Why do we write about bad beats?

Noel left this comment on a prior entry: "Bad beats have no place in our thoughts. Only poor decisions. We cant control suckouts we can only control our decisions."

He's right, of course, and I think that we all know this. Many of us, including me, have said something along these lines in our blogs at one time or another, and then not too soon afterwards, a bad beat (or a cooler, or whatever...I'll refer to the whole category as beats) creeps in. On the major poker forums, they've created specific forums to bitch about beats because otherwise they fill up the strategy forums. I think that BBV has more traffic than the strategy forums on 2p2!

So, if we all know we're not supposed to worry about them, why do we write about them? It's one thing to steam over them at the table....we're not supposed to do that either, but it's obviously difficult sometimes to shrug off the bad things right as they happen. But for the most part, we don't write blogs as we're playing (well, we shouldn't!). We write them afterwards, when we should have had some time to decompress, at least a little, from the specific hands in the session.

I think there are a number of reasons we write about them, to varying degrees of benefit. Not that there's a complete list below, but here are some reasons.

Therapy. This is probably the "best" reason. We're trying hard to not let beats affect our play, but if they do, we need to minimize the impact to whatever extent we can. Venting about something that happened to you helps you get over it. If writing about a beat somewhere (blog, forum, AIM) helps you put it behind you more quickly, then it's good to do that. In parallel, we should work on not letting beats affect us in the first place...but once they do affect you, it's time to minimize the damage. Sometimes, just writing about them is enough to let them go. Sometimes, it helps to get some empathy back...we've all been there, you're not alone, etc.

Education. Another "good" reason. Obviously when your aces go all in against kings preflop and a king spikes, it's a bad beat. Or if your kings go up against aces and the aces hold, it's a cooler. But some spots are not so clear, and we write about them to get feedback that we really didn't make that bad of a play, because when we lose a few big pots, we question ourselves and lose confidence. We want to make sure that we're not playing incorrectly. I've written before that one of my biggest fears in my own poker development is that I'm not recognizing my own bad play, and just chalking things up as coolers and suckouts. Most of us need to take more accountability for our results, I guess a few here and there need to take less, but in any event resolving confusion about bad play vs. bad beat does help to calibrate the amount of accountability we should take.

Entertainment. Some people like reading about bad beats (for a number of reasons...maybe the subject of a different post?). Others of us like providing content that people like to read. I guess some people feel genuinely amused at what other players are capable of, and so write for their own entertainment, too. Or it could be related to therapy in the sense that you're either going to laugh or cry/scream/break a mouse.

Proof. I wasn't sure what to call this reason, actually. The idea is that the writer wants to prove that he's really not that bad a player...that without these freak occurrences, they'd win more and maybe play at higher stakes by now. The old, "I'm losing, but it's just variance" mentality. We want see ourselves and have others see us as good players, in spite of negative results. I'm sure that's one of the reasons I write about them sometimes (...took a shot at 200NL, but you wont' see me there because I took too many beats...I would still be there if I weren't so unlucky...sound familiar?).

The funny thing here is that I personally don't believe I've ever read anything about a bad beat that made me think more of the writer as a good player. If I thought they were nothing special before, I thought it afterwards. If I thought they were good before, I probably still thought they were good afterwards...although there are a couple guys I've probably downgraded my opinion of them after reading one too many bad beat stories with nothing to counter it. I doubt that I am alone in that regard.

A related funny thing happens when we write about the beats to prove that we're really not that bad, sometimes. We end up getting an education. How many times have you written or read a bad beat post in which someone comes back and says, "OP, you played that hand horribly!"

Well, that was quick

LOL, Friday night fun. 4 BI given back, and back down to 100NL I suppose...not because of the play, but more because FT reactivated the doomswitch. I definitely was not playing timidly in big pots. I think I spewed some, but nothing horrendous...more just not hitting flops, and hoping 40/10 guys are going to fold to c-bets.

But the biggest hands were simply bad luck...ran ATcc into KK on a jack-high club flop, AK into a spew-happy fish on AJ93K board (he had QT), and my favorite...I've got J9 on a T87 flop, and the guy calls a PSB on the flop and turn with T3. Unfortunately the turn and river are both 8's, so his boat gets there :(. I checked the river behind, saving something, at least.

There were a few other hands in there, but those were the 3 biggest, and accounted for 2.5 BI, and just some tough luck. So, it's back to 100NL, but with the confidence that I can beat 200NL. Trying lessons with 2 or 3 coaches, so the timing is good in terms of getting some help to make the transition successfully.

Got a busy weekend with the family, if I'm pokering, it will only be here and there. Hope to have a more productive (poker) week next week.

Woot! for me too :)

Saw on Rasputin's blog that his Harrington books arrived at his local post office this AM. The last update I got on my tracking was that it hit my local mail center last night. I assume that means they're waiting for me when I get home!

