Taking a Beating at Shorthanded 8/16 LO8 (LONG & Low Content)

[HLS2k6]

This is mostly a therapeutic trip-report, but there are a few questions imbedded inside. If you don't like low content, however, please don't waste your time.

This weekend I sat 8/16 O8 at Foxwoods, and took a rather ridiculous beating (33+ BB). I saw the game was playing somewhat short (7-handed) with 4 or more players I would not have any serious edge over. But another player leaving told me the game was insanely good (maybe lying to me, maybe just clueless) and I recognized 1 of the other 3 players as a huge donator, so I sat in.

Nevertheless, I never should have taken this beating given what I know about game selection and poker in general. That cost me the money more than my skills at O8 (or lack thereof).

Alot of it was variance, as I got hit in the face with the deck preflop (AA23 DS, AAK2 DS, AAk3 DS, AK23 DS, and AAQ2) and experienced the exact opposite postflop (Not only did none of those hands scoop, I only won 1/2 with one and got quartered with another).

But the major issue was game selection, as there were 2 serious donators at the table (including the one I knew) both of whom left within an hour of my sitting down. For the rest of the evening, the game played 5 handed or less. Two of the players played at least as well as me (one of them played better, not positive about the other) and all four have significantly more time at the game than me (I've been killing the lower game for about 6 months, and have done alot of reading, but I'm no expert player and most of my experience is in exploiting a very soft game).

Of the remaining 5, the only 2 players at the table who I felt like I had an edge over were not enormous donkeys. Both played fairly well postflop, they just played too many hands and too aggressively. While I am skilled enough to exploit those weaknesses, it requires being dealt good hands that don't brick off every time. There was no room for moves at this point; nearly every hand went to showdown, and I'd have to show down the winner.

Anyhow, I got stuck over 50 BB's. I don't think I played really badly. I think the cards didn't cooperate and the variance at a short, aggressive game can be absolutely brutal. I did a good job of not tilting in terms of hand selection, but I definitely came to see myself as the table whipping boy. Because I never showed down a winner (or showed the losing hand), I probably looked like a pretty big donkey to some of the other players who don't know me. That doesn't help when you're stuck and trying to come back, as I learned. It's like blood in the water...

In short, I should have left but I didn't. I really should left once I got stuck, but I didn't. I scratched and clawed and cut my losses to about 15 BB's, though.

Then the game got 3 handed when 1 of the 2 weaker players busted and the best player left. I decided to play 1 more orbit. I got dealt 2 stellar hands (A24Q and AAK4) and lost both to a scoop on horrific rivers. So, naturally, I didn't get up (HUGE MISTAKE).

I ended up playing headsup with a player who is far more aggressive and experienced than me. (In the only 40 or so hours I've played full-ring with him, I have gotten the better of him and the better of the game more than him, but I respect his play far more than most of the other players there and realize my sample is ridiculously small.)

My Omaha experience includes no headsup play whatsoever. This is not a good situation (4 hours into taking a beating) where you want to learn, either.

I thought I understood the adjustments to make ok. I told myself: play to scoop, don't draw to lows (even nut lows) past the flop with no chance at high, high only/big pair hands will go way up in value preflop, and don't let his aggression run you over. I wanted to see flops with most hands knowing that the edge of 1 hand over another headsup is less than in other forms of poker. I wanted to flop made highs, and let him hang himself drawing or playing for half. (I still think this strategy was ok, but it's not based on anything other than guessing from what I know about full-ring play. Would love to hear where it's wrong.)

Well, I got killed. I lost nearly all of my recovered winnings in short order. He showed me the nut/nut with A2s, AA twice, and a rivered straight that counterfeited my second nut low with a big pair. I actually saved myself about $200 with a (I now think ill-advised) huge bluff 3 bet when the board paired tens on the turn (he folded AA with a low draw that missed the river faceup-- if he made his low, my play would have never worked).

I'm not sure if I played badly. The variance in Omaha needs no explanation to this board, but my 2 long sessions live short-handed have indicated that it goes up exponentially more as the game gets shorter. While I'm certain had we switched cards, I would have been the winner over that short span (we played for less than 30 minutes), but that doesn't mean I played optimally. Moreover, the fact that I can't really tell (both from lack of experience and my mental state at the time) means I shouldn't have been playing. I'm also certain he thinks he ran me over and had a huge edge, and I'm trying not to let that get to me. It's hard to have someone see you as the fish, even when you know he's dead wrong. But in instances like this, when maybe he wasn't entirely wrong, it really sucks.

I left very discouraged about poker and Omaha in general. There was a great game with open seats waiting for me, and he wanted us to both go play that. I couldn't bother then, though. I just needed to leave. With reflection, I'm more discouraged about are my game selection skills and the psychological need to keep playing when stuck like that, despite the fact that an insanely better and more profitable game was literally 50 feet away. (And we're not even gonna talk about trying to get a couple bets back at the blackjack table on the way out. No need at all to admit I can be that tilted.)

Hopefully recognizing this will make me a better player. Despite that, though, I'd really like another shot at that exact game right now. I wish I didn't care. I wish I was content to play the best, most profitable game and not take it so personally. Maybe my last observation to this rambling, for anyone who made it this far, is that, when the game is shorthanded and especially headsup, the variance increases but so does the tendency to take the outcome far more personally. Its much easier to stave off results-oriented thinking in a full-ring game, both during the game and after.

Oh well, I'll be back a few days this week to try, try again.

[cjs]

Why play HU when you have little experience and there is another fuller game going? HU is an animal onto itself and I play 6 max almost exclusively. If you have interest in HU go and practice online at low stakes and you will get a feel for it. It is very high variance against a decent opponent.

[EffenDolts]

In my experience, the O8 fish never like playing short. They are there for big pots when they suck out. I have never gotten heads up with a fish. Its always one or two players who are very comfortable taking me on shorthanded.

I am not that good at NLHE, but I know that I can make more money at $1/2 NLHE than at shorthanded LO8/Stud8 against the type of players who like 3-handed or heads-up play. It is good to have a plan B, and NLHE is always available.

Effen

[HLS2k6]

Your replies are reinforcing my point on the importance of game selection. The moment the game was no longer favorable, I should have gotten up-- irrespective of how much I had lost (or won) at that point. Sometimes that's hard to do when you're stuck and you sincerely believe you're stuck due to variance rather than poor play. It was a painful lesson, and I hope next time I won't let my ego get in the way of making the optimal decision. I'm not sure that's the case, though. It's far easier to be logical and analytical here and now than it was under the circumstances I described.

I've heard it said that Phil Ivey can just get up whenever he doesn't feel like playing anymore or the game isn't optimal, and it doesn't matter if he's up or down a million at the time. To me that trait just seems contrary to the ultra-competitive nature of many serious poker players, including him. I suspect it's something that must be learned and forced, and doesn't come naturally for anyone who has a healthy amount of ego, competitive drive, and gamble in them. At least it doesn't for me...