[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think those are good points. I felt comfortable with the read and this is not my standard approach here. Of course, if I was a member of team Luckbox I'd just be firing away willy-nilly. But I'm a charter member of team cursed by the poker gods so I have to be a little more cautious.

But seriously, your point is well taken. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hoi,

FWIW, "Team Luckbox" was my Heads-Up Limit Assoc (HULA) team last season, which we won (hence "CHAMP")...it doesn't refer to how well / poorly I've run.

If anything, i've run slightly below average, though I certainly have my share of leaks to plug which I'm actively working on. After learning heaps about variance (think -750BB downswing in 2 weeks and following 750BB upswing in under a week, then a -150bb drop in 2k hands a few months later)

Formulating reads and acting on them is a critical skill - in the proccess of learning this we sometimes take it too far, which is a normal step along the way. I think this hand specifically means good things for your game development even if many believe the fold was "incorrect" since you're focusing on reads and you are willing to take unorthodox lines / think beyond 2p2 mantra.

I know sometimes the thought process goes like this:

This:
"hm, passive guy just donked the turn 3way on a QxxQ board. Why would he do that? He normally calls down weakish hands, and I don't think I've ever seen him c/r. Hmm...he must think his hand is good...which means he's got a Q...damn I've got to fold."

is a perfectly legitimate thought process, but it misses a subtle point - that he can believe his hand is good and thus worth betting, yet still be behind your AA, like mid pairs deciding they don't want to let you check behind the turn like you did last time, and weird bluff-type stuff which, while seemingly uncharacteristic, is certainly possible from nearly any bad player.

Surf