you can sit off to the side and watch until you get that attitude. Read a book. Go for a walk. Get a cup of coffee or something. But get that attitude before you play. When you sit down you should want to win, want to play your best, want to play the best fucking poker you have ever played in your entire life every single time you play. You should want every decision you make to be the best decision. Every fold to be the best. You want to be completely relaxed and confident. I can't really explain the correct feeling. You can see it in movies sometimes, in certain actors in certain roles.. Nothing is coming to mind though, lol. It's not focused outward at anyone. It is entirely inward. I call it quiet confidence. You are contained completely within yourself and require nothing from the outside. If you can get yourself into that state before you sit down you will play ridiculously well because it won't matter what happens. You will be able to look at people and see them more clearly because you do not have yourself in the way. You will not feel embarassed when they look at you, you will just look at them clearly. There is no kind of you and them thing going on. You will find yourself a lot more resistent to taking beats, a lot more patient, a lot more courageous, a lot less sensitive. So hard to explain what I mean. But if you practice you can spend more and more time in that state, you can conjure it up just walking around during the day.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Regarding no kind of you and them thing going on, that's exactly what I felt starting to happen with my feelings about K.R. at the table, and was able to use that properly to examine it in the moment and get control. I think I did well on that point.

Why did you have to get stuck $250 before you decided to play good poker?

As for this question, it's a bit overstated. The first $125 was a legitimate loss. I played a big pot and a fellow hit a flush draw on the river. I was fortunate enough that he tried to check raise the river and I didn't have to even think about paying off.

The rest was in the pots where I'd rivered the straight against runner-runner flush. I still think betting out when I hit the straight was right; I didn't think the player to my left had bet a flush draw on the turn. It became clear that's what he'd done, and I made a bad call because I'd seen him make a move before that I felt was a bluff. But, there was no reason in that weak a field I had to rely on such uncertain information to make a call, and realized it quickly enough to recover.

I certainly should have been able to avoid the situation entirely, and it's a mistake I learned from. There is simply no reason to make surprising calls when fields are weak anyway. You don't give up much EV by folding even if you suspect something, because you will have other opportunities to make better value bets and traps.

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

The tight player bet and I just called, which I realized was a silly move. I doubted after calling that he'd bet the river, because if he had only a pair, he would be too afraid of the board. OTOH, I suppose raising right away might get a fold from a Q, whereas that Q might check-call the river if I only called the turn. Regardless, I was unhappy with my mere call as the river came.

You were unhappy with the turn call? Not nearly as unhappy as I was, trust me. I'm three-betting you with top two every single time in this spot. If you have AA, so be it. But I'm beating everything else....

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Dude, I swear, I am telling you I had the nut-flush on the turn!!! There is no doubt in my mind about this. The river was a low red card!

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

The flop came Q-high with two spades. M.S. quickly bet out, and I thought he had probably missed the flop. The tight player called, and I decided raising was my best option. M.S. tossed his hand quickly, and I was hoping that maybe I had cleared a K from the field and given myself two additional outs. The tight player called and the turn hit the draw with the As.

Sorry for all the responses, I've been readin a bit then responding, then reading more.

I know you got the flop action wrong (posted about it earlier) and I'm almost positive you got the flop texture wrong too. The flop was queen high and raggy, one spade. The turn was the As. The river was a third spade. I have to think, like I said, that you just called my flop c/r so as not to appear full of shit or something, and you were planning on folding the turn unimproved.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

Well, at that point he was getting pretty good odds on his money to call the flop C/R. He has a runner runner backdoor straight draw and a backdoor flush draw and an overcard so he is getting like 13-1 or something or whatever the call even though he is not closing the action the SB probably isn't going to now raise. He's made enough mistakes in the hand so that all the mistake money in the pot makes it correct to chase the mistake money.

That just got me thinking. That poker phrase, "Don't throw good money after bad." Does that even make any sense, really? I mean there was a bunch of bad money in the pot already from mistakes. But now he should be throwing good money in there after the bad money at this point. It should say be more inclined to throw good money after bad money but try not to throw the bad money in the first place. Don't throw bad money. I dunno. If there is a lot of bad money around throw some good money in there? Hm.

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the flop call is standard, you're right, its a big pot.

Anyways, so we know, his king is no good. I had AQo, no spade. And the reason I'm fairly sure Bradley got the flop texture wrong is because if it were a queen high two spade flop, I'd have bet.

[brettbrettbrett.livejournal.com]

Anyways, so we know, his king is no good.

Ignore this, please.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

You are absolutely correct about the check-raise (I'm correcting the post itself now, so late-comer readers, we're talking about an error that was in the original version of the post). But, I am deeply certain I turned the flush, which means the flop had to be two-tone. I am sure because I specifically remember deciding not to raise when I made the nut flush on the turn and regretting it. I also know I wouldn't have bet the flop without the draw (flush draw with one overcard). There is absolutely no way I'm betting that flop with one overcard and only runner-runner draws! I mean, I was playing too loose, we've established that, but I'm not a maniac! Finally, there is no way whatsoever that I call your check-raise on the flop without the flush draw when M.S. still has to act behind me!

[(Anonymous)]

So I misread another board? Jesus. I might have a real problem. If the flop is two spades, I'd have bet. And, regarding other comments I made about your turn play, I would almost never three-bet top two once the spades come in on the turn. So, when I say, why didn't you raise the turn?, its because I didn't think the flush had come in yet.

I like waiting til the river to raise. Thing is, in a lot of cases, I can fold to a turn raise. In this case, you couldn't be counterfeited, so even though a spade might not prompt me to bet the river, if you just called the turn and the river blanks off, I'm most likely firing again. Sure, its not a happy looking board. But I have a strong hand, and most people would have raised the turn with the flush. Also, given that you three-bet pre-flop, and the As is on the board, I'm much more likely going to give you credit for a good ace rather than the nut flush. But maybe that's another argument for raising the turn. And maybe its a good argument for me three-betting the turn, spades and all....