Picking good games

Game selection is so critical in online poker because it allows you to choose the skill level of your opponents. If you're in it to make money, you want to be playing against opponents who are worse than you.

There are several ways to evaluate what constitutes a good game.

One way is to look for games with a high percentage of players per flop, a stat that's available in the lobbies of many sites for anyone to see. Another way is to check out TableRatings.com. Both of these methods are OK, but they rely on data available to everyone, which means that you often end up on waiting lists for the best games rather than sitting in them.

A better way is to use a program like SpadeEye, which I recently wrote a review of for the recently launched site, Poker Tech Reviews. I'll leave it to my review to explain how SpadeEye works.

I've found that seat selection is more important than table selection. By that I mean a tight table doesn't matter as much as long as you're sitting directly to the left of the fish.

You also want the big stacks to your right, passive players to your left and tight players in the big blind when you're on the button.

Riverboat Gambling

That was a fantastic weekend vacation. I saw the Braves and Cardinals win one game each on Friday and Saturday, and then I drove to Kansas City to witness the home team beat the Tigers.

And I played in live casinos every day.

I met up with Kuro at Harrahs in St. Louis immediately after I arrived. It was cool to see signs at Harrahs supporting Dennis Phillips, who started his journey toward the World Series of Poker November Nine there in a $200 satellite.

I only had a little money on me, and I was looking to sit at a $1/2 NL table, but my name came up for a $2/5 table first. When I found my seat, it didn't take long to remember how juicy live poker can be: five players saw most flops, reraises were rare and people missed many obvious value bets on later streets.

I feel like it takes a little investment to beat these games sometimes. That's because you should be seeing many flops in position, and if you miss all the time, your stack is going to bleed away. The rake and jackpot fee don't help either. But I'm certain this kind of live game is overwhelmingly profitable over time. (I wish I could be dealt more than 30 hands an hour!)

Eventually, my stack dwindled to about $150, and I limp-raised all-in from under the gun with 77 after an MP player raised to $50 and four people called, putting more than $200 in the pot. I got called by the raiser, who wouldn't reveal his pocket 8s until after the river was dealt even after I turned over my hand immediately. Jackass grayhair.

I ended up losing more money at blackjack, but the real story of the trip is my roulette winnings at Casino Queen in Illinois and Isle of Capri in Kansas City.

I played a Martingale strategy, in which I placed near-break-even wagers on the outside, pocketing my winnings on small bets and doubling my bets when I lost.

In four sessions of roulette over four days this weekend, I walked away a solid winner every time.

The Martingale system isn't profitable over the long run, but it gives you the opportunity to book small wins and have fun at the table for several hours at a time. I'll play roulette this way all the time.

Deuces Cracked

I've given in and signed up with DeucesCracked for poker training after staying loyal to CardRunners for a little too long.

So far, I'm impressed with DeucesCracked.

DeucesCracked has no sign-up fee, unlike CardRunners. They put out a ton of videos from higher-stakes pros who I respect. They seem to work at teaching concepts rather than throwing up TV-like videos where you just watch someone play. I like the idea of their series, where they emphasize everything from heads-up play to small-stakes leak-finder episodes. RSS feeds are available as well.

In addition, they offer personal coaching, something that I asked CardRunners for and they responded with a "we don't offer that yet." That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I had also gotten frustrated with the shortage of videos from CR's top pros like Cole South and Brian Townsend. I've always liked Taylor Caby's videos, but even they seem stale, and his talk about quitting poker turns me off. Their negative winrates recently discourage me as well.

Like PokerTracker3, CardRunners isn't adapting nearly fast enough. The poker coaching market is very crowded, and you have to keep up with the latest technology to survive. DeucesCracked may be the next Holdem Manager.

Cash stats

Tableratings.com has added many new features that allow you to search players' screennames to see how they have done in cash games on Full Tilt. (Thanks Bone Daddy for pointing it out).

This is an incredible tool cash players can use as they select the best games and the juiciest fish to play against. And even if you don't play cash games, it's fun to see how friends, poker bloggers and pros have been running.

As far as I can tell, the database is still young, dating back to March. Its data will grow more reliable in time. In addition, the site still has table selection tools to help you find the loosest and most passive games. It's still free for now, although I wonder if it will become a pay site in the future. The figures appear to fairly accurate, although some hands are missing.

