Why can't I beat low-limit fish?

[CrisBrown]

Hi All,

I'm doing well overall, because I place well in the $109 and $215 SNGs and that makes up for the beats when there are no $109s or $215s filling up. But geez, I really need to learn how to beat the low-limit (looser) games, because in multi-table tourneys I run into a lot of those kinds of situations.

Two examples:

$33 SNG, and I'm in the BB with Q9o. Folded to SB, who min-raises, and I call. Flop is 7-2-Q, giving me top pair vs. a SB min-raise hand. He checks, I bet the pot, he calls. Turn is a 9. He checks, I bet the pot again, he calls. River is an Ace. He checks, I push, he calls and turns up A7o....

$55 SNG, final table, I'm the chip leader, on the button, with QTo. Min-raise from MP, one caller ahead of me, and I call. BB also calls. Flop is 3-8-T, giving me top pair. Min-raiser makes minimum bet, one caller, and I bet the pot. Min-raiser moves in, and I call. He turns up A8o, and catches another 8 at the turn to bust me down to the short-stack. Next hand I move in on AQ, called by AT, and he catches a T on the flop. I'm gone from chip leader to the rail in two hands.

Bad beats happen, I know. But it just seems as if, at the lower limits, where people are willing to call to the river with any slice of a hand, bad beats happen much, much more often. In the higher buy-ins, there are fewer chasers, and it's just plain easier to place consistently (to me).

I know there must be a problem in my game that causes me to do so poorly against the looser, lower-limit players. I am trying to find it. Any comments welcome.

Cris

[NotMitch]

Cris,

It seems like a little bit of bad luck but I don't agree with the river push on the first hand. He had called 2 pot sized bets which mean he likely has a piece of it and this would cause me to slow down here on the river. I think a lot of the time when you get called here you are beat. What were blinds and stack sizes for this hand?

[CrisBrown]

Hi NotMitch,

I agree that the push at the river in the first hand was a really dumb play on my part. As for blinds and stack sizes, I don't exactly recall, and PokerStars has been finicky about sending me hand histories today (anyone know what's up with that) so I'm not sure if I have the data yet.

Cris

[PrayingMantis]

Hey Cris,

First, I must say I play the 33$ on stars, and I really hope there were more fish in those, because there aren't enough... Sometimes it takes 4 levels for someone to bust. These are not low-limit fish, and I played *a lot* of lower-limit SNGs. So, maybe we play at different hours or something, but I think I have a pretty good picture of the games.

Hand 1: I don't like calling a raise with Q9o PF. It's a fish's hand. If your opponent raises you with trash, why not reraise him out? And I would push on the turn, not the river. Pushing on the river is not the best play, IMO.

Hand 2: Again, why call a raise PF with QTo, another fish's hand? And more important: why call a re-raise all-in on the flop, with TP marginal kicker?? Unless you have a very very strong read on this opponent, which you don't specify, and even then... it's very questionable.

All in all, I don't see these as examples for good plays against fish who suck-out on you. But I'm sure it did happen to you on some other occasions.

Please criticize,

PrayingMantis

[Ulysses]

Hand 1: Ignoring whether or not the pre-flop call was good, the main thing here is the push at the end. Not good.

Hand 2: Calling a raise pre-flop w/ QTo? Ugh. Calling an all-in reraise from the PFR w/ TP/OK-kicker? Ugh.

Sure, these guys caught up w/ you. But I don't think you played great poker in either hand. And that's likely the main reason you're not beating these games. It also makes me wonder whether you're really beating the bigger games or just running good. Who knows? Something to consider, though.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

I'll call a min-raise with any hand that I'd have limped or open-raised on. I consider a min-raise a big limp. I had a good read on the second hand, and got all his money in on a 5-outer. He hit it. Oh well.

The problem is, at the lower buy-ins, too many people will go all-in too often on any resemblance of a hand, so even if I'm ahead, I have to survive countless showdowns, and sooner or later, the short side of the odds catch up....

As for whether I'm beating the higher buy-ins, I'm placing in the money ~40% at $109 and $215, and that's where all of my profit ($1954 for February, $950 so far for March) comes from.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi P.M.,

See my reply to Ulysses; I'll call a min-raise with any hand that I'd have limped or open-raised with. Unless I'm on a very big hand (e.g.: AK or a big pair), I'm not going to reraise a min-raise. But often enough I'll catch a good piece of the flop and can take down a little pot. Except at the lower buy-ins, where no one will fold at all, and I have to survive all five board cards. *shrugs*

I dunno. I guess I should just wait for big pairs....

Cris

[BradleyT]

I just watched you push all in with JTo on a jack high board with 2 callers. You could have easily been outkicked there especially since the SB was leading out each round.

I think you're too aggressive with bad kickers.

[cferejohn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll call a min-raise with any hand that I'd have limped or open-raised on. I consider a min-raise a big limp.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there's a problem then. First hand: You would have limped with Q9o out of position? Yuck. Second hand: You would call two limpers with QTo? Yuck again. Also, while a min-raise offers you more attractive odds to call, from most players it does *not* mean the same thing as a limp and treating it as such can easily get you into trouble. I would be more prone to call with small connectors (preferably suited) that I can flop 2-pair or better with or fold. Calling raises-even min-raises with classic trouble hands like QTo is just begging to be dominated (that sounds kind of kinky /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
As for whether I'm beating the higher buy-ins, I'm placing in the money ~40% at $109 and $215, and that's where all of my profit ($1954 for February, $950 so far for March) comes from.


[/ QUOTE ]

That means you have beaten them, not that you are beating them (i.e. two months of results could be luck pretty easily).

