Has this ever happened to you?

[carlo]

I am overwhelmed by the insight in this thread--Thank You and Luck To All!

[RichSaneSwindler]

I am too and I thank everyone who has participated. I still wonder how Dan proposes to fix this rather massive leak. What are some of the emotional issues that drive this implosive instinct and what is the best way to address it? Therapy? Tony Robbins?

[Dan Mezick]

OK, your journey begins here:

[ QUOTE ]
The inner game includes items such as your beliefs about yourself, your beliefs about poker, your actual motivations for playing, your beliefs about the strength of your own poker play, how you personally value winning and losing at poker, and your beliefs about the morality (“rightness” or “wrongness”) of playing winning or losing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Inner Game of Poker

You now have the complete roadmap. Take the trip.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The general consensus is that the games on Party are much, much easier and more profitable than the games on Stars, because the opposition plays worse on Party than on Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which might be a bad thing in this case.

I recently started playing on Party after only playing at Paradise. Yes, Party players are worse on average, no doubt about it. But I also find the game to be much more stressful because of the suckouts and less fun because the big fields and mindless calling reduce the scope for creative play.

Party is not a good place for a confirmed tilter to seek refuge.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
thanks again ... one thing I thought I would add is that I play NLHE not Limit, I suppose that only makes everything you said all the more pertinent!

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a huge detail. Talented tight-passive players are often winners at low-level limit hold'em. It's not the best way to play but it's usually good enough to make a little something because most everyone else is much worse.

At the worst they rarely manage to lose their stacks.

But the bet is a much more powerful weapon at no-limit. I suspect that those who refuse to wield it don't do well at all.

Unless you master your pessimism-tilt, you seem to be playing a very unsuitable game for your personality. Do regular NL players agree?

[StellarWind]

Let me preface by saying all I know is what you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, once I enter this phase I am guaranteed to lose because I cannot leave the table if I am making money or treading water. The only thing that sends me to bed is if I completely clean out my stacks (lose it all).

[/ QUOTE ]
You sound like a compulsive gambler.

[RichSaneSwindler]

I am not sure if you meant this to be (a) funny, (b) sarcastic, or (c) serious, but I am curious what your point is.

I would say that there are elements of what we all do in poker that are similar to the characteristics of compulsive gamblers and that that particular affliction is no doubt something that affects us all to greater or lesser extent (consider some of the poker greats, Stuey Unger, for example). Perhaps a key difference is that I am driven to be a good poker player but have huge leaks in my game that prevent me from consistently winning. I wrote into this forum to try to get insight to help me plug the leaks. I would say that the vast majority, but not all, of the responses, have been enormously helpful.

[bdk3clash]

It's interesting that you are completely skipping over and not responding to the passage StellarWind quoted. I'll snip it further. This and this alone are what he (StellarWind) was referring to:

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing that sends me to bed is if I completely clean out my stacks (lose it all).

[/ QUOTE ]

All he is saying is that this behavior alone is troubling, since it a lot to do with being a compulsive gambler and nothing at all to do with being a successful poker player.

Just trying to focus the discussion here, no judgments on my part.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
NLHE tournaments develop terrible money making skills and don't really associate going bust with anything too, too terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is this widespread belief that hold'em poker tournaments are usually either limit hold'em or no-limit hold'em.

This is both true and wrong. I busted out of a limit sit-n-go last night because I made a very serious error. I tried to steal the blinds from the button with a somewhat marginal but legitimate hand. This is a standard play for me and would have been correct in a ring game. It was only afterward that I reflected that I was too shortstacked to do this. I didn't have enough chips left to bet every street. Without this threat to inflict additional losses it became much too easy to call my preflop and flop bets. My hand lacked showdown value and consequently I didn't really have a very good chance to win.

The point? When someone in a HU situation has less than about 3 big bets left, as so often happens in a tournament, NL-type considerations start to strongly intrude into so-called limit hold'em tournament play. The blind is approximately right to view my steal as he would an all-in raise at NL. Once he calls the pot odds will automatically suck the rest of my money in anyway, so what's the difference?

The reverse is also true. NL tournament play begins to resemble limit play when you or your opponent's whole stack is only a few big blinds. The de facto betting limit is that you just don't have much money. A flush draw is great at limit but not much use in NL after your opponent makes a pot-size bet. But often in a NL tournament the flush draw is golden after all because either you can't make a pot-size bet or he can't call the whole thing.

My point is that tournament play does not fully prepare you for NL ring play because the underlying form of poker only looks the same.