When do you start second-guessing?

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Notice that if you miss the check-raise, your double sized bet on the turn is exactly the size it would have been if you had check-raised but the pot is smaller. Your opponents also have one less card to draw so this bet is actually quite a bit better at protecting your hand than even a check-raise would have been.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, this is really interesting. You're trading one shot with unlimited pot odds in exchange for greater fold equity on the next street.

I wonder how this works out if thought of in terms of the Fundamental Theorum.

1) By betting out, which builds the pot, I'm probably going to be giving my drawing opponents proper odds for their draws. So, this hurts me.

2) By checking, and giving the free card, I'm giving my opponents infinite pot odds for their draws. So, this hurts me. However, if no card comes to complete the draws, I now have more fold equity with my big bet and am probably offering them incorrect odds to call again. This is favorable for me.

3) By checking and raising, I'm offering those in between poor odds, so their calls are favorable to me. If no card comes to complete the draw and I bet, any remaining draws will probably still have the odds to call. Not favorable to me.

Of these scenarios, I like number 2 best - now that you point it out.

I'm sure I've missed something here. And I'm sure there's a mathematical way to represent this, but I don't think I have it in me to embarrass myself like that today.

Thanks for making me think about this.

T

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Notice that if you miss the check-raise, your double sized bet on the turn is exactly the size it would have been if you had check-raised but the pot is smaller. Your opponents also have one less card to draw so this bet is actually quite a bit better at protecting your hand than even a check-raise would have been.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm, this is really interesting. You're trading one shot with unlimited pot odds in exchange for greater fold equity on the next street.

I wonder how this works out if thought of in terms of the Fundamental Theorum.

1) By betting out, which builds the pot, I'm probably going to be giving my drawing opponents proper odds for their draws. So, this hurts me.

2) By checking, and giving the free card, I'm giving my opponents infinite pot odds for their draws. So, this hurts me. However, if no card comes to complete the draws, I now have more fold equity with my big bet and am probably offering them incorrect odds to call again. This is favorable for me.

3) By checking and raising, I'm offering those in between poor odds, so their calls are favorable to me. If no card comes to complete the draw and I bet, any remaining draws will probably still have the odds to call. Not favorable to me.

Of these scenarios, I like number 2 best - now that you point it out.

I'm sure I've missed something here. And I'm sure there's a mathematical way to represent this, but I don't think I have it in me to embarrass myself like that today.

Thanks for making me think about this.

T

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me know what you come up with. I'm not sure if it's really a good idea or not. It may just be a weak play I'm attempting to justify brought on by too many suckouts. But basically the goal is to force my opponent into making one bad decision rather than two good ones (or two less bad decisions) at the possible cost of a free card.

It can backfire when say for instance the player to your immediate left decides to bet after you check. Of course there is no guarantee he would have raised if you had bet and now you can sometimes either bet into him on the turn if a safe card hits or in the case of a really good card on the turn you can try to check-raise the whole field now, but sometimes you simply end up in exactly the high drawing odds sort of pot you're trying to avoid anyway.

Now I'm definitely going to have to take out my copy of SSHE this evening and re-read the section on waiting to raise on the turn. This section references a later position and doesn't discuss a free card IIRC, but has the same goals.

Also, I think this concept applies more when the board is a little less ragged, like say Js 7d 6s where many hands may have ample reason to want to see a turn card and are not making much of a mistake if a mistake at all to just call one small bet.

[Hoss1193]

Hmmm....no, I'm playing PP pretty much every time. As long as I'm not on button or CO, I feel pretty sure that I'll get a late limper and both blinds, whether raised or not. This is one of those games where just about everybody plays the SB if it's unraised, with any hand. If I AM on button and it's folded around to me, I'll still limp, since at this point chances are pretty low that one of the blinds will raise, and I may not even need to hit a set to win. I should probably blind-steal in this situation.

One area of my game that I know probably needs work (both online and live) is both blind-stealing and blind defense.

[Hoss1193]

One area of my game I didn't mention before was that I have a tendency to make continuation bets way too much. A separate current thread on this forum has a great discussion on this, and after reading through it (including GrunchCan's excellent post on the subject), I know this is something I need to improve.

Blind stealing/defense, more judicious play of small PP's preflop, and more careful analysis of when to make continuation bets are probably the three areas I should focus on for improving my game in the near term (both online and live).