Maybe your style does work better against these players (who are at least tighter if nothing else), but the fallacy of "I need to play high limits because then people will respect my raises" has been shown time and time again. I think what Ulysses was saying is that you may well be on a run of short-term luck in these higher limits. Obviously neither of us can know what is true (or if it is some combination of factors), but at the very least, be careful.

Of course, in these $109/$215 games, I'd wager you aren't seeing a lot of min-raising, so if you have a big leak against min-raisers (and judging from the hands above, I would say you do), playing the higher limits might expose this less.

If you are really constantly getting your money in as a big favorite (as you would have been above if not for the river all-in on hand one which you have admitted was probably a bad idea), then you don't really have anything to worry about; if you can keep doing that, you are going to win long term; it's inevitable.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Bradley,

You may be right. Alas, I only get to play the cards I'm dealt, not the cards I wish I had.

Cris

[TheGrifter]

Hey Cris,

Stop being so defensive!!! lol

People aren't criticizing your play to be a-holes, there's just room to criticize (As there is in my game and most others).

I think the reason you aren't crushing these lower buy in SnG's is that you're being too creative.

You're talking about putting people on hands and making plays on people but some people are just unpredictable. If hands like Q10 are in your open raise or limp category, you need to tighten up!

The reason these games are great is because people pay off your big hands, not because the players can be bullied.

I think you do well at the higher buy ins by playing an ggressive, attentive game.

Just for the hell of it, try playing 2 or 3 of these at once and just sit and wait for big hands and then do your best to get them paid off, I think you'll be surprised with the result.

Anyway, I'm sure with a few adjustements you could crush these games and it would vastly improve your overall numbers, just some thoughts.

Grifter

[BradleyT]

Well luckily he had JTs and you split the pot /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

You're right, I am being too defensive. And you're right, I think I just play the wrong style for those games, and I need to learn to just wait for the monsters and take the double-throughs. That's actually what I did in the WPT satellite tourney on Saturday. I won exactly 5 pots until it was at the bubble ... but every one was a double-up pot.

I'm not used to getting paid off for big hands though (it doesn't happen at the higher buy-ins as often), so I'm less patient at the lower buy-ins. *sigh*

Cris

[BradleyT]

But then again, the first hand at your table, Q2o in MP and Q5s in LP both split the showdown....so maybe the caliber of the table isn't all that great.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Bradley,

Yes, nip/tuck is very loose, and he's only still alive because he caught a K on his KK vs. AA.

Cris

[TheGrifter]

Cris,

What was the result on the WPT sat? Did you make it?

[CrisBrown]

Hi john,

You're right; there's not a lot of min-raising at the higher limits, and that may be the major leak I need to plug. I also tend to take opportunities to get into a pot cheaply, because I play well post-flop (at a tight table), but at a loose table my post-flop play is way too aggressive.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

Yes, I won a seat in this Saturday's Super. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cris

[TheGrifter]

Good for you.

That's the 1150 buy in right? I play on stars alot so I'll probably come sweat you if I'm around. Good luck.

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Grifter,

It's the 2pm Saturday super satellite. I don't know what the buy-in is, but that sounds about right.

Cris

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
$33 SNG, and I'm in the BB with Q9o. Folded to SB, who min-raises, and I call. Flop is 7-2-Q, giving me top pair vs. a SB min-raise hand. He checks, I bet the pot, he calls. Turn is a 9. He checks, I bet the pot again, he calls. River is an Ace. He checks, I push, he calls and turns up A7o....


[/ QUOTE ]
I like this call preflop actually, many players on the lower limit SnG's will make the weak min-raise in the SB play to try to steal the blinds. I would call this as well and see they flop, UNLESS, calling was a big portion of your stack. If it is one of the early rounds definitely call. I think you played the hand all right, the guy just got really lucky. I agree that the all-in might have been the wrong play, but this was a hand he shoudl have laid down to you.

[ QUOTE ]
$55 SNG, final table, I'm the chip leader, on the button, with QTo. Min-raise from MP, one caller ahead of me, and I call. BB also calls. Flop is 3-8-T, giving me top pair. Min-raiser makes minimum bet, one caller, and I bet the pot. Min-raiser moves in, and I call. He turns up A8o, and catches another 8 at the turn to bust me down to the short-stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not sure who played worse prelop here, you or your opponent, but that being said lets look at how you played after the flop. Clearly you got unlucky, but why do you want to call with top pair here? He could easily have you beat with a pocket pair. The min raise is strange, but even stranger is his re-raise. He either has a higher pocket pair, or he is trying to buy the pot. But regardless if he is trying to steal the pot, are you comfortable risking your chips here? what if you are wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
Bad beats happen, I know. But it just seems as if, at the lower limits, where people are willing to call to the river with any slice of a hand, bad beats happen much, much more often. In the higher buy-ins, there are fewer chasers, and it's just plain easier to place consistently (to me).

[/ QUOTE ]
One thing to know about the lower limit SnG's, if you play pretty straight up(ie top cards, not much bluffing) you will do pretty well. You will se lots of people playing weak aces and kings, kicker is important. Also when you have a hand, bet it agressively, you will get callers, so use it to your advantage. The bad beats will happen, but mathematically not that often. Don't try to make plays until its down to 5-6 on a table. Remember this phrase my friend told me, " you can't bluff a kid", I interpret this to meanis you can't bluff dumb people. No need to get fancy at the lower limits. Imagine you are a bully 8 year old in the kiddy pool, no need for fancy pile drivers, the close line will do. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Salt,

You're right, of course, but at this point I think the prescription is to take a few days off. Just played a $215 SNG ... KK lost to AK, QQ lost to AJo, ATs lost to 44 ... and I'm gone. Sheesh. I waited over an hour for that SNG to fill, and was gone in 15 minutes. Definitely time to take a few days off....

