Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

the game you play has changed but not in the way you think
make the adjustments

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

KISS

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

Of your 90K hands played at 1/2 NL PS, I've probably played a few thousands of those with you, so I know those games well.

I can actually understand why you thought you were behind in these hands, as the full ring NL games at Stars have turned into Rock gardens, as the loose players have gravitated to the new 6 max tables which appeared about two months ago.

As a result of this, I don't play the full ring games anymore on Stars, as the flop % is around 30, & the average pot size is around $30.

I can't believe how badly your opponents in hand one overplayed their Top pair. This is highly unusual for full ring NL games on at PS, as you know.
I personally don't like the PF slow play of A/A, especially OOP. I would throw in a heft raise here, I find more often than not, someone will call, especially since they have $12 invested already.

Like others have said, in hand one you have so much invested, it's an auto call on his flop 3 bet, unless he's an uber tight regular, who you know wouldn't do this unless he hit his set, then maybe you can get away with a fold here.

Hand two; you couldn't have butchered this one any worse than you did.

Lead out for much more on the flop, especially OOp, & on that draw heavy board.

Seems by his smooth call on your flop bet, he was on a draw (or Slow playing a monster, which is less likely).
The turn check is just as bad, charge him dearly if he's on a draw here.
Remember, button raised it only 4X the BB, into a pot that was limped in by a few players, seems like a position raise to me. Do you really give him credit for A/A, or Q/Q? Either hand he would have likely raised you P/F, or raised your flop bet on that draw heavy board.

As always, my play is never etched in stone, it is totally player dependent. I don't believe you gave your read on your opponents in these hands.

For your original question, should you be employing a higher level of psychology at NL 200, I would say no.

Play your hands ABC at this level, for the most part, and don't fall victim to FPS (fancy play syndrome).

But more importantly, pay attention to your opponents, then trust your reads.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Johnny,

You need to get Pokertracker if you don't have it already. I noticed in your post that you don't include any numbers for your opponents.

For example, in these hands, your opponents completely over played them. You were faced with difficult decisions on the flop, it would be nice to run your mouse over the villain and see that his Post Flop AF (aggression factor) is 4.00 . This would mean that he is basically full of S H I T . thus, making the call that much easier.

Does PT and GT+ work on Poker Stars ? Are you able to get real time numbers for flop % there ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see you're taking the meds again red. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

You give your opponents too much credit. You make most of your money off the mistakes of your opposition. Its your job while you are at the table to try to find those mistakes and capitalize on them, not immediately assume they play perfectly.

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

Hand 1: villian is 45/15/AF 2.0 over 56 hands
Hand 2: villian is 33/12/AF 0.7 over 52 hands

Yes GT+ does work for PS, and the table stats are pretty accurate.

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

I haven't read the responses but the title of your post and another post you made a day or two ago (something like "is this too high level thinking for 1/2?") indicate a flaw in your approach to the games. If you make a play that goes over your opponent's head, its not his fault for being unable to recognize that you're representing great strength; its your fault for not recognizing such a play will not work against him (like the old adage that you should never bluff calling stations).

It is possible that these couple posts are not representative of your overall approach to these games but the arrogance in your title choices leads me to the biggest problem with your game is that you are not accurately assessing at what levels your opponents are thinking.

Just my .02

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

I was told this one time which changed my whole playing style completly.

"Weak players always think that you have it"
think about it and where it puts you, apply changes where needed.

Re: Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

against a tight player, that Q high flop is horrible for a turn push.