Here's a sampling:

smizmiatch (me): $8,293 0.95 BB/100.
Phil Ivey: $416,863.50, 9.6 BB/100
Cole South: $-542,310.20, -2.35 BB/100
Brian Townsend: $-80,876.70, -6.93 BB/100
Mike Matusow: $-17,920.15, -1.4 BB/100

Harrington on Cash Games: How to Win at No-Limit Hold 'em Money Games: Vol II

Like the first volume, Harrington's second cash game book was disappointing.

It avoided some of the flaws of the first book, such as overly emphasizing variation plays at the expense of value. But the book also relied too much on hand examples that didn't necessarily give me a deeper understanding of the game.

While reading the hand examples, it began to feel like I was looking over Harrington's shoulder as he played. It's useful to see how he would play a hand, but that doesn't mean I would play it the same way. The result of these exercises is that I see more hands from a different perspective, although I'm not gaining much knowledge about hand ranges, expectation and flop textures.

Instructional videos achieve much the same thing, often with deeper analysis and lessons that are easier to absorb.

Harrington breaks up the book into two parts: tight-aggressive play and loose-aggressive play. As before, it's helpful to observe the nuances of each style, but a more thorough hand analysis and decision-making techniques is lacking.

The miscellaneous chapters proved to be among the most educational: tells and observations, beating weak games and bankroll management.

The bankroll management chapter includes an argument for paying your taxes that I hadn't heard before: You can make more money in the long run if you pay your taxes because that enables you to invest it without fear of drawing government attention.

This book isn't a bad book, but it isn't what I want. I'm looking for books that get into playing against different opponents, exploiting weaknesses and using deductive reasoning to break down hands. 2+2 Publishing hasn't produced anything like that in a few years.

Simple/System

I was thinking about how I used to play no limit hold'em when I first started beating the .10/.25 games. I played a simple, tight style that managed to turn a profit.

1) I loved set mining. I would call a raise or open for a raise myself with any pocket pair from any position. Then I would bet strongly and watch the cash flow.

2) Only get all-in preflop with AA or KK. There were so many donks out there willing to go all-in with far less, and my equity advantage in those situations was enormous. They weren't paying attention to my range. They were thinking, "I've got QQ or AK. Push!"

3) Bet pot and only make high percentage bluffs. By betting large amounts and bluffing rarely, I got good value for my made hands while reducing the risk of being outplayed by opponents with more experience than me.

Maybe this playing style was weakish. I'm not even sure if it would still work in today's lower-limit games. But it was a reliable way to make money, learn patience and get the most money in with the widest equity edge.

Mad Hammer Skillz

This isn't the best move I've ever made, but I can't help but be proud when the Hammer wins a big pot.

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

SB: $1,433.50

Hero (BB): $1,332.75

Pre-Flop: 2 7 dealt to Hero (BB)
SB raises to $30, Hero raises to $100, SB calls $70

Flop: ($200) 5 3 4 (2 Players)
Hero bets $150, SB raises to $375, Hero raises to $1,232.75 and is All-In, SB calls $857.75

Turn: ($2,665.50) K (2 Players - 1 is All-In)


River: ($2,665.50) 6 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)


Results: $2,665.50 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
SB showed 3 3 (three of a kind, Threes) and LOST (-$1,332.75 NET)
Hero showed 2 7 (a straight, Seven high) and WON $2,665 (+$1,332.25 NET)

EV(push)=.75(-1,083) + .25(1583)
=-778.5+395.75
=-382.75

Woops.

Preflop Minigame

Preflop raising and reraising is like a minigame within the larger cash game.

In heads-up poker, this is especially true. Against some opponents, preflop decisions can be more important than postflop plays.

This game is pretty simple:

Against someone who is opening for a raise too often, you need to 3-bet them more, both as a resteal and to discourage them from being too aggressive.

Then the initial raiser has a choice about whether he wants to take this minigame to the next level with a 4-bet. Some aggressive players will do this with a wide range.

Against a crazy 4-better, the final recourse is to 5-bet all-in (assuming 100BB stacks). Hopefully you have a premium hand, but when you get to this level of raising and reraising, you'll see pros making moves even with hands like suited Qx and suited connectors. Obviously these hands have limited value beyond their bluffing potential.

The preflop game is fun because if you find an opponent who refuses to take it to the next level, you'll make a lot of money. For example, if you find someone who 3-bets frequently but always folds to a 4-bet, you're picking up a mid-sized pot without having to even see a flop. But then you can get into trouble if he 5-bets and you have to fold, usually leaving about a quarter of your 100BB stack on the table.