Cris

[Moonsugar]

I am sure this has been pointed out before, but:

[ QUOTE ]
I know there must be a problem in my game that causes me to do so poorly against the looser, lower-limit players

[/ QUOTE ]

As it says in SuperSystem:

If the game is loose, play tight. If the game is tight, play loose.

I bet one weaknes is, coming from a tight game, you play too loose. ABC wins these tourneys.

I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, because you are probably a hell of a better player than me, judging by the contents of most of your posts.

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Moon,

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, because you are probably a hell of a better player than me, judging by the contents of most of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the kind words, but today I think I'm the worst player ever to sit down at a card table. I think I just need a few days away.

Cris

[M.B.E.]

Cris, I won't comment on the specific hands you posted, but on the general topic of how to beat low-limit fish, here's a hand I just played in the $11 rebuy multi on Stars:

Blinds are 100/200, ante 25, my stack is about 2500 before posting the small blind. Everyone folds to me and I raise to 700 with A7s. Big blind calls. Flop comes 5-4-3 rainbow. I push in, and the big blind calls his last 1400 chips -- and shows QJo. (I won the hand, catching a seven on the river, which I didn't even need since ace-high was good.)

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll call a min-raise with any hand that I'd have limped or open-raised on.


[/ QUOTE ]

cferejohn has already spoken to this, but he didn't make a point that struck me immediately: calling a min-raise sets up a completely different hand thank making an open-raise does. When you open raise you are taking control, and perhaps winning the pot right there. When you call a min-raise you have no chance of winning the pot uncontested and are positioning yourself as the passive party in a contest against someone who has already indicated he has a hand he likes.

Open raise QT? All day long (in the right circumstances). Call a raise with it? Never! Well, almost never...

Guy.

[Stoneii]

but I think in Cris's case they've been hitting the J /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'll call a min-raise with any hand that I'd have limped or open-raised on.


[/ QUOTE ]

cferejohn has already spoken to this, but he didn't make a point that struck me immediately: calling a min-raise sets up a completely different hand thank making an open-raise does. When you open raise you are taking control, and perhaps winning the pot right there. When you call a min-raise you have no chance of winning the pot uncontested and are positioning yourself as the passive party in a contest against someone who has already indicated he has a hand he likes.

Open raise QT? All day long (in the right circumstances). Call a raise with it? Never! Well, almost never...

Guy.


[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I don't like the "call a min-raise with any 2" strategy either.

Maybe if I was a brilliant postflop player...

eastbay

[AJo Go All In]

man, this is getting ridiculous. when are you going to get it?

enough is enough. you are not unlucky. get over yourself.

you are not playing good poker. it's time for you to start thinking about that rather than this newbie idiot luck vs. skill garbage that you post here seemingly every day.

[CrisBrown]

Hi eastbay

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I don't like the "call a min-raise with any 2" strategy either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I. From the button or the BB, I've been calling min-raises with connectors (suited or off, including one- and two-gap connectors), pocket pairs, and strong suited Aces. I don't call with weak Aces or Kings, as they are too likely to be dominated by min-raising hands.

I suspect I can plug the leak simply by limiting the connector calls to suited, no-gap connectors, unless all of the following are true: (a) I'm in the BB, as it costs me only one BB; (b) there is both a min-raise and a call ahead of me, as I'm getting 5:1 pot odds for the peek; and, (c) the money is deep, as that gives me good implied odds.

The button calls would then be limited to suited, no-gap connectors, pocket pairs, and strong suited Aces. I think the advantage of position swings these in favor of calling a min-raise, assuming relatively deep money. On shallow money, the implied odds are reduced if not eliminated, and I rarely call a min-raise; I either reraise or fold.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hi AJ,

I thought the content of my post made it pretty clear that I know I'm not playing correctly for the lower buy-ins, and the other responses both confirmed that and gave some useful insights into how I might improve. Your post, on the other hand, contributes nothing to the discussion, except perhaps to satisfy your need to vent your anger and frustration after having spilled your coffee in your lap on the way to work. Add light, not heat.

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the content of my post made it pretty clear that I know I'm not playing correctly

[/ QUOTE ]

i disagree. the content of your post made it pretty clear that you wanted to show everyone how many bad beats you were getting.

[ QUOTE ]
Bad beats happen, I know. But it just seems as if, at the lower limits, where people are willing to call to the river with any slice of a hand, bad beats happen much, much more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

basically, here is how i read your post: "oh man, look at all these bad beats! i mean, i just can't win in the lower buy-ins (because of these beats)! well, i guess there's gotta be a leak in my game.. (but really, it's just the bad beats, right?)"

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not playing correctly for the lower buy-ins

[/ QUOTE ]

what is this qualification about? you're even more arrogant than me! not playing correctly for the lower buy-ins? the plays you made in your post are not correct for any buy-in!

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
what is this qualification about? you're even more arrogant than me! not playing correctly for the lower buy-ins? the plays you made in your post are not correct for any buy-in!


[/ QUOTE ]

Cris, I wanted to highlight this point, because based on your prior response to AJo's post, you might be inclined to dismiss his comments here.

However, he makes a very good point here. People have pointed out that you're making some poor decisions. Based on your initial post, these are ones you felt you played reasonably, so I imagine there are plenty of other instances where you made some mistakes. Maybe small mistakes, but these things add up.