Played a decent amount over the weekend and first couple days this week, including a shot at 200NL that worked out well. It helped that I made my 2nd ever 5-bet bluff preflop with 66 110BB effective and sucked out on AA.

I got a lesson there and not even for cheap. And it wasn't a don't spew lesson, either (I had a read and the table dynamics actually supported my play, I think). It was that I probably don't run enough big bluffs, at least for when I move up. I say that because I felt really really dumb when the cards came up and everyone could see I 3-bet/pushed 66. But I liked, and still like now, the play at the time.

Rather than feeling dumb, I think that I should have expected to lose when called, but that I would get away with it enough, as well as fold out some better hands enough...and that this is literally the 2nd time I 5-bet/shoved without AK, QQ+ in like 100,000 hands. And the other time *was* tilt. So, this time, even if my decision was wrong, it was a calculated decision and I should feel OK with it (and analyze it later), and I clearly am not bluffing a lot. I also think that's fine 100NL and below, maybe also 200NL, but at some point with all the reraised pots, I am going to need to shove at least once in a while with hands other than the super premium ones, just so that when I do shove with AA, there are a couple other hands that might call me. Like I'm pretty sure that if this 8-tabling regular takes any notes, he's going to note the donkey who shoved 66 into him.

One related, semi-random thought. Although true in a number of sports, I saw this most clearly when I played lacrosse: the guys that play aggressively (but not recklessly) and initiate contact get dinged frequently, and the guys standing on the periphery of a play either passively or protecting themselves get clocked. I wonder how closely you could make a poker analogy from that.

Software development

For the last week, things have been busy as usual, but I have been able to play quite a bit (for me). Been in the midst of a couple different software design exercises, and we have a significant milestone this week as we present our ideas for some new functionality.

I'm guessing not a lot of you are that familiar with enterprise software, as you don't really get too exposed to it without either building it or working in IT for a large company/university/government, etc. Unlike websites and more consumer-oriented software, our software's major releases take years (literally), cost us millions of dollars to build, and will usually cost our customers tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade (and way more to implement for the first time). It sounds insane, but the cost savings/revenue generation for our customers handily makes up for their costs, and of course they money they pay us makes up for our costs. There may be a better business model for large organization's software, but we haven't seen it in practice.

With so much on the line, and because there are such high costs to start over if we get it wrong, it's really important to work hard on the up front phases of development to get it right, and that's where my big project is at right now. When it's my turn to deliver a piece that other people depend on, everything else has to stop, or at least take a distant back seat.

Over time in my career, I've gone from the guy figuring out the details to being the guy who drives the features and the project. It's nice because I'm able to set the general themes and control a broad part of the software and of the business. It's unfortunate because I actually like figuring out the details...but it's difficult to be an architect, people manager, project manager, functionality/usability "visionary", and developer all at the same time. You try to do too much, and rather than doing anything really well, you end up doing a lot of things like crap.

Over the years, I've acquired a bunch of expertise across the software development board. There's really not much about sofware development -- enterprise software, anyway -- that I don't know pretty well. Sure, there are some programming languages I don't know, as it's been a while since I've actually coded anything. I'm really talking about at the conceptual level, I know a fair amount. It's not really in conceit that I say that, more just that I've seen a ton. I've lost track of the number of projects and release cycles that I've been through, and I've taken on tons of different roles. Like poker, you can read about software development practices, which helps establish a framework, but there is no substitute for experience.

It's really rare these days that I actually come up against a problem that I haven't faced before. The settings are different, but usually I find some sort of parallel to what I've done before, and I know what works and what doesn't to solve it. One of the fun things about it is finding those parallels when they might not be immediately obvious.

I'm not really sure where this entry came from...I was going to give a quick update on how things are going in poker, and I started getting off course (and I've got to get back to my project). I have periodically thought about chucking the software career for something else, which causes me to re-evaluate how happy I am doing what I do...and the answer always ends up being pretty happy with it, all things considered.

Maybe I didn't want to jinx anything, as the good results last week have caught up with what I feel has been solid play over the last month or so. I'll try to get something else written about that soon. At least after last night, I no longer have to worry about anything I write stopping a win streak :P.

FPS Tilt

I'm making my way through The PokerMindset, and what would any book on the mindset of poker be without a section devoted to tilt. FWIW, the book is solid, but at about 2/3 of the way through, I don't think I've really learned anything...most of the ideas it contains I've read many times on the forums or on blogs. It's not really causing me to approach anything in a different way, but had I not spent so much damn time reading about poker on the Internet, I think it would be a really good book for me. Definitely a kind of tactical approach to the mental side of poker, and I can't think of anything in there I don't agree with.

