Is there a sixth sense needed to play great poker?!

Originally posted by Meda1985
Yes, it might be that I'm over-thinking... I'm playing lowest stakes online since I vary from 0-75$. I follow BR for the last month exactly as they say here and I'm not making any continued progress. 0.01/0.02 100BB stacks.

Yeah I get it. But just to confirm... in PS.com they suggest you to play with a bankroll of 2500BBs for your current limit in NLHE. It means you must have at least $50 to play in NL2. You got those $50, right? It also means you won't rise to NL5 before you have at least $125.

I noticed that in micro-stakes you don't have to level yourself too much. Don't other if you are being bluffed by someone until this player shows he is really coming after you time and again. Sometimes people will make plays that look like bluffs, that have all the "recognizable elements" of a bluff in it, but it may also be that they have the nuts and are doind their best to squeeze money out of it. Why not? Don't we do this so often? If that happens, instead of leveling or over-thinking, give this guy a chance to "win" but keep an eye on him from now on. Notes are a worthy assistance in this phase.

From then on you will just occupy yourself with value betting your good hands and avoiding losses with your losing hands. There is no need to prioritize moves like 3-bets or hand range considerations before you reach any level bellow NL100 (and even then it might still be unnecessary). It is pretty much like clicking the buttons while being wise enough to not let yourself be overtaken by the complexity of your own thought processes, which most of the time will have nothing to do with the reality of the game.

I get you! It really does make sense! Just now I've played a hand that proves that. And many more before, but right now I lost one third of my of a stack to a non-thinking guy who called me all the way and severe bluff on river with third highest pocket pair on the board (and he didn't show signs of calling station in more then 50 hands before). That's why I logged in here to see if somebody wrote on this thread.
It went like this: he called the blinds, and I called blinds with QsJs; flop was 8s9s3h, he checked and I bet 2/3, he called; he over-bets the pot on the turn which was 9d, I re-raised 3 times that in order to see if he has 9 and to represent it if he doesn't while I'm waiting for my flush (or gut-shot straight) being sure that he will fold or go all-in since he has done all-ins before for pots much less then this one. And he calls. River was 4d and he checked, I'm thinking, NO way he's slow-playing, he will win this pot unless he IS slow-playing 9's (which makes no sense after the flop play) and I raise 2/3 and he calls showing me pocket 7's. Sadly, I over-thought it again!
I don't know, I lost the hand, but I think I played this hand very well, what do you think?! Would have you done it differently? I mean I was waiting for a flush, but I was trying to protect myself if I don't hit it, that's why I was raising, so I can bluff the river. But obviously, he wasn't thinking at all. Or he read through my play even though this was the first time I did that in this session, in fact I was kind of card dead, so I was playing extremely tight, there was absolutely NO REASON for him to think I was bluffing.
Thanks for good advice, but I wont be moving up to 0.02/0.05 until I get to BR=125$ (if that ever happens).

Poker is all about luck. Google Tommy Vedes

I did and I don't get it. Why luck? Post me a link here.

Originally posted by Jackalof
Poker is all about luck. Google Tommy Vedes

This is close to trolling. I wouldn't even take this in consideration.

Originally posted by Meda1985
I get you! It really does make sense! Just now I've played a hand that proves that. And many more before, but right now I lost one third of my of a stack to a non-thinking guy who called me all the way and severe bluff on river with third highest pocket pair on the board (and he didn't show signs of calling station in more then 50 hands before). That's why I logged in here to see if somebody wrote on this thread.
It went like this: he called the blinds, and I called blinds with QsJs; flop was 8s9s3h, he checked and I bet 2/3, he called; he over-bets the pot on the turn which was 9d, I re-raised 3 times that in order to see if he has 9 and to represent it if he doesn't while I'm waiting for my flush (or gut-shot straight) being sure that he will fold or go all-in since he has done all-ins before for pots much less then this one. And he calls. River was 4d and he checked, I'm thinking, NO way he's slow-playing, he will win this pot unless he IS slow-playing 9's (which makes no sense after the flop play) and I raise 2/3 and he calls showing me pocket 7's. Sadly, I over-thought it again!
I don't know, I lost the hand, but I think I played this hand very well, what do you think?! Would have you done it differently? I mean I was waiting for a flush, but I was trying to protect myself if I don't hit it, that's why I was raising, so I can bluff the river. But obviously, he wasn't thinking at all. Or he read through my play even though this was the first time I did that in this session, in fact I was kind of card dead, so I was playing extremely tight, there was absolutely NO REASON for him to think I was bluffing.
Thanks for good advice, but I wont be moving up to 0.02/0.05 until I get to BR=125$ (if that ever happens).