If you're making these mistakes in the lower buy-ins, it's likely that you're making similar mistakes when it comes to making decisions in the higher buy-ins and while you might have a style better suited for the opponents in those games, if you're making basic mistakes, it's going to hurt you no matter what the buy-in. I suspect that your results are less indicative of you playing all that much better in the higher buy-ins than they are of you just running better in those games within your small sample.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, simply trying to point out that if you're going to have long-term success in any buy-in, the key is to examine and work on your basic poker skills first and foremost.

After beating the games soundly for a couple thousand hours (B&M & online), I found myself in a horrible slump at the beginning of the year playing ring games ranging from 10-20 to 30-60. I was running bad, but I was also playing poorly. I took a little time off, though about my poor play, and decided I would play 5-10 until I had my focus back and was playing a really solid game. I did that for a few weeks and now I am back to crushing multiple tables of the 10-20 6-max. I bet it would do you a lot of good to focus on your fundamentals and rebuild a strong record of success in the lower buy-ins before looking to the higher buy-ins for some big wins. Just a suggestion, take it as you will.

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll call a min-raise with any hand that I'd have limped or open-raised on. I consider a min-raise a big limp. I had a good read on the second hand, and got all his money in on a 5-outer. He hit it. Oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...why, then are you posting bad beat stories? Who here hasn't been sucked out by the 5 outer, or done the sucking themselves? It's part of poker, and if you can't live w/ it, then don't play.

[PrayingMantis]

I find one interesting thing in this thread. And it isn't really directed at your play, Cris, or to anybody's specific replies.

The thing is, that during my long hours at the on-line tables, I realised that the one (and maybe only) really important ability of a poker player, is *adaptability*. Adaptability can be roughly defined as the ability to change your play as to make it profitable against different opponents. And this has actually nothing to do with buy-in level. It has only to do with watching, very carefully, your opponents, regardless if they are complete fish or professionals (not that I met too many of those, but I sure met some very tough opponents), and to play them. I'm not inventing anything here, of course. I'm only saying that I don't really believe that one can beat higher limit games, while not being able to beat lower. Sure, sometimes rake can make lower limit (LLHE ring) games almost unbeatable, or high concentration of fish, but *in general*, the ability to adapt to whatever poker game you play in, and to maximize your profit against it - that is the first thing you want to, and must achieve, IMO.

5$ - 30$ SNGs are completely beatable, and very profitable. I am a living proof for this. Of course, $$/H is another question, BR too, but that's not the point in this thread.

To make it short: I strongly believe that a player that wants to beat 55$ and higher SNGs, MUST be able to beat lower buy-ins consistently. Your play might be completely different there, but the ability to adjust, above all, is what counts. As the buy-ins climb, you have to adjust more and more to different kinds of tough opponents, to play every player for his own. This cannot be done without the ability to adjust to the "easier" lower buy-ins. No matter how you look at it.

Only a few thoughts.

PrayingMantis

[CrisBrown]

Hi Ulysses,

AJ wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
the plays you made in your post are not correct for any buy-in!

[/ QUOTE ]

Ulysses wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
If you're making these mistakes in the lower buy-ins, it's likely that you're making similar mistakes when it comes to making decisions in the higher buy-ins and while you might have a style better suited for the opponents in those games, if you're making basic mistakes, it's going to hurt you no matter what the buy-in. I suspect that your results are less indicative of you playing all that much better in the higher buy-ins than they are of you just running better in those games within your small sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

That could be. In looking over my stats, I've won 57% of my showdowns in the $109 and $215 SNGs, but only 42% in the $55, $33, and $22 SNGs. So it may well be that I'm simply running luckier in the higher buy-ins than at the lower buy-ins, and over the course of time they'll even out.

I play roughly the same percentage of hands, that is, I voluntarily put money in pot ~22% of the time, although that includes the short-handed and heads-up phases where I play a LOT of hands. In the early rounds, it's much lower (~16%). When I put money in the pot, I win ~51% at the higher buy-ins, but only ~42% at the lower buy-ins. That may simply reflect my winning more showdowns -- catching luckier -- so far at the higher buy-ins, or it may reflect a real difference in the playability of marginal hands.

Of course, all of these are very small sample sizes -- 103 SNGs, 6800 hands, for all buy-ins combined -- so it may all be irrelevant. But my money finish percentages are:

$215: 37.5% (n=8)
$109: 33.3% (n=14)
$55: 27.3% (n=44)
$33: 27.6% (n=29)
$22: 20.0% (n=5)
$11: 60.0% (n=5; these are the 2+2 SNGs)

My profit over those 103 SNGs is $2646, for an ROI of 40.3%.

Now, it may be that I'm a bad player who's just gotten lucky in a few big buy-in SNGs. That's entirely possible. I'm not happy with my percentage of money finishes. So I raised this thread to seek advice on how to improve that.

Neither of AJ's posts offered that. They both simply said, in so many words: "You just play bad poker." And that's why I'm dismissing him. If AJ wants to offer something constructive to the conversation, I'll listen and take note of what he says. But what he's said is, frankly, useless.

Another part of what's annoying me is that I get a sense of "damned if I do and damned if I don't." If I post hands where I won, people pm me to say I should stop bragging. If I post hands where I lost, people say I'm whining. So, apparently, I can't post any hands at all without pissing someone off. That gets a little old.

I made clear in the initial post in this thread that I know I'm not playing well in the lower buy-ins. I'm playing too creatively, and not sticking to ABC poker, as one poster put it, and I think that's 100% true.

I disagree with the notion that straightforward, ABC poker will win at the high buy-ins; it's too readable and the players there are much too attentive and skillful. You have to mix up your game at those levels, or you may as well play with your cards face up.

