Demons

[guesswest]

I've been meaning to write a post about this for a while now, but the bad beat thread that's been going on the last day or so is what inspired me to finally get around to it. I've been thinking that most discussion in forums as to improving play tends to focus around decisions, pot odds, value, equity etc. Certainly all of these are huge factors in poker, but I suspect an even bigger factor than all of them combined is psychology, and is largely overlooked. I have a pretty good maths brain, I can calculate odds and value more or less on the spot in most situations, and I've been playing long enough that calculations like this are more or less second nature. Nevertheless I feel my game is hugely flawed, and whilst I certainly don't think I've mastered the mechanical/mathematical aspects of the game, I'd say 90% of what screws me up is psychology. So I've been trying to be honest with myself, and attempting to identify those areas of my game in which my thinking is doing me in, I've come up with a few: The first, which came up in the bad beat thread I mentioned, is my tendency to bitch and whine about bad beats when they happen. I'm much better on this front than I was when I started playing and I do it less, but I still do it. I'd say the main reason this is counter productive is just that it takes time away, when I could be focusing on hands I misplayed etc. Obviously it makes more sense to try and identify mistakes, so they don't happen again, rather than focus on something I couldn't control. And not just that, it's pretty irritating for anyone that has to listen (so apologies to anyone I've complained about my luck to!). The second thing I thought of is tilt. Very obvious but can't be overlooked. I don't know that this a thing that anybody ever completely masters, even seasoned pros seem to get this, but I could certainly do better than I am doing right now. I also don't really understand how it works - sometimes I can sit at a table all night with suckout after suckout and it doesn't bother me at all. Sometimes one tiny beat can trigger horrible tilt. I guess it's not so much a case of mastering tilt as mastering the discipline involved in not playing when it happens - that's definitely something I need to work on. And the third thing I thought of. And this is probably the biggest problem in the case of my game. My ability/curse to rationalise bad play. I can always come up with some spiel about implied odds/position/yadeyah to justify bad play, so probably the whole 'keep it simple, stupid' thing applies here. I think this tendency to rationalise is probably a human thing generally, but I think it's a particularly big flaw in my game. And I say this is my biggest psychological flaw with regards to poker, because I have no idea how to fix it. I like to think one of my poker strengths is my ability to think a hand all the way through to the river and in so doing produce fairly complex plays, and I wouldn't want to lose that, but it's also my downfall, because I do it retroactively to justify shite play. Anyhows, apologies for a fairly long email, would be very interested to here any input anyone else has on any of that, or to hear about anyone else's poker demons.

[Mr Bubbles]

Re: Demons Interesting thread, On a personal note my biggest flaw although i have & still do suffer the above is lack of patience, If i am in a tournament and there is say 8000 entrants at the starts I do seem to hit the all in button on cards that you shouldn't instead of waiting for the right cards to play & giving myself a even chance after a short while, which when you think about it just another form of tilting i suppose.

[Cloud]

Re: Demons Good thread Guesswest. I think the third factor that you have picked out is the key for me too. Whenever a bad beat happens, I tend to go over it, and work out if I should have done something differently - sometimes they are genuine bad beats, but sometimes I find that although most of my play has been good, I've put myself in a position that I shouldn't be - and even though the final call/raise/all-in is perfectly justified, the rest of the hand has been badly played - but it's very easy to forget about that. The biggest hand in my shortish poker career is an example of this. I was playing in the partypoker sunday night $350,000 guarantesd after winning a satellite qualifier. From 2700 starters, I'd got myself into the last 7 tables. I had about a half of the average chip size, and was sitting in the big blind. A player in a mid-position, with a similar chip size, called me, and everyone else folded. Holding 79 (off) I checked. The flop came 6 8 3. So with an open ended straight, I put in $10K of my $16K of chips (pot of $4K), to scare him off. He went all in, and I was in a position where I had to call. He had 8 2 suited (still don't know why he called originally). The turn came up with a 5 - so I got the straight, but it was also the fourth suited card for him, and he got the flush on the river - so I was gone. My initial reaction was not too good (as it cost me a whole load of money), but I got myself in a situation where I had to go all in on an open ended straight - and even though I got the straight, and it felt like a bad beat - it wasn't really.

