It is all in the betting pattern - long

[Mike]

I had an 'aha moment' the other night, kind of simple, but I guess they all are after you have them. I thought I would share it and perhaps learn how you think about things. I'm a pretty visual thinker, so I tend to relate things visually.

I had been fortunate enough to have played in some really easy games for a period of time recently - now in the quickly dimming past. About three weeks ago I sit down in my normal game, and I am throwing out money at a rate a maniac would be proud of! The problem is it is not coming back like I had become used to! In fact it wasn't coming back at all!! When I had taken enough of a beating, I went home and started going over my game...what had changed. I thought maybe it was just a losing session, but it was serious. Suddenly on my computer, instead of my usual beating TTH for about 4 BB an hour, I was now winning a total of about 1 sb an hour in a good session! What the heh?!

After a few weeks of not playing anywhere, and thinking seriously about what was happening. And yes, I wasted some of that thinking going down some of down those avenues serious gamblers and the superstitious think in, I had my 'aha' moment.

Perhaps you have figured it out, but here is my visual explanation:

In my 'normal' game I feel like I am playing a concert piano, I use a light touch and a lot of thought goes into the composition. I would liken it to playing Mozart, not a lot of excitement but it works.

In the time I had playing the easy games I became a maniac! I took off the fine calfskin gloves, put on some heavy leather work gloves and really pounded those piano keys! I was playing the Tchaichkowsky 1812 overature and Ride of the Valkeries, over and over, sometimes both at once, and it worked very well! In fact it worked so well I forgot how to play correctly!

So, what's the aha - if you're still reading that is? I realized for me at least - it's all in the betting! The hands I play do not change that much from game to game with the exception of a few riskier hands in those really soft games I am lucky enough to sit in.

The betting pattern makes all the difference! In a soft game I may raise with total impunity. In an average game I may be satisfied with a bet, and in a tough game a check may be the right play because I know the bets and raises are coming behind me sure as the sun is shining.

I was so used to sitting down, making a rack or so, and leaving that I had unlearned correct play, and more importantly correct betting. It's kind of strange, I am used to changing my style during a session, but I never equated it to changing my betting patterns!

I proved again to myself that for me it takes much less time to unlearn good play than to learn good play in the first place. Hope you aren't in the same boat!

[Wake up CALL]

Mike I read your post quite carefully twice and still do not see your point. As far as I can tell it is more likely you are letting short term results effect your thinking rather than experiencing a life altering epiphany.

[daryn]

if anything i want to bet more in a tough game.. i would think [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[CrisBrown]

Hi Mike,

Welcome to the second difference between tight/strong and loose/weak games. (The first difference is hand selection.)

In a loose game, you bluff less, but bet for value more, because loose players are on weaker hands (on average), and will call with hands that are beaten.

In a tight game, you bluff more, but bet for value less, because tight players are on stronger hands (on average), and callers are more likely to have you beaten.

If you get used to playing with fish who will pay you off when you hit a straight or better, or call with a busted draw when you've hit for bottom pair, you're in for a big shock when you carry the same betting patterns into a tough game. They won't pay you when your draws hit, and they won't make those sucker calls when their draws miss.

Worse, they'll call with second pair when they read you for a bluff, but lay it down when they sense you've hit for top pair or better. And the good players will be right more often than they're wrong; that's why they're good players!

So yes, if you bet at a tight table the way you're used to betting at a loose table, you're going to lose money. At that point, you have to remember that classic poker line: "If you can't spot the sucker in your first fifteen minutes at the table ... you are the sucker."

Cris

[Mike]

Changing or not changing betting patterns in relation to game texture must have a big effect chip flow, or how much is won or lost and how fast it happens.

I think ChrisBrown encapsulated what I was circling. If you bet the same in a loose game as you do in a tough game or vice versa when holding identical cards, you won't be happy with your results, as they won't be optimal for the particular game you are in.

Say I am in a tough game in late position. One bet, two raises to me, and I hold JJ. Do I call, raise or fold? Make it a soft/loose game with one bet, two raises to me with JJ, and my response should be different on whether I call, raise or fold. In one game Kxs may be worth calling a raise, in another game it's trash when facing a raise. This is what HFAP talks around (?) I think when it talks about changing starting hand selection. Perhaps I am just taking it a little further, or didn't comprehend the point they were making until now.