The sense I'm getting from this thread overall is that I should not mix up my play at the lower buy-ins, or at least not until the end game when the table is short-handed. I should stick to fundamental, ABC poker, because it will pay off against those opponents. That is useful, constructive, and insightful advice, and I plan to apply it.

But I don't understand the basis for the repeated assertion that my success in higher buy-ins must be purely a function of random chance, and that basically I'm a mediocre if not lousy player who just gets lucky once in awhile. I don't think that's very constructive.

Cris

[La Brujita]

Praying Mantis,

That was an excellent post. I wanted to say the same thing but you said it better than I could. The only thing I want to add is the backbone of a winning poker player is the ability to play solid straightfoward poker, getting his or her money in as favorites and showing down better hands when it is likely hands are going to get shown down. You start with this and than vary your play as necessary.

This might put me in the minority of nl players, but I think the statement I made above is a good reason to learn to play both limit and nl well.

Making fancy plays, bluffing, etc. are the icing not the cake.

I also am in the school that believes it is impossible to be a long term winner at high buy in tournaments if you can't beat lower buy in tournaments.

Edit to say none of my comments are meant to attack Cris at all specifically, I am just talking about poker theory. Also, sample sizes for $100 and $200 games are too small to be meaningful in my opinion.

Completely off topic, what does it mean when someone posts "n/m"?

[CrisBrown]

Hiya P.M.,

I agree, and that's why I'm playing more of the lower buy-in tourneys. I want to learn how to beat ANY type of game, and not just the tight-cautious play I run into at the $215 and $109 tables. I do NOT play well at a loose-aggressive table, by and large. I know that, and I know I need to work on it because -- on occasion -- even a high buy-in SNG will get a handful of loose-aggressive players who want to mix it up on almost every hand. I need to learn how to beat that kind of play, consistently, rather than simply looking to avoid it.

That's why I posted this thread. The plays I made in these hands are profitable at a tight-cautious table. They are UNPROFITABLE at a loose-aggressive table, and I need to learn to adjust my play accordingly.

When I first learned how to play NLHE, I played way TOO tight. I was inevitably short-stacked, because I hadn't gotten involved in many hands, and I was always climbing uphill at the end of a SNG. I had to learn how to play more kinds of hands, because monster pairs and AK simply don't come along often enough to live on.

Okay, so I've learned how to play a whole lot of kinds of hands, when the table is tight and the players are cautious. That's progress. I need to go back and learn how to be patient when the table is loose and the players are willing to gamble, while still being able to play some off-beat hands when the situation is right.

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

i didn't feel the need to explain your mistakes, because the other replies covered this nicely. and the word 'nicely' has 2 meanings here.

[CrisBrown]

Hi AJ,

Then exactly what did you add to the conversation, except venom?

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

look sweetheart, i'm sorry i hurt your feewings. just read ulysses's post, he explains the substance behind my posts in a clear and tactful manner.

ulysses is the man.

[CrisBrown]

AJ,

First, I'm not your sweetheart.

Second, this isn't about hurt feelings. It's about constructive vs. pointless comments. If you want to flame someone, go to the Internet forum. I've heard that's the standard procedure there. It's not here, and I'm not going to stand idly by while you try to make it the standard. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then shut up.

Cris

[Prickly Pete]

Cris,

You post here as often as anyone and I believe you probably don't post meaning to brag or whine, but it sometimes can come off that way. For instance, when you start out by saying,

[ QUOTE ]
I'm doing well overall, because I place well in the $109 and $215 SNGs and that makes up for the beats when there are no $109s or $215s filling up.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then go on to tell a few bad beats from lower buyin tourneys, how do you expect people to react? You basically come off as saying "I'm good enough to beat the best, but I get sucked out on by idiots that play the lower levels."

Again, I'm not saying that you mean to say this, but that's often how it's viewed.

Finally, 103 SNGs is a rather small sample even for 1 level of play, much less several. Typically, I'd say 300-500 at one level will give a good idea of where you stand.(although for the 2-tablers that I believe you play, even more would probably be necessary.)

[William]

Hi Cris,

you have been posting several times now about how bad you do in the "lower" buy-ins and how successfull you are in the "higher" ones.

Well, I am sorry to say this but I don't believe anybody can be successfull in the long run at the higher buy-ins and lose at the lower ones.
If you can't beat the 30$ ones, you are going to lose your shirt at the high ones, no matter what your results are so far.

So once again, it's time to think about how to improve your game at the bottom, before becoming a star at the top.

"Before you can run, you have to learn to walk."

Take care,
William

[AJo Go All In]

i think it is about hurt feelings.

that's why you've spent ~4 posts now focusing on how much of a jerk i am, rather than the more important question of your play.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Pete,

[ QUOTE ]
And then go on to tell a few bad beats from lower buyin tourneys, how do you expect people to react? You basically come off as saying "I'm good enough to beat the best, but I get sucked out on by idiots that play the lower levels."

Again, I'm not saying that you mean to say this, but that's often how it's viewed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then perhaps people need to be more charitable and less judgmental in how they read. I say I'm not playing well at the lower limits. I give examples. I ask for help. And of course that's whining....

I admit that while my bankroll and profits have been on the positive -- to avert the "Geez, what were you complaining about, you're WINNING!" posts I got last time -- because I've hit big in some $109 and $215 SNGs, but that I can't win consistently at the lower buy-ins. And of course that's bragging....

Basically, the sense I get is that no matter what I say, or how I say it, there is a certain segment of this forum that is going to take offense at it, and respond with personal attacks.

