Preventing post flop disasters

Printable View

12-16-2004, 09:49 PM
Chicago_Kid

Preventing post flop disasters

I've continually tried to make $$ in the ring games on Party, but my performance looks like an EKG chart. I'll have a great couple sessions and build a nice stash, then I will bleed it back like a stuck pig. I'm positive overall, but not by much. I typically play 3-4 tables at a time, which I realize could be a factor.

So, up to this point, I've assumed I either need to go tighter, or I have serious leaks in my post-flop game. I'm pretty tight already, but not super so, playing b/t 15-19% (closer to 15% of late) at full tables.

Tonight, it became abundantly clear, my leaks are in my post-flop game. Repeatedly, I get married to medium-strong to strong hands, and cannot let go post-flop when someone hits a bigger hand. Specifically, I lost in the following situations:
- KK lost to trip 9 (9 hit on the flop, and opp went all in ahead of me, after he called my big pre-flop reraise)
- QQ vs KK, after flop was blanks, and we reraised both all-in heads-up.
- Flopped top two pr (KT) loses to a straight, after opp made a bad call on my pot sized flop bet, hit it on the turn, and then bled me out
- KQ top pair, loses to AK.
- and of course, KK to AA.

Very frustrating as I'm getting smashed by these plays. I know they're not all bad beats--I've studied them post session. They probably equate to 10% "your screwed" hands, 20% bad beats, and 70% bad calls/misreads. While I know I have to accept the "screwed" and bad beat situations, it's the misreads and subsequent post-flop train wrecks that just kill my win rate.

If I could cut down on the number of these marriage/misread/tilt plays, I would be significantly positive (rather than barely positive, and maintain a much lower variance. I don't have my variance handy, but I know it is huge. Notably, I perform quite well in SnG's, ITM 40+% of the time. But, it's the cash games that kill me.

Anyone have advice on how to "feel" out these plays a bit better in ring games? Should I play fewer tables? Should I quit after a real bad beat to avoid tilt?

Without plugging these holes, I'm thinking about going only with SnG's...as I make a better BB/hr than ring games with a much smaller variance!
12-16-2004, 10:31 PM
Cocco_Bill

Do you play .25-.5 NL tables?

Personally I am convinced that I earn more playing 2 tables at .5-1 NL than 4 tables .25-.5.

On 2 tables I can keep track of people to get a good read on most players which is very difficult to do when playing 4 tables. Also sometimes you get bad situations with having to make tough decisions on many tables resulting in mistakes.
12-17-2004, 12:41 AM
Chicago_Kid

I've played only .25-.50 up to this point.

I haven't much ventured into .5-$1, but I think that's a good suggestion.

I initially thought # of tables might be part of the problem, so limiting the # of tables is worth a shot.
12-17-2004, 05:46 AM
Aceofone

Chicago, most of the beats you listed, were destined to destroy you stack. What you have experienced is the variance that drives many players to limit.

I would suggest toning down to max of 3 tables at a time, or better 2 until you can consistently beat them.
12-17-2004, 10:10 AM
FlyingSaucy

I also had trouble trying ring games after doing well in ST SnGs. Still haven't ventured back yet, but I am reviewing my play and I think I've figured out where my bad plays were coming from.

Thought I'd point out the things I failed at in case you see some familiarity.
1. Assuming most of my opponents are fish. You have to play opponents as innocent until proven guilty. And even then I think it is safer to wait until they have been proven guilty at least 2 times before adjusting your play to them because of advertising.

2. Getting impatient. If you are used to playing SnG's, you've got thick burn scars on your butt hole because of the fire that is constantly lit under it. SnG's are games of constant survival and punctuated, targetted aggression. Don't sit at a full $25 NL table and after 30 minutes get into the "oh my god I've got to double my stack soon" mode - there's no need for extreme LAgginess or heavy blind stealing.

3. Table selection. SnG's you don't really have much say in who your opponents are. Ring games you do, and that's an opportunity to not forget about.

