Not...so bad?
Tonight's session was on the short side, considering how much time I had available to devote to it, but as we'll see, I got to the point where I think I was losing my concentration and discipline, so I figured it was a good time to leave, so...I did. :)

I booked a loss again tonight, about $100 (at 1/2 NLHE), but I consider it a good sign that I didn't lose even more, considering the massive cooler I ran into. Overall I think I did fairly well. I have the nagging feeling that I didn't bring my A game to the table, but that may just be a tainted impression from the final, oh, half-hour or so when I really loosened things up. In any case, it's not that important; I don't think anything hugely significant went down, with one or two exceptions.

The overall project tonight for me was to come in and grind, grind, grind. While pondering the point I took away from the last session, that I bluff too much and at inopportune times, I wondered if I was just mixing it up too much in general: playing too loose, too fast, and above all inappropriately to the table texture. So today's project was to come in and play super-tight for as long as I could and use the time to study what was going on around me. As luck would have it, the cards cooperated in making this an easy task. For the first solid hour-and-half, I did basically nothing. I caught very little playable in the hole, and even when I did catch something mediocre, I'd either fold it from EP or limp and lay it down to a threatening raise. But for sure during that time I caught no pocket pairs, no strong aces, no suited aces...basically nothing that would warrant me putting money at risk. The only action I saw at all was when I allowed myself to break the monotony by limping late with garbage and taking down the pot on the flop with a bluff.

As far as what I wanted to accomplish for myself, that worked out well. For my EV, it worked out like crap. There was a ridiculous amount of money on the table, and there was so much loose play that the money was just there for the taking if I only could catch a hand. I couldn't, but oh, well. I didn't sweat it, frankly, as my primary goal tonight was discipline.

The cold streak finally ended when I caught pocket jacks in EP and took down the pot on the flop. And that hand itself shows the kind of opposition I was dealing with: I'm a guy who hasn't done anything except fold and limp-fold for a full 90 minutes; then I open with a 6x raise in UTG+1 and still get three callers. Then I take it down with a pot bet on a king-high flop. Whatever, man.

By an hour later, the table had totally changed. The big money all left, and there were maybe three or four of the original members still there, and all had stacks basically comparable to mine. The table then filled up with short stack after short stack, so the whole texture changed after that. There was no more deep stack poker, as half the table was pot committed anyway after any significant action took place. (Astoundingly, even that wasn't enough to get me much action. I remember one hand where I flopped two pair. I checked the flop, and a short stack behind me bet out with maybe a quarter of his stack. I check-raised him, and he folded to me. Whatever.) Anyway. Most of my headway was taking down pots basically with aggression against similar stacks to mine. I thought of it a lot as bluffing, but I was actually probably bluffing with the best hand -- a common theme for me was holding medium to small pocket pair and being able to take it down with a flop bet on a basically uninteresting flop. Ho hum, but at least it's money.

Let me regale you with my cooler story. This took place when there was still massive money at the table. I limped early with ace-middle suited in diamonds, and like six or seven limpers saw the flop. I flopped the nut flush! I led out with a bet of $12. Interloper on my immediate left flat calls, and Villain one seat down raises it to $40 straight. Everyone folds, I call, Interloper folds. The turn pairs the board. I check, Villain bets $40, I check-raise to $100, he jams for $130 more. Suck, suck, suck.

So, let's check it out. There's about $300 $430 in the pot, and I'm facing $130 in action. I flopped the nuts, but that turn card was pretty freakin' scary. I'm getting better than 2 3 to 1 pot odds to make the call. What's sad about this is that if I'm behind, I have no redraw. If the dude has a 5 but not a boat, he does have a redraw. My best shot is him having a lower flush or worse. In the end, I called. Unfortunately he had flopped bottom two and boated on the turn with his stupid five-deuce soooooted. Bummer. [EDIT: I posted this situation as a question to the poker group, and it was pointed out to me there by bastard that I calculated the pot odds incorrectly. So I corrected them there and here.]