You played the hand right from a theoretical standpoint, but could have lost much less if, for example, you just called the turn 9 when it hit, in order to represent that now you had trips or even a full house. I don't really know if this representation thing should ever be used in the micros unless we are absolutely sure the other guy is a regular. Until proven otherwise, everyone is a fish.

Of course this would be a non-optimal way to represent trips when a FD is present, but the thing is that those fishes are scared of everything that looks like a better hand than theirs. When they don't act out of fear, you can be pretty sure they are convinced they have the best hand, and this should not be underestimated.

I thought that guy is some lucky douche, but no, I don't get the post at all. What do you think about the way I played that hand I wrote about half an hour ago?
Also, sorry I didn't use hand convertor. I never tried.

I wrote something some minutes ago... right above.

I've just seen you answered. I know exactly what you mean. I tried to play like I'm playing somebody who knows what he's doing... but in long terms that way of hand-playing is probably profitable even against fish... And I've re-payed my losses (even more then re-payed) to another hand that stroke me lucky straight on the river, but it is only because guy with obvious straight draw SLOW-PLAYED POCKET ROCKETS WITH A SET ON THE FLOP!!! He left me in charge of the hand...

Well that's right. The important thing is not whether the outcome of this particular hand was favorable or not, but that you understand that cutting your losses is as important as maximizing your winnings. Money "not lost" is the same as "money earned". Of course it doesn't include those situations in which you go all-in PF with KK vs QQ and lose... when that happens there is nothing you can do other than keep doing the same move again and again. I'm talking about those situations in which the losses were generated by deliberate and non-compulsory action.

And when I say "as important as" I'm really talking about a 1:1 proportion. ♠_cool:

Nicely spoken!
I like slow-players, and this hand was obvious mark of one of those.
pre-flop: he raises, I 55 call
flop: A67 - he raises, I'm thinking (I over-thought again) he's just c-betting, I re-raise, he calls
turn: 8 - I want to know if he has that ace or MAYBE some other trips so I raise even though I have straight draw (I KNOW he doesn't have 9T, maybe AT, but 9T NO WAY) and I'm waiting to see if he thinks I all-ready have one, he just calls
river: 4 - I check, he goes all-in I call, he shows AA
The same play as the one I lost half of BI I won now the whole BI. So, I think that even with fishes yo have to be consistent and play the way poker is supposed to be played, but with exceptions. Of course I would have check-folded because I was sure he had A if anything else hit the board, because I knew I couldn't bluff him out of the pot, maybe I would play 9, but MAYBE!
Thanks mate for helping my game, I appreciate it!

Don't try to bluff fish.. it won't work.

no

Read these great articles and read them thouroughly...... its good shit here.....
u fix ur leaks and really get informed.... gl pal

"Don't bluff", "Go for value bets only", "Don't tilt"...

These are all things we heard so often while playing in the micros, but the fact is that there is no material in ps.com or in external sources that show the player some practical ways to succeed in following these instructions. People who play on NL50/PL50 and below have to watch a lot of videos in which the coaches are not 100% in tune with this... and television out there won't help, neither the books we can buy.

There is a lot of premier content on how to play smart poker in here and elsewhere, but almost nothing on the routines and mindset necessary for a newcomer to be able to apply this advice and manage his $200 or so bankroll wisely. I hope I showed my point clearly. I'm not intended to flame or anything.

I absolutely understand what you mean blackops. I remember I read somewhere that most of the pros would never play amateurs not because amateurs are going to outwit them, but contrary, they play that much better that they forgot how to play them. I think there is much truth in that. Most of us trying to learn to play good poker educate ourselves here, there and on various places where pros and other people that now this stuff wrote or gave lectures. They never say how to outwit somebody who doesn't have any wisdom, it would be a paradox. When smart and stupid talk always one of them will seem foolish, and it depends on the audience who will be the one, if you know what I mean. After all I've read, heard and survived at these tables, I'm coming to a conclusion that patience is the strongest card in micro stakes. I was starting to lose it, so I've started this thread, it brought me back to perspective.