The counter to the frequent 5-bettor is to call his 3-bets more often rather than 4-betting. Then you can play postflop, hoping to hit your hand and looking for favorable flops to bluff at. Many times by this point, there's so much money in the middle that it's worthwhile to push all-in with a flush draw or top pair on the flop, depending on its texture and your read.

Another fun move is to start 4-betting the maniac all-in preflop, although you don't want to do this without a decent hand most of the time. I played a fun hand the other night where I 4-bet all-in preflop with JJ and got snapcalled by 88. Easy money.

One interesting facet of this preflop battle in heads-up cash games is that the out of position player has the advantage. He is the one who can choose to 3-bet and 5-bet, while the player on the button can only 2-bet and 4-bet. Of course, against a player who will only 5-bet with a premium hand, you can 4-bet more liberally, which somewhat restores your positional advantage.

HOTD: wtf is a wheel?

I had been playing this villain heads-up, and he had already sucked out on me twice for my stack.

The first time, I got him in with higher two pair, and he hit his two-out kicker for a boat. The second hand, I got him to put his stack in with top pair Jacks (King kicker) against my Aces, and of course he rivered trips.

Finally, I doubled up when I turned top pair to go with a flush draw, and he called all-in with overcards and a different flush draw.

Then this beauty of hand came up, where I made things right in a 520-bet pot:

Full Tilt Poker, $5/$10 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 2 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

BB: $3,312.50

Hero (SB): $2,598

Pre-Flop: 5 4 dealt to Hero (SB)
Hero raises to $30, BB raises to $112, Hero calls $82

Flop: ($224) 3 T 9 (2 Players)

BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: ($224) A (2 Players)
BB bets $165, Hero calls $165

River: ($554) 2 (2 Players)
BB bets $425, Hero raises to $2,321 and is All-In, BB calls $1,896

Results: $5,196 Pot ($0.50 Rake)
BB mucked A K (a pair of Aces) and LOST (-$2,598 NET)
Hero showed 5 4 (a straight, Five high) and WON $5,195.50 (+$2,597.50 NET)

Villain timed down to 1 second left before hitting call. Gotta love it when he calls off his stack with top pair there. Ship it!

I've been playing 5/10 heads-up games daily for three weeks now. The first half of that time, I dropped about 10 buy-ins while I got my bearings and learned which players to avoid. Since then, I've won back those 10 buy-ins, and I feel confident in my game.

These heads-up games will be very profitable.

Stick and Move

One way in which poker is a great game is that for every tactic your opponents employ, you can adjust and react.

I want to make my game more flexible and responsive to my opponents' tendencies. If I can play that way, I'll be hard to read and prepared for most potential actions.

I like making lists, so here's a list of a few player tendencies and their counters:

_ vs. a calling station: Bet for value more and bluff less.

_ vs. someone who calls most continuation bets: Don't c-bet with hands that have little value. Consider checking behind some flops with hands that have showdown value for pot control.

_ vs. a frequent 3-bettor: There are two ways to fight an aggressive preflop re-raiser. The first is to start 4-betting him, which works well as long as your opponent folds when you don't have it and calls or raises when you do. A problem with 4-betting a maniac is that sometimes he'll come over the top with an all-in, and by that point you're either close to pot committed or stuck with something like JTs.

The other response to a frequent 3-bettor is to start 3-betting him more often. I like this adjustment because it costs less than 4-betting and 3-bettors usually know enough to fold when their opponents steal the momentum.

_ vs. someone who often calls 3-bets: Don't re-raise as often, especially out of position.

_ vs. minraisers and limpers: reraise the crap out of them.

_ vs. players who continuation bet too much: start floating, raising and check-raising them with a wide variety of hands as bluffs.

_ vs. major multitablers: bluff much more often, fire two bullets, initiate check-raises, float in position and overbet for value.

Vegas: I'm in

I bought my ticket to go to Vegas for the winter blogger gathering!

I missed the summer event for the first time in a couple of years, but I'm excited to return for a weekend of check-raising cowboys, playing mixed games at Imperial Palace and lightening the pockets of fellow tourists.

I arrive Friday morning (Dec. 12) and leave Sunday morning (Dec. 14), which means I won't be able to play in Fuel's $500 single-table SNG unless he changes the time. But that's OK -- Lucko will probably win it anyway.

I'll be staying at the IP with Kuro and Sham. I hope there's a blogger tournament this time around after there wasn't one over the summer. The tournament isn't that big of a deal, but it's usually the only time that all the bloggers are in one place.

Hope to see y'all there!

