Online Poker Forum at Full Tilt Poker

fammy · Pair Joined: 13 Nov 2005 Posts: 21

Hello all once again,

Well, this is turning out to be a very helpful forum for insight and suggestions, so I return to the wise for perhaps another nudge in the right direction.

Before I go on, please understand, this is not a gripe about bad beats or anything of that nature, but rather one near noob trying to get it right.

I have been looking at my stats and am now at about 5K hands...I know, about half way there, but it is all I have right now...and I continue to be a Tight / Aggressive nearly overall Aggressive players (AF 1.92). Unfortunately, as I begin to collect data on myself and others...my bankroll is taking a SIGNIFICANT dive, to the point that I am going to move down one level (to .25/.50) to be sure I have enough to fund aggressive play. Now I am quite aware, through personal previous experience, about the ups and downs / varience, etc., so, again, this is not a complaining post.

This brings me to the title of this post. It is clear to me that we make money every time an opponent makes a mistake in their play, and the bigger / more mistakes they make, the more money we make. Here is the hitch that I have not been able to resolve, however. Just as certain hands gain value in small fields, (i.e. big pairs, etc.), they also clearly lose value in large fields. This can, unforunately be corralized: if one or a few people make mistakes, we make money, but if multiple people make multiple mistakes, one of them will likely be making that accidental mistake that takes the pot, though it will most likely not be the same person making the "correct" mistake over and over. Thus, in my humble observations, I have noted that many of my opponents seem to be shuffling MY CHIPS back and forth between them, while I continue to slowly bleed. I have tried moving to "tighter" tables, only to find myself in situations where I lose a lot as I am playing too many hands (trying to open up against tight players), or play almost no hands at all trying to be tighter than my opponents. You can see my dilemma, and I am wondering if this question / problem may actually be at the heart of my overall lack of understanding. How does one get past this? I have read, and I am a believer that if I can't beat the levels I am at, I have no business moving up levels....or am I wrong in this assumption, and should I move to where people play "better". I have a feeling I already know the answer to that question.

A poke in the right direction would be much appreciated.

And, as always:

High blood sugar gets you in 20 years, low blood sugar gets you today.

Fammy

Pokit2s · Message Board Junkie Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 1261

I must say I feel your pain. Even though I am technically "up" over the last few weeks, I feel like I am inconsistent at the moment due to some extremely bad luck. I will first caution you to NEVER stop looking for flaws in your game. Not just in PokerTracker (Although this is one of the best ways to find flaws), but also in your individual experiences at the table. Perhaps write down in a small notebook whenever YOU misplay a hand. (Be honest with yourself here. If you cold call a raise with KJ, and lose to the raiser who held AJ, it is your mistake, not just a bad break)

As far as the bad beats due to multiple players' bad mistakes. This is what makes microlimit so frustrating and its players' variances so high. For example, QQ is a strong hand, but if there are 4 other people in the hand, you are going to lose more than you win. This problem can ONLY be overcome in the LONG RUN. Go back to the example with QQ and 4 opponents. Against 4 average hands to see the flop in a microlimit game, QQ will probably be anywhere from 25%-40% to win this pot. For this example say you are exactly 33% (or 2-1) to win the pot. While it may seem that it is hard to profit when you lose most of the time, your win rate of 33% is substantially higher than the equity of a five handed pot which is 20%. Basically, the point is, you will get sucked out more than you will hold up, but the size of the pot when you do win (provided you play it right) will more than make up for the money that you lost the other 66% of the time.

I hope this has helped you in some way, as I have, and still am experiencing your same frustrations. If you are planning to move down in limits, just remember to play the same game and not up your agressiveness just because you "arent playing for as much". Good luck to you and I hope things turn around for you.

fammy · Pair Joined: 13 Nov 2005 Posts: 21

Thanks for the post.

I completely understand what you are saying in regards to odds / equity and overall win % vs losses. Also, I do plan on playing the same way I normally would (I believe in playing for bets, not money....learned that one early and the hard way). Finally, I think I am taking a lot of advice (most of it very good) and I am trying to be very critical and objective in regards to my game...I am looking to become a long term "solid" player who understands not only how to win, but how the game works...I have to admit, it is a bit of an ongoing mental exercise for me (my wife doesn't understand, but I am sure a lot of players get the same thing Wink

).

