As for-profit poker players, it is our honor to present other players with opportunities for learning. As often & as pointedly as possible. Someone who folds too often we give the opportunity to fold less often by bluffing them. Someone who calls too wide we give the opportunity to call less by value betting them thin. Should they choose not to change, well, at least we’ve done our job. How can we best give them opportunities to learn?

Solvers answer a different question: “How would we play if we had nothing more to learn, playing against someone else who had nothing more to learn?”

I hear solver-based discussions containing the phrase “supposed to”. I flinch every time I hear this. “We are supposed to frequently bet this flop for a small size.” Wait a minute! “Supposed to”? Surely there’s more to the decision than this.

Ceding our choice to a solver with a different eventual goal than mine, I think I’ve missed out on much of the beauty of poker. More importantly I’ve failed my responsibility to the villain to give them the maximal opportunity for learning.

Checking range or jamming or splitting our range because that choice gives the villain the most challenging opportunity to overcome their own habitual mistakes is the path of righteousness. (Also profit.)

Replace “supposed to” with “the maximally profitable play versus an equilibrium opponent”. Awkward, I know, but it’s supposed to be. I want to be reminded over & over that I’m at the table to provide a service (just as they are there to provide me with the same service).

“Equity”, for example, is an emotional tool. “I needed 25% equity to call profitably & I had 30% vs villain’s range, so I called.” Yes this is a logical tool to make profitable decisions, but it is also an emotional tool once the hand has played out. I lost the hand but I made a profitable play—well done, sir!

I just encountered another emotional exercise—imagining that I’d won a hand I lost. This is a variant or extension of the above exercise. I was playing Lucky Chances 5/10/20 PLO (Mondays & Thursdays!), I got it in ahead & lost.

It had been a difficult session. I played too loose to begin with & got stuck 3 buy-ins. Battled back to even. Lost a quarter of that flush over flush. Then came the hand of the night—After an open and 4 calls (!) I 3-bet a double suited rundown hand, flopped open ended and a flush draw, got it in, and lost when the board bricked.

Okay, I’m disappointed but not devastated. I played the equity game, found I had 60% vs villain’s hand, probably more vs villain’s range, felt a little better.

Then this morning I was replaying the hand in my head & imagining I had won. I would have gone from down a buy-in to up 2. That would have felt good!

Now, this fantasy violates one of my principles—stay in this moment. That’s not what happened. I didn’t win the pot. But also something about the fantasy felt okay to me, that what I was doing was productive.

Here’s what I’m thinking now—there have been times when I was scared money. Especially in a downswing after a few bad beats I feel dread when I see a strong hand. “What brutal way am I going to lose this?” This spiral leads to me taking fewer profitable risks, reducing my win rate and extending the swing.

My “but what if I’d won?” is a way of counter-acting that emotional tilt. I got it in good. Imagining winning reinforces the decision I made on the flop, which is exactly the decision I want to make with no qualms.

I don’t want to dwell on my fantasy. I don’t want to use it to beat myself up, “…but I didn’t win, did I?” But imagining what it would have felt like to win makes me feel better about a good decision. Seems right.

$2/$3/$5/$10 winner kill. $800 effective vs Villain 1, $2000 effective vs Villain 2. Kill on the button.

Villain 1 is a fun player, dead drunk & spewing money, betting & calling. Villain 2 is an aggressive, exploitive younger player.

Preflop: Villain 2 opens to $30 from big blind. Hero calls from hijack with T♦8♦. I want to be in pots with Villain 1. Villain 1 on button calls. Pot: $90 (with $770 behind for Villain 1, $1970 behind for Villain 2)

Flop: A♣J♠9♥ Action checks to button (Villain 1) who bets $50 Villain 2 calls. Hero calls. I think with a backdoor flush I probably check raise. Pot: $240 (with $720 behind for villain 1, $1920 behind for Villain 2)

Turn: 7♣, A♣J♠9♥7♣. Bingo! I plan on check raising the fun player given that he will bet wide & call wide. Checks around. Le sigh. Pot remains $240

River: 4♣ Final board: A♣J♠9♥7♣4♣ Villain 2 checks. Hero bets $300 looking for a light-ish call from the fun player. Villain 1 quizzically folds. Villain 2 raises to $1050. Hmmm.

Both Hero and Villain 2 are targeting the recreational player's money so Villain 2 wouldn't check a flush on the river. Action checking around on the turn makes a check around more likely. If flushes are rare (A♣ is on the board) & checked flushes are rarer, and bluffs with busted hands are likely, this is a call.

Villain 2 shows K♣Q♠. Two black cards and my heart drops. Whew!