Originally posted by Meda1985
I absolutely understand what you mean blackops. I remember I read somewhere that most of the pros would never play amateurs not because amateurs are going to outwit them, but contrary, they play that much better that they forgot how to play them. I think there is much truth in that. Most of us trying to learn to play good poker educate ourselves here, there and on various places where pros and other people that now this stuff wrote or gave lectures. They never say how to outwit somebody who doesn't have any wisdom, it would be a paradox. When smart and stupid talk always one of them will seem foolish, and it depends on the audience who will be the one, if you know what I mean. After all I've read, heard and survived at these tables, I'm coming to a conclusion that patience is the strongest card in micro stakes. I was starting to lose it, so I've started this thread, it brought me back to perspective.

Exactly. What people have to understand is that poker is going to be a more or less boring task until they reach at least the $100 BI tables for NL or PL. And it means that following our 25BI rule (which is still not a lot for a PLO player like myself, for example, once I play a 40BI rule) is going to be a tedious camping task until we grind our way up from $50 to at least $2500. This is a hell of a task which seems to have been overlooked in the contents of this site and many others.

I think that playing in the micros is like being a sniper camping all day long in counter-strike or battlefield, for example (as an illustration). It can be boring... you have to pick the right spot, there won't be a lot of guys in our sight all the time, there will be sounds of shots being fired far off (which in poker terms is the same as seeing all the action at the table, the fishes splashing the money all around between themselves and not being part of it) and you will eventually feel that you are not making use of your full potential when sitting there behind the box or up in the hill for so long, that you could "do something" if you just grabbed a rifle and went into the skirmish (which is the same as trying to outplay people, semi-bluff, float, 3-bet bluff and loosen up too much in poker). Worse than all that may be when someone enters our sight after such a long time waiting and all of a sudden the guys turns the next corner, we shoot him once or twice and miss, and it is all quiet again (which in poker is related to that situation in which you wait for a good hand, raise, get called, hit the flop hard and everyone else folds) or when the mother¨%$¨$ just comes jumping like a monkey and we cannot aim him well (in this case we are outplayed or forced to fold due to extreme aggression by someone else who might be exploiting us).

All this routine generates a lot of stress that I'm pretty sure is responsible for holding so many good and dedicated players back in the micros for so long.

And now... where in the heck do we find these PSYCHOLOGICAL considerations on micro-stakes poker? Nowhere, as far as I know. Psychology in poker is very much focused in tilting and discipline (which is OK, beyond doubt), but this aspect is quite too much overlooked I think.

This is 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain and 100% reason to remember the name

Originally posted by Alficor1
This is 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain and 100% reason to remember the name

Agreed. These factors are all involved, but what we are pointing here is that the 50% pain may be something entirely unnecessary if one understands a few concepts that are so often not spoken of.

This is turning out to be an interesting thread and a relevant one, as I am interested in poker psychology and still in micros also.

First off, before we get to psychology, there really has to be some level of proficiency on our part before we even begin to getting to mindsets. Otherwise, those willing to help us will have a difficult time. For example sir, were you in position or OOP in this hand? Your preflop and flop account of the action is not consistent with the turn and river actions. PF and on the flop, it seems like you acted behind, but turn and river it seems you act ahead.

Originally posted by Meda1985
Nicely spoken!
I like slow-players, and this hand was obvious mark of one of those.
pre-flop: he raises, I 55 call
flop: A67 - he raises, I'm thinking (I over-thought again) he's just c-betting, I re-raise, he calls
turn: 8 - I want to know if he has that ace or MAYBE some other trips so I raise even though I have straight draw (I KNOW he doesn't have 9T, maybe AT, but 9T NO WAY) and I'm waiting to see if he thinks I all-ready have one, he just calls
river: 4 - I check, he goes all-in I call, he shows AA
The same play as the one I lost half of BI I won now the whole BI. So, I think that even with fishes yo have to be consistent and play the way poker is supposed to be played, but with exceptions. Of course I would have check-folded because I was sure he had A if anything else hit the board, because I knew I couldn't bluff him out of the pot, maybe I would play 9, but MAYBE!
Thanks mate for helping my game, I appreciate it!

As for getting on psychology, I really think dealing with TILT is where it's at for microstakes. Your best game, where you are able to apply your best knowledge at this level (meaning TAG, ABC poker, whatever you want to call it). But if you start cbetting the calling stations who have TPWK when you have nothing when you know you shouldn't, because you're getting impatient to get a hold of your profitable range, then you need to learn how to deal with that sort of TILT.