$100nl - Thoughts on an Emotional Response

[spoonitnow]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (9 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

BB ($111)
UTG ($20)
UTG+1 ($92)
MP1 ($62.35)
MP2 ($102.40)
MP3 ($48.55)
CO ($148.80)
Button ($92.45)
Hero ($99)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9, 9.
5 folds, CO calls $1, 1 fold, Hero raises to $6, BB calls $5, CO folds.

Flop: ($13) J, 9, A (2 players)
Hero bets $11

Villain is 31/18/1.5 over about 50 hands.

On the flop I first realized that I had a set on a fairly dry board (the only hands I'm worried about are QT and T8 here) against a really loose opponent who isn't particularly passive. This should be a check on the flop for a pretty straight-forward reason: I get the most value from checking since he completely misses the flop here a lot.

There was a brief moment where I realized this, but then I had a sort of emotional response and led out instead. At first it was "oh shit I have a set" but then as I started to overcome that initial urge, it's like I found an excuse to bet anyway. That excuse, however retarded it may sound, was "he'll probably raise me since I lead here a lot". That was all the justification I needed, and I led out as you see here.

But wait a minute -- does he really raise me here even if I do lead here a lot? He's not particularly aggressive, and he has basically no history with me (I only have 60 hands with him when I probably have over 350k hands of 100nl logged over the past 6 months). The reason that I came up with had a bit of sense to it, but there was no real truth for it. As soon as I thought I had a good reason (sort of an excuse to myself to bet) I fired away.

What's more is that he played back at me and I doubled up (he had A9). Immediately afterward (a few seconds later), I could feel a subtle sense of being justified in my "decision" to bet the flop because he "played back at me", but the thought process shut off there, ignoring the fact that this was results-oriented thinking. It's like my thought process was trying to protect itself from the feeling of being wrong by stopping in key places that fall just between assuming that we're right and assuming that we're wrong (the first point was during the hand and the second point was the feeling afterwards).

A couple of minutes later, I had a sense for what had happened psychologically in the hand, and I jotted down a note for myself to look at it and think about it later. Now as I sit here analyzing the hand and my thought process, it's interesting how I see a bigger picture compared to when I was actually there in the moment of action.

Anyway, I feel like I just made a fairly important discovery [about myself] or something, so I felt compared to share. Input is welcome as always.

[BankItDrew]

Without looking at the results, I'd say you played the hand perfectly. As for the psychological rant... too deep for me brother. pass it to the left hand side btw.

[d0zer]

I minored in psych, and firmly believe that all poker players would benefit considerably from reading a social psych textbook.

Results oriented thinking is natural. In many situations we find ourselves in life, it's beneficial to adapt to a different strategy when you try something and it doesn't work, or to hold on to a strategy when it does work.

Of course we know that poker is different in that bad strategies do sometimes pay out, and good ones sometimes screw you, so this mechanism over too small of a sample is maladaptive for this game.

We all have that inclination to let the many different hardwired ego-preserving mechanisms take over & convince us that we're awesome. It takes a Spock-like discipline to stay objective and recognize things like confirmation bias for what they are: just a subconscious influence to our thought processes.

That's very difficult to do in the heat of the moment, but many people seem unable to do that at any point, never mind after the fact.

[d0zer]

pass it to the left hand side btw.

I'd like to amend my response to this if possible

[XTR1000]

U played this fine.

This flop give his range loads of TP and MP hands plus a couple of 4-/8-out draws and he probably considers more of them worth a call or two than worth betting out.

[Deanglow]

On the flop I first realized that I had a set on a fairly dry board (the only hands I'm worried about are QT and T8 here) against a really loose opponent who isn't particularly passive. This should be a check on the flop for a pretty straight-forward reason: I get the most value from checking since he completely misses the flop here a lot.

This is the main flaw in your logic and the reason why you should bet this flop with 100% of your range.

[d0zer]

On the flop I first realized that I had a set on a fairly dry board (the only hands I'm worried about are QT and T8 here) against a really loose opponent who isn't particularly passive. This should be a check on the flop for a pretty straight-forward reason: I get the most value from checking since he completely misses the flop here a lot.

This is the main flaw in your logic and the reason why you should bet this flop with 100% of your range.

Yeah I was wondering about that as well. Seems that a 30/15 is very likely to call with a lot that hits that flop. K9, Q9 Ax, 9T, 9J

[allabout]

On the flop I first realized that I had a set on a fairly dry board (the only hands I'm worried about are QT and T8 here) against a really loose opponent who isn't particularly passive. This should be a check on the flop for a pretty straight-forward reason: I get the most value from checking since he completely misses the flop here a lot.

This is the main flaw in your logic and the reason why you should bet this flop with 100% of your range.

Yeah I was wondering about that as well. Seems that a 30/15 is very likely to call with a lot that hits that flop. K9, Q9 Ax, 9T, 9J

Wow, I read this completely different than dozer. To me it seems you're agreeing that he misses this flop a lot and that is why we need to bet this flop all the time. Now I'm confused. Can you expand on this statement Deanglow?

[badgers]

Yeah wtf surely a 30/15 hits this flop a ton here? Axs , AJ, (A9), AQ maybe poss even AK if he is shit at 3betting... Then you add in QT/T8 and I would have though that a bet flop isn't even close...?

Also how do you get that much value? He's not that aggro (sample size though) and if he's missed the flop completely why would he want to bet the turn OOP when you could easily have a hand like QQ?

As for the psychology... I find myself being results orientated about some of the more, shall we say bold and aggressive aspects of my play. If I do something like float a flop and raise a weak turn bet with air, I tend to think it was good if it worked and spewy if it didn't. As you're finding, it's only when you step back and think about it that you work your thinking is flawed... Something else I need to work on atm...

[Deanglow]

A guy with these stats is calling with tons of hands on the flop. All gutshots, all aces, and all jacks. He is also going to check back most of his range that he is also willing to call a bet with. To a bad player, which we must assume he is, check/calling and check/raising look stronger than just betting. So bet the flop.

[allabout]

Thanks that totally makes sense.

[spoonitnow]

A guy with these stats is calling with tons of hands on the flop. All gutshots, all aces, and all jacks. He is also going to check back most of his range that he is also willing to call a bet with. To a bad player, which we must assume he is, check/calling and check/raising look stronger than just betting. So bet the flop.

You're probably right and I was thinking the same thing walking around at the mall today after I posted this hand. I think I got so caught up in not thinking through my decision and acting on subtle urges that I created a bias towards checking here.