Following a recent Thinking Poker Daily comment—what are his flushes here that he would play this way & what are his bluffs? (I’m assuming he bets either turn or river with thick value.)

• Flushes—KQ, KJ, KT?, QJ, QT, JT, T9, 98. 8 value combos.

  • Non-flushes with blocker—K♣Q (3), K♣J (3), Q♣J (3), QJ♣ (3), AT♣ (3). 15 bluffs with a blocker.

• Non=flushes without—a bunch more, all of which he’d bluff, I think.

When I say my conclusion is villain-specific, there are plenty of folks who are only check raising this river with a flush. I snap fold.

AA

We open, villain 3 bets, we 4 bet, villain jams. How do we feel? Specifically, how do we feel when we 4 bet? Probably pretty good. We’ve made a two profitable decisions. We know what we’re going to do if he folds. We know what we’re going to do if he raises. If he calls we have more decisions to make. What do we do? Call. Duh. Now we feel even better. We’ve made 3 profitable decisions in a row!

JJ

We open, villain 3 bets. How are we feeling now? Pretty good. We made one profitable decision & we’re about to make another. We 4 bet. Feels good. He jams. Ugh. We fold. How do we feel now? Probably pretty shitty. Oh man, if only we’d flatted maybe we flop a set & stack him.

Equanimity

In both cases we made 3 profitable poker decisions (well most profitable given the circumstances). Here’s the challenge—what would it take for me to feel the same at the end of both hands?

This is not a theoretical question. This is a profitability question—the more my emotions are similar at the end of both hands the more profitable my play will be in the next hand. This is also a technical question—how can I watch villain jam when I’m holding JJ & not react?

Part of making progress will come from meditation. Practice returning attention to breath is practice that plays out at the table.

Anticipation

Another part of making progress comes from the habit of anticipation. When I make my 4 bet, I already know what I’m going to depending on all 3 of villain’s responses. And I anticipate regardless of my holding. When I fold JJ, I’m implementing a decision that in a sense is already made.

Despite its surface simplicity, poker is a game with a wide game tree. Anticipating all the things that could happen that would affect my decisions requires experience. In spite of my advanced age, I’ve only played about 4000 hours of live poker. And so I forgive myself when I don’t anticipate one of the weird consequential events. I file it away for next time—oh yeah, villain really can 3X pot raise a river block bet.

Flow

My goal with all of my technical analysis & personal reflection remains the same—to play in flow. To make decisions quickly, confidently, without regret. Oh, yeah, and profitably (or maybe “not unprofitably” but that’s a topic for another day).

After making my decision, I aspire to be prepared to make my next decision in exactly the same way. Centered, balanced, grounded, thoughtful, present. And the next and the next.

Lucky Chances 3/5/10, 2000 effective. Villain in middle position opens to 30, I raise to 140 in the small blind with AKdd. Villain calls.

295+1860 Flop is Q87xxd. Better for his range than mine, so I check. Villain checks.

295+1860 Turn is Ax. Value time. I flick in one white (100). Villain calls.

495+1760 River is Jx. Something smells off to me. AQ and AJ would have been my value targets. I check. Villain bets 600. I fold.

Here’s my reasoning (and this is going to require leveling). I think he sees me as calling too much. My turn bet says I have an ace. So I conclude that he is under-bluffing this spot.

If he’s underbluffing & he’s over-valuing AT less often than he’s betting aces up, then calling with one pair is unprofitable.

The alternative line would be to block bet the river targeting AT-A9 & fold to a raise. There’s just so much more value than bluffs here, it seems. Or maybe I’m seeing monsters under the bed. But I’m not going to worry about it. This felt like one of those spots where I’m “supposed to” call (I hate that phrase), but a call felt unprofitable.

I was playing Lucky Chances 3/5/10 last night & I noticed something. Once I decided the most profitable action, I just took it. I didn’t “what if I lose?”. I didn’t “what if he has a set?”. I didn’t “I sure hope a king or an 8 comes”. I just took the action I had deemed most profitable.

When you’ve been getting the short end of the stick for months as I have, it’s easy to get tense. I’d take a profitable action, like jam turn with top set, and then I’d hunch my shoulders for the seemingly-inevitable flush card to come on the river.

This leads to playing tense. The negative expectation creeps earlier & earlier into my thought process. I’m spending so much energy feeling fear (or the chest thumping reaction to fear) that I’m not paying attention to my opponent, the situation, the cards.

Last night I played loose, not in the cards sense, but in the shoulders sense. Bluff catch a river profitably—flick in the call. Call a turn jam with a combo draw—flick in the call. Squeeze—just bet.