I don't think it's a big mistake to call there, but there's strong arguments to be made for folding. Something that (possibly) changed the dynamic in that hand was that like four or five hands previously, I took a pot off him on the flop when I check-raised him (coincidentally, he had bet $40 and I had check-raised to $100, just like this hand). Because of that, I gave slightly heavier weight to the possibility that he might have thought I was making a move and didn't credit me with a strong hand. Without that dynamic, it becomes a little harder to argue for me to call his three-bet jam. Here's what I'm thinking: if he gives me due credit for my check-raise on the flop, what can he be jamming with on the turn that's good news for me? I know he can't have the nut flush, because I have it. Does he jam like that with a non-nut flush when I check-raised a three-flush and pair on the board? Unlikely. Likewise, something like a 5 with a flush redraw is unlikely. A 5 with the ace of diamonds? Sure, but he doesn't have that. A 5 with the king of diamonds? Does that warrant a jam there? Maybe, maybe not. So thinking along those lines, if he credits me with a monster, his three-bet jam makes my flush look pretty paltry on that paired board. Can I fold the nut flush in that spot? Getting 2.3 to 1 on my money? Still not sure. Thoughts welcome.

[For the record, besides me giving greater weight to the possibility that he thought I was stealing, I had one other reason to call. When I was pondering whether he could have boated or not, I pictured what would have happened if I had showed more aggression on the flop. Assuming he didn't drop out (and I don't think he would have), I can only figure that all our money was going in anyway, since more flop action would have probably committed me to the pot. I therefore figured that, had the action gone differently in the hand, all my chips would have been at risk, anyway, so I figured making the turn call certainly couldn't have been any worse than how the hand would have played out with different action. I'm not really sure whether that's valid thinking or not, but I have to admit, it really doesn't feel like it. ;) ]

Anyway. So I blew through something like $270 on that hand. That's basically the reason I was happy to have "only" booked a loss of $100 tonight. My other big loss was holding QQ against AA, and I dropped something like $110 or $115 on that one.

That was actually a halfway interesting hand, too. I'm UTG+1, and I raise to $12 after a UTG limp. There are three more callers, one right behind me, and two in late position. The blinds fold, and UTG re-raises $35 on top. UTG's got something like $80 behind, but everybody else has like in the $150-$200 range. (I've got $200+, so I've got everyone covered.) Since I'd really rather not take on a five-way, three-bet pot holding QQ in EP (which I'm sure is what would have happened had I flat called), I just jammed to isolate. If I'm behind, I'm behind. If I'm racing AK, I'm taking on a short stack and assuming all the others fold, there'll be like $36 dead money to pad my pot odds. All the interlopers folded, and short stack of course calls with AA. No help on the board, and I pay him off.

So what do you think. Is a jam imprudent in that spot? At the time of the decision, I'm facing action of $35 with a pot of about $60 and three players left to act behind me. If I flat call, assuming no re-raise behind me, I'm basically looking for a set, since short-stack will surely auto-jam the flop and I basically face the same decision. Let's say all three of them call behind me. That gives me an expected pot of about $200 against my action of $35. That's about 5.7 to 1, a little bit short of the odds I'd want to hunt a set. But, wait, what about implied odds? I really think it's reasonable to assume that I can't count on implied odds from any of the interlopers, but remember that I am expecting short-stack to jam it on the flop. So let's say I can count on his $80 going on on the flop. If I hit my set, I stand to win, say, $280 against my current $35, so that's like 8 to 1. That's a bit better for looking for a set. (I approximate the odds of flopping a set at about 7 to 1 against.)

Contrast with the isolation move. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that if I re-jam, all the interlopers fold and short-stack calls. That's me putting up, say $115 for $175, which is about 1.5 to 1. Do I have that kind of equity against his possible range? This is where knowing your man comes in handy. This is a short-stack limp-re-raise-jam from UTG. Let's go super-tight and give him AA, KK, or AK. PokerStove gives me 40% equity in that case. That's the moral equivalent of a break-even play. (1.5 to 1 pot odds with 40% equity = 0 EV.) If I take out AK from his range, of course I'm eating dirt. But for every step that Villain's range loosens, my EV grows. (Just adding JJ to his range bumps my equity to 47%.)