4. Multitabling is overrated. First and foremost you need to build your reading strengths and know your opponents. Ring games take as much concentration as SnGs, yet most people don't do 2 SnGs at a time. So why 4 table rings? Cut it down to 1 or 2 and see how it goes.
12-17-2004, 11:24 AM
BoondockSaint

Quote:

What you have experienced is the variance that drives many players to limit.

The variance in NL is supposed to be smaller when you are good. Limit according to Fnord who is a masta of all has greater variance than NL and it says the same thing by ttanka on the front page. If you keep losing yeah your variance is gonna be high but it will be in higher in limit because people beat you with shit all the more often.
12-17-2004, 11:26 AM
BoondockSaint

Quote:

4. Multitabling is overrated.

And where do you come up with this? Its only overated if you suck at it. If you're not good at something of course you're gonna say its overated cause you cant beat it how it was intended. I myself dont think its overated.

Quote:

First and foremost you need to build your reading strengths and know your opponents.

Maybe generally yeah but trying to read individual opponents at the limits your playing isnt worth the time. You will make more playing 4 tables assumming you are good than playing 2 and trying to read everyones plays. Just play the general player at 4 tables. The last 15000, or more i dont keep track, hands have been on 4 tables for me and the general player thing works. Dont over analyze and dont bluff people are too retarded at this level. Just play tight as hell and make sure you have something strong on the flop to start betting shit. The hands you posted just screwed you. You couldnt avoid most of those. Just a bad bunch. Except for KQ v AK. That was a bad play I think.
12-17-2004, 11:29 AM
a500lbgorilla

Well, you don't really need to mutlitable full ring games when you can play 6max.

Play 2 tables of 6max instead of 4 full tables and have a boatload of fun. I'm trying 3, but my reads may suffer...

-'rilla
12-17-2004, 12:00 PM
FlyingSaucy

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoondockSaint

Quote:

4. Multitabling is overrated.

And where do you come up with this? Its only overated if you suck at it. If you're not good at something of course you're gonna say its overated cause you cant beat it how it was intended. I myself dont think its overated.

Exactly. He said he thinks he might be struggling on that, and so I confirmed that as someone new to ring games I also think it might be affecting my game. Saying it is overrated is an admission that it might be affecting me. Plus, some people just work better with their attention less divided. Thought it could be worth a shot to lower the number of tables being played at, because when you are just starting out a new game it is better to focus first than to assume you are Hercules and go nuts 4 tabling.
12-17-2004, 12:08 PM
BoondockSaint

Quote:

Exactly. He said he thinks he might be struggling on that, and so I confirmed that as someone new to ring games I also think it might be affecting my game. Saying it is overrated is an admission that it might be affecting me. Plus, some people just work better with their attention less divided. Thought it could be worth a shot to lower the number of tables being played at, because when you are just starting out a new game it is better to focus first than to assume you are Hercules and go nuts 4 tabling.

Well put. Thats kinda what I was thinking but I couldnt tell if he was new or not because the beats he posted I probably would have suffered the same ones except for the KQ v AK hand and possibly QQ v KK though that is a much harder lay down than KQ v AK and with the retards on party skins I would see this winning more than losing. It seems if the flop is 357 and they have 88 or any pair higher they think they have it won and way overbet cause they dont want to be giving free overs but think they have it won right then. It just seems a lot of players on party skins think over pairs are top hand no matter how over they actually are. I agree if what flying saucer says is right about you drop down to like 2. Be able to play your A game blind before you move up then play it blind at 3 then 4.
12-17-2004, 02:12 PM
SteveO

1. Don't get married to a premium hand. With experience, and it sounds like you have some already, you can smell out when someone has hit a set or nut hand by the betting pattern. Most low limit players are not that savvy and they don't need to be. The beats you list are just part of the game.

2. Bet for information. Although T.J. says this is dumb in is book, it is a necessary tool to us average players. If you show strength pre-flop and then show strengh after the flop and are raised or re-raised significantly, get rid of the hand - you are usually not being bluffed.