Sometimes you’ll win. Sometimes I’ll lose. Save my energy for profitable thoughts (or at least no unprofitable thoughts—talk about this soon.)

I prefer Coach Tommy’s phrasing—is calling profitable here or unprofitable? Here is the first of 2 hands where I believe calling would have been unprofitable.

The Hand

I have downshifted to 50bb buy-ins just so I don’t feel handcuffed by my roll. Lucky Chances 3/5/10 500 eff. Villain is a weak tight older Asian gentleman.

Pre-flop: villain limps in middle position, I raise to 30 in the cutoff with AcAs, straddle calls, villain calls. (Probably should have raised more, but one of the beauties of 50bb poker is that you can generally get it in with a strong hand.)

90+470 Flop: TcTd7h Check, check, I bet 30, straddle folds, villain calls.

150+440 Turn: 6c Villain leads for 70. Whu? What is his check/call/lead range? His in particular? Trips or better. No bluffs. I would have expected a 3-bet from QQ or KK. He has some reason to think he’s good here.

I thought about folding right here. If he’s going to be this unbalanced, then so am I. A little niggle said, “Maybe…,” so I called. Waste of 95% of $70.

290+400 River: 6h Villain bets 120. I fold.

Analysis

The turn feels familiar. “I’m at the top of my range here.” So what? What odds is the pot giving me? What odds is the villain’s range giving me?

Two facts let me narrow villain’s range:

• He took the lead. He’s afraid of me checking. He’s not afraid of me calling.

• He’s just never bluffing. I’ve shown strength pre-flop & on the flop. This further strengthen’s his range. (When I say “never”, I mean “not enough to change the profitability calculation”.)

If he notices me folding too much on the river, he can exploit the hell out of me. Sure.

• Is he going to notice? No.

• Is he going to be able to formulate an effective exploitive strategy? No.

So I can fold even the turn with confidence in the profitability of my decision. Sucks to get aces cracked but it sucks even more to get stacked in the process.

I open 6c5c to 40 in the cutoff. Big blind & villain call. I’m putting villain on a range of medium pairs, suited aces, maybe suited connectors.

120+1560 flop is 3c4c4h. BB checks, villain bets 40, I raise to 120, big blind folds, straddle calls. I want to build a big pot should I hit my hand.

I’ve been diving into “adverse selection”, the idea that before you bet, the bet has a certain profitability, but as soon as the bet is called that profitability goes down. Sometimes the effect is strong enough that a profitable bet becomes unprofitable. Since you don’t know which branch of the game tree you’re going down, that original bet is still the value maximizing decision. But having gotten called you’re in an unprofitable situation. I think this is one of those spots, but I didn’t recognize it.

I’ll just finish the hand, then go back & analyze it with adverse selection in mind.

360+1440 turn is 3d. Villain checks. I bet 300, thinking to fold out those medium pairs, villain raises to 900. I’m calling 600 to win 2160. I think realistically I have only have 2 outs. I fold.

Okay, adverse selection. When villain donks, I think I can eliminate those medium pairs from his range. That leaves 2 A4s, 3 56s, 4 each A2s and A5s, 1 44, and 3 33. Maybe a few nut flush draws. AcTc, AcJc?

Seems crazy to range him this tight this early. What else is he doing this with?

When he calls my raise I think my range above is confirmed. I think he continues with all of it.

Given that, what’s my play when the board double pairs on the turn & he checks? I’m way ahead, way behind. 1 44, 1 33, 2 A4s, 3 AcXc. Check back & take my 2 outs to the river.

Instead, I left his range too wide. Adverse selection.

• We are supposed to bet small on boards like this.

• We are supposed to check back turns with high frequency.

• We are supposed to tighten up our range when we are multi-way.

Many of my recent poker mistakes have been replaying “supposed to” phrases in my head—I’m supposed to call with the top of my range. I have a long list in my head (thank you, memory). And I’ve decided they don’t help, much.

The problem for me is that “supposed to”s don’t help my thinking process. If fact, they interfere. Rather than ask the questions it is profitable to ask, like, “Are they over-bluffing or under-bluffing here?”, I just repeat the “supposed to” & act.

Who says? Solvers.

Why? Because it’s unexpoitable.

Is our opponent trying to exploit us? Yes, in some way.

I’m going to translate all those supposed to’s mentally into “unexploitables”:

• I am unexploitable if I bet small on boards like this.

• I am unexploitable if I check back this turn with high frequency.

• I am unexploitable if I tighten up my range.

But I’m not playing to be unexploitable. The people I play with aren’t trying to get close to equilibrium. I’m playing to exploit them to the fullest while avoiding being exploited myself.

I’ll see if that loosens up my thinking at the table.

