Archive for October, 2012

I have a wonderful river tell I now watch for in certain spots.

It applies to average to slightly-above average players, and how to respond to a big decision they put you to on the river.  It relates to mannerisms and behavior.

I’ve looked for it 4-5 times over the past year, and picked off 4-5 big river bluffs in the process.

I’ve never read about it, at least not specifically, in any poker book, and I’ve read my share.

It is so completely great that I am not ever going to share what it is here.  And nobody is even reading this!


Read Full Post »

The sale of my company (no profit, but at least my hands are untied) and subsequent consulting work has allowed me to start playing more often.  By more often I mean once a week, ideally with the occasional Vegas run.

On the whole it has been ok–but the results have not been AS good as I feel they should have been.  Last night, for example, went from a winner to a loser playing 3-5 at Lucky Chances.  Even when I was up, however, I sensed I should have had more chips than I did.

There is an obvious explanation.  Playing only once a week engenders some really bad habits, most notably the need to get your fix by playing as many hands as possible, and, as the night goes on, playing these hands way too passively.  I’ll play well, sense that I have an edge, decide that I can just call with that Qx suited out of position, and then I can call again on the flop with some weak draw just to see what happens next (I am such a superior player, after all), and then I give up, having donated 80 bucks to the pot for no reason.

I do this.  I know I do this, and I know it is dumb. But at the same time: at mid-stakes NL tables I generally DO have an edge, and if I don’t drift into passive play I generally CAN play better on the flop.  I can mitigate being too loose.  Or at least that’s what I tell myself.

So I think I have a bigger problem, embodied by the big hand that took me from a winner to a loser last night:

I am the BB, and I end up being the effective stack with somewhere around $650. MP, a good player, raises to $25. Two callers in front of me and somehow it becomes obvious that I am getting the odds for the extra $20 to call with Qh7h.

Flop comes exactly how one wants it to come when playing a trash hand like Qh7h: Qc8h2h.  Top pair, flush draw with one raise pre-flop.  I check, raiser bets $60.  One call, one fold.  I raise to $160, probably a little small given the $220 already in the pot, but not a big deal.  MP then comes over the top and makes it $360 to go.  Other guy folds.

So: $740 in the pot, and I have a little more than $400 left.  And I think it out and make no mistake.  His most likely hand, I deduce, is AA or KK, which makes it 50/50 and an easy shove (I looked it up, and its actually 50.2/49.8).  If he happens to have a set, I still have my draw.  If he is on AhKh I am actually ahead.

I know I don’t have much fold equity, but even still I don’t doubt that shoving was right.  He did indeed have KK, none of my many outs hit, and I lost my stack.  And I was fine with that.  Apart from the questionable preflop call, I played the hand fine, had a chance to win a big pot, and didn’t hit.  So be it.

But here’s the thing: the guy who made the initial raise and won the pot was a good player.  And there were several not-good players there.  Some with money.  One with money and completely distracted by his computer.  So why am I positioning myself to get into 50/50s with HIM when other opportunities abound?  If I am going to play Qh7h against a raise why do it against HIS raise?

Game selection is irrelevant in a must-move format, as the NL games at Lucky Chances are.  Which makes in-game “player selection” that much more important.  Has anyone coined that term?  If not its mine,  which would be ironic given how poor I am at it.

Read Full Post »