What is the REAL goal?

1st post...but played and read this forum for a couple of years...

What are we really trying to do in the longterm? Simply trying to maximize the "good times" (when you are running good, getting good cards) and laying low during the "bad times" (can't hit a flop, etc.) OR is the ultimate goal to control the game during both times? The reason why i ask this seemingly simple question is that I have been assuming that a higher level of play involves somehow being able to transcend the cards and control/profit at all times. But, in reality, I am stuck on just winning big and then loosing just as big. It seems that the more i endeavor to control the game, the more my swings increase. Yet I see players who do well much more consistently while knowing that they are getting the same percentage of good and bad hands. The problem is that this part seems so...esoteric. For me, it is not easily categorized in terms of what moves to make. I am completely familiar and comfortable with the math, the meta-game, the 'styles' i am up against, etc. However, i can't seem to get to the next stage. I am torn between whether to get more analytical or more feel-oriented. One thing that I know is that I don't have this problem live nearly as much. Are there special considerations involved in the fast-paced online game that differ significantly enough to entail 2 types of thinking? Or is it just an experience/talent thing?

I am sorry that my question is not very direct, but I am honestly stuck.

Thanks

[yvesaint]

MAKE BIG MONEY

Ok, i probably deserve that because of the lack of specificity. So...what i mean is: Can you really do more than just identify when you are likely beat, get your money in when you are ahead, etc. Does an excellent player like, Diablo, etc...go beyond that, or have they simply 'tightened up' their recognition of their place in a given situation enough to reach a high level of proficiency...i.e., the boring answer?

[JFB37]

I'm a nobody here but I will try to give you a serious answer. It is, I think, play better poker. Some peoples' motivation is to win big bucks. For others, it is the notion of mastering something.

I think the reason you are not getting any useful responses is that your question is too general. The way that we get better -- regardless of why we want to -- is identifying weaknesses in our game and working on them. The best way to do that is through specifics. Post particular hands that gave you trouble. Examine your results and look for trends worth discussing. Ask specific questions about how to deal with particular situations.

As for the difference between live and online, well, there is a difference. I crush live and am very mediocre online. It seems you are the same. So, think about why? What sorts of situations can you handle live but not online? What do you think you have in one but not the other?

This is a bit general, but so was your post. I hope this helps.

[Go_Blue88]

wtf?

[The Ocho]

get rich enough so that i can bang supermodels and hollywood actresses on a regular basis.

[THATWACOKID]

the real goal in poker is to play every situation as close to optimal as possible.. this is obvious

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, i probably deserve that because of the lack of specificity. So...what i mean is: Can you really do more than just identify when you are likely beat, get your money in when you are ahead, etc. Does an excellent player like, Diablo, etc...go beyond that, or have they simply 'tightened up' their recognition of their place in a given situation enough to reach a high level of proficiency...i.e., the boring answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think you mean is more actively manipulating opponents into making mistakes and getting better value for your good hands, and also getting them to lay down marginal hands. The problem is online that so many weak-tights are only playing pairs and AK, and just aren't playing marginal hands postflop that you can make them fold on a full table. So if you get too much in trying to control a table you will just be stealing blinds and be the one giving the action when they induce you to keep betting and raising when you are buried. Another part of the "problem" is that max buyin games simply don't allow you to put as much pressure on players whom you might read very well, but can't be forced out of a hand as easily as in a situation with very deep stacks in relation to the blinds and postflop pot sizes.

However, being more aggressive than the average player on the table is very necessary to induce incorrect reads by them and get more action when you raise with something like 75s and hit a big flop. But if you overdo it, then you will just get broke too often if you aren't a super reader and backoff against those players who are trying to get you to give them more action when they really have something.

[Big_Jim]

good post

[Niwa]

to wear a pink hat with golden roses along with my all pink costume. Most important of all, my shoes with a goldfish inside the heel. big pimpin'.

Thank you Bluffthis,

"So if you get too much in trying to control a table you will just be stealing blinds and be the one giving the action when they induce you to keep betting and raising when you are buried."

Thats a huge issue, especially when the table is weak-tight enough that it seems that there is nothing really going except for hours of boredom.
So its a recognition of the type of opponnent that you can be assertive against vs. the type that will simply do what you said above.
Essentially, it seems that the limitations in online play including reading capacity, caps, and proliferation of weak-tighters would suggest adopting a stripped-down game. I take what you are saying to mean that online I should simply be searching for that median point where aggressive/assertive play intersects with the limitations online. Any more than that and there is too much money wasted, any less than that, and there is too much value left on the table. It kinda makes the whole thing a little boring and turns it into a simple money-making exercise, but nothing wrong with that.

Thanks

thanks,

One big difference seems to be that in a live session you are going to see far fewer players and can therefore establish a better overall grasp of the table dynamic? Whereas online, it is an endless string of busted players replaced by new ones...with the only relief coming at the 600-2000 tables, on party for example, where you finally get a chance to see the same names over and over. But I guess the only way to combat that is extensive notes, etc.

[BluffTHIS!]

Yes you have to find a right balance for the table in question at the time in question. Table dynamics often can change quickly. Plus you need to practice better table selection. Don't sit on weak-tight tables with low pot averages where they are sitting there like bumps on a log waiting to try to make a set on someone's AA or to overset each other. You need to gamble with those who will gamble with you, provided you are the better player. What you really need to do for the way you want to play is to only play shorthanded, like 5 or less, although there is nothing wrong with 6-max tables. Those tables aren't so boring, attract more players who like to gamble, and you won't often be against as big of hands with your average hand. But you had better read hands very well and know the minimum calling hand for an opponent headsup on a short table.