[Valiant23]

Re: Demons Well, I was going to try and address some of guesswests issues in an excellent post, but I got some of my own now. Betfair freeroll tonight, for almost all the tourney I had played pretty well. Even the bad beat I inflicted on Marek I'd play exactly the same way with the same hand (small pkt pr hit trips on flop, I went all in, Marek had flush. I think I got the full house). So I was varying my play to keep my table guessing and going good. Then I had pocket 9's and lost a big pot to someone who had an outside chance of a flush and hit (72h ffs). Then I called an all in, with AKo they had A6 I think and got the bottom pair. All of a sudden from a dominating chip position to lower end. So, I get moved to Jomells table and telling him I'm trying not to tilt, and this happens; Game #1417833903: Hold'em NL (300/600) - 2005/11/25 - 22:26:07 (BST) Table "City AM 1386405 - 2" Seat 9 is the button. Seat 1: ticon1 (21235 in chips) Seat 2: systmatic (8545 in chips) Seat 3: jenko16 (6312.50 in chips) Seat 4: Valiant23 (8025 in chips) Seat 5: jomell (15320 in chips) Seat 6: smithsj1 (26177.50 in chips) Seat 7: ewan (8650 in chips) Seat 8: KingPower (8700 in chips) Seat 9: Dave Spik (6590 in chips) Seat 10: OJ Ross (13170 in chips) OJ Ross: posts the ante 75 ticon1: posts the ante 75 systmatic: posts the ante 75 jenko16: posts the ante 75 Valiant23: posts the ante 75 jomell: posts the ante 75 smithsj1: posts the ante 75 ewan: posts the ante 75 KingPower: posts the ante 75 Dave Spik: posts the ante 75 OJ Ross: posts small blind 300 ticon1: posts big blind 600 ----- HOLE CARDS ----- dealt to Valiant23 [5c Ac] systmatic: folds jenko16: folds Valiant23: calls 600 jomell: folds smithsj1: folds ewan: folds KingPower: calls 600 Dave Spik: raises to 6515 and is all-in OJ Ross: folds ticon1: folds Valiant23: folds KingPower: calls 5915 ----- FLOP ----- [6s Ah As] ----- TURN ----- [6s Ah As][Kd] ----- RIVER ----- [6s Ah As Kd][9d] ----- SHOW DOWN ----- Dave Spik: shows [3h 3s] (Two Pairs, Aces and Threes, King high) KingPower: shows [Qc Kc] (Two Pairs, Aces and Kings, Queen high) KingPower collected 15280 from Main pot ----- SUMMARY ----- Total pot 15280 Main pot 15280 Rake 0 Board [6s Ah As Kd 9d] I knew there and then the battle to avoid tilt had been lost, and out next hand. Thing I'd like to know (without hijacking the thread) is did I tighten up too much by trying to avoid tilt, or should I have said balls to it and called?

[guesswest]

Re: Demons IMO, for what it's worth, I don't think you did much wrong there V. On the flush vs set hand. Odds of flopping a flush are 118/1 so had he flopped it and you lose with your set, you'd have been incredibly unlucky. And even if he did have the flush, he's only about 65% to beat you, you have a lot of outs. So I'd agree with your assessment that you played it right, if anything, I'd have maybe milked it, but certainly nothing wrong with that all in. Likewise the run of hands after that, you got your money in with the best cards, so not much more you could do. With regards to the A5, there's a lot of grey area here so not sure there's a right answer, but I'd have put it down too. The very best you could really have hoped for here is a coin flip, and that's matched with the strong possibility that you're dominated. Is true that you're pretty short on chips but in your position I'd still fancy my chances of being better able to pick them up on a stronger hand/with position/with a steal. So I'd have put it down too, but I don't think it'd have been a horrible play to call either. I certainly don't think you tilted though. If you were seriously tilting (and I wouldn't like to claim I wouldn't be after that run), you'd have banged your chips all in without a second thought. And if the response to tilt is to tighten up, that's no bad thing at all, might miss a bit of equity but will save a huge amount long term vs going crazy. So personally I don't think you much wrong in any of those situations, but that's just me, someone else may disagree. And just a quick RE: the other two posts. Bubbles: I definitely do that too, is number 4 and will add it to my mental list. Have noticed in the last two years since I started recording properly, that my cash tourney winnings have gone up, but my freeroll winnings way down. Can only assume it's for exactly that reason. Thecloud: Really enjoyed your post. I played that tourney also and lasted about 10 minutes! :D Am likewise unsure on whether the semi-bluff was prudent, but am not convinced it was a bad play either, just because I can't think what else you could do really. You could check hoping for a free card, but only if you were willing to put it down to even a minimum bet (which you almost certainly would have got). You definitely couldn't afford to get milked there, so, I dunno. Is a very interesting hand the more I think about it, especially considering your stack size and the stage of the tourney it happened, would love to hear would other people would do with it.