The question, as posed by Coach Tommy, is, “Is this call profitable?”

I have a solid bluff catcher. The turn went check check. The river is a blank [*]. The big blind leads for 2/3rds pot. I might be good, but that’s not the question. Is this call profitable? That’s the question.

What do we know about the big blind?

• Are they over-bluffing here in general?

• Is there something in recent history that would change their tendencies? (Is their spirit flame red?)

• Any reads that would change my evaluation of their tendencies?

Then the money question—”Given all that, is this call profitable?”

[*] I finally figured out what “blank” means. I mean, I knew it intuitively—this card doesn’t matter. But why? Because the card doesn’t change the relative equity of the hands. No hands went from having a little equity to a lot or vice versa. Back to the other key question, “How much equity do I have against how many hands?” More about that later.

“I don’t know I’m profitable. I know when I’m in an unprofitable situation & I get out.”

This thinking works at several scales:

• Pre-flop. Would I pay $5 (or whatever) for this hand because I will, on average, make more than $5 with it? If not, fold. Unprofitable situation. I’m not playing.

• Post-flop. I have second pair versus a tight opener. They bet. Is a call profitable? No. Fold. Unprofitable situation. I’m not playing.

• Table choice. The donators have just gotten stacked for the last time & left. All that are left are tight regs. Unprofitable situation. I’m not playing.

• Poor sleep/mood/nutrition/health. I’m not going to be playing my A game. Unprofitable situation. I’m not playing.

Equity

There is profitable equity & unprofitable equity in PLO. Take a low flush draw, for example. Out of position multi-way, it’s just not worth much unless the villains over-bluff. I should ignore it because it’s unprofitable. In position, it’s mildly profitable. If the flush comes I can check back & win often enough to be profitable. It’s only mildly profitable because if the pot gets big I’m more likely to lose than win. I’m calling this “pot-winning equity”.

I can control whether this equity is profitable or not by how I bet, especially in position. Don’t bloat the pot, the equity makes money. Play it aggressively & all that’s left are better draws & made hands.

Then there’s equity that lets me get called by draws. Trips with an ace kicker will get called by worse. Top two pair on a two-tone board will get called by flush draws. I need to pump the brakes if draws get there—the situation has gone from profitable to unprofitable.

The final form of equity is giant draws that will get called by hands that have odds to call. A 16-out wrap & 2 flush draws on the flop is profitable against naked top set 70/30. If I bet pot all in for $1000, I get 70% of $3000 or $2100 for my $1000 investment. The caller gets 30% or $1000 for their $1000 investment. Pure gamble.

Unprofitable Equity

Unprofitable forms of equity (illusory equity) are where even if I hit I can’t win. For example, after a bet & a raise in front of me on a juicy flop, my non-nut draws are unprofitable. They might win me the pot if I hit, but they also might be drawing dead. Fold.

This post is part of me trying to find ways of thinking about PLO without being able to count combos. Thanks to for the seed of this idea.

Poker players love inventing new games because the current ones aren’t confusing & punishing enough. For the record, my favorite invented game is Oklahoma—3 boards, the lowest card on the board disqualifies that row. If 2 rows have the same low card, they are both disqualified. If all 3 rows have the same low card then the dealer gets the pot. You can play it high-only with 2 cards or high-low with 4.

Anyway, I’ve invented a new game—6 Or 3. In this game preflop you get to choose whether you are dealt 6 hands or 3. Villain also chooses whether to get 6 hands or 3. Then you play holdem as usual.

Imagine being out of position with 3 hands versus a villain with 6. How unprofitable is that situation going to be? You’re crushed.

I’m speaking, of course, about playing PLO hands with danglers. At showdown, you get to confidently turn over one of six hands. How many hands are you going to feel good about when you flip them over?

Take AKQ6. AK—sure, I like showing that down, AQ—sure, KQ—likely sure. Broadway straights or top two pair are going to feel good (depending on the board & the action, natch). A6? Nope. K6, Q6? Nope, not unless you have trips & not even then. If I play AKQ6, I only really get to play 3 hands.

Pairs

Pairs are a tradeoff 🙅🏼. You only get to play 4 hands—AAKQ gives you AA, AK, AQ, & KQ. When you hit a set, though, suddenly your hand’s equity shoots up (at least for the moment). Fewer hands, more good equity when you hit.

This perspective helps me understand why low pairs out of position are unprofitable. If I’m playing 4 hands & big money goes in, someone playing in position with 6 hands has me beat. If they are playing 4 hands then their set is better than mine (no set & they fold). If they are playing 6 hands, my equity on straightening boards is nil.

