Playing well with horrible results..?

Hopefully not, but when I do I'll keep your comforting words in mind! :-)

[restless]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to say I played perfectly (what's that?). In one hand I held AT and flopped the straight, but then slowplayed the maniac, calling the flop and turn, allowing him to draw his 97s to a flush on the river, at which time I raised, got reraised and called. The hand ended up costing me 12 dollars, the biggest loss during this session. However, since he had the flush draw already on the flop (9 outs) and I already had the top straight, it is likely we would have played out the hand no matter what, and if so, slowplaying actually saved me money.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, this is a dangerous thought. ok short term you saved money, but most likely excessive slowplaying will cost you money.

You slowplay in order to:
* Keep people in that would otherwise fold a hopeless hand.
* Keep people in, that you are quite sure to be drawing to second best hands.

Most maniacs doesn't fit that description. Also, if there's a flushdraw on the board...I just hate to let people draw for free.

Your other examples also hint that you tend to pay too much attention to short term results. Calling a bet or making a bet in a pot you lose really doesn't mean you lose an entire bet. Its the quality of the decision, based on your read of your opponents & their likely holdings that will make or break your winrate.

Don't let variance scare you, just keep on playing solid poker.

Good Luck!

[macdaddy991]

[ QUOTE ]

The numbers were just from this session. In aggregate, my flop percentage is 19% with 6.5% raises,

[/ QUOTE ]

You should work in getting your PFR up to about 9-12%. There are numerous posts and many examples in Small Stakes Hold em on where it is very profitable to raise more pre flop.

Thank you. I don't slowplay often, and this way my own example of doing so errounously. However, with the benefit of hindsight, the RESULT of my poor decision was probably a few saved bets.

I'm likely to have a short term focus since I have a short playing history - it's all I have to look at in terms of statistics. But I am aware that my sample size is no where near what I need to get significant statistic results. I'll keep in mind to change my focus once I've got a few thousand more hands under my belt!

[Taxmanrick]

I was in a similar situation this morning. Had a lag 65VIP/18PFR 2 players to my right. He was pretty much scaring everybody off a lot of hands, bluffing a lot, raising a lot post flop. I made a deliberate effort to be patient and isolate him. I got down about 10 BB(1/2 party) and he(the lag) was the one taking it most of the time.(not hitting my draws) But when I finally hit my draws, he was paying off big time, cold calling raises, betting into me when I just raised him the prev round. It was GREAT. My AQ was destroying his A9 and he didn't know what hit him. Anyway left there with +16bb in the end.

What I'm trying to say, when you run into these people, don't get discouraged, use their aggressiveness to your advantage. Be patient, isolate, and let them dig their own hole!

[Guthrie]

This is not uncommon at the lower limits. I also frequently question my own play after a crushing session. The good thing is, big losses force us to examine our own play for leaks. I always find something to fix. But I also frequently find that I am, for the most part, playing well and just suffering a downswing.

Personally, I play better against maniacs and TAGs than calling stations. The same hand that would fold out a TAG, or allow me to bluff out a maniac, is powerless against a calling station who will just keep pushing in chips until he sucks out on the river. But again, it forces me to go back, do the math, and examine my game.

[Wetdog]

Losing sessions are a bitch. Several in a row really bruise the psyche. Of course several winning sessions in a row are easy to get used to, right?

I suggest that you read the Homer section in the work of this great poster. Homer's graphs really hit home as far as showing the variance a winning player will have. As a matter of fact, read the whole collection.

[TeeVeeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
The players were mostly tight, with the very notable exception of a maniac three places to the left of me. He played 85% of his hands, raising with 13%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a maniac, that's a fish.

[MrWookie47]

Your link is b0rked. I tried fixing it myself, but I can't seem to get it. You're missing an "h" in front of "ttp://", but I don't think that's the only thing wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The players were mostly tight, with the very notable exception of a maniac three places to the left of me. He played 85% of his hands, raising with 13%.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a maniac, that's a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on his post flop AF.