So let's try to compare apples to apples. If everything goes perfectly on the flat-call play, it will be like this: I call, and the three interlopers call. On any flop, UTG/short stack jams it. If I hit a set, I re-jam, and all interlopers fold. If I don't hit a set, I fold. This setup gives me about $280 to $35 on about a 12% shot, for EV of, wait for it, about +$2.80. If everything goes perfectly on the isolation play, I will jam short-stack's re-raise, all the interlopers fold, short-stack calls, and we take it to the river. If I give him aces, kings, or AK, my equity is about 40%, and I'm getting $175 to my $115 for pot odds, for EV of +$1. Yes, one whole dollar.

So the difference in EV is less than two bucks, with flat-calling being a nominal favorite. However, think about this: if anything deviates from the ideal situation in the flat-call scenario, things go to shit. If one or more interlopers fold, my pot odds on the call are crap. If one or more interlopers raises (especially with a jam), I have a much harder decision to make, and probably have to fold (remember that only the short stack is short; the other people can take a big ol' chunk out of your stack if they win). Also, let's not ignore the small but still present possibility if hitting a set and losing. Ouch. :) On the flip side, if the UTG short stack is in any way looser than we give him credit for, then isolation is a much better play. Again, just as an example, let's add QQ and JJ to his range, giving us 47% equity instead of 40%. In that case, our EV on the isolation move is now a whopping $21.30. Huge improvement! (For the sake of completeness, check out if you give UTG only aces or kings: you have 18% equity. EV is now -$62.80. Owie.)

So really it comes down to knowing your man. As UTG's range gets looser, isolation is the higher EV play. As UTG's range gets tighter, the flat-call play becomes a winner. As we saw, though, if we give UTG a range of AA, KK, or AK, the difference between flat-calling, isolating, and folding is very small -- less than $3 difference of EV (folding is 0 EV). Given the number of things that can go wrong with the flat-calling play, though, I like the isolation play. Also of mild interest: let's say we can definitely give UTG a range of only AA or KK. Clearly, isolation is a terrible play. Flat-calling remains slightly +EV, though, but I honestly don't think even that warrants the move. The whole not-even-three-dollars of equity you get from the flat call move, IMO, doesn't make up for all the shit that can go wrong. Given that knowledge, I'd give up that tiny EV and just fold and save myself the heartache. :)

Anyway, so there you go. It wasn't too long after the QQ vs. AA hand that I caught myself playing (a) looser than usual, and (b) dumb, so I decide to bail. Here's the hand that brought it home for me: I was on the button, and five or six people limp in. The cut-off, the guy to my immediate right (who was the AA in the QQ vs. AA hand) raises it to $15 straight. For reasons as yet unclear to me, but that probably have something to do with something that rhymes with "silt," I flat call on the button with K2 suited in spades. One of the limpers (in mid-late position) also calls the raise, and the rest fold. As we're preparing for the flop, I am chanting to myself, "You want spades, you do not want a king. You want spades, you do not want a king." So, of course, the flop comes king-rag-rag rainbow. Dammit! Interloper checks, Villain bets $50, leaving himself like $65 behind. Interloper has maybe $200, I've got them both covered. I think, I think, I think. What the hell am I thinking about? I still don't know. I just know I spent that time convincing myself that my king might be good. And, honestly, it might have been, in some bizarre universe where a short-stack bluffs with a pot-size bet that commits him to the pot. :P I decide, finally, that it might be good, and I raise to isolate, making it $150 to go. Interloper folds, cut-off calls with his short stack. I have top pair/no kicker, he has top pair/better kicker with KJ. Son of a bitch! Anyway. Turn pairs the middle flop card, and the river brings a beautiful ace, earning me a chopped pot: kings up with the ace kicker on the board in play! Catching a runner-runner save from my own folly, it was pretty much then that I decided it was time to go.