CTS knows

A recent CardRunners video by CTS shows why poker training sites are so valuable. I sometimes learn more from a single training video than I would from reading an entire book.

CTS is one of the best because his thinking about the game is on a much higher level than most other pros, and he does a pretty good job of explaining his reasoning.

For example, he writes out this equation for calculating the expected value of a stone-cold bluff:


I hadn't ever seen that specific math anywhere else, and it's a practical way to analyze whether you made a profitable bluff. This reminds me of a similar example CTS gave in a previous video about calculating the EV of a semibluff, which I wrote about here.

Another strong point of this video is when CTS folds his big blind with 55 against Taylor Caby's button open raise.

He says that a call or a raise could be defensible against a weaker player, but against a strong player out of position, low pocket pairs won't flop a set often enough or get paid off often enough to turn a profit.

---

At the tables, I've been working hard on my heads-up game.

Heads-up hold'em is such a thrill because you play so many hands and have to work through so many difficult situations. I can see where I have an edge (or lack thereof) more clearly when playing a single opponent.

I find that there are so many situations where I need to do a better job of balancing my range:

_ I have a hard time playing paired flops with Ace-high or low pocket pair hands. I find myself often checking the flop and trying to keep the pot small with these kinds of hands that are either way ahead or way behind. But this strategy makes it more difficult to get value when I do hit these paired flops because it's harder to represent anything but a strong hand type.

_ When I fail to continuation bet, I need to mix in more check-raises for value and as bluffs in order to mask the weakness a failed c-bet usually reveals.

_ My donkbets represent a tremendously limited range because I often prefer to check-raise the flop. That tendancy fails miserably against opponents who check behind the flop and raise the turn, both with strong and weak holdings. I need to do a better job of recognizing what flop textures I need to bet out on both for value and as bluffs. I'm guessing that it's better to bet out on the most extreme flop types: either very dry or very coordinated.

Poker Morality

While talking to my sister during my vacation over the last couple of weeks, she suggested that poker is immoral. She said it's wrong for a skilled player to take advantage of an opponent who has a gambling problem.

It's a strong point that I had a hard time arguing with.

I said that my rights shouldn't be curtailed because a percentage of my opponents may have a gambling problem. My sister said she wasn't arguing for restricting individual freedoms; she was talking about an individual decision to profit from someone else's sickness.

I said that everyone playing poker knows what they're getting into. She claimed that some of my opponents don't have the ability to think rationally about their gambling decisions, and I facilitate their gambling addiction.

I said that most poker players don't have a gambling problem, and I won't let the weakness of the few ruin the game for the rest of us. She said it doesn't matter exactly how many people have a gambling problem because I'm still harming those who do.

When I brought up her arguments to another friend of mine, he made the point that my sister was essentially comparing me to a drug dealer, profiting from addicts who don't know better or can't control themselves.

How should we as poker players resolve this dilemma? Do we try to remain blissfully ignorant of our contributions to perpetuating gambling addiction? Should we rationalize the negative consequences of our actions as an inevitable outcome of the game? Can we claim that if we weren't taking our opponents' money, someone else would? Should we give a portion of our winnings to charity in an effort to offset the harm we may be doing? Can I argue that I have as much of a gambling problem as anyone, and therefore everyone is on an even playing field?

Or perhaps there's only one way to stay morally pure: quit playing.

Blogger Cash: Most win, I lose

I got crushed in the $1/2 deep-stacked NL blogger cash game, but most of the players who filled two tables on Full Tilt won some money.

I was playing from a booth at a loud bar, Moe's & Joe's, in Atlanta. I think it would be fair to say that the beer helped loosen me up.

Kuro, who was sitting across from me at the bar, recounted our big confrontations. I got it in really good once (dominating top pair) and really bad once (under two pair vs. trips). We know each other's styles pretty well, which means we'll get into a few confrontations.

I donked it up and lost. So it goes. Thanks for everyone who turned out to play, and I hope everyone had fun.

What's important to me now is that I get back on my game. I've been farting around at the tables throughout my vacation, and it's starting to hurt a bit. Vacation is great, and I feel pretty relaxed despite my recent questionable play. But now I'm going to bear down and focus rather than play the loosey-goosey style that leads to me spewing too many chips.

One problem I've found in my game is that I've been trying to play with standard betting patterns depending on flop textures. Instead, I should be tailoring my plays more based on my reads in specific situations.

Back to work!