The problem we are faced with as I see it, however, is almost a reverse of the idea of "fold" equity. It has been discussed in many places (Sklansky's books for e.g.) that fold equity needs to be taken into consideration when deciding to bet vs check or raise vs call. There is some "guesstimated" % that the opponent might fold a better made or drawing hand...thus the infamous "2 ways to win theory" (which by the way...I like a lot). One thing that is not discussed, but, in my opinion, might actually deserve as much, if not more, research / thought might be the opposite, or what I might call "negative call" equity. This might be considered as 1 - fold equity. I think this way of thinking about the situation might be more appropriate as, in some cases, the chance that an opponent is going to fold is almost negligable. This may actually be a not too difficult guesstimation against 1 opponent, especially if you have a good read on his / her style and have been watching the betting pattern (i.e. a loose passive player is "doing their thing" and just calling...thus somewhat unlikely that you might get them to fold, while a tight passive player is suddenly faced with a good scare card after they have just been calling right along....not a bad chance that we might get them to fold out, especially if our betting pattern happened to match a good draw.) This guesstimation becomes MUCH more difficult when faced with multiple opponents (let's say 4 opponents after the turn just for discussion) and in fact, I think we would all agree that it is very unlikely that we will be able to get them all to fold out, AND against those 4 players...unless they are ALL COMPLETELY TERRIBLE OR BLIND, it is likely that at least some of them have caught part of the flop, AND it is not unlikely that, though they are all playing badly (but not terribly), they may have odds that, though they are not correct, are "close enough" that at low limits they decide...collectively...to gamble. This scenario is not uncommon. Thus, while I completely agree with your 25%-40% for the QQ, I don't think that number adequately takes into account multiple opponents with poor, but not terrible play. Add to that the distinct possibility we are facing multiple opponents that fall into this category, and we are somewhat back to where we started. This is, of course, keeping in mind the known issue in regards to big pairs losing value in the face of multiple opponents, but when facing multiple opponents with big pairs early, there might normally be a consideration that some of these opponents will be "convinced" that folding is correct if the correct odds to draw are not present. At micro limits, this invitation to fold draws is often declined, and often en masse.

The only way around this situation that I can come up with so far is to take strong hands and either jam them very quickly (which often does not protect the hand but may build the pot to the point that if we win, we win big...but VERY big variance...almost as if it is an "all in situation, except that we bet / raise whenever we can (assuming we are actually watching the board, of course...controlled maniac if that makes sense??? This would normally be correct play against 1 or even a few players...punish them for their draw, but in this example may just build the pot for others)), or to take strong hands and play more passively until maybe the turn, hoping for a "safe" card, but then losing more pots because we allowed cheap / free cards (there is still going to be SOME fold equity) and, when we do win, we see smaller payoffs. I am not happy with either option, and I have to admit...the idea of playing more passive worries me.

I wonder what Miller might say about this....though his book is VERY good...I have read it so many times the binding is broken in several places...it doesn't specifically address this issue, which in my experience is not so uncommon. I guess I would categorize it as multple players that ALMOST play correctly Confused

.

The only thing I am sure of in this regard:

High blood sugar gets you in 20 years, low blood sugar gets you today.

Fammy

deadmoney314 · Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:45 am Post subject: Suckers and Suckouts

