Took a big hit on PokerStars yesterday.
I need to read my blog more often and take my own advice. I did everything wrong yesterday. I got impatient after a while and even went on tilt. I remember grinding my teeth and punishing the left mouse button as I did a few WAY over the top raises or bets. You know, a “call that” bet. It’s too bad, because I had worked the bankroll up to $278 on Friday, only to lose $20 on Sunday. Things were seeming a bit easy this week, so maybe this is just what I needed. A reminder that people will play Ace Rag, they will call you down with Ace Rag, and they will hit their 3 outer on the river for two pair and still just call your river bet (instead of raise) because they don’t really understand how to play. I mean if your hand was good enough to call down, and it just got much better on the river, how do you not think to raise? I shouldn’t complain, they save me money, it’s just stupid. I’ve had players hit trips on the river and still not raise (thanks by the way). I’m not bitter though. When it was all said and done I took it pretty well though, I ejected gracefully and didn’t let it bother me for long. Bad beats and luck are part of the game, I’ll get ‘em next time, after I take a little break I think.
I haven't been getting many good hands.
I also played in a home game Wednesday night, losing $13 which felt like a win as crazy as the game got. Went to the casino on Saturday and won $47.75 at $0.50/$1.00 NL hold ‘em. Aside from the speed bump at PokerStars, it was a great Thanksgiving weekend in so many ways.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 am
Interesting on the 2 pair analysis. What do we make of players who will call with weak hands and not raise the river improved? I think it means you can bluff less oop with mediocre hands on the river for one. Let’s say you have JT on a JQ755 board oop and we have been the aggressor up to this point in the hand, then he might check back TPWK and we save a bet when behind but still get 1-2 streets of value from hands like KT, 89, AQ+, TT, Jx, etc…because he is loose-passive enough to call bets up to the river. This works in position too I guess. But while he’s not raising 2 pair, I’ll bet he’s never folding it either. Therefore, when we are betting for value with our strong hands that beat his calling range (which includes hands he views as too good to fold but not good enough to raise), we can get looked up often enough on huge overbet river shoves to make them very profitable. We don’t have to worry about making smallish bets to ensure we get called. Not against this villian. Bombs away. We also have to be sure not to play any good top pair for pot control on the turn. Not getting a bet on the turn when he will peel to 5 outers all day long would be a crime. Not to mention, if we are raised on the turn, we have a super easy fold. But the main thing is to get that bet in on the turn for value and protection. That he will spike the 5 outer is a good thing, because he will win some pots but lose a lot of money when he loses. His strategy is to try to draw out. Yours is to charge him for the privelage. Your strategy crushes his. Hitting 2 pair will not happen often enough for him to recoup all of the losses by making bad calls pre, on the flop and turn (especially if h doesn’t try to get more $ in the pot when he hits. His error is an error of frequency; seemingly inexpensive to him but so frequent that it is a huge leak. But his calls start to look better if make the mistakes of playing pot control with decent hands, calling his raises without at least the near nuts, failing to bet bigger than normal on the river when we think he’ll call with worse, or when we bet too thinly on the river. Not directed at your play Jim, just some strategy thoughts that came to mind. Good luck!!
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 am
line 2, meant value bet less (not so thin), not bluff less. Hopefully it’s clear that we shouldn’t be bluffing a player like this maybe ever. Actually, we might be able to bluff more if its the river. especially if their are missed draws. But probably still a bad idea.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
I felt like I played well for losing $20, which is probably why it didn’t piss me off for long after I decided to cut my losses at $20. I admit I did go on tilt though. Which is when the above kind of advice went out the window, but I realized I was on tilt and this is when I ejected, so I had that going for me. It makes perfect sense what you’re saying, but sometimes playing better isn’t enough. You know what I mean.