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]

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.