Posting, reading, and responding in this thread has really helped to clarify my thinking on areas I need to revisit...thanks to all for your insightful replies, I appreciate it.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm....no, I'm playing PP pretty much every time. As long as I'm not on button or CO, I feel pretty sure that I'll get a late limper and both blinds, whether raised or not. This is one of those games where just about everybody plays the SB if it's unraised, with any hand. If I AM on button and it's folded around to me, I'll still limp, since at this point chances are pretty low that one of the blinds will raise, and I may not even need to hit a set to win. I should probably blind-steal in this situation.

One area of my game that I know probably needs work (both online and live) is both blind-stealing and blind defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

With only one limper and both blinds your 55 is very unlikely to be profitable. This also goes with your low and even middle suited connectors. The reason you are more likely to play these hands up front in a loose passive game is because you expect to have a 5 handed flop or larger. Once it folds to you in a later position this has become unlikely and these hands lose a lot of their value. The likely number of players in the pot and if it will be raised are the two most important factors in your hand selection.

As for blind stealing and defense, I think they are important concepts, but not likely to come up in your low limit B&M sessions where the games are loose and passive. You will face very few blind steals and have the opportunity to blind steal infrequently as well.

[Hoss1193]

Good points about the low PPs; this is all stuff I "knew" already, but have gotten sloppy on...I've probably been playing them a little too indiscriminately. Am going to reread GSIH, SSHE, and HEFAP on that specific topic and take another hard look at how I handle 77-22.

As far as blind steals, you're right, it rarely comes up when the game is in its normal LP or LA mode. It is germane, however, to those times I'm sitting in with the afternoon rocks, and it happens to be maybe 6 players.

FWIW, stopped in the cardroom this afternoon on the way home and picked up 51 BB in 3 hours. Yes, I know it's only one session, statistically meaningless (maybe ~120 hands?). And it's only because I got good cards. And if I DO have a broken B&M game, this doesn't at all mean that I fixed it. And, no, I'm not going to now bypass the process of reviewing my game, etc etc. BUT...as far as helping quell the developing crisis of confidence I felt coming on, it did wonders.

[Hoss1193]

Good point about the distractions. I do stay away from the booze; except for maybe my first 4-5 times at a casino where I had one beer (over a year ago), I don't think I've had a drink in a casino since. I'll admit sometimes my eyes stray to the ball game on the TV if I'm not in a hand; I'm sure I've missed a few things that way, but overall I think I read the other players pretty well, and am not hugely concerned about that.

What DOES bother me, however, is the smoke. It's not a non-smoking room, and apparently 90% of the regulars are chain-smokers. While I don't smoke myself, I grew up with smoking parents, and the smoke doesn't initially bother me. After 3-4 hours, however, it starts to get to me. I've noticed that when I win, I typically win pretty quickly, and if I stay longer than 3 hours, I usually don't continue to win. Likewise, if I'm down (even a modest amount) at 3 hours, I'm unlikely to come away with a late rush. Part of this could be other players getting better reads on me as the game goes on, but this game happens to feature a very definite "afternoon" and "evening" crowd...the lineup often completely changes between 5-7pm. Maybe the smoke is affecting me more than I realize. At our local non-smoking Indian casino (which is about 45 min away, so I don't play there as often), I don't seem to have this problem...I feel fresher after 5-6 hours at that table than I do after 3 at this local room.

I'll experiment with limiting myself to 3 hours max at the table for a while and see if that has any effect.

Stay open to the fact that you could be playing the wrong tactics against the wrong people. I have come to realise that just sitting down at a table and giving it my best shot isn't enough.

Example when I play against 'fish' I need to be careful to give them credit for having a hand sometimes. If they showed they can call down with bottom pair, then its a mistake to try and bluff them. I need to remember that I will need to show down my hand against such players.

And then if there are no fish at the table, its a different problem entirely. Just not playing at all might be wise sometimes.

[elindauer]

You might consider tightening up a bit in the B&M game, as typically the rake / toke structure is higher than online. Many hands that are marginal become losers in low limit B&M games.

Most likely though you are simply on a downswing and shouldn't worry. If you are good enough to replay the hands and decide you played them well, you are probably doing fine.

good luck.
Eric