3 of a Suit

Say I have 3 of a suit, how does that affect my equity? A♥️K♦️Q♥️T♦️ gives me straight equity with AK, AQ, AT, KQ, KT, & QT. I also have nut flush equity with hearts and (less with) diamonds. Add another heart—A♥️K♥️Q♥️T♦️—and I have the same straight equity but less profitability with my flush equity. I’m only really playing one flushing combination even thought I hold 3.

In this scenario I’ll hit flushes less often (because villain has fewer flushes—6.4% to 4.8%) & when I do I’ll be paid less often & less (because villain has lower flushes).

To try to get a sense of the magnitude of the flush over flush effect, let’s say there’s 60 bb left in the stacks with an SPR of 1 going into the river. If we each have 2 hearts & villain has the king, let’s assume they’ll call a pot-size bet because I always bluff the stiff ace. 1 chance in 9 of winning 60 bb = 6.6BB expected value. If I have 3 hearts & they’ll call a half pot bet then I have 1 in 8 chances of 30 bb = 3.7bb in EV. That extra heart costs me half of my river equity (based on these assumptions).

An extra card of a suit is even worse with lower rundown hands. Not only do we hit flushes less often, but when we do & we are in flush-over-flush, we’re more likely to be beaten (villain can have fewer small flushes & so proportionally more larger flushes).

I’ve tended to think of 3 of a suit as not that big a deal, but the equity difference is substantial. I can fold 3 of a suit hands unless I have some or all of:

• Straight or pair equity

• Position

• Nut flush

Conclusion

The good news is that I get to decide whether to play 6 Or 3. In position with good sources of equity then maybe 3 is okay, depending on the villain. If villain is always playing 6, I’m probably still in bad shape but lots of villains choose to play 3 (I did for a while), so it’s okay sometimes.

Down “Swing”

I’ve been on a long downswing. Like 3/4ths of my bankroll kind of downswing. As my expectations turned to “how am I going to lose today?”, I found myself playing too many hands. Can’t win if you fold, right? This accelerates the losses, natch.

I’ve experienced this dynamic many times in my poker “career”. Start to lose→play too many hands→tighten up preflop→start to win. Repeat.

Now, because I practice strict bankroll management, the losses generated by the above cycle don’t affect my financial life, just my enjoyment and frequency of playing poker. But I continue to search for ways to shorten the “play too many hands” phase.

An Unconventional Intervention

I’ve been playing PLO as much as I can (Thursdays at Lucky Chances—see you there!). If “play too many hands” is tempting in Holdem, it’s nearly irresistible in PLO. Three broadways & a dangler? Dang, I can flop the stone cold nuts. Call. In the small blind? Sure! Position doesn’t matter as long as it’s the nuts, does it? (protip: it does).

I got to the place in my cycle where I knew I was playing too many hands, but in the moment while playing I’d call anyway.

Then came the day in question. I awakened with an ahem high libido. Spent the whole day feeling that way. I was honestly nervous going to the casino—would the distraction of my mood further degrade my decision making?

Fold. Fold. Insta-fold. No problem! When I got to a playable hand, I was much calmer than “usual”. I was thinking a street or two ahead in a way that I rarely do. Far from being distracted, my thinking was clearer.

What’s going on?

I have 2 explanations, one based on ADHD/dopamine & the second on evolutionary biology. (What follows is just how I think about it. I am Not a Neuroscientist.)

One of the causes? correlates? of ADHD is low levels of dopamine. Dopamine is the brain juice that makes you remember emotionally significant events. Those with Boredom Sensitivity (my preferred renaming of ADHD) generally have low base levels of dopamine. That’s what makes it hard to think conventionally, hard to stay on task.

That’s how hyper-focus works: you do something that gives you a little jolt of dopamine so you want the next dose. And the next. (See also Test-Driven Development.)

What raises base levels of dopamine? You got it—high libido (among other things). Sex is emotionally significant so you get a dose of dopamine from it. Think about it enough times during the day & base levels rise. When I took that dopamine level into a session I found it easy to fold mildly losing hands.

You know what else gives you a hit of dopamine? High-quality chocolate. I experimented with this too, nibbling on a dark chocolate bar during a session. Much the same effects, easier to control.

The evolutionary biology explanation for improved decision making under conditions of high libido is that if possible procreation is in the offing, then having your brain invest energy in thinking more clearly increases the chances of passing along your genes. Not that I want to actually pass along any more genes, but evolutionary advantage keeps chugging along regardless.

The two explanations are not mutually exclusive—raised dopamine levels leading to clearer thinking is a mechanism, evolutionary advantage is why this trait persists despite the obvious costs.