3. Don't always assume that you are being bluffed. I used to have a habit when I started that I was getting bluffed when somebody put me all in or re-raised me. More often than not, that occurs because you are beat. Occassionally, with experience and observation of particular players you can pick off a bluff, but if someone raised you AI give it respect and call it only if you have the nuts are darn close. Otherwise live to fight another day. There's a big difference between being the first one in the pot and calling an AI.

4. Don't be an AI maniac. You can achieve results and obtain valuable information by betting the pot, 1/2 pot or overbetting the pot without putting your whole stack at risk. This will save you money in the long run in ring game situations. There is always a time and a place for pushing AI but use it sparingly.
12-17-2004, 03:36 PM
Chicago_Kid

I don't think I'm too new...I've got 15k ring hands under my belt, but it's obvious I've got some serious leaks, mostly post flop.

So, after reading your posts, some addt'l reflection on this bad streak:
- I went from 2 tbls to 4, trying to raise my win rate (I know, I know...)
- I probably miss reads 'cause of 4 tbls
- Too often I assume folks are bluffing
- I often fail to sense that my strong hand is beaten. ("no way he got the one hand that beats me...CALL")
- It took me 3-5k hands to figure this out

So, I'm going to try this:
- Play for a while with 2 tables; reevaluate win rate
- If good, add a table, reevaluate
- If bad, drop one...

Can anyone recommend a sample size to use for these trials? I was thinking 2-3k hands.
12-17-2004, 04:19 PM
Aceofone

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoondockSaint

Quote:

What you have experienced is the variance that drives many players to limit.

The variance in NL is supposed to be smaller when you are good. Limit according to Fnord who is a masta of all has greater variance than NL and it says the same thing by ttanka on the front page. If you keep losing yeah your variance is gonna be high but it will be in higher in limit because people beat you with shit all the more often.

I disagree in some aspects. Its a lot easier to drop your stack on a second best hand in NL. You can build it for an hour getting over double your buyin, and lose it to the fish who finally caught a hand.

Over the long run you may experience less variance with limit (I dont know, I'm all about NL), but short term NL can be terribly streaky. I haven't heard of someone dropping 25BB on a single hand in Limit.
12-17-2004, 04:25 PM
Cocco_Bill

Quote:

I haven't heard of someone dropping 25BB on a single hand in Limit.

25BB is nothing..

try losing 260 BB on a hand..

I've managed that feat
12-17-2004, 05:01 PM
Chicago_Kid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Quote:

I haven't heard of someone dropping 25BB on a single hand in Limit.

25BB is nothing..

try losing 260 BB on a hand..

I've managed that feat

Wow...Quads over quads? :(
12-17-2004, 05:10 PM
Cocco_Bill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chicago_Kid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Quote:

I haven't heard of someone dropping 25BB on a single hand in Limit.

25BB is nothing..

try losing 260 BB on a hand..

I've managed that feat

Wow...Quads over quads? :(

I had 130$ on a 0.5 BB NL board flopped the set against a another higher set on a board with no straight and flush draw. I still think this play was worth the risk.
12-17-2004, 05:15 PM
Chicago_Kid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

I had 130$ on a 0.5 BB NL board flopped the set against a another higher set on a board with no straight and flush draw. I still think this play was worth the risk.

I see...thought you lost that much in limit.
12-17-2004, 05:22 PM
dalecooper

I've lost a crapload in limit before. Can't remember how much but it was at least 25X BB, maybe more. Basically I flopped a queens full of aces boat, my opponent turned the nut flush, then rivered a straight flush. We bet it around as high as it would go every single round, and it had been raised a couple times pre-flop too. That one stung.
12-18-2004, 05:51 AM
Aceofone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Quote:

I haven't heard of someone dropping 25BB on a single hand in Limit.

25BB is nothing..

try losing 260 BB on a hand..

I've managed that feat

This is my point, in limit the most you can theoretically lose on a single hand is 12 or 13 BB (cant remember), In no limit you can destroy 3 hours profit with a second-best hand/bad-beat against another big-stack.