Too bad this forum doesn't have an "ignore" function. It would save everyone a lot of grief.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

William,

I agree wholeheartedly, and that's why I asked for advice.

Cris

[William]

Cris,
FWIW, I think you should play a lot of 30$ SNGs, until you feel that you are crushing them. Experience is often the best way to improve.

That doesn't mean you should stop the higher ones, just don't expect great results all the time,

Good luck,
William

[Ulysses]

I think that's great advice, but I think even better advice would be to stop playing the higher ones. Play $30 (or $30 and $50) only for some amount of time. Say a minimum of xx SNGs and once you have played that number, before you can move up you will achieve a certain earn rate in them.

Doing something like that makes it easier to focus and really take the smaller games seriously. When you're playing bigger, it's hard to stay disciplined and not screw around in small games. But if you have a goal and you cut out those bigger games until you meet it, you'll have much more motivation to approach this task seriously.

[Prickly Pete]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, the sense I get is that no matter what I say, or how I say it, there is a certain segment of this forum that is going to take offense at it, and respond with personal attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you were looking for honest feedback on how you played the hands listed and had just posted the relevant info ($30 SNG, stack sizes, bets raises, etc), I guarantee that nobody would've taken offense.

[ThaSaltCracka]

If you were looking for honest feedback on how you played the hands listed and had just posted the relevant info ($30 SNG, stack sizes, bets raises, etc), I guarantee that nobody would've taken offense.

eh, I didn't take offense, I stopped reading everyones lead in's a while ago, mostly because it seems EVERYONE complains about bad beats. I almost never post these hands mostly because I know I played it wrong and I know why I played it wrong, too bad I don't know this while I am playing /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Cris,
FWIW, I read your post mostly as you asking for advice for what you did wrong in the SnG's, I didn't take offense at all. also FWIW's /images/graemlins/grin.gif hehe, I kind of think the $30-$50 SnG's are the hardest ones, a deadly combo of real good players and fish. Very tough games, in my experience anyways.

[Guy McSucker]

I SAID N/M. DON'T YOU READ THE SUBJECT LINES?

[William]

Someone probably beat me to this gag, but n/m means "no message". n/m


I thought it meant NO MEANING /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Another part of what's annoying me is that I get a sense of "damned if I do and damned if I don't." If I post hands where I won, people pm me to say I should stop bragging. If I post hands where I lost, people say I'm whining. So, apparently, I can't post any hands at all without pissing someone off. That gets a little old.


[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, Cris! You do need to get over yourself (whatever that means /images/graemlins/smirk.gif). Scores of hands are posted daily, many of which involve losses. But there is a difference between someone asking "Did I play this right?" and "See how unlucky I am; I can't catch a break; I can't beat players who are too stupid to fall for my creative plays, etc."

Although you claim that you are looking for advice, many of your posts which do not include bad beats involve you making bets/calls that you supposedly knew were bad, but you took the action anyway. Maybe you need to look at why you make similar, impulsive plays time and time again without learning from your mistakes.

[AJo Go All In]

yeah, thank you. well put.

[Stagemusic]

I'm not going to add much content here because I really believe that AJ, William, and particularly Ulysses have given you all the advice that you need to become more successful. However, the tone of your posts do tend to leave room for criticism. You do tend to post the "How Great I am" and the "Woe is me" stories. Because of that you need to take the chaffe as well as the wheat. Dismissing a poster because you don't like what he says does not diminish the value of the information.

Do yourself a favor. Drop down to the 30's and 50's exclusively and just start crushing them. When you have a good history of 2-300 of them really analyze your play and DO NOT TRY TO JUSTIFY BAD PLAY...JUST ACCEPT THAT YOU PLAYED BAD AND VOW TO NOT REPEAT IT Then move on. Just a suggestion as you are a better player with much more experience than I... I'm just telling you what has helped me in the past few months.

[William]

as you are a better player with much more experience than I...

Stage, I hate to say this, but as your status of ViceKing proves it, you are wrong in this statement (I'm glad I catch you wrong again, but regret to admit what it means). /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You're a solid player, and I expect no less from the guy who's been breathing down my neck for the past 2 months /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Stagemusic]

William.

Thanks, I appreciate the vote of confidence but I really have only been playing for a little more than 10 months and have much much more to learn (and earn /images/graemlins/grin.gif )

Stage /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CrisBrown]

Hi Stage,

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to add much content here because I really believe that AJ, William, and particularly Ulysses have given you all the advice that you need to become more successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed re: William, less so re: Ulysses (as he didn't give much specific advice, although his points were well-taken), and not at all agreed re: AJ (whose posts were apparently prompted by a personal problem that I entirely understand).

Basically, the early advice I got was spot-on: tighten up, play more ABC poker, don't try to make cute plays with my marginal hands, drop down and focus on the lower limits for awhile, go back to fundamentals, etc. All spot-on, and all taken in the spirit of constructive criticism.

[ QUOTE ]
However, the tone of your posts do tend to leave room for criticism. You do tend to post the "How Great I am" and the "Woe is me" stories.

[/ QUOTE ]

The remaining comments were in the "I don't like the way you post" category. Well, guess what? I don't care if you like what I write, or how I write it, and I'm not going to change. I neither need nor want your commentary on my rhetorical style. If you don't like what I write, or how I write it, hit the "Next" button. If you and enough others are convinced that what I write and how I write it are that disruptive, pm Matt Sklansky and ask him to ban me from the forum. Otherwise, get over your own damn selves.