Conclusion

I’ll continue to experiment with ways to raise my dopamine levels before & during sessions. I enjoyed this natural experiment. Let me know if you try it.

Lucky Chances 5/10/20 8K effective. Both players are studied & aggressive, comfortable playing with stacks like these. I'll tell the hand from the button's perspective, since they have the decision at the end (cue ominous music).

Preflop: MP villain opens to 60, cutoff calls, button (hero) calls with Ac8c, straddle calls.

255+7040 back. Flop QcTc8h Straddle checks, villain bets 200, cutoff calls, hero raises to 600, fold, villain raises to 1100, fold, hero calls.

What do we think of the two ranges at this point? Could hero consider a fold? I think not given that they are drawing to the nuts, but...

2655+5900. Turn 8d. Check check. Trips & a flush draw. Should hero be betting to get value from QT?

2655+5900. River 6c. Check. Hero bets 2100. Villain tank jams 3800 more. Hero 6800, 3800 to call? Villain is capable of bluffing here, QT maybe?

Hero hems & haws, says "I block 88" (how profitable is this fact?), calls, gets shown QQ.

Now let’s replay it with villain ranges.

Villain preflop loves to play hands. We’ll give him 35% of hands (really!). Hero has a call given position, deep stacks, nut potential, & 53% equity vs this range. Hero is probably 3 betting the top 10% of hands. Given how aggressive hero is we’ll condense his range—maybe top 25% minus the top 10% for 3 betting.

When villain bets on the flop even into 3 opponents by default I don’t think we narrow his range much at all. Given this uber-wet board, though, I think it’s top pair, pair + gutter, flush draws, open enders, 2 pair, sets, & straights.

Pair: AQ (9), KQ (12)
2 pair: QT (9), T8 (6)
Pair + straight draw: QJ (12), JT (12), T9 (12)
Flush draws: KcJc, Kc9c, 9c7c, 7c6c, 6c5c (5)
Open enders: KJ (15), 97s (3)
Straights: J9 (16)
Sets: QQ (3), TT (3), 88 (1)
116 combos total

(One question—we went from a vague range to a very specific range. What error is introduced in this process? Another question—how do we assign bluffs here? I know I’m being influenced by knowing the outcome. Villain is definitely bluffing sometimes. How much? How do we account for that in the range?)

Hero’s should continue with 52% equity, a lot of money to play for, nut potential, & position. What’s the raising range look like vs calling & what part of the range do you expect to bet to win the pot more often vs to make the pots you win bigger? (Sometime I need to do one of these analyses with hero’s range, and then with both ranges, but it’s such a PITA. If I was a younger programmer I’d create a range editor.)

Now villain min-re-raises. *Now* what does their range look like? Value range is: 2 pair, sets, straights, none of the flush draws (because they aren’t to the nuts). Bluffs are getting hard to find. Maybe the pair+gutters? He’s almost guaranteed to get called. (Is this assumption naive?)

2 pair: QT (9), T8 (6) (T8 seems iffy already)
Pair + straight draw: QJ (12), JT (12), T9 (12)
Straights: J9 (16)
Sets: QQ (3), TT (3), 88 (1)
74 combos

Turn pairs the 8. SPR is 2.5. Expected line is to go geometric with value & bluffs. The check seems to narrow villains range to the lower end of his range. I don’t know how to represent that here, so I’m going to pretend that the check doesn’t change anything (although the turn card does remove some combos).

2 pair: QT (9), T8 (3)
Pair + straight draw: QJ (12), JT (12), T9 (12)
Straights: J9 (16)
Sets: QQ (3), TT (3)
70 combos

Hero has 67% equity versus this range. Seems like a pretty clear bet by the numbers. We can get called by QT. If 98s, 87s was in there, we could get called by that (should they be?). We can deny equity to straight draws (how significant is that?) In any case, hero checks back.

Hero makes a flush. Villain checks again. We would expect a bet from most value hands? Still, not going to change villain’s range. The board is so scary, though, that can we get called by worse? Everybody knows everybody is loose & bluffy, but what gets called. We’ve said the flush draws are out given the flop play (is this true?)

In any case, flushes are good & we have no evidence, based on the turn check, that villain has a boat, so we bet. What’s villain’s calling range as bluff catcher’s here? Straights with a club?

The villain shoves. The value hands are the boats:

QQ (3), TT (3), T8 (1) — 7 total

(This is a pretty drastic reduction from 70 combos to 7. Something seems off in my analysis.)

If you were worried about balance or think hero is folding too much, the natural bluff is QT, because it reduces hero’s boats (although hero is 3 betting QQ & TT, so maybe only block T8?). Only shoving QTs would balance the value.

