Unwise to employ higher level psychology at 200 NL?
 

Lately I've been finding it harder to get paid off on good hands and have credited this trend to the rise in overall player skill and thinking strategy amongst my opponents. As such, I often give my opponents the benefit of the doubt when betting, reading the bets as plays thinking players would make.

Unfortunately, a lot of the adjustments I've made to mask my holdings, read into their bets, as well as get into their head of what THEY think I should be holding... well, they've backfired to a large extent.

A couple hands to illustrate:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (8 handed) converter

MP1 ($139.90)
MP2 ($286.05)
CO ($166)
Button ($29)
SB ($189.25)
BB ($203.90)
UTG ($87.50)
Hero ($147.50)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises to $12</font>, Hero calls $12, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP2 calls $12, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>.

Flop: ($39) 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets $10</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $60</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 raises to $110</font>, UTG calls $65.50 (All-In), Hero folds.

Turn: ($284.50) T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

River: ($284.50) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: $284.50

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
UTG has Qd Ks (two pair, queens and tens).
MP2 has Ah Qs (two pair, queens and tens).
Outcome: MP2 wins $284.50. </font>

Villian here claims he knew he was behind but thought UTG had kings and was depending on his outs which included runner hearts. Anyone else call this flop 3-bet? Or do we assume a thinking player and fold? I know I made a "mistake" preflop by flat-calling but like I said I've been trying to make adjustments so thinking opponents cant easily read it.


PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed) converter

Button ($172)
SB ($181.30)
Hero ($181.15)
UTG ($55.55)
UTG+1 ($204.10)
MP1 ($173)
MP2 ($180.35)
MP3 ($205.35)
CO ($420)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
UTG calls $2, UTG+1 calls $2, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises to $8</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $28</font>, UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, Button calls $20.

Flop: ($61) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $30</font>, Button calls $30.

Turn: ($121) 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, Button checks.

River: ($121) A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, Button checks.

Final Pot: $121

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has Kh Ks (one pair, kings).
Button has Jc Ad (one pair, aces).
Outcome: Button wins $121. </font>

I don't know why the hell I gave villian so much credit in this hand and check the turn, but this hand is ridiculous. My flop bet was obviously the large mistake in this hand, but say i bet out 45-60 (close to potsize) and still get called - do I honestly think villian is calling here with a pair of queens and fire again on the turn? Or a flush draw, calling with insufficient odds? I thought my betting language sufficiently revealed my holdings and he would fold but again, I must be trying to get in their heads too much.

Other situations where I misplay my hand include leading with sets and opponents overplaying their overpairs on a 3-flush board.

What is the default approach for most of you? I often see disagreement on this board in handling some situations when theres a varying degree of credit given to the villian in the hand. To what degree do we assume villian is stupid unless proved otherwise? It seems like it could be quite troublesome if misapplied, but assuming otherwise gave me the troubles with the above hands.

Unless, of course, I butchered both hands horribly for myself - feel free to tell me so.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

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

it's one of those things i think where if you called, somebody would have woken up with QQ for the set... tough hand bro

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

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

Ive been playing 1/2 for 90k hands over ~5 months. It is easy to put villian on a hand I beat with the results there, but tell me, would you play AQ as villian did? How about a flush draw?

If your answer is no (I certainly wouldnt, as I'm sure most posters on this board would not), then you understand my predicament.

The money doesn't scare me, losing money due to my own bad play does. My flop raise should be enough evidence for that. I guess youre right that my problem is, to some extent, a fear to pull the triggger. I just don't know when to do so on the assumption the villain is overplaying his hand/making a lower level play.

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

hand 1: a fold given the pot odds offered is criminal.
hand 2: when you're OOP and you decide to bulldoze, fricking do it. donkeys do this with ace high and baby PP's and so set you up to do it with AA/KK, so take that free money.

fim

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

You are definitely right, but do you see how villian, using some level of thinking, cannot misplay his hand? I guess the same play who calls with JA here will make bigger mistakes with a bare queen.

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

Wow - didn't even notice how short I was. Yes the odds say I should call. 5-to-1 means I only have to be correct ~17% of the time, right?

Would you call this if you had 100BBs?

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

[ QUOTE ]
You are definitely right, but do you see how villian, using some level of thinking, cannot misplay his hand? I guess the same play who calls with JA here will make bigger mistakes with a bare queen.

[/ QUOTE ]


he misplays his hand when u have AK.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Unless, of course, I butchered both hands horribly for myself - feel free to tell me so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, stop being such a pussy.