Hey there, at these limits you will notice at least one or more loose passive players. They throw the game off because they call to the river with no pair no draw and when they hit their unimaginable draws with low expectancy--like runner runner two pair with 63o, it drains your profit.
Make use of your instant hand history to see what these guys are coming in with and if you notice they play way to many hands and you see them table these losers at the river put a note on them like N for Noobie. Whenever these people are in a hand, treat them like the BB. At these limits, this is the only note that you need--and a flag like this on all the suckers will help you make your decisions.
The key to taking them down is betting whenever you connect with the flop through to the river and taking the free cards as much as possible when you dont connect planning to improve before you start betting--because they usually do not bet, they call. A perfect situation is a table where you continually thin the field down to you and the loose calling station(s) by the river because you will win much more than you will lose. Of course, it is not always that easy as other players can be in the hand--but if another tight passive or even a good player is in the hand with you with one or more of these calling stations, consider the pot to be contested between you and the other good player. Fight to be the one player to showdown against the calling stations whenever you feel you have the best of it. If you take 3 pots for every 2 pots that the fish suckout on, you will rise over the long run. You should be able to do this as if you are coming in with better hands, you will see the winner at the river more times than someone playing everything.
Also, a preflop raise from a loose passive player does usually mean they have a premium hand. For some reason this becomes a pattern, they raise preflop and they shutdown on the flop if someone bets even if they have AA--but they call through the river no matter how scary the board gets for them. Beware of this when you flop top pair against their raise preflop and they call all bets.
Again, identify, identify, identify the suckers at these games. Occasionally, they will hit their two-outers on the turn or river which gives them fuel to be calling stations for a bit longer. As long as they don't get lucky and hit a lot of their 11 to one or worse shots after the flop, you will notice them bust out leaving a better game with the remaining players. When all the loose passive players bust out be ready to change up your game plan for the new game leftover.

When there are a lot of loose passive players you encounter "The Schooling Effect" where no one is a favorite to your hand but there are so many fish with nothing in the hand that their collective draws make you less likely to win. You still have the most equity having the best hand when you have 10-10 against k4o q2o j9s on a flop of 662 rainbow, but now on the turn and river you are up against any KQJ2 that these guys will call to the river with. And even the fundemantal theorem of poker can break down in some of these situations--this is where the board is such that a call is wrong for a player to make but the call reduces the edge of the person in the lead. You don't necessarily always gain when your opponents make mistakes.

Your big pairs will take less pots in multiway, but no one has better pot equity than you when you have these. Like the other post here, the size of the multiway pots pay for the beats you take with them--as long as you are not calling through a capped turn with simply an overpair on a scary board. You must use your head, when a passive player wakes up on the turn and gets into a raising war with someone else on a scary board, expect that you are behind.

If anything you are probably beginning to see the reason why this game has no limit to how much you can learn because of the vast number of situations that are possible. The best thing to learn at these limits is how to deal with the suckers.

Lastly, if everyone is seeing the river, remember the average winning hand is two pair at the river. Make value bets with hands as good or better than this into large fields, and never fold the river with these "made" hands in a large field unless you are over 95% sure you are beat with a really obvious situation.

deadmoney314 · Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: continued

(continued) for some reason the last post missed this paragraph...

Lastly, if everyone is seeing the river, remember the average winning hand is two pair at the river. Make value bets with hands as good or better than this into large fields, and never fold the river with these "made" hands in a large field unless you are over 95% sure you are beat with a really obvious situation.

fammy · Pair Joined: 13 Nov 2005 Posts: 21

Hey,

Thanks for the VERY informative post. I can see the logic. Of course it is quite possible that I have run into one of those stretches where opponents are hitting more often then they should. I have reviewed the hands I have played over the last several days, and...somewhat amazingly...I have lost more than I have won, but the hands that I have lost to (almost 50% of them) have been to draws that are at best 5 outers to 2 pair, but many have been gut shots, 2 outers to sets, and runners to full boats... I thought there was a reason I have been pulling my hair out... Wink

. I also have been looking at my play, and it does seem, often though not every time...obviously mistakes do occur, I am doing what is possible to protect my hands...check raising from early, when appropriate waiting for the turn to raise, etc.

So, I guess I keep plugging along. I like the idea of noting these players...at least I won't get so frustrated when they draw out on me....they probably were going to anyway if the cards fall their way.

I really appreciate the lessons / suggestions. I am slowly plugging holes....and bailing water as fast as I can. One day, I may actually not be on the verge of drowning, and rather just have wet shoes.

Any and all suggestions are always welcome.

High blood sugar gets you in 20 years, low blood sugar gets you today.

Fammy

mistaken69 · Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject:

that is the problem about low stakes full limit tables. I sovled this problem by playing shorthanded (6 handed and lower). ITs much faster, you have to make more decisions and there is a lot more agression. I also find it a little more exciting. give it a shot! Very Happy

	Full Tilt Poker is licensed by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. © Copyright 2004 - 2005 FullTiltPoker.com., All Rights Reserved