Cris

[ThaSaltCracka]

Cris,
None of this is neccesary:

[ QUOTE ]
The remaining comments were in the "I don't like the way you post" category. Well, guess what? I don't care if you like what I write, or how I write it, and I'm not going to change. I neither need nor want your commentary on my rhetorical style. If you don't like what I write, or how I write it, hit the "Next" button. If you and enough others are convinced that what I write and how I write it are that disruptive, pm Matt Sklansky and ask him to ban me from the forum. Otherwise, get over your own damn selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really need to relaxe some, seriously

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
The remaining comments were in the "I don't like the way you post" category. Well, guess what? I don't care if you like what I write, or how I write it, and I'm not going to change. I neither need nor want your commentary on my rhetorical style. If you don't like what I write, or how I write it, hit the "Next" button. If you and enough others are convinced that what I write and how I write it are that disruptive, pm Matt Sklansky and ask him to ban me from the forum. Otherwise, get over your own damn selves

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be a valid point Cris. However, you ARE judged by your "rhetorical style" as every comment you receive is based on the perception of the people who read your posts. When reading a description of events or summary of a situation the reader will always evaluate in the context of his or her opinion of what is written. If you come off gloating or whiney, you will receive less viable input from others.

As to the context of the statement I quoted above, you have to see that this is an absolutely arrogant statement and was totally uncalled for in the context of what I wrote to you. Nobody said you were disruptive. Nobody made a comment about wanting or desiring you to be banned. This shows a complete lack of understanding that sometimes people really do want to help with no real underlying motive. All I was trying to do was get you to see how some of your posts are perceived and help to explain the reactions you get. Maybe not even by me.

Is it your ego that gets in the way when it comes to your whining and carping about bad beats and bad plays when your slick play doesn't pay off like you think it should. Could that same ego be the reason that you don't win at the lower levels? Do you have a lack of respect for your opponent that causes you to be more upset when your fancy plays don't work against an abc player at a lower limit?

Let me make a prediction. You are not going to like this post. You are going to get upset and be all full of vinegar and threaten to not post here anymore to solicit sympathy and support from others. Go for it. But remember, this actually started with an honest attempt to help. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[William]

Let me make a prediction. You are not going to like this post. You are going to get upset and be all full of vinegar and threaten to not post here anymore to solicit sympathy and support from others. Go for it

Stage, buddy, it was nice knowing you /images/graemlins/grin.gif

STAGE
R.I.P.

[Stagemusic]

William,

Not exactly what would be expected from me huh? Oh well. It just had to be said. Although I am not in total agreement with AJ, I do think that he makes some valid points. Why do we have to sit on our hands and pander to somebody who obviously just wants justification for shaky play and recognition of superior skills?

I was fine with everything she had to say until the end. I really don't think that she will want to go to war over this but if so... so be it. As I said..."Remember, this started as an honest attempt to help".

On a lighter note...I am off to LA (as in Loose/Aggressive) Saturday for a week of Sun, Cards, School, Did I mention Cards? Ocean breezes, Cards. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[William]

On a lighter note...I am off to LA (as in Loose/Aggressive) Saturday for a week of Sun, Cards, School, Did I mention Cards? Ocean breezes, Cards.

Lucky you. I can only contemplate my trips to Sweden. Not much sun there, but lots of cards.

But I understand that it must be stressing to eat my dust over and over again, so I hope you'll have a great week, enjoy the sun and the ocean, make plenty of money at the tables and all good things, and I'll be looking forward to a trip report /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Of course it will be hard to find somebody else to pick up on, you're kind of my favorite /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
Oh well, it's just a week...

[Stagemusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it will be hard to find somebody else to pick up on, you're kind of my favorite .
Oh well, it's just a week...

[/ QUOTE ]

Have Laptop...Will travel. I will be checking the boards every once in awhile. I will have to gloat some about overtaking you in the KOTZ standings anyway. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[William]

I will have to gloat some about overtaking you in the KOTZ standings anyway.

And the dream goes on...how sad /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I do admit though that this is one of your best chances, as it is
&%¤#"!Limit and I suck at it (suck, suck, such big words. Let's say I could be a little more vulnerable if I am to busy making plenty of $$$ at the ring games /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

[Pitcher]

Hi Cris,

I don't know if I am really adding much to the replies, but here goes. I believe the reason you are having trouble is that you seem to make too many impulsive calls / raises. I believe the 1st. hand you posted is a perfect example with the push on the river.
I suspect the root of these calls comes from a need to "show" your competitor the error of their ways. It is an easy trap to fall into. You clearly work on your game, are clearly bright, and clearly have high expectations. This leads to a level or arrogance against players who clearly do not put in the same type of effort. You see these players making weak calls and raises, and begin to believe you are entitled to beat them. Of course, you need to clear your mind of this sort of thinking. If I am right, and you feel this way, I suggest writing it down everytime you have these thoughts. In this way, you can fight this type of thinking and eventually remove it from your game.

Of course, if I am off-base, please disregards this.

Regards,

Pitcher

[Bozeman]

Cris,

Here is my take.

1) A very difficult but important part of poker is dealing with the swings inherent in the game. All good players can say they don't let swings (or bad beats) affect them, but our moods are only partially under the control of our conscious mind. I would be willing to bet that the number of players who NEVER go on tilt (that is, let their emotions affect their play) is miniscule. You, like me, might let too much of your overall mood be affected by short term results.

2) The hands you posted are obviously bad beats. However, this is true only after the cards have been shown. Before seeing the cards, you could just as easily have been a big underdog as a big favorite. If all your losses at low-buyins are coming like this, you are just in the midst of a serious bad run. However, if you are instead pushing hard when you are not a favorite over the eventual winner's range of hands, but preferentially posting the hands that you turned out to be the favorite, this is a leak. And you would not be likely to get useful feedback, because you wouldn't be posting the important hands. It looks like Ullysses perceives this as well.