Hero’s ace-high flush is only a bluff catcher, he says, knowing the outcome. Is villain overbluffing? If so, call. If not fold.

Conclusion

• Manual range construction is still a pain.

• There are still leaps in my analysis.

• I still don’t have a practical way to apply this at the table.

• The 8 blocker isn’t significant when there are 7 other combos that beat us.

• Hero compounded the river bet that was unlikely to get called by worse with a river call that was unlikely to be good. Patience. You’ll have better spots.

I hear this word used when discussing solver output. “I don’t know if I’m allowed to bet here.” Meaning, if I looked at the solver in this situation, would the solver bet?

I don’t see how this is a profitable use of language. No one can mimic a solver. We know that. Also, we aren’t playing against a solver, we’re playing against David who never checks to us with hand he’s going to call. The question is “what is the most profitable play?” With me, in this situation, versus David, with our history, and his recent results.

Something else I dislike about “allowed” is the judgement embedded in it. Like I’m going to feed my actual play into a solver & it’s going to sadly shake its head, tsk tsk me, & waggle its finger under my nose. Shame-as-a-service.

Once again, I’m going with “profitable” in situations like this. “I don’t know if betting is the most profitable decision here.” I can follow that up with, “A solver checks, but its opponent calls at the right frequency with the right range. My opponent does not.”

Last night I learned a big one. Lucky Chances 5/5/10/20 PLO 2400 effective. Loose player, pre and post, opened UTG to 80. 2 callers. I overcall JsTs8s7c in the cutoff. 2 blinds call. As background, I had a straight flush over quads hand last week (on the plus side, this time), which was the biggest pot I’ve ever won at poker. I’m still buzzing from that a bit.

490+2320 Flop 6s5s2h Checks around.

490+2320 Turn 9s. I check my cards. Yep, straight flush. Yes, I know. But I checked my cards, which I almost never do post-flop, just to be sure. UTG bets 300. I call. (If I had actually had a straight flush, I think this has to be a raise to make sure I get in stacks.) Everyone else folds.

1090+2020 River Jh. UTG bets 500. I raise to 1500. He hems & haws, says, “87 of spades, really?” and calls. I proudly turn over my hand. Read the bad news. Pick up my few remaining chips & walk out without another word.

Now, there are people at this table who I would definitely bluff with a straight flush blocker like this. I’m not saying this is always a losing play. It should just be done on purpose. And definitely not versus a player who calls too much.

As I’m walking to the cage I’m talking harshly to myself. What an idiot. I play this game to feel good about myself & here I am consumed with shame. Not only did I make a dumb mistake, I made it in front of people whose opinions I care about. I’m not close friends with anyone at LC, but I see them more than anyone in my life except my girlfriend. Too perhaps an unhealthy degree I care what they think about my play. And I just fucked up in the most egregious way.

It was the phrase, “I play this game to feel good about myself,” that caught my ear. I don’t play for profit. I’m negative overall to the tune of the rake. No matter how I study I don’t seem to be able to break through that.

I study. I make progress. I learn new concepts. That feels good. When I apply something I’ve learned under the pressure of actual play, that feels good. When I respond appropriately to a novel situation, that feels good. After a session, win or lose, if I’ve played well, made good decisions, I’m satisfied (more satisfied after winning, to be frank, but still…)

Making a flat out mistake like that doesn’t feel good. I walked away because if I was making mistakes like that I knew that if I did something else dumb I’d really feel bad about myself.

I think I need to adopt a more value-neutral approach to unprofitable decisions, first by calling them “unprofitable” instead of “dumb” or “stupid”. Be a little kinder to myself. Get better sleep & exercise. I’d only been playing 3 hours, so that didn’t contribute to the unprofitability this time. But also quit when I’m no longer playing at peak.

I have this vision of myself as the old guy who is surprisingly skilled at poker. I think I need to let go of that. The results speak—I’m an 80th percentile player who can’t beat the rake. And I often play below my theoretical potential. Either I need to learn to enjoy playing how I play or I need a new hobby. But above all to feel good about myself whether or not I make mistakes at poker.

Lucky Chances 5/5/10/20 PLO 3500 effective. Villain seems experienced and solid.

He opens to 80 in MP. I call next to act with ThTd8c7h. Maybe this is just a fold? Button & straddle call.

335+3420 Flop JcTs5h okay good but I lost my first buyin last week with TT set over set on a JTX flop 4 ways, so I’m aware of the possibility that I’m beat. Checks around. Should I bet 3rd to act and narrow folks’ range from there?

335+3420 Turn 5d. Check. Villain bets 120. I raise to 400. Fold fold call. Given the flop action I think I have to go for value until proven otherwise. Maybe not since there are no flush draws to chase. Is his AAxx going to call a raise?