Blogger Cash Game is so on

Let's play a 1/2 no-limit hold'em deep-stacked blogger cash game on Wednesday during the Mook!


We have a great lineup of solid cash and tourney players who have already shown interest: Subzero, Mike Maloney, cmitch, RecessRampage, Kuro, Bone Daddy, twoblackaces and the spritpot crew.

Either contact me around 10 p.m. EDT on Yahoo IM (smizmiatch) as we decide what table to play on, or search for my screen name on Full Tilt (also smizmiatch).

Everyone is welcome to play. Good luck!

Balancing Your Range

The key element of hand reading is putting your opponent on a range of hands and determining the best line against that range as a whole. Once you can read ranges, programs like PokerStove can help determine how your hand performs against your opponents' likely holdings.

As difficult as hand reading is, it isn't enough. You also need to think about your opponents' perception of your hand range. An article in this month's Two Plus Two Magazine put it well: "Too many people think of playing their hand against their opponent’s range, as opposed to playing their range against their opponents range."

Therefore, the challenge is to "balance your range" to create a strategy that's difficult to exploit. By playing your strong, medium and weak hands on certain flop textures in a similar manner, you attempt to disguise your actual holding while extracting the most value overall from each hand type.

For example, if you only limp-raise with AA under the gun and no other hands, your hand range is "polarized" or "unbalanced" because you can only have one hand type in this situation. That's never a good thing because it enables your opponents to play perfectly against you.

Here's the technical definition of balancing your range: to merge your range so that you're not exploitable pursuing a certain line.

Balancing your range is a fascinating and practical topic that can be applied to any hand in any situation. Because I only have a passing familiarity with its specifics, I'll leave this post with a few thought-provoking links:

Shania, balancing, and what you really need to know: In this 2+2 thread, BobboFitos argues that it is unnecessary to balance your range against people who won't adjust to your standard betting lines.

This post resounded with me because I find myself playing to my opponent's perceived individual weaknesses, even though if he knew what I was doing he could play back at me. For example, I'll always fire a continuation bet against a player who will usually fold to a continuation bet because it doesn't matter what my range is if he'll fold to my bluff at a high frequency.

As one poster put it, "You should strive infinitely to balance your game, but heavily skew your play to each specific opponent."

I also agree with the sentiment that range balancing becomes far more important against observant opponents.

I found the 2+2 link from the Poker Log blog, which outlines some examples, such as raising junk hands preflop as semibluffs, continuation betting with air and double-barrelling scare cards. The author writes, "Your range is highly polarized when you perform action X when you only have Y. This makes your game highly exploitable and probably less profitable."

Foucalt presents a couple of other examples in this post with hands like TT and AK.

I have a lot of questions that I'll be thinking about in the coming days about how to apply range balancing:

How much of my 3-betting range should be made up of non-premium hands in order to disguise my premium hands? At what point does 3-betting non-premium hands become more expensive than it's worth?

Should I play KK on Axy flops in the same manner that I would play weak Aces on the same flop?

How should my check-raising distribution look between between monsters, pairs, draws and bluffs?

How often should I fire a second or third bullet? How strong of a "real" hand do I need to fire a second or third bullet? With what hand and flop types should I check the turn and extract value on the river?

Because my perceived hand range is based on my preflop betting actions and the flop texture, how relevant is my actual hand, knowing that I'll only reach showdown a small amount of the time?

Adaptation

The games are getting tougher to beat.

Winning players constantly get stronger, refining their skills and playing in the most profitable games they can find. Losing players stagnate and fail to progress.

Poker is a dynamic game with ever-changing trends, new theories and neverending lessons to learn. If you don't practice, study and evolve with the game, you'll fall behind.

That's just the way it is. Either whine nostalgic about the juicy old days, or work to survive and thrive.

Button reraising...or not

I keep thinking about two seemingly competing strategies, both of which are preached by solid pros. One strategy would have you cold call in position with many playable hands, and the other advocates frequent 3-betting.

I remember Samoleus arguing for making more calls in position with hands that have implied odds. He differed with some CardRunners pros who reraise many playable hand types in position.

Dan Harrington writes in his cash game books about calling with a wide range of hands for cheap in position. The deeper-stacked you are, the more hands you want to play from the button, he says.

Finally, I stumbled upon a column by BalugaWhale that lays out a reasonable compromise: 3-bet with strong and weak hands, while call with high implied odds hands. This line of thought makes sense. If you're going to call preflop with low pocket pairs in position, why not do the same with JTs? Sure, you can 3-bet these hands when the circumstances call for it, like when you're up against a player who folds to raises too much or never 4-bets. But seeing flops with drawing hands while not spending too much money seems reasonable.

