Moving beyond the first level of NL play...(long)

[AZK]

For the last year I've played NL exclusively, for the last two years I've spent half my life on these boards as well. In the beginning I casually read, then became obsessive like I do with everything else. I've gone throught the archives several times, reread all the posts from the credible players, read PL/NL several times etc....my game has changed from nitty to a bit more "run and gun". I feel like I normally have good control of the table and myself, I more often know where I'm at in situations and I feel like I've faced almost every situation possible within my given style of play. I know that I still have A LOT to learn.

My two great weaknesses are hand reading, which will only improve the more I play, and laying down big hands to bigger hands (this is HUGE). My greatest weakness is not checking enough. Observant players are aware that I am always betting, any draw, any pair, any overcard etc when it's checked to me. They should be check-raising me relentlessly, but they rarely do. As has been mentioned before, it's nice to have the insurance of people knowing that if they enter a pot with you it's going to be expensive (but this is a separate issue). If I check in a hand, a majority of the time it's because I completely whiffed or have a monster and I'm waiting for people to catch up/check-raise the field etc. I am working on this, starting to adopt a no bet policy (when one isn't warranted) in very multiway pots etc, since you will be called in some way, might as well just take a free card for your gutshot.

I no longer look at a session as up $ or down $, but rather, how many mistakes did I make (win or lose) and how much theoretical money did it cost. My play is very typical of 2+2 play and textbook. I am a little overzealous in hands I call with to try and break people (because my game plays so deep) as well as raising hands in late position. So after a while, despite trying to be tricky by raising 66 or 76s on the button after limpers, people understand what I'm doing. I am longer tricky, if people know that my raise in LP is equally likely to be AA as it is 22 as it is ATs and so forth. I'm looking to change my game, mix it up a little more and keep people guessing.

I would imagine top players are capable of changing up their game since they play with a lot of the same players all the time. If they didn't I can't see how they could win. This could be in the form of checking when they would normally bet, betting when they would normally check, etc... I don't really know.

This is probably a bit vague and open-ended, but I am asking all of you (at least those with experience) what things you do to vary your game. Situations where you completely played a hand differently etc. The things that I would most like to work on, due to the nature of my primary game, is overbetting, but I am open to all kinds of suggestions. An example of something I'm looking for is in one of my recent posts how I slowplayed aces knowing the other guy had 1 of 3 hands and I would stack if any other flop had hit. I am looking for unconventional plays like these which normally result in higher variance, but the payoff is huge.

Thanks.

[Yeti]

[ QUOTE ]
An example of something I'm looking for is in one of my recent posts how I slowplayed aces knowing the other guy had 1 of 3 hands and I would stack if any other flop had hit. I am looking for unconventional plays like these which normally result in higher variance, but the payoff is huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

That play was completely standard btw.

Anyway, this is a pretty good post. I'm on my way out but will reply later.

[AZK]

[ QUOTE ]
That play was completely standard btw.

Anyway, this is a pretty good post. I'm on my way out but will reply later.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point, the fact that I didn't think that play was "standard" means I'm either not using it enough or not thinking "outside the box" enough. Both need to change.

[iceman5]

Ive been trying to change my game up a bit lately also. I already limp with AA at times and raise with suited connectors at times, so I hope Im not too easy to read.....but every time I try to change up and play LAGGY or something like that, I get killed.

When I play my normal tight and very aggressive style (with a few rare but tricky plays mixed in), I win. When I try to raise with position or do something like reraise someone just because they raise too much (meaning they are raising light), then I get killed and my variance goes thru the roof.

Then I get back to basics and sit there and wait for a monster and pound someone and I start dominating again.

So I guess what Im saying is that I dont know the answer to your question, but I wish I did.

PS..I tried a couple strange plays playing $5/$10 yesterday and posted them here and nobody liked them. They worked but nobody liked them which leads me to believe that my normal game is better than trying to out trick people.

[AZK]

You primarily play online, I think it's a bit harder to execute tricky high risk plays there, well at least for me. Part of the requirments for these plays is knowing your opponents extremely well and having incredibly good control of the table, I can't do that as well online so I don't really bother online.

[emil3000]

I am not really an authority on this, but doesn't tricky plays start with excellent hand reading? You know what he has, and also you realize what you own paly looks like to him. All this is part of hand reading. Almost all the tricky plays that I make revolves around the fact that I know my opponents hand. I don't claim to be an expert hand reader, but I do think that it is one of my strengths compared to the other decent players at the levels I play. If you evolve your hand reading ability, and use some basic creativeness, the trickiness will come to you.
This is my belief at least.

[cwl]

most of the play variations i make in my game tend to grow out of trying to cover up exploitable patterns i have recognized. i dont really think about periodically playing hands in random, different ways from how i would normally play them. i think about playing hands in different ways than my default because i need to mimic how i play different hands which could otherwise be clearly identified.

for example, if for whatever reason, i have decided to not make many continuation bets after i miss the flop this would be an exploitable pattern for an observant opponent. this implies i would need to sometimes vary my play and not make a continuation bet when i have a decent hand like an overpair. in a sense im varying my overpair play but the point isnt the variety so much as the cover/balance it provides for other hands. taking it one step further, if i then generally call bets on the turn with medium strength hands i need to call a bit more with my very strong hands as well. one thing leads to another and another and another and thinking about the relationship between these things leads pretty naturally to some degree of variation in how you play your hands. i think what im getting at is that its productive to think of your play variations within the context of play balancing and cover for exploitable patterns rather than as a separate thing.

you may well get all this already but it sounded from your post like you were somewhat unsure about the when/why of playing a hand different than the norm. if im checking when i would normally bet its probably because there is some other class of hands that i would normally check in that spot that i dont want to be as recognizable as they would be if i didnt mix things up in this way.