The definition of running good......

[Clarkmeister]

20-40, loose but crafty player on my immediate right. Limper, he limps, I raise on the button with AK. 3 of us to the flop of TT9. Checked to me, I bet, caller, he checkraises, I fold. King comes on the turn but at showdown, Crafty has the Ten.

A few hands later Crafty open limps in EP. I raise with AK. Headsup. Flop is 678 with a flush draw. He bets, I decide to call him down. Turn is a Jack, river is a 4. I stick with my plan and call him down. He says "I missed" and flashes a 9 as he mucks on the river.

Running good rules.

[Mike Gallo]

Running good rules.

Your in the zone. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[rharless]

I have noticed over the last couple months that when I am running good, I am playing Big Ace well: hitting the flop with it and maximizing bets, and more importantly making good decisions when I don't hit the flop.

When I am "running bad" I tend to put too much money with Big Ace into small pots drawing thin; I seem easily able to convince myself into "calling down a bluff;" or my TPTK doesn't hold up and I pay off lots of obvious check-raises.

Since a big ace is a significant percentage of the total population of hands that I play (15-20% of all hands I enter a pot with in an online 5-10 game), I guess it makes sense that if I am having good results with it, then I usually am running good.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I have noticed over the last couple months that when I am running good, I am playing Big Ace well: hitting the flop with it and maximizing bets, and more importantly making good decisions when I don't hit the flop.

When I am "running bad" I tend to put too much money with Big Ace into small pots drawing thin; I seem easily able to convince myself into "calling down a bluff;" or my TPTK doesn't hold up and I pay off lots of obvious check-raises.

Since a big ace is a significant percentage of the total population of hands that I play (15-20% of all hands I enter a pot with in an online 5-10 game), I guess it makes sense that if I am having good results with it, then I usually am running good.

[/ QUOTE ]


Exactly. I "played these hands well" mostly because I made the right choices this time.

Hand #1, some of the time my read here will be wrong. After all, I did fold potentially 6 outs getting 11-1, right? So if the king that came on the turn had won, some would say that I "played it wrong", as opposed to "had bad luck". Of course, no one really knows whether I got lucky this time, or made the long term +EV play, but I find it interesting that when it doesn't work, many say it was "poorly played", even if the decision may have been the right one.

Similarly in hand #2, you look like a brilliant player when its right, but when the guy gets there, some would say "you never should have been involved anyways". Who really knows though. All I know is that short term results are awfully dependant on situations like these.

[balkii]

Heres a similar hand, though the stakes a bit lower.

2 limpers to me in CO, I raise, LAG BB 3-bets, all call. FLop J28, BB bets, 2 folds, I call. Turn is a Jack, BB bets, I raise. River 4, BB checks I check behind. MHIG

Ha probably a shitty way to play the hand but, hey it worked.

[andyfox]

How did the fact that in hand one he check-raised and that in hand two he bet out effect your decisions? While at first glance it might look like you're running good, luck, as Branch Rickey said, is often the residue of design.

[rharless]

Perhaps it's not necessarily just check-raise vs bet out being the only difference. Perhaps it's more, "check raise two players" versus "bet out headsup".

In hand one, he would probably expect Clark to raise and knock out the third player, not a good outcome for a T. So the fact that Crafty check-raises two players, lends more credibility to the trips.

In hand two, if Crafty is betting straight out headsup, he probably wants one of two things: clark to fold, or clark to raise.

Low limit thinking entering mid-limit territory /images/graemlins/smile.gif