Discipline and read-based laydowns

[MHarris]

I'm not sure I'm able to express this exactly how I'd like to, but I'll try. Lately, as I've improved my hand-reading abilities, I've found myself in situations where a normally easy decision becomes tough based on a read. I'll go through it in my head, and come up with a decision. However, if that decision is to fold for one bet with a pretty strong hand, despite that I feel I'm likely drawing dead or thin, I'll call down anyway.

Here's an example from last night's session (actually, the hand that got me thinking about this):

A tight, passive-ish player limps in UTG, and I raise behind him with AcQc. One player cold-calls behind me, and we take a flop 3-handed.
Flop: Qd Jc 8c. UTG bets out, I raise, the cold-caller folds, and UTG 3-bets. At this point, I have him on precisely QJs or 88, with a slight possibility of JJ. I call.
Turn is the Jd. He bets. At this point, I expect that I'm hitting to two outs, possibly for half the pot. Regardless, I call.
River is a blank. He bets. I talk myself into another call. He shows 88.

This sort of situation pops up here and there, maybe a couple of times in a session, and I know that developing the discipline to make prudent laydowns is very important to improving my game. However, I think I may be having some trouble separating myself from the "don't fold for one bet with a strong holding in a big pot" mentality is such spots. Although I know that is generally correct in most situations, I run into occasional situations where it feels more correct to deviate from that mentality.

For the more experienced players, was this something you went through in your development? If so, was it an area you put extra effort into, or do you feel it's something that you gradually develop the confidence to do consistently in the correct spots?

Thanks in advance for all advice.

Mike

[The Dude]

Here's my advice: study and get better. Now, before you get all defensive or take this post the wrong way, let me explain.

I wrote an article (http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/current/Pruitt0705.html) that appears in June's issue of the 2+2 magazine on divorcing the need for showdown. In it I state that the ability to read hands and having confidence in that ability are key to avioding paying off bets at the end of a hand. You seem to have very rigidly placed your opponent on one of two hands, while in reality he will have some other hand a decent amount of the time. He will have T9s, KcTc, or some other random hand some percentage of the time. Rather than say "I think he's got this, so I should fold," try to say "He's got this range of hands, and considering the liklihood of each individual hand the best play in the long run is to..." When you try to be too specific on putting opponents on hands, it hurts your confidence when your opponent shows something else. In reality you don't have to be correct about their specific hand every time in order to make folding a hand correct. Your hand's potential to improve, pot size, and a few other things will give you some leeway in how often you have to be precisely correct to fold profitably.

Starting to think about ranges in hands and weighing the hands in that range is much more conducive to the type of thinking that allows you to make good laydowns than rigid "he has this specific hand" thinking.

Put more effort into learning to read hands, and run the math on some specific hands to help solidify your understanding that you don't have to be right 100% of the time to make folding correct.

[MagnoliasFM]

Try to quantify the chances that he has certain hands. For example it might've been 40% QJs 45% 88 10% JJ 5% bluff, then you can do the pot odds from there.

[goofball]

Looks like you had 4 outs.

[MHarris]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have very rigidly placed your opponent on one of two hands, while in reality he will have some other hand a decent amount of the time. He will have T9s, KcTc, or some other random hand some percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, let me say I have previously read your articles and thought they were very informative.

Being rigid in putting my opponents isn't exactly a habit of mine, and I ran through a full range before narrowing it to the two mentioned. I've never seen this opponent push a draw, whether in position or OOP, no matter how strong, in a couple thousand hands. He seems to be the type who wants to get his money in NOW with a monster, and is more than content to call/check-call with the rest of his hands. AA-QQ is in his small range of PF raising hands. AQ/KQ? He might have bet into me with them, but there's no chance he's 3-betting me. T9s? Not him, not UTG. I actually thought QJs might have even been a stretch for him, but thought better of it. This may still seem a bit rigid to you, but this was a pretty predictable player.

I'm sure this is the process of putting an opponent on a range of hands that you referred to in your post. Truthfully, I didn't feel like typing it out, and maybe I was wrong to believe it wasn't necessary to do so. As far as divorcing the need for showdown goes, I don't think I have much of a problem there, save for a few spots. I usually don't have a problem getting away when beat; it's just those few times when it's plainly obvious I need to fold and don't that really frustrate me.

As far as working to improve my game, I did mention that my hand reading has improved, and drastically so, and I'd like to think it's not due to a lazy approach to my game.

Thanks for the advice/input.

[MHarris]

Oops. Brainfart.