[Valiant23]

Re: Demons VERY LONG POST (but not as long as PL/BH heads up match) Ok, Now I've had a little cry, and in between watching Mrs V and Billy Hills I'll try and do an Alan Hansen....this isn't to say that I do what I say here, just trying to help.:ok

Certainly all of these are huge factors in poker, but I suspect an even bigger factor than all of them combined is psychology, and is largely overlooked. ...I'd say 90% of what screws me up is psychology. The first, which came up in the bad beat thread I mentioned, is my tendency to bitch and whine about bad beats when they happen. I'm much better on this front than I was when I started playing and I do it less, but I still do it.

Right. Thinking about this I'm guessing you bitch about a bad beat when it's knocked you out of a tourney. Well thats the problem. Everyone remembers the penalty takers who missed in a big game, but do they remember all the good things that happened beforehand? Not very often. My point is it is the last incident, and therefore memorable. If you have a showdown calculator, use it and it will perhaps point out that the bad beat wasn't so bad after all. The only other thing you can do is complain - to yourself. The point is this is the toughest of your issues, because it is down to how you can cope. Try smiling when it happens, or even being over-gracious (as suggested by someone on here) and typing nh or w pl. I do know if I ever get abuse on a table (or the pitch) I've got them beat.

The second thing I thought of is tilt. Very obvious but can't be overlooked. I don't know that this a thing that anybody ever completely masters, even seasoned pros seem to get this, but I could certainly do better than I am doing right now. I also don't really understand how it works - sometimes I can sit at a table all night with suckout after suckout and it doesn't bother me at all. Sometimes one tiny beat can trigger horrible tilt. I guess it's not so much a case of mastering tilt as mastering the discipline involved in not playing when it happens - that's definitely something I need to work on.

I am pretty laid-back yet I have a fiery temper too, and I found it easy to just 'let go' and play a stupidly as the joker that beat me with 72o. However I am managing (to an extent) to use tilt to my advantage, and there are several ways I do this;

• Recognising that a tilt is possible, and tighten up. Give myself the advice that I have read on here to help me through it.
• Imagine the embarrassment when I have to tell PL that I blew a massive chip-stack because I through my rattle out of my pram.
• Remind myself of the strategy to which I am trying to aspire to, and the level. I tell myself that good players don't act so petulantly.
• Find a target. If I am put on tilt by a player I either 'tag' him (if the software allows), or make my single aim to either last longer than himor put him out. This has really helped me on several ocassions when I'm pissed off at a player, because I have waited until I pretty much have the 80% dominant hand before being able to exact my revenge. When vengeance is mine I am generally in such a good mood that my tilt has disappeared.

And the third thing I thought of. And this is probably the biggest problem in the case of my game. My ability/curse to rationalise bad play. I can always come up with some spiel about implied odds/position/yadeyah to justify bad play, so probably the whole 'keep it simple, stupid' thing applies here. I think this tendency to rationalise is probably a human thing generally, but I think it's a particularly big flaw in my game. And I say this is my biggest psychological flaw with regards to poker, because I have no idea how to fix it. I like to think one of my poker strengths is my ability to think a hand all the way through to the river and in so doing produce fairly complex plays, and I wouldn't want to lose that, but it's also my downfall, because I do it retroactively to justify shite play.

