I Suck: Two Hands AK and JJ 5/10

[Garland]

Hand #1


[ QUOTE ]

check, I bet 100, he c/r to 200

[/ QUOTE ]

This action doesn't make sense. You were in the cutoff and he was last to act on button. He could not check-raise you.

I agree with the majority of posters. Some flops are for you, and some aren't. You can't bluff the unbluffable, so you have to pick your spots better. To fire once on the flop was ok, but once that failed, I think that you should shut down.

Hand #2.

I'm not so sure I like re-raising from OOP in SB with JJ against a "very very good player" who initially raised. I'm sure your fondness for the two limpers' dead money has something to do with it.

Call me conservative, but I'd call and see the flop. Lead the flop big or check-raise if I feel villian is committed to leading the flop hit or miss on that innocuous flop.

As the action stands, fold the river for 900. He's value betting AA/KK here. The gig is up. He knows what you have...

Garland

[TonyBlair]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I play bad. Today was just like the other days, but when i look back at hands, I still feel I misplay a lot. Maybe it's because i'll play so long and see so many hands but i don't think that's it. The more I look, it's hard to believe other players are playing so much worse, but they are otherwise I wouldn't be winning.

I guess I'm becoming much more harshly introspective due to the new amounts of money for which i'm playing. Those little missed bets etc. are now $200 mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I came out of an exam once and thought I'd done pretty well. When the results came out, I failed. Badly. I couldn't understand. Everything I'd learned I'd put into my answers perfectly.
Thing is, when I came to resit I realised that I'd hardly revised half the topic the first time around.

This is a gay way of saying that it's good that you know you're making mistakes. Other people make much bigger mistakes than you're listing but are totally oblivious of the fact. Instead, they tend to say (or type) "that's poker".

Play more, experiment more, make more mistakes, learn the game. Worry only if you're not assessing at the table or if you're not following through on your assessments.

This advice comes free of charge.

[jonnyUCB]

depends on how fast you're playing. Normally, players are not calling a 3-bet without QQ+ unless they think you'll payoff a set or some other disguised hand.

He's a winning player but does he think he can outplay you, with position? If so, his hand range has not been limited much.

[edge]

I'm not really experienced, but when I'm running really well and hitting cards, I sometimes feel like I'm playing well, but I still make dumb mistakes that are immediately obvious after the hand. I play two-hour sessions most of the time, and I still make tons of mistakes. I think a perfect session is pretty much impossible.

[iceman5]

Hand #1) Impossible to be check raised when you are out of position

Hand #2) The pot suddenly went from 480 down to 300 from the flop to the turn.

Its amazing that I was able to find these mistakes since I "only have a rudimentary knowledge of NL poker" and since I have "below avg intellignce" and was only able to become a cop because there are "no entrance requirements".

Sorry guys, I couldnt resist. Dont worry. Hes ignoring me anyway and cant see this post, remember?

[thabadguy]

Its amazing that I was able to find these mistakes since I "only have a rudimentary knowledge of NL poker" and since I have "below avg intellignce" and was only able to become a cop because there are "no entrance requirements".

Please..PLEASE dont start this BS again.

[iceman5]

[ QUOTE ]

Its amazing that I was able to find these mistakes since I "only have a rudimentary knowledge of NL poker" and since I have "below avg intellignce" and was only able to become a cop because there are "no entrance requirements".

Please..PLEASE dont start this BS again.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he really IS ignoring me he wouldnt have seen my post until you just quoted it. That was real bright. You probably did it on purpose.

The river bet in hand #1 is one of the worst bets Ive ever seen and the next time he makes some "you suck at poker" comment to me, I'll be referring back to this hand.

He has continued his assault on me in ways you dont know about, so dont tell me not to start it again. HE wont allow it to stop.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]

Its amazing that I was able to find these mistakes since I "only have a rudimentary knowledge of NL poker" and since I have "below avg intellignce" and was only able to become a cop because there are "no entrance requirements".

Please..PLEASE dont start this BS again.

[/ QUOTE ]

is this a joke? if not putting this guy on ignore was the best thing i ever did on 2+2.

fim

[BluffTHIS!]

fim,

I think you need to take some time to re-tool your betting strategies on the flop in particular but also on all streets. You should be able to have a main plan with appropriate randomizing player-depended elements for common situations, and especially regarding your position relative to your opponent and the flop type. You are giving aggressive players with position too many opportunities to take the pot from you, whether by betting on the river when you should check as in hand #2, or by not leading/checkraising the flop when you were the preflop raisier from the blinds and a scary board comes. If the villain in this case is constantly calling behind your raises to steal, then you might have to checkraise allin or push in front on the turn to take away those steals, even though you are putting too much money in the pot for the strength of your hand and considering the fact that he might occasionally be slowplaying a big hand. All the common situations, TPTK, overpair to the board, set, big draw, AK no help on the flop, etc. should be set in your plan so their play is automatic, and would vary by being in or out of position. Playing all those different types of hands in similar ways is a big randomizer.

All of this of course depends on how you read your opponent to play various hands. I find that when I make mistakes, either by calling when beat or being too aggressive for the strength of my hand, it is because the read I think I have on that opponent was right in the past but wrong now. Which means he has adapted to how he plays against me, and which I now have to adapt to in turn. This is a key point with players you regularly play with.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
fim,

I think you need to take some time to re-tool your betting strategies on the flop in particular but also on all streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, what? these hands are anything but standard.

[ QUOTE ]
You should be able to have a main plan with appropriate randomizing player-depended elements for common situations, and especially regarding your position relative to your opponent and the flop type. You are giving aggressive players with position too many opportunities to take the pot from you, whether by betting on the river when you should check as in hand #2,

[/ QUOTE ]

you think i was bluffed in hand 2?

[ QUOTE ]
or by not leading/checkraising the flop when you were the preflop raisier from the blinds and a scary board comes. If the villain in this case is constantly calling behind your raises to steal, then you might have to checkraise allin or push in front on the turn to take away those steals, even though you are putting too much money in the pot for the strength of your hand and considering the fact that he might occasionally be slowplaying a big hand. All the common situations, TPTK, overpair to the board, set, big draw, AK no help on the flop, etc. should be set in your plan so their play is automatic, and would vary by being in or out of position. Playing all those different types of hands in similar ways is a big randomizer.

[/ QUOTE ]

this statement doesn't make sense WRT your previous one.

[ QUOTE ]
All of this of course depends on how you read your opponent to play various hands. I find that when I make mistakes, either by calling when beat or being too aggressive for the strength of my hand, it is because the read I think I have on that opponent was right in the past but wrong now. Which means he has adapted to how he plays against me, and which I now have to adapt to in turn. This is a key point with players you regularly play with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think my opponents are constantly changing their overall strategy at a $1K game? I sure don't/haven't seen any evidence of it.

fim