Good Stuff Elsewhere

I've never done a lot of typical link-blogging here, for whatever reason... but there's been some good stuff out there in the poker blog world lately. A couple of noteables:

Iggy writes about a slump:

It's not fun to write this post. I've always been good about losing in poker. It's a must if you wanna be successful.

I've always taken Steve Badger's words to heart:

"The problem is: you just can't will yourself to win -- be it a tournament, a single day's play, or even an individual hand. And then, unfortunately for some, not winning is something many players simply can't handle. And being able to not win well is a fundamental, key ingredient of being a winning player."

Heavy sigh. I haven't been truly Tilty in a long time, damnit.
Poker learning is cyclical. Pithy Truism.

Poker is such a fine line kind of thing. It's important for me to realize how easy is it to cross the line attempting to push thin edges, and begin to play in what are losing situations.

This "cyclical learning" in poker is a theme I've been focused on for a long time, and mentioned here recently... and I think every serious poker player who's been at it for a while knows all too well how hard finding that fine line, and then dancing on it consistently can be, especially when the anomalies of probability have you questioning reality.

Doubleas lays down the theory: Reverse Implied Odds compared to the value of inducing bluffs.:

Many players confuse inducing bluffs and reverse implied odds. The confusing issue is that inducing a bluff can quickly turn into a case of reverse implied odds. The best place to induce a bluff is on the river. The pot is often bigger than earlier betting rounds and players may have already missed their draw and need to bet to take a shot at the pot but they would not be willing to call a bet. Inducing bluffs on the flop with weak leads (small bets into big pots) or checking may win you some money, but bluffs on the flop are relatively small compared to the pots on the river. Besides, if you have a reputation of checking strong hands, smart players will tend to take more free cards when given the option no matter how aggressive they are. On the river, there are no more free cards.

There's more to his post than that (you might want to read through it a couple of times), but this issue of inducing bluffs on the river is one that hit home for me. Poker is so situational with a lot of variables, but inducing bluffs when out of position on the river is something I need to incorporate more into my arsenal. It's a trick that can certainly be overused, and against a solid player, literally worthless, as a check by you is probably only going to get bet at if you're beat.

I tend to lead out on the river with a smallish bet (sometimes even the minimum), hoping to make a little on a good hand, which combined with some other weird betting things I do has the advantage of making bluffs cheaper in later hands, sometimes. Other times, when you have a good read, for instance when your opponent obviously hit top pair on the flop and the turn was a scary overcard, and at the river you know you have him beat and he'll fold to any scary bet (anything over the minimum), and just check behind you and see if his pair is good... well there you've got to bet the minimum I think. Overall though, this little bet stuff on the river is probably poor play.

Also related to some other strategy in doubleas's post: I've built an overall style out of "keep the pots small without the nuts" and it works for me (especially at donk-infested micro limits), so I certainly don't want to be making any wholesale changes to my game, but I think overall I do far too much calling. I'm not talking "way behind and chasing draws with bad odds" calling, but calling and check-calling early in hands where I figure to be ahead. This *can* work, and often does, but I'm going to be paying closer attention to situations where more aggressive play will serve the dual purposes of earning more when I'm ahead, and helping me figure out better when I'm behind.