1135+3020 River 4d. Check I bet 400. He raises to 1200. I say, “I have to see it.” And call, knowing I’m going to see JJ or 55. JJ. 

I rack up. 

One more strategy point before I get to the point. Do I jam with a 5 blocker there? For 1800 more is a rec player going to fold top full? It’d need to work roughly a third of the time to be profitable. Depends on villain. There are folks in this game who are tight enough to fold more than that. Others who would just say, “I guess you got me this time,” & call.

Analysis

“I need to see it,” struck me at the time as a profound and uncomfortable truth about myself, and something that is holding me back in poker. Someone does something that doesn’t make sense to me. I am uncomfortable with the ambiguity of the situation. One way to resolve that ambiguity is to call & see what’s up. Much of my profit is spent self-soothing in this way. I know what people are doing because I’ve paid too much to find out.

What is it that I need? Let me try to stretch out time in that hand.

1. On the flop my hypothesis was that nobody had anything good. I likely had the best hand. I’m feeling confident. You aren’t supposed to slow play in PLO. Top set should want to charge straight draws.

2. When villain bets & bets small, that looks like a worse hand, like a 5 or 2 pair. I’m still feeling confident. No reason to update yet.

3. When he calls my turn raise the probability of a worse hand goes down. He’s holding trips or better. I should be thinking about how much of each, at least informally counting combos. I’m still feeling confident but I should update that feeling to add some doubt. His straight draws & any backdoor flush draws won’t call.

4. After the river check, is a 5 going to pay off my small bet? I think so. I’m still feeling confident & I should feel mostly confident. Betting is fine, I think.

5. Here’s the crucial moment. After the raise I feel frustrated. I was anticipating a decent payoff after a “good” flop. Now this bastard is telling me I get to lose a pot, not win one. Am I going to let him get away with that? (These are the unhelpful thoughts running through my brain at the time.) Maybe he filled up with 54—aggression after passivity often means a hand improved. (This is me rationalizing my call.) I want to win this pot. I can’t do that if I fold.

I think this is the hidden insight—that I so want to win. I want to win so much that I’m willing to lose to do it. Which defeats the purpose, but there you go. Humans are messed up.

Intervention

My personal problems are never solved but they can be outgrown. The first step I use when I encounter a “my feelings are getting the way of my behavior & my goals” situation is to identify a bit of logic I can insert between “feels” & “acts”. At first I’ll still act the old way. Then less frequently. Then after a few months I’ll act the old way & say, “Hey, I haven’t done that for a while.”

The moment I’m looking for is a surprising action in a big pot, like a river check raise or a river jam. The logic is something like, “New information. Now what do I think their range is? Are they ever bluffing (this particular villain)? How many hands beat me & how many do I beat?” Maybe I’ll write this on a card & carry it with me. Or even put it on the rail for a few sessions.

Another Example

I had another example of an unexpected raise. Lucky Chances 5/10/20 2500 effective. Solid recreational opens MP to 80. I call 66 next to act. Button & big blind call.

320+2420 QQ6. Gin! Check check I bet 240 fold fold call.

800+2180 Turn T. Check I bet 700. He jams. 3600, 1400 to call. I felt sick. Let’s play out the above logic.

Okay, new information. Now what do I think their range is? QQ (1), QT (6). What about trips? Recreational players are likely to play trips this way. AQ (8), KQ (8), QJs(2). Because there are so many combos of trips, I can call. I do. He shows TT. Sigh. But at least I did a little bit of the thinking. What beats me? What do I beat? How many of each.

I think the key to executing this at the table is that trigger phrase—New Information. If I can remember to say that to myself, then the combo analysis should follow. New Information means that however I was feeling before, it’s time to reevaluate. After I reevaluate, then I won’t need to see it any more. Not every time. That’s the linkage I want to make:

1. New information!

2. Count combos.

3. Not a profitable call, so I don’t need to see this.

4. Fold.

Now to practice practice practice.

The consensus was to call. I agree. Do the combos back this intuition up?

It’s usually a bad idea to assign a range based on a single, later street. Here, I think we get to the same answer either way.

Best case scenario: SB slow played AK & semi-bluffs combo draws.

• AK—8 combos

• A6s—2

• 66—3

• KdQd, KdTd, QdTd—3

We have 75% equity versus this range! Way better than I expected.

Against a tighter range, A6 & 66, we still have 43% equity.

So, yes, it’s a profitable call.

I’m always curious about my intuition. On the one hand, it seems a deep well of wisdom. On the other, the surface of that well is often covered in debris. All I can think to do is keep informing it.