Ok. Read this article; http://www.pokersavvy.com/article/peelingpartone.html This is probably the most important peice of advice I have ever had the good fortune to read. This has helped me get away from some really good hands, and I think what you are trying to say is you don't know when to 'fold em'. Y'see even w***ers get dealt from the same deck as you, and even bluffers get AA. Mrs V. has this problem in a lot of tourneys, and she will say, "My AA got beat by a flush". Nothing wrong with that, until I see her history and she had AdJh and the board was spades. A simple example, but I'd suggest that when you fold a hand you are protecting the chips you've got for when you really need them. You may not be gaining any chips, but at least your are keeping your losses to a minimum. The no. of times I've seen some one almost out, with less than 100 chips get AA and similar in a very short space of time. Imagine the damage they could have done if they had guarded their stack jealously.

Interesting thread, On a personal note my biggest flaw although i have & still do suffer the above is lack of patience, If i am in a tournament and there is say 8000 entrants....

I have decided that I am unable to play in any tourney that has more entrants than Vale fans. I enter tourneys with $25,000 prize fund and then have to beat 10,000! No point, as I'm not patient enough. I just restrict myself to playing the smaller freerolls.

Good thread Guesswest. I think the third factor that you have picked out is the key for me too. Whenever a bad beat happens, I tend to go over it, and work out if I should have done something differently - sometimes they are genuine bad beats, but sometimes I find that although most of my play has been good, I've put myself in a position that I shouldn't be - and even though the final call/raise/all-in is perfectly justified, the rest of the hand has been badly played - but it's very easy to forget about that. The biggest hand in my shortish poker career is an example of this. I was playing in the partypoker sunday night $350,000 guarantesd after winning a satellite qualifier. From 2700 starters, I'd got myself into the last 7 tables. I had about a half of the average chip size, and was sitting in the big blind. A player in a mid-position, with a similar chip size, called me, and everyone else folded. Holding 79 (off) I checked. The flop came 6 8 3. So with an open ended straight, I put in $10K of my $16K of chips (pot of $4K), to scare him off. He went all in, and I was in a position where I had to call. He had 8 2 suited (still don't know why he called originally). The turn came up with a 5 - so I got the straight, but it was also the fourth suited card for him, and he got the flush on the river - so I was gone. My initial reaction was not too good (as it cost me a whole load of money), but I got myself in a situation where I had to go all in on an open ended straight - and even though I got the straight, and it felt like a bad beat - it wasn't really.

You know my question. Why did you have to call? You didn't. You tried a bluff and failed, and when you do that you feel like an idiot (I know I do), but that is part of poker. Even if you had folded and only lasted 1 more round of blinds, at least you had maintained some self control. Next time, either try a smaller bluff, or pick a better opportunity. Anything that I said here is open to debate, just my 2,000cents worth. :rollin

[guesswest]

Re: Demons Cheers for the input V, is interesting stuff. Am not sure if my reply will be equally long, will find out when I'm done typing it. Will take that stuff point by point :)

Right. Thinking about this I'm guessing you bitch about a bad beat when it's knocked you out of a tourney. Well thats the problem. Everyone remembers the penalty takers who missed in a big game, but do they remember all the good things that happened beforehand? Not very often. My point is it is the last incident, and therefore memorable. If you have a showdown calculator, use it and it will perhaps point out that the bad beat wasn't so bad after all. The only other thing you can do is complain - to yourself. The point is this is the toughest of your issues, because it is down to how you can cope. Try smiling when it happens, or even being over-gracious (as suggested by someone on here) and typing nh or w pl. I do know if I ever get abuse on a table (or the pitch) I've got them beat.

I don't get abusive or have a go at my opponents when I get a bad beat, honest :D I normally type nh or something similar (not wp though, can't bring myself to say that when it isn't). I mostly reserve bad beat whinging for amongst friends afterwards etc, which I'm sure is pretty tedious for them, which should by itself be enough reason to cut it out! And I'm normally pretty aware of the odds, I'm not gonna bitch for instance that my A10 lost to KQ, because there's not really that much in it. My problem really is just that I devote any mental attention at all to the issue of bad beats. Like I was saying originally, my game is full of holes, I make bad plays all the time. For every second I spend thinking or talking about bad beats (about which I can do nothing), it's time I'm not spending thinking or talking about how to improve my game. That I guess is my most fundamental problem with the subject, just that I invest any time and energy into something so utterly useless.