But they did coin a nice term: FPS Tilt (if you don't know, FPS stands for Fancy Play Syndrome). The idea behind it is that if you're playing too cute (especially if you don't need to), you are on a subtle type of tilt. I definitely agree with it, and find myself doing it pretty frequently. Usually, it's slow playing a big hand, or just trying too much to induce bluffs. The thing that makes it bad for me is simply that I should know that my game conditions don't warrant doing a lot of this.

For instance, inducing a bluff with a good hand is correct when someone will bet with a loser more often than they will call with it. But at the low stakes, people call way too much, so why not let them do it? That's not to say never induce a bluff, but you should only want to do that if you're pretty sure that they won't call a bet, not if they just might not call.

I used to think that a classic bluff induction spot is with a showdownable hand OOP on the river after draws on the flop don't get there. Like let's say you raise TT in the CO, the button calls, you're HU, and the flop comes Qs 4s 2c. You bet, he calls. Turn blanks. You bet, he calls. River blanks. Against a lot of guys, I suppose check/calling the river is best because if their draw missed, they'll fold if you bet, but they might bluff. And if they had you, the pot stays small. But what I'm starting to see more, or at least being aware of it more, is that the guys who don't like to semibluff their draws on the flop with a raise don't necessarily bet the river on the end as a bluff to take it down. And on the other hand, guys are happily picking off my river bets with 55 here, whether I'm bluffing or not.

My point is that although each situation kind of stands on it's own, I feel that I particularly am looking too much at times for the clever play, and one that actually requires my opponents to be thinking on maybe a little higher level than they actually do (maybe than I actually do :P). Without a clear read that the fancy play is actually the +EV play, I don't think I should be looking to do it as much. I don't think at 100NL I need to worry too much about being too readable, or anything like that. Anyone that's good enough to really read me probably is too good to stay at 100NL for very long, anyway. And if I see them when I move up to 200NL, then maybe I can worry about getting read :).

OK, here's an actual hand...maybe it's FPS tilt, maybe it's a decent play, and maybe it's a decent play until the river, and then I missed value. Villain is pretty unknown (only 25 hands), running 24/0/5 -- small sample, yeah yeah.

http://weaktight.com/129958

I was discussing this hand with Aaron, and while he was cool with the flop call, he thought I should bet the turn. I argued that similar to the flop, I didn't really want to blow him off a hand that was not drawing well. Yeah, he could have picked up some draws with that turn, but I thought more that he either had a made hand on the flop or was just stabbing. If he did pick up a draw on the turn, I thought that a lot of my raises push him off, and that he may still be encouraged to bluff the river if I just call again, and also if a lot of money goes in, it's probably not going to be good for me.

But what if that was just FPS tilt? Here's a guy who by early stats is not that good, he's open completing in SB vs. BB, and he's weak-leading a pretty dry flop. Weak ace anyone? How do I know that he's going to fold it? Maybe I should be making the straightforward play and raise the flop or turn.

Also, what do you think about my river call, given the way I played the hand? Time for a raise at that point, or do I only get looked up by better?

A big call

Played some on Saturday and Sunday nights, both nights on the early side. I usually play after midnight (really 1:00) EST because I live in California and don't play until the family is asleep. I got on earlier than usual, and all I can say is that I wish I could play more during prime time :P. That's not to say I won this weekend (I didn't), but the games looked really good compared to my usual times.

I had one hand that cost me a profit for the weekend. At the time, I wasn't that mad at myself, but reviewing it later, I thought that I played it pretty poorly and incorrectly just chalked it up to a cooler. At least it didn't tilt me too badly.

I was on a great table, but unfortunately not catching many cards until I picked up KK in the SB with 100 BB effective stacks. A very loose (but running like a god) MP limps, a 32/22 assumed regular on the button over-limps, and I bump it to $6. The limpers call.

Flop comes Q96 rainbow. MP has a fold-to-cbet percent of like 7, and then pounces on weakness on the turn and river. So, I figure I can make a PSB on the flop, even though it's pretty dry. I think that's OK. Of course, MP folds. The lagtard button pushes, giving me (a little) worse than 2:1 odds to call.

I thought at first that he was bluffing a ton here, even such a large overshove. But I hadn't seen him yet get it in, and one of the reasons I liked playing with him is that I could 3-bet on him quite profitably when he opened from MP or CO. The other thing is that in spite of 3-betting him somewhat light, I have been playing really nitty in general these days, like 17/14 seems to be my typical session...and I'm not actually squeezing or stealing a ton either. (Those are separate issues which I really need to look at, but that's for another post.)