3) You are focussing on results, not necessarily play.

Craig

[CrisBrown]

Hi Stage,

[ QUOTE ]
That may be a valid point Cris. However, you ARE judged by your "rhetorical style" as every comment you receive is based on the perception of the people who read your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I am. But nobody else here is.

Imagine the reaction if I'd written to congratulate someone on winning a 2+2 SNG, and added that I didn't play much at the final table because I was busy winning a multi-table tournament at the time ... and then copy-pasted the PStars results e-mail into my response, complete with the amount of the prize. I'd have been (justifiably?) blasted for gloating. Well, this very thing happened a few weeks ago, and nobody said a word.

The double-standard is starting to get very, very old.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the context of the statement I quoted above, you have to see that this is an absolutely arrogant statement and was totally uncalled for in the context of what I wrote to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't replying to you personally, Stage, but to the forum as a whole. Nobody else has to worry about whether they've said something exactly the right way, and I'm going to stop worrying about it also. If people don't like what I write, oh well. But I'm not going to self-censor every post, parsing through it to ask myself "might someone take this as gloating, or that as whining, or this as arrogant, or that as patronizing?" No one else here has to do that. Why should I?

[ QUOTE ]
Is it your ego that gets in the way when it comes to your whining and carping about bad beats and bad plays when your slick play doesn't pay off like you think it should. Could that same ego be the reason that you don't win at the lower levels? Do you have a lack of respect for your opponent that causes you to be more upset when your fancy plays don't work against an abc player at a lower limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quite certain that this is true in part. But I'm not the only poster here who has an ego, nor the only one who demonstrates that on a regular basis. I do, however, seem to be the only one whose ego seems to offend so many on a constant basis.

It may be that I simply shouldn't post here when I'm in the midst of a bad run and I'm frustrated. Then again, if I only post when things are running well, I'll be blasted for gloating. Damned if I do. Damned if I don't.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me make a prediction. You are not going to like this post. You are going to get upset and be all full of vinegar and threaten to not post here anymore to solicit sympathy and support from others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with your post, surprisingly enough. And I'm going to continue to post here, because I have as much right to be here as anyone else does. All I'm asking is that the standards be the same for everyone. Either climb all over everyone whom you perceive as whining or gloating, or don't climb all over anyone.

Cris

[CrisBrown]

Hiya Craig,

[ QUOTE ]
You, like me, might let too much of your overall mood be affected by short term results.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% true. It's a weakness that I have to work on.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if you are instead pushing hard when you are not a favorite over the eventual winner's range of hands, but preferentially posting the hands that you turned out to be the favorite, this is a leak. And you would not be likely to get useful feedback, because you wouldn't be posting the important hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may well be true; I'm not sure. As a general rule, I know when I've made a dumb mistake, and how, and I usually don't post those hands.

E.g.: Early in a $33 SNG last night, I called a min-raise with QJs in the BB, and lost to AQ on a Q-high flop. While I didn't get too much invested in the pot, it did make a significant dent, and in retrospect it was probably a hand I should've mucked at the outset.

As it turned out, I hung around to finish 4th, in large part because I flopped a 4 with my 44 (short-stacked, all-in pre-flop) against 77, another mistake, but one that was rescued by the dealer.

At the end of each SNG I win, I can usually go back and point to two or three big pots that I won with marginal hands, either out-flopping a better starting hand, or more commonly with a big bluff at the turn or river. Most of the time, when I win, I've taken at least one big pot that I probably would have lost -- and which would have busted me -- if I'd been called. Of course, I have no way to know this for sure. Some of the time, my raggedy hand might be the better hand. But I suspect that, more often than not, I'd have been busted if called.

And I can't make those kinds of plays at the lower buy-ins, because I will be called most of the time. That's a big part of my game, and when that's taken away, I feel as if I'm no longer playing poker. I feel as if I'm just waiting for the dealer to either hand me a win (with big hands or monster flops), or bust me.

And that paragraph may sum up the most significant problem I'm having. In that regard, it's exactly what Stagemusic pointed to in another post: ego. I want to win with good plays, because it doesn't feel like "winning" when all I do is fold-fold-fold until the dealer hands me a pot. To me, that feels like just "getting lucky."

Anyway, Craig, thank you for your very insightful response.

Cris

[Bozeman]

"To me, that feels like just "getting lucky.""

The key to winning tournament poker is winning when you get lucky. (to a lesser extent, not losing when you aren't lucky)

Perhaps you should recognize that you are lucky when you make a big bluff and the other player hasn't picked up a huge hand.

"As it turned out, I hung around to finish 4th, in large part because I flopped a 4 with my 44 (short-stacked, all-in pre-flop) against 77, another mistake, but one that was rescued by the dealer."

Most likely, this was not a mistake, just bad luck, followed by reversal.

Craig

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
The remaining comments were in the "I don't like the way you post" category. Well, guess what? I don't care if you like what I write, or how I write it, and I'm not going to change. I neither need nor want your commentary on my rhetorical style. If you don't like what I write, or how I write it, hit the "Next" button. If you and enough others are convinced that what I write and how I write it are that disruptive, pm Matt Sklansky and ask him to ban me from the forum. Otherwise, get over your own damn selves.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to flame someone, go to the Internet forum. I've heard that's the standard procedure there. It's not here, and I'm not going to stand idly by while you try to make it the standard. If you don't have anything constructive to say, then shut up.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow look at me, making an actual point.