I am pretty laid-back yet I have a fiery temper too, and I found it easy to just 'let go' and play a stupidly as the joker that beat me with 72o. However I am managing (to an extent) to use tilt to my advantage, and there are several ways I do this;

• Recognising that a tilt is possible, and tighten up. Give myself the advice that I have read on here to help me through it.
• Imagine the embarrassment when I have to tell PL that I blew a massive chip-stack because I through my rattle out of my pram.
• Remind myself of the strategy to which I am trying to aspire to, and the level. I tell myself that good players don't act so petulantly.
• Find a target. If I am put on tilt by a player I either 'tag' him (if the software allows), or make my single aim to either last longer than himor put him out. This has really helped me on several ocassions when I'm pissed off at a player, because I have waited until I pretty much have the 80% dominant hand before being able to exact my revenge. When vengeance is mine I am generally in such a good mood that my tilt has disappeared.

Lot of good advice in there, cheers :) I can certainly see huge merit in all but the last of those points. Am not convinced targetting a specific player is a very good idea, since it breaks the rule of 'not doing anything different' being the ideal response to tilt.

Ok. Read this article; http://www.pokersavvy.com/article/peelingpartone.html This is probably the most important peice of advice I have ever had the good fortune to read. This has helped me get away from some really good hands, and I think what you are trying to say is you don't know when to 'fold em'. Y'see even w***ers get dealt from the same deck as you, and even bluffers get AA. Mrs V. has this problem in a lot of tourneys, and she will say, "My AA got beat by a flush". Nothing wrong with that, until I see her history and she had AdJh and the board was spades. A simple example, but I'd suggest that when you fold a hand you are protecting the chips you've got for when you really need them. You may not be gaining any chips, but at least your are keeping your losses to a minimum. The no. of times I've seen some one almost out, with less than 100 chips get AA and similar in a very short space of time. Imagine the damage they could have done if they had guarded their stack jealously.

I wasn't trying to say I don't know when to Fold'em, though certainly can't claim I always get that one right either :D I also really meant this point specifically in relation to NL, I just play that maths in limit. Here's what I was trying to say I find myself doing, perhaps best explained through an example. I'm sitting in late position, one limper in the pot, I have 75 suited: This is what I'm thinking: I have a hand that has great developmental potential and will be well disguised if it connects. The limper behind me is a loose passive calling station. I'm going to raise this hand, so I can stick a continuation bet in onto any unlikely looking flop, so the raise has value. Plus should I hit I have a huge implied odds with this guy who'll pay me, I reckon I can outplay him on the flop, and I trust in my ability vs his to get away from the hand if it doesn't pan out. Plus it'll contribute to a table image I like establishing, yadeyadeyah. This is what I should be thinking: I have crap cards in a bad position and it'd be stupid to play them. By which I mean I can rationally justify almost any play I make, even really stupid ones. And I mean to myself, not to other people (though to them too if asked). This is a huge flaw in my game, and it's huge because it's precisely that analytical sensibility that allows me to make really good plays also, and so I don't want to just 'stop myself from doing it', but it probably does me more harm than good overall.

You know my question. Why did you have to call? You didn't. You tried a bluff and failed, and when you do that you feel like an idiot (I know I do), but that is part of poker. Even if you had folded and only lasted 1 more round of blinds, at least you had maintained some self control. Next time, either try a smaller bluff, or pick a better opportunity.

OK, just to jump in on this one. This is the one observation I have to disagree with you on am afraid :) I do agree that it's easy to get into the mentality of being pot committed when it isn't necessarily true, but I don't think that applies in this situation. He did have to call, or at least it'd be a very bad decision not to, and that's in fact also more or less what that article you linked says to do. This was a semi-bluff, not a bluff, he's drawing to the nuts with at least 8 outs over 2 cards. He has pot odds and then some. Which isn't to say you should 100% of the time take pot odds in tournament play, but he has massive pot odds and his stack will be totally crippled by a fold. He has a much better chance of hitting his straight than he does of recovering his stack to an equivocal level through subsequent play. It can be the right decision to lay down a hand you ostensibly have good odds on calling when you're almost 100% sure based on the info available that you're beat or drawing dead. But in this case he was drawing to the nuts, and getting massive value from the pot, I can't see how this hand could ever rightfully be put down to that sized bet in that pot.

[Cloud]

Re: Demons Sorry Valiant, but as Guesswest says, once I'd tried the semi-bluff, I had absolutely no option but to call. If I had folded at that stage it would have been an awful play, it was just the play leading up to it that I'm critical of. I was getting pot odds of something like 6 to 1 - with 8 outs and two cards to come. A fold then is definately a mistake.

[Cloud]

Re: Demons And in reply to Guesswest, in hindsight I think the check was the right play. In that situation he would have gone all in anyway (having top pair), and then I would have folded. But hindsight is very easy. When the flop came 8 6 3, I was thinking because of the size of his call, he had AQ, QK, AJ or JQ, or a small pair (which worried me). The reason I tried the semi-bluff was because I thought there was a good chance he was on A,K,Q high. To be honest, the more I think about it, the're wasn't too much wrong with the way I played it - it's just that at the time it felt like a weak way to go out of such a big tournie. BTW I finished 68th in the end, and got about $900 for it, but I did have one eye on a life-changing amount of money, if you know what I mean.

[The Quiet Man]

Re: Demons Very good thread Guesswest. Good points put across so lets see if I can add to it. The main reason I manage to reach final tables is having patience and NEVER going on tilt. Sometimes it's very boring folding hand after hand but it has to be done if you want to progress. If I'm sitting in an early position I've seen me folding anything if I don't feel I can control the table. (AK, JJ, QQ, KK even) The tendency for a lot of players is just to go all in when they see that cards but I think that's a big mistake. Be patient, wait until you know you have the best hand, then bet big - sounds simple but it does work. Bat beats happen all the time - I'm totally immune to them now, but the next hand it's great to pick up good cards and go all in because the table thinks you're on tilt and you often end up with someone calling you with rubbish. Hope this gives you a few pointers and success is just round the corner!! :ok Longest post I've written - must still be drunk.:beer

[Valiant23]

Re: Demons the cloud/guesswest: I was totally wrong. :wall sorry. However a check or a smaller raise would have been my play, but again depending on the chipstack/player I'm up against there is the "Will I be forced all in" decision. If the answer is likely to be yes then I'd be tempted to let the clock run and then check, but as you said there were plenty of outs, so fair enough. Sorry guys. "Am not convinced targetting a specific player is a very good idea, since it breaks the rule of 'not doing anything different' being the ideal response to tilt." True, but what it does is give your tilt a focus. I have a bit of a problem with a player on SO called 500SEL (I hate being on his table). Focusing my negative energies into something positive (I mean, I want to knock everyone out, don't I?) takes the most damaging part of tilt away, and that is the "self destruct" part. Now, 75s. I wouldn't play that hand myself. I understand your rationale but don't agree with it. You used those cards as an example, so let me go with it. I would play it only if I could see a cheap flop. If I didn't get 2 cards on the flop then I'd fold. It doesn't mean to say that I can't see the potential, but what about the potential for failure? Sorry mate, but the cloud has perhaps the perfect example regarding that. The point about 'the peel' is exactly what you are doing. You are trying to justify with logic and reasoning playing a hand which I wouldn't play. I am probably closer to TQM's point of view than yours. But, if I get these on the BB and get a free or cheap flop and I hit, I would slowplay it to the river, in the hope that my oppo caught a pair. Oh, and TQM. Whats new?