So with all that said, what is he shoving? Set of queens is out, as is likely any set, since I think he's probably isolating the limper with any PP. In fact, it's hard to put him on much since he would isolate light. A lot of his semi-bluffing hands are out because I've got 2 kings, but maybe JT. I don't *think* he'd shove with his likely pair hands (KQ and AQ are probably getting raised pre), and probably not with 9 or 6. The thing is, he was somewhat unknown, doesn't show down a lot, does fold plenty on early streets, and I'm likely to be WA/WB (open-ender not withstanding).

The range that I can put him on is really pretty narrow for this play, given what I've seen of him so far. Add to that, I should have lots of better spots later with my position on him. Add to that, how many times have you seen a regular -- even a bad one -- overshove as a bluff. I mean it happens I'm sure, but I don't think that's what 100NL regulars are doing too much.

So, I think this was a bad call. I will say that you could make a case for it, but I don't think you can make a great one. Turns out he had Q6o and it held. Hopefully that's besides the point. In other words, hopefully the fact that I lost the hand doesn't change the analysis.

When we talk about running bad and getting coolered, how many times are our coolers really just poorly played hands that we didn't realize? Had I not gone back over this hand and really looked at it closely, I would have characterized the session as down a little over a BI with some coolers (actually KK was a huge loser for me this weekend: once against AA for 65bb, once against AK for a stack where the ace hit, and once when I had AA and got it in, but the other guy's KK hit).

And that's just for this one hand, that I happened to catch. I'm sure there are a number of hands out there where I shrug it off, and in reality there are problems. That stuff aside, I'm feeling pretty comfortable with my game, which is one good thing about a 17/14 style. I'm giving up a ton of opportunity, but I'm not finding myself in a whole ton of awkward spots, at least past the flop. I'll have to fix that right up!

Actually played

Quick break between meetings, hopefully that limits me to a quick post. I got to play a couple times this week, which for me is a rarity these days. I feel like my game is solid, if unimaginitive, for the most part, although I am still being a nit preflop...17/14, and only attempting steals 27% of the time. I am however, opening up my 3-betting and even 4-betting range (as bluffs and for value) a lot. I'm 3-betting 13% of the time, which means I'm definitely doing so with air. I pick my spots against really active stealers, but in part that's why I'm choosing to stay tight otherwise.

In some of Taylor's old videos, I remember him saying that he will tighten up his preflop raising and compensate by opening up his 3-bet range. Not that the 100NL game is like the games he was showing, but the principle is the same. Until HUDs with 3-bets become more prevalent, my opponents will just see that I don't raise a lot, and that I'm pretty nitty. In fact, it's how I probably misperceive some of them as well, and it's not until you see the stats later that you realize it's disproportionately weighted to 3-bets.

Anyway, I'm playing a little bit more to stay out of trouble postflop and to play perhaps more defensively than I had been playing. I'm not winning as big as I might, but the variance is lower. From a psychological standpoint, I think that's good for me, as I have been in a pretty wild up and down mode for a few months now. For my last 33k hands at 100NL (which is most of them), I am a whopping .5 BB/100 winner. Hey, at least the number is green, not red.

Matt (schlucky1) happened to be online one night when I was firing up a session, and he gave me a nice sweat. I had a nice little session, but he did turn me on to one area that after thinking about it, I agree with him I've got a pretty decent leak. That is playing medium hands OOP against an aggressive player. I forget the exact hand, but I had something like 88 on a moderate board, OOP to a pretty loose passive player. On the turn, I checked and he bet kind of small. I said that I would call one street, since he was passive I didn't expect him to bet the river again unless he beat me.

The key thing is that I said I would have check/folded against an aggressive player because he would have bet the river if he bet the turn, making it too expensive to call on the turn. I now think I have that wrong, assuming I can trust an aggressive-player read. Matt talked about hitting a middle pair on the flop against a really aggressive player, and pretty much calling all 3 streets as a default plan, as the blindly aggressive player is going to make more mistakes betting than anything. Of course you need to be confident in your read, but the point is that you should not be looking to check/fold hands with showdown value against an aggressive opponent, even OOP. Whereas I am probably playing more to not make a (theoretical) mistake OOP.

[Edit after schlucky clarified: He did not say to call down all the time OOP...by "default" I meant that his plan against that particular player was to call down a hand with showdown value, and he stuck to the plan. My plan would be to pitch the hand because an aggressive player would make me pay on more than one street. This could be flop-to-river, but more of the time it's turn-to-river or flop-to-turn. The point still stands that for me, I was too quick to pitch too many really good bluff catchers due to being OOP. While being OOP sucks, you still need to use your opponents' ranges and tendencies correctly. At least I think I got it now :P.]

That's the sort of thing that comes up in sweats/coaching that you don't get from just reviewing things yourself because you don't even realize that there's a different way to view things. I'm finding it hard to get in a coaching session. Wish I had more time for sweats, but c'est la vie. I'm still making improvements, just not leaps and bounds. In the long run, anyway, it's a good thing it's not easy.