One big problem with this style comes when you're up against frequent squeezers from the blinds. To balance your range against these types of players, you need to occasionally cold call with premium hands from late position in hopes of 4-betting a squeezer all-in.

Harrington on Cash Games: How to Win at No-Limit Hold 'em Money Games: Vol I

I think I know what Harrington is trying to do in a large part of his first cash game book: He's demonstrating a strategy that attempts to avoid exploitation by mixing up his play.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that it's almost always better to make the highest percentage play rather than sacrifice value in a misguided effort to obfuscate your hand for potential future profits. Harrington attempts to mix up his play based on the second-hand of his watch instead of balancing his play based on the game situation.

For example: If you hold Ks Kc on a Ac Ts 4s flop, Harrington recommends checking 80 percent of the time rather than making a continuation bet.

I argue for betting the vast majority of the time. In addition, I definitely wouldn't decide whether to check because the second-hand of my watch as Harrington would. He'd have you take the 80 percent action if the second-hand is in the first 48 seconds and check if it's in the last 12 seconds. Does anyone do this in real life cash games?

I would bet because I know my opponent probably didn't cold call with an Ace preflop, I can bluff him off the hand if I think he did cold call with a weak Ace, and I'm just as happy to take down the pot right now. Those are all legitimate, practical reasons for betting completely dependent on what I believe to be the strongest play, and there's no reason to ever do anything different from what I think is right.

A whole chunk of the book is dedicated to these deception plays at the expense of analysis of gametime decisions. It's better to consider whether my opponent is a calling station, bluffer, check-raiser, maniac, regular, weekend warrior, squeeze player, blind stealer or blind folder than it is to try to make ambiguous fancy plays.

At least one hand example in the book illustrates an approach I'm more comfortable with. With ATo from the cutoff, Harrington supports raising a limper to 5X and then continuation betting nearly every time on a Kc Qc 4h flop.

"Given that Player D is a loose, weak player and he checked, this flop probably missed him, and in addition should look pretty scary with the king and queen out there. Make a continuation bet almost 100 percent of the time. Unless Player D caught a piece of the flop, he'll go away."

See? That wasn't so hard. Continuation bet based on the flop texture, your position, your read on your opponent and the previous action. There's no reason to do anything differently for deception or meaningless variation.

I don't think I'm overstating this point. In other hand examples, Harrington goes for variation plays preflop, with random limps as well. That's not going to work in most of today's games, both online and live.

On top of that, the ATo hand is used to make an argument for a terrible "general rule":

"The more outs you have to a big (or winning) hand, the less you want to make a continuation bet."

That rule is not true. When you have more outs, you want to bet because it gives you more ways to win. You'll either take down the pot with a continuation bet, or you build the pot while controlling the action, retaining fold equity and potentially hitting the well-disguised nuts.

I want to say something positive, so I'll say this: I enjoy learning about new styles so that I can better understand what my opponents may be thinking.

But there aren't many new tactics from this book that I'll be incorporating into my game.

Self Improvement

I had a pretty awful run at the tables last weekend, and it's taken me a few days to figure out how I could do better next time.

Sure, there were a few coolers and bad beats. But I should to take responsibility for my wins and losses, and I want to learn from my mistakes. By writing them down, I hope to avoid making the same errors in the future.

_ I realized I was giving off some pretty obvious timing tells by betting too quickly. Observant players will be able to read my too-fast bets and abuse me when I'm running on autopilot. Some of these timing tells were created by a reliance on Full Tilt Shortcuts, which is a cool problem but one which I haven't learned to use properly. For now, I've turned FTS off.

_ I got a little bit lax on table selection. I still looked for good tables, but I found myself settling for tables with a bunch of average-type players. I'd rather be at a table with one fish and a bunch of solid players than a table with no fish and a few guys playing their hands for value.

_ I targeted halfstackers and shortstackers too much. I hate these players because they prevent me from playing the type of poker I want to play. When you're forced to decide your hand preflop or on the flop, you're going to end up taking a few too many coinflips. The best defense against shorties is to refuse to sit with them.

_ I stubbornly kept trying to play despite my losses because I believed I was still playing my best. I should have realized that sometimes, it's just not my day. And how can I really be playing my best when I'm yelling "Goddammit!" after every beat?

I'm back on my A game now, and quickly on my way to recovering the weekend's mistakes.