[The Quiet Man]

Re: Demons Mr V at his best!! Oh, and TQM. Whats new? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Cloud]

Re: Demons The biggest demon in my game - and now I've recognised it, hopefully no longer a flaw - is over-confidence when I'm on a roll. I have only been playing about 18 months, but I've always tended to have winning streaks, followed by losing streaks - instead of a mix of wins and losses. I think this is purely down to the fact that when I've had a few wins - my play gets a bit looser and I think I can win any hand. I end up playing far too many hands - and consequently suffer as a result. When i tighten up again, the results come back. Sounds simple - but I find it very easy to get over-confident when playing well.

[guesswest]

Re: Demons Cheers TQM and V both for your input on this. Am especially keen to pay attention to what TQM has to say about tournament play after his recent demolition of the dollar up tourney! Am interested in what you said about tilt and targetting player/s V. It's interesting because everything I've ever read is to the effect that, if you find yourself doing anything you wouldn't otherwise be doing, especially targetting a specific player, then you're failing to control tilt. But that's not to say I think that you're wrong, it's a fairly novel idea and I'll give a shot at incorporating it into my game and see how it works out. The only problem I foresee is that I really don't tilt in tournament games, not entirely sure why, I just don't. My tilt problem is in cash games, and though that might work, what'd definitely work is if I could just get it through my thick skull that I should just stop playing for a period when tilt symptoms emerge! What you had to say about peeling cards. The article you linked to is by all means a spot on description of calculating pot odds and the value of doing so, but it's very much specific to limit play. With NL the whole idea of implied odds comes into play, so it really can be profitable to take peels without necessarily having immediate odds, based on an understanding of what your opponent will pay should you hit. And it's not that you expect to hit the draws, it's that if you played the same hand against the same player a billion times would it be profitable. If you believe, based on his previous behaviour, that he'll call a huge river bet should you hit, there's positive expectation and it's worth chasing as an underdog. I don't believe implied odds shouldn't be chased when they're legitimate, in fact I'd say in NL cash play that's the single most lucrative source of cash gains out there. My real problem is that I use that kind of analysis to justify plays like this where I didn't have a real PE situation, where I was just bored, or wanting to gamble, or looking for an excuse to play. I play cash for the long term, so I don't mind raising on a hand like 75 as an underdog, because I don't mind putting it down, because I want to get my opponent pot committed so they have a reason to call if I hit, so I have the right table image to buy flops etc etc. The problem is that, probably due to not being honest with myself, and a needling desire to justify my mistakes to myself, I can shape all those convoluted factors in anyway I want to justify plays for which the justification really isn't there. And I guess this is probably mainly that, an issue of self-honesty more than an issue of how to play x hand.

[Valiant23]

Re: Demons :clap :clap :clap Excellent guys. guesswest. I don't think I'll ever be a cash player, so I suppose any suggestions I make generally apply to tourney play. I must be honest I didn't realise the peel was directed towards limit.:$

[guesswest]

Re: Demons V - the idea of how sensible it is to peel off another card is totally applicable in NL, and was an entirely reasonable point for you to make. It's also probably true that I do chase in bad positions :) All I was getting at by the limit vs no limit thing: In a limit game, which is the kind of game that article was using as an example, the calculation is more or less strictly pot odds. ie I have x chance of hitting the card I need and am getting y from the pot, so is there value? And there can certainly be value in drawing to cards as an underdog with the right pot odds, but pot odds is more or less all that comes into play. Implied odds, being able to push people off pots etc, really doesn't apply, except possibly at very high stakes. If you're making the decision as to whether to chase a card in NL, there's way more factors, but pot odds is still definitely one of them, and probably the first one to weigh up. But you're also thinking, do I have the implied odds, ie will he pay me off on a later street in such a way that I would have pot odds for this call if I deconstructed the whole hand after it was finished. Can a semi-bluff here push him off the pot, if I bet this draw will it help him not put me on it should I hit it later, will it get me a free river when he checks the turn. Loads of stuff, but pot odds is just as much an intrinsic part of NL play and the advice in that article still very useful and central. Anyhows the info in that article was top quality info and very applicable to any poker game, not even just to Hold'em. In fact, best all around Hold'em book I ever read, with loads of info really relevant to No limit play is a Limit specific book. 'Winning Low-Limit Hold'em' by Lee Jones. Can't recommend that book highly enough. :drums