Another thought - What also seems obvious all of a sudden is card distribution has a bigger part in game texture than I gave it credit for. It may not be so obvious online where there are literally thousands of players to play against, but where there is one table it is more obvious. Game texture sometimes makes big swings even when players remain mostly the same. Maybe some tough games are tough because more than the usual number of quality hands are present each round? The game suddenly turns loose because more drawing hands are present? A game is tight because the quantity of good hands is lower than average? Two maniacs at a table can't make a table of rocks loosen up, only higher than normal quality cards can.

Maybe I just fell on my head and don't remember it. LOL

[CrisBrown]

Hi Mike,

Yes, starting hand selection changes also.

Loose games by nature favor improved hands (two pair or better), so you tighten up on big cards, slowplay your big pairs (minimizing your risk, getting a big payday when you hit for top set), play more of the strong drawing hands (as you are getting better implied odds), bluff less (they're going to call), and bet for value more (they'll call with hands that are beaten).

Tight games by nature favor pairs and big cards, so you play pairs and big cards more, and don't slowplay because tight players are more difficult to trap. You play fewer drawing hands because the implied odds aren't good enough. You bluff more, but bet for value less because players are less likely to call with hands that are beaten.

A classic example is the play of AK at a low buy-in no-limit tourney vs. the play of AK at a high buy-in tourney.

At a loose, low buy-in tourney, it's less worthwhile to make a big pre-flop raise (as you'll probably get called), but you can be more confident calling a raise (or even a reraise), and you can play the hand much more aggressively if you hit an A or K, even against a reraise. And in fact it is sometimes correct to call with AK even if you haven't hit -- if it's a heads-up pot vs. Jackal, for example -- because he may be betting on Ax, Kx, or even a backdoor or gutshot draw.

At a tight, high buy-in tourney, your pre-flop raise with AK will often take the pot right there, but if you're re-raised or there's a raise and a reraise ahead of you, you should probably lay it down unless you're short-stacked. If you hit the A or K, of course you bet it, but if you're reraised, you have to read the board carefully because you may already be behind (to a set or two pair), or at best a slim favorite (to an underpair-plus-draw). If you miss the A and K, you can't call a bet because anyone who would call your pre-flop raise and then bet out has you beaten. And if it's checked to you, you're probably better off checking and taking a free card.

As for whether I'd cold-call three bets on JJ, I don't think so, either in a tight or a loose game. In a tight game, JJ is almost certainly not the best hand here, and you're not getting good enough implied odds to chase the set. In a loose game, you may have the best starting hand, but it's only 1:8 to hit the set and JJ doesn't play well on a non-J flop in a multi-way pot. So I'd probably fold JJ either way, but for different reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Cris

[Louie Landale]

A key may be to keep reminding yourself when you make an "imperfect" but "correct" play. So you are in a loose-passive game meaning calling early with 22 is correct. When you DO call with 22 just remind yourself that this is incorrect when in a real game.

- Louie

[Mike]

Thanks, good advice.

[Mike]

I agree of course, also JJ may have been a poor example, but one I thought would collect the least fall out. lol

One thing I wasn't doing in my play was adjusting my biggest hands to the table. When I was dealt a big starting hand, I would pound, pound, pound no matter what the conditions were. In a tight game or a game against players unsure of themselves this is okay. In a loose game or a game filled with seasoned players it leads to very high variance.

What was causing my frustration was against these players who aren't intimidated by a reraise or other aggression. So I had to stop playing, sit back and analyse this.

I wondered why a game suddenly becomes tougher or looser when the players haven't changed. That led me to presume it's hand distribution at work. Just as I can sit for hours and not play past the flop, the table can also.

The issue I was having as you know is when the game becomes to tough or too loose. I think both of these factors are more hand driven player driven. Ten minutes ago QQ was a monster, suddenly it's middle road of the four starting hands seeing the flop. I wasn't adjusting accordingly for the card distribution. While I gave some players credit for hands, I didn't credit them with hands as big or bigger than my own big starting hands. Once again QQ is just an example.

I took it for granted that game conditions changed based on player emotion, now I have my doubts that player emotion can change a whole table for more than a hand or two.

Thanks for writing so clearly what I was struggling to convey.