It was more money than one would shake a stick at. I lost $600, $300
of which can be accounted for by that particular quad-7s hand, and the
other $300 can be accounted for with three hands where all the money went
in when my opponents had three outs or less and hit. I am not bothered at
all by the latter, because I made no mistakes. The reason I am so upset
about that hand, and sounded so upset in the phone post, is that it feels
like a math problem that I can't seem to solve. I am reminded of when I
took physics in college and could never solve rotational motion problems.
I know I was destine to lose some money in that hand when Adam made quad
7s on the turn, but I can't seem to figure out what method I should have
used to lose the minimum.
Maybe I have to reraise on the turn and throw it away if he moves in,
or raises again. But what if he just calls, which is highly likely for
Adam? I then have consider that he holds only an Ace as well. Then, when
the fourth 7 comes, how do I know? I have thought through dozens of
scenarios and I am having trouble figuring out how avoid losing my stack
when the turn comes 7.
I also admit that I am bit upset about my poker play in general,
because my bankroll has been stagnant. I win, I lose, but I have somehow
stopped being a profitable player and become a break-even player. This
has been going on for months, so I am somewhat convinced it's something
bad about my game. As primarily a hobby player, I am willing to consider
break-even as acceptable, but I used to win consistently at the stakes I'm
currently playing.
So, I am upset, but it's about my own inadequacies that led me
to (a) lose my whole stack to Adam on that hand and (b) to be
break-even-only for months. The money itself is earmarked for poker
anyway, so it is not like I need it or anything. I am angry at myself for
my ongoing apparent bad play.
I don't see where your bad play is happening-- you got your money in twice as a huge favorite and once when it was pretty difficult to get away from your hand. That sounds like pretty good play to me. You should have been up 600, not down had luck been running your way.
Once the turn comes a 7 I think you are losing your stack and there isn't much you can do about it. But what do I know, I suck at this game.
You don't consider break-even acceptable, or else you would not be upset. :)
I have a suggestion for your no-limit play in general...
In my opinion, the math is important but simple in no-limit, but the dominating factor is how to play the opponent and how to pick situations/opportunities.
From your blog, I've noticed that you (and Nick too) do exhaustive mathematical analysis of situations in no-limit play, but don't discuss the psychological angles of a hand very often. Unlike the mechanical, odds-based nature of limit play (this is not a diss to limit!), no-limit is about power, deception, preying on your opponents weaknesses, and sensing when to duck out of potentially dangerous situations.
Off the cuff: Knowing and understanding your opposition's psychology is very important: who will draw against pot odds, who will lay down to strong bets, who will gamble, who bluffs when they missed their draw, who is tilting, etc. etc. Try to look for areas where you could steal pots from weak players, out wit the tricky players, or confuse the straight-up players. Winning pots by sheer strength where you don't have odds is something possible in no-limit, but is difficult to do in limit, and those pots add up in the long run. Trapping players (one of my favorite techniques) can be suicide in limit poker, but is effective in no-limit where you generally have fewer players seeing the board (ex. slow playing a set vs. someone’s two pair or flush draw, getting them to commit a lot of their chips before you spring on them).
In addition to strength, I think that having the ability to lay down a big hand for a really big pile of chips when confronted with a situation where you're not entirely sure what is going on is important. Making a mistake costs you one more bet in limit, and an entire stack in no-limit. When faced with an all-in from Adam with three sevens on the board, and me not having the case 7, I would lay down the 3rd nut hand *if I can lose a deep stack*. With a short stack, it’s an easy call for me because it doesn’t cost me much if I’m wrong. Adam plays any two cards all the time hoping to bust players unable to make lay-downs of over pairs when he’s hit two pair or hit a weird set. I’d dump the hand when he moves all in, lick my wounds and look for a situation in a later hand where I can trap him for all his chips (or for at least as many as I have). If it turns out that he in fact had a weak ace, and we would have chopped in the end, so be it.
Look at it another way: On the river when he pushes in, if he had a weak ace as you postulated he might have had, the best you’ll get is a chop, you won’t even win a dime of his money. If he has the seven, you’ve lost everything. That kind of risk:reward ratio sucks. (Incidentally, making risk:reward ratio work for you against other players is a massive strength in no-limit) If that’s me, he can have the (small amount of) money I committed before his push, because I’m patient enough save my big stack as ammo and to wait to get my chips back later with interest when he makes a mistake and I know I’m golden.
Be more selective about situations where you put the entire stack at risk. This does NOT mean I advocate playing weak to big bets, I’m just saying that in no-limit don’t let yourself get drawn into tenuous situations, instead wait for better opportunities.
Now, some of my strategy may seem weak to the Bruson fans, but playing this way, I’m a consistent winner at Riverstreet (and all other places I play), so it can’t be entirely wrong.
The lousy bad beats you took in the other hands just happen from time to time. Can’t remember the particulars of those hands, but you can’t let somebody hitting a two or three outer affect your game.
Anyways, a rambling post at best. My point was: look for non-mathematical angles to improve your no-limit game.
In my defense (I'll let Bradley speak for himself), I'm glad to discuss my own psychology because it's a moving target and I am not giving up too much information by discussing interesting things that I have learned at RS and elsewhere. By the time the next session rolls around, I am usually playing differently anyway. However, if I have a particular psychological angle that explains my play against another player, I sometimes gloss over that detail in explaining a hand, because *so many* RS players read this blog.
In other words, it's not that I don't understand these psychological aspects of poker that you mention, it's just that I am not really interested in discussing the hands where I won through psychology rather than solid math. (For example, I raised preflop and then bet from first position into a A75 board with 32o against Matt last night and therefore I am sure he laid down a better hand. But I wouldn't have mentioned except in response to this comment.)
Understood. My post above definitely wasn't a criticism of either of your play, just an observation on the blog contents, and a friendly suggestion to Bradley where he find might angles to strengthen his no-limit game and break out of the bankroll stagnation he described.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
shipitfish) wrote2005-02-27 12:51 am
no subject
It's the bad play, not the money
It was more money than one would shake a stick at. I lost $600, $300 of which can be accounted for by that particular quad-7s hand, and the other $300 can be accounted for with three hands where all the money went in when my opponents had three outs or less and hit. I am not bothered at all by the latter, because I made no mistakes. The reason I am so upset about that hand, and sounded so upset in the phone post, is that it feels like a math problem that I can't seem to solve. I am reminded of when I took physics in college and could never solve rotational motion problems. I know I was destine to lose some money in that hand when Adam made quad 7s on the turn, but I can't seem to figure out what method I should have used to lose the minimum.
Maybe I have to reraise on the turn and throw it away if he moves in, or raises again. But what if he just calls, which is highly likely for Adam? I then have consider that he holds only an Ace as well. Then, when the fourth 7 comes, how do I know? I have thought through dozens of scenarios and I am having trouble figuring out how avoid losing my stack when the turn comes 7.
I also admit that I am bit upset about my poker play in general, because my bankroll has been stagnant. I win, I lose, but I have somehow stopped being a profitable player and become a break-even player. This has been going on for months, so I am somewhat convinced it's something bad about my game. As primarily a hobby player, I am willing to consider break-even as acceptable, but I used to win consistently at the stakes I'm currently playing.
So, I am upset, but it's about my own inadequacies that led me to (a) lose my whole stack to Adam on that hand and (b) to be break-even-only for months. The money itself is earmarked for poker anyway, so it is not like I need it or anything. I am angry at myself for my ongoing apparent bad play.
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
Once the turn comes a 7 I think you are losing your stack and there isn't much you can do about it. But what do I know, I suck at this game.
You don't consider break-even acceptable, or else you would not be upset. :)
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
(Anonymous) 2005-02-28 09:06 pm (UTC)(link)In my opinion, the math is important but simple in no-limit, but the dominating factor is how to play the opponent and how to pick situations/opportunities.
From your blog, I've noticed that you (and Nick too) do exhaustive mathematical analysis of situations in no-limit play, but don't discuss the psychological angles of a hand very often. Unlike the mechanical, odds-based nature of limit play (this is not a diss to limit!), no-limit is about power, deception, preying on your opponents weaknesses, and sensing when to duck out of potentially dangerous situations.
Off the cuff:
Knowing and understanding your opposition's psychology is very important: who will draw against pot odds, who will lay down to strong bets, who will gamble, who bluffs when they missed their draw, who is tilting, etc. etc. Try to look for areas where you could steal pots from weak players, out wit the tricky players, or confuse the straight-up players. Winning pots by sheer strength where you don't have odds is something possible in no-limit, but is difficult to do in limit, and those pots add up in the long run. Trapping players (one of my favorite techniques) can be suicide in limit poker, but is effective in no-limit where you generally have fewer players seeing the board (ex. slow playing a set vs. someone’s two pair or flush draw, getting them to commit a lot of their chips before you spring on them).
In addition to strength, I think that having the ability to lay down a big hand for a really big pile of chips when confronted with a situation where you're not entirely sure what is going on is important. Making a mistake costs you one more bet in limit, and an entire stack in no-limit. When faced with an all-in from Adam with three sevens on the board, and me not having the case 7, I would lay down the 3rd nut hand *if I can lose a deep stack*. With a short stack, it’s an easy call for me because it doesn’t cost me much if I’m wrong. Adam plays any two cards all the time hoping to bust players unable to make lay-downs of over pairs when he’s hit two pair or hit a weird set. I’d dump the hand when he moves all in, lick my wounds and look for a situation in a later hand where I can trap him for all his chips (or for at least as many as I have). If it turns out that he in fact had a weak ace, and we would have chopped in the end, so be it.
Look at it another way: On the river when he pushes in, if he had a weak ace as you postulated he might have had, the best you’ll get is a chop, you won’t even win a dime of his money. If he has the seven, you’ve lost everything. That kind of risk:reward ratio sucks. (Incidentally, making risk:reward ratio work for you against other players is a massive strength in no-limit) If that’s me, he can have the (small amount of) money I committed before his push, because I’m patient enough save my big stack as ammo and to wait to get my chips back later with interest when he makes a mistake and I know I’m golden.
Be more selective about situations where you put the entire stack at risk. This does NOT mean I advocate playing weak to big bets, I’m just saying that in no-limit don’t let yourself get drawn into tenuous situations, instead wait for better opportunities.
Now, some of my strategy may seem weak to the Bruson fans, but playing this way, I’m a consistent winner at Riverstreet (and all other places I play), so it can’t be entirely wrong.
The lousy bad beats you took in the other hands just happen from time to time. Can’t remember the particulars of those hands, but you can’t let somebody hitting a two or three outer affect your game.
Anyways, a rambling post at best. My point was: look for non-mathematical angles to improve your no-limit game.
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
In other words, it's not that I don't understand these psychological aspects of poker that you mention, it's just that I am not really interested in discussing the hands where I won through psychology rather than solid math. (For example, I raised preflop and then bet from first position into a A75 board with 32o against Matt last night and therefore I am sure he laid down a better hand. But I wouldn't have mentioned except in response to this comment.)
Re: It's the bad play, not the money
(Anonymous) 2005-03